Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Debunk this!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:26 AM
Original message
Debunk this!
If bu$H lied, did all these people lie too?


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. No, I don't think they were lieing...
and you would obviously need to see the context in which they were saying these things?

Why does it need to be debunked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. Not Lying. Just Missinformed
Like all of us.

Cheney stovepiped the intel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. what is your point?



.......If bu$H lied, did all these people lie too?.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. A Repub is presenting this as argument...so I wanted to get DUers
take on it. DUers are primo at debunking bullshit, and I need(ed) their help!

I am NOT saying *I* support the argument in my OP! I just wanted it debunked so I can take it back to said Repub(s).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bush's Big Lie was the farce played in the leadup to war....
Remember, Bush said that he was justified by UN resolutions, and that his goal was to get the UN weapons inspections back into Iraq. Saddam allowed the weapon inspectors back in, and Bush went to war anyway. The key question any Bush defender must answer is: When did Bush commit to war with Iraq? All the evidence points to the fact that Bush was committed to deposing Saddam a year or more before the war began. But (a) that would make US interaction with the UN about WMDs and inspections a complete and utter farce, and (b) that would be a war that Congress never authorized that, and (c) that would be a war with no UN mandate. Bush defenders try to have it both ways. The neocons' very ideology was encouraging Bush to commit early to depose Saddam, and cheers him for doing so. If that was his intent early, then much of what followed wasn't just a lie, but criminal.

None of the other people quoted were responsible for US foreign policy at this time. It is a complete distraction from the real history and issues surrounding it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. Check Snopes.
Generally, the quotes are from two groups:

Those taken from 1998 or earlier, BEFORE the bombing that obliterated what remained of Saddam's stockpiles.

Those taken from 2002 or later, and taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Democrats expressed their concern for Saddam and the danger he represented, but did not feel a war was necessary to deal with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. From breakthechain.org
Every one of the quotes above are real and accurate. However, it's not what this chain says that earned it a place in the BreakTheChain.org hall of shame, it's what it doesn't include - CONTEXT. When someone says "I agree, but..." it's easy to forget the "but" part if that goes counter to your article - after all, the speaker did say he agreed, right?

While we're told who said each and when, we are not told what venue the speaker was in or what, if any, discussion the comments were a part of. In fact, upon closer examination, we find that many of the statements above were proffered as arguments against military action in Iraq, and aren't exacly the "inciminating evidience" of key democrats' knowledge of the real situation the author wants them to be.

The snopes.com article referenced below does a great job of providing the full context for each of the statements. Break this chain.

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/demquotes.html

Here's the link to snopes:
http://snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. THANKS meegbear!
Exactly what I was lookin for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. You beat me to it! Great post.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. who cares what all the other kids said
they didn't start a stupid war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. That is how to debunk this.
Not one person on that list had the power to start this war. Not one person on that list had ALL of the intelligence that * did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. Here, debunked...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Good answer! Bravo! Bravo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnviroBat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. DEEEELicious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. Not lying, but didn't send our kids to fight an unnecessary war, either.
That was ALL Baby Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. bite this!
your fallacy: bush didn't lie because other people were mistaken.

fact: bush had intelligence available to him that showed there were no WMDs, which he did not share openly nor which he used as a basis for his decisions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Remember that such statements were based on data given to
some of these folks and they reacted. Bush was in charge of the intelligence gathering mechanism and chose which intel he wanted to go with. He chose that which boosted the case for war, even after being told it was totally unreliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Thanks Lerkfish - good point! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. "He has systematically violated...every significant UN resolution"
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution"

Other than SH did violate - and continue to violate - many, many, many UN resolutions but they don't have "BigOil's" future growth under their feet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. They are taken out of context
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Kennedy's quote was from his speech against the war:
http://www.alternet.org/story/14195/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. THANKS DUers!
Edited on Wed Sep-13-06 09:14 AM by Triana
I hadn't even thought to check snopes. It do check it on certain things but never thought to check it on this. DUers SOOO ROCK at debunking bu$hit! I knew you guys could help! Thanks for helping me keep the truth alive and kill the wingnut LIES!

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
18. And here's your debunking from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
20. This is easy to debunk
No one doubted that Saddam was a hazzard in the area and that he most likely had some of the chemical weapons we sold him and that if given a chance he might proceed to nuclear capability if unchecked.

But he was checked, inspected, bombed, sanctioned and his insanity was not allowed to spill over his borders.

The answer to the question is no they didn't lie, he was a threat and he was dealt with appropriately.

Bush was innapropriate when he beat the drums of war and lied about the level of WMD's, mushroom clouds, yellow cake uranium, and so on. That is the difference.

I hold the Dems who voted for it culpable as well but on a much lower level. They received a very altered copy of the "proof" to go to war, whereas the administration new that the "facts" about Hussein were in fact exaggerated, flimsy and questionable at best. THAT IS THE LIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
23. I think Bush thought there were WMD as most people did.


I think this erroneous belief was just the excuse he needed to go to war in order to establish a pro-US (pro-gov, pro-US business) govenrment. The memo from the British meeting pretty much confirmed all that.

I don't say Bush lied about WMD, I think he was wrong like most people were and gave Saddam too much credit for being able to hide and/or rebuild his WMDs.

But again, this was just the excuse Bush and his cronies needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
24. Point out, along with Snopes & such, that, in 1998, Republicans were
screaming about how Clinton was trying to distract the nation from the serious business, and that they kept pointing out that Clinton couldn't tell the truth to save his life ...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeautifulLoser Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. The ones from 1998 are from the Clinton Administration's attack on Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Now after the FACTS have been discovered what do they say?
That is what is telling. It is okay to be deceived, but once the truth is known if they keep repeating the same thing then there is much to be alarmed about. The FACTS say there were no WMDs and Saddam was in no way a threat to America or any of his neighbors. Now what does the GOP say about that? Every one of those quoted have issued different statements upon learning the truth. The GOP is still saying the same things..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. that is so old
Where does Congress get its INTEL from?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
28. Well, for starters, we didn't invade in 1998, and the bombing
seems to have worked since Saddam apparently did not use any WMD between then and now, and no WMD has been found... Could it be that Clinton was able to stop programs to develop and stockpile WMD?

Four years ago I had a Toyota. I do not have one now.


And, as for quotes from 2002... It doesn't matter what anyone other than Bush or Republicans say, because they were all being lied to by the Republicans and BushCo.

After all, I seem to remember BushCo lecturing us about how only they had all the intelligence and how only they know how serious the threat was, so we had damn well better take their word for it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeautifulLoser Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Clinton had no right to attack Iraq: Same with Bush
Saddam has not been a problem since the 1991 Gulf War.

The major difference is Bush bombed AND invaded a soverign nation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. And, back then, many on the left and ALL on the right
were against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-13-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
32. They were not using it to advocate a war
They were just involved in arms reduction negotiations or involved in the international community's efforts in that regard at that time.

Even if they honestly thought it, then, they were not using it as an excuse for a war. And if they had, what do you suppose the Republicans would have said to that, at that time?

You can probably find, from that same era, replies from the Republicans to the effect that Saddam is no danger to the world.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC