Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to The President LIED About WMD in Iraq. Just HOW SURE Are You??
You Guys...
...do make me laugh.
So to have moral backbone you have to be consistent, do you? And how does that work, if the underlying reality has changed - as reality does, constantly?
See, Saddam had WMDs. Then Scott Ritter was sent in to find them and destroy them. That was his job. That's what he did. That's where they went. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this. To quote him,
“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.”
And do you know how we all knew - all us "liberal anti-war nuts" - that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003, when Bush apparently didn't? Because we a) listened to credible sources including Ritter(did you know Ritter was a Marine with an impeccable 12-year record?) and Hans Blix, and b) we understood that any country under the satelite surveillance, the sanctions and the control that Iraq was under could not in a million years re-start such complex programmes.
How did millions of anti-war marchers know in 2003 what Bush took two more years to "discover"?
Back in January 2003, I wrote an in-depth profile of Scott Ritter. You might like to
read it before you start making meaningless remarks about him.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 18, 2005 at 10:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, thanks again for being a voice of reason . . .
amidst the insanity.
Regarding dates or the lack thereof, anyone can tell from reading the quote as to when approximately many of these statements were made. They all pretty much came from the Clinton era to the early Bush era so that complaint of Damon's is rather flimsy. And Corbin, you're right about Damon's mind being made up, as well as presenting a typical European response. As well, I recently heard that the US got some of its intelligence regarding WMDs from the British, and their intelligence sources came originally from different sources than the US. And according to this report, the British still stand by their sources.
What amazes me, too, is that you can present these quotes word for word from the one who originated them, and liberals will bend over backwards to reinterpret them into something completely different. So it really doesn't matter what the TRUTH is because, in their eyes, truth is relative and they can mold it into whatever they want -- even with the exact quotes right in front of their eyes!!! 
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 17, 2005 at 2:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane....
It won't do any good to try and reason here......but what the heck...
Also, I'm not sure what all the hoo-haa is about who said what before Bush took power. After the first Gulf War, Saddam DID have WMDs! That's why Scott Ritter spend several years leading a weapons inspection team in-country, systematically destroying stockpiles, manufacturing facilities, document archives, plans and so on.
The hoo-haa is about people being consistant. What someone says and does at the beginning of an action is important. When they reverse themselves just because they think the political climate is changing, is in itself reprehensible. But one expects that from people lacking core values.
Many of the quotes you cite - though they handily come without dates! - were made when the statement "Iraq has a WMD programme" was TRUE!
If you need dates...you can go to my blog where I posted most of them earlier with dates:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Corbin_Dallas/s10
They weren't from right after the first Gulf War, they're from 1998 -2003, the period up to and after the start of the Liberation of Iraq.
The point is, my dear, blinkered people, is that by the time Bush came to parrot this statement, it was NOT TRUE!!
Blinkered? And your point of view is broad and unrestricted? Right.....Starting from the point that they were there and the statement was true...........what happened to them? Where did they go?
You can blame whoever you like - Clinton, CIA, Martians - but that is the reality. And even the weak intelligence arguement is suspect. Scott Ritter himself was doing all he could to explain that Iraq had NO WMDs when Bush was insisting otherwise.
Ahhhh, Scott Ritter......the man who received $400,000 from a Hussein operative in the US to make his docu-fiction thingy. What can you believe from a man who likes a 14-year old with his Burger King fries......
He was less than honest with us all.
He lied.
That is you opinion and that's all that it is........there is no evidence of any such thing.....but it is the current #1 hit on the LIBDem top 40 countdown of mantras.....
The quotes from history are interesting, but irrelevent.
A typical European attitude based on past performance...
"Those that fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it....
Irrelevent??? I think not because it reflects a pattern.......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 17, 2005 at 7:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Justsouno...
...so, you have no sound answer to my comment? All you can do is to cast aspersions on my state of health?
Says it all, really.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 17, 2005 at 3:03 AM
| link to this | reply
Jane's
Damon you are in ill person. Check into a good Christian counseling center some place and get well dear man. Merry Christmas.
posted by
Justi
on November 16, 2005 at 9:25 PM
| link to this | reply
scoop...
...hit the nail on the head here.
Also, I'm not sure what all the hoo-haa is about who said what before Bush took power. After the first Gulf War, Saddam DID have WMDs! That's why Scott Ritter spend several years leading a weapons inspection team in-country, systematically destroying stockpiles, manufacturing facilities, document archives, plans and so on.
Many of the quotes you cite - though they handily come without dates! - were made when the statement "Iraq has a WMD programme" was TRUE!
The point is, my dear, blinkered people, is that by the time Bush came to parrot this statement, it was NOT TRUE!! You can blame whoever you like - Clinton, CIA, Martians - but that is the reality. And even the weak intelligence arguement is suspect. Scott Ritter himself was doing all he could to explain that Iraq had NO WMDs when Bush was insisting otherwise.
At best, Bush chose to believe weak intelligence from the CIA and the made-up stories of political animals like Chalabi over and above the analysis and informed opinion from a man who had been on the ground, hunting down WMDs for nine years. And that is a shoddy judgement call whichever way you spin it, and the act of a stupid man.
So was / is Bush stupid, and acted on the basis of a bunch of bullshit, believing it to be true?
Or is Bush clever, and did he selectively promote the intelligence that served his own agenda, and dismiss anything that went against the grain - even if it came from such a deeply informed source as Scott Ritter?
I suspect a mix of the two. Bush is stupid, but not so stupid as to make such a massive error of judgement. He went with the intelligence that worked for him, knowing it to be shaky at best.
He was less than honest with us all.
He lied.
The quotes from history are interesting, but irrelevent.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 16, 2005 at 5:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh my word! I leave for a day and look at all the comments waiting for me!!
Thanks, one and all, for commenting. I have skimmed through each one, but won't be able to answer more thoroughly until tomorrow or even Thursday. In the meantime, I'm glad we're debating these issues (although to be honest I just don't see a whole lot to debate when it comes to the truth of these matters but I'm willing to be open).
Thank you for stopping by, God bless each one of you and this awesome United States of America!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 15, 2005 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Bush did not lie he acted on bad info
I compare it to a police department with bad information and they execute a warrant and find nothing. They leave, pay for the door they kicked in and apoligize, but the U.S. did not do that, when they found nothing they went into the "mission creep" mode.
posted by
scoop
on November 15, 2005 at 3:26 PM
| link to this | reply
odd how dissent is accepted
ask the Dixie Chicks
and a few others who spoke out
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 15, 2005 at 2:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Good call, Xenox!
I'm proud of you admitting that Bubba was wrong, too. Very few liberals have the guts to agree to that. But as far as being protrayed as bad for dissenting, think again. Those who are so portrayed are the ones who reduce themselves to ad hominem attacks and extremist rantings - you know, the kind you think us conservatives indulge in - without actually making any kind of constructive contribution to the marketplace of ideas. We conservatives have no fear whatsoever of dissent, indeed we welcome it. But let it be offered as mature, reasoned debate, not a bunch of mindless screaming.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 14, 2005 at 8:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Ah, the reliability of polls!
Our friend fwmystic claims, "If over 60 percent of the electorate think you LIED . . . " You mean 60% of the skewed sampling of the electorate that in all likelihood fails to represent a true cross-section of voters.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 14, 2005 at 8:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Not that it will do any good, Jane
But they said it anyway and "coerced" the CIA into twisting intelligence to back up their statements.
Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it
did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding
no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 14, 2005 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
they were all ill-informed
they only knew what they were told
even Clinton.
the facts have been known ever since Bush went to war (I didn't go to war -- the only way I went to war is through my taxes, which help to support this folly) -- the CIA and other intelligence agencies said that there was no evidence whatsoever of what Bush, et. al were saying. But they said it anyway and "coerced" the CIA into twisting intelligence to back up their statements.
UN inspectros found no evidence. Later investiagations found that all the charts and photos and such had no substance at all to them.
I feel bad for the Dems, who, to remain what they considered to be politically viable, spoke in step with the conservative line mainly for their own survival. Now, their wimpiness has been uncovered.
Conservatives have lied and misrepresented and thrown up propaganda that has swayed the U.S. public for so long and so much that the entire political spectrum has shifted frighteningly to the right along with the news media.
If you oppose or criticize the adminstration then you are labeled as bad in one way or another.
In all this we are departing more and more from being a free country.
Will we take our freedom back?
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 14, 2005 at 8:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Put me in coach, I'm ready to play ...
One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.
Bush did have a political motive. He wanted to pay back Saddam Hussien for the political damage he did to his father, GHW Bush.
How was he defending liberty against all threats if there were, and still aren't, any WMD's???? And if all the intelligence agencies were so wrong about Iraq, why don't we hold the CIA accountable for being so wrong instead of pinning medals on everyone????
Live by the sword, die by the sword. If over 60 percent of the electorate think you LIED, your party will have a big problem in 2006.
posted by
fwmystic
on November 13, 2005 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
BAMMO - Jane hits it over the fence!
Well done!! I notice our buddies Glenn, Trevor, fwnystic and company are sitting in the dugout in the far left side of the ballpark in shock and awe.
Bye the bye: It's well worth noting that Two-Sides Kerry and Country Lawyer Edwards both made statements similar to these during last year's campaign.
Also: I saw parts of the ABC network news this morning. They did a long piece on the President's poll numbers under the screaming headline, "Can Bush Bounce Back?" with one citation after another of poll results - and not one mention anywhere of who they surveyed. I've proposed a public opinion survey of my own on my Bush is an Idiot? blog at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight/
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 13, 2005 at 7:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane.....
You get em girl!!
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 13, 2005 at 10:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Jane
I need everyone who is reading my opinion post to come over here and get the facts!! 
I keep referromg to it myself!!
posted by
Offy
on November 13, 2005 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Ha ha, Justsouno, you're a fantastic cheerleader!!!!!!!!! Actually, you should check out Corbin's post. I believe he's at the top of News and Politics. He's got some great stuff in his blog, too.
Have a great Sunday!!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 13, 2005 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Go Jane's Opinion-Go! Whoopee-Houndawg you flushed up a covey there!
Best Post on the street today. Truth has a way of lasting about as long as the flavor in a stick of gum when the other side is running.
posted by
Justi
on November 13, 2005 at 10:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Offbeats, thank you. That is an excellent reminder! I just wish the silent majority would not be so danged silent!!!! Thanks again.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2005 at 7:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane
That 37% rating came from the liberal left or from sumb Democrates... of which I have never met too many smart ones!!
Also remember the Silent Majoriity...we come out in droves after years of hearing our country torn down by the likes of Kerry, Michael Morres, you get my drift. The Silent Majority always rules!!!
posted by
Offy
on November 12, 2005 at 3:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Pooch, did you read ANY of my post? Bush did NOT lie.
Good grief, but you people really don't get it, do you? Do you even KNOW how to read???
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2005 at 2:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane
To paraphrase the neo-cons, Bushie lied......get over it.
posted by
Pooch116
on November 12, 2005 at 1:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Amen dear Taps, Amen! It's easy to forget, when a war such as this becomes unpopular, that both parties pretty unanimously voted in favor of going to war and ousting Saddam.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2005 at 9:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for sharing this, JanesOpinion. We need to remember these things.
posted by
TAPS.
on November 12, 2005 at 7:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Well said, Corbin. Listening to the Demo lib talking heads is sort of akin to attemping to reason with the cult members who come to my door. When I throw at them something that they cannot argue with, they rapidly change the subject and try to continue their assault in a different vein.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2005 at 6:41 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion
All of our comments fall upon deaf ears........
"He Lied" is the current mantra......the blogs and people commenting there do not hesitate to say that.....but their LIBDem leaders are.....they prefer chipping away through innuendo.....Watch the 24 hr news channels....the Left's menagerie of talking heads and pols refuse to answer the direct question: "Do you think the President lied?" Terms like..."manipulated"........"Misled"...."less than honest".
In some way in spite of the crazy comments you have to endure from the Loony Left bloggers......at least they are being "honest" about one thing.....their feelings. That's more than can be said for their leaders in Washington.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 12, 2005 at 5:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Amen, Sistah!
And you're right about his accusers, I think. The ones making the most accusations are the ones I trust the least.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 11, 2005 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane
Well, I am blond too and a smart one! I got my degree just like everyone else, I earned it. Plus I am a good read of people and this man is not a liar. I believe there are a lot of people who wish he were one. It is not his nature to lie. Let's face it, he would make a really bad liar!! Ever notice those who accuse him of being a liar have all the attributes of being a liar?
posted by
Offy
on November 11, 2005 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Yeah Offbeat, I'm withya. And he's such a straight shooter that I just don't get how people think he is a liar. OK, OK, I know that comment comes across as naive and blonde but nonetheless he's just so danged plain spoken and up front I simply don't get this lying crap that people are accusing him of.
Have a great weekend!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 11, 2005 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane
Give them a good slappin for me too! When ever I have a chance I always tell them like it is...I love our President, and while no man is perfect, he sure as heck is no liar!!
posted by
Offy
on November 11, 2005 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm with you, OFFBEAT! But it would seem with his 37% credibility rating, that many have fallen for the liar accusations. So it's those I'm slapping on the hand.
Thanks!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 11, 2005 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply
I never thought he lied!
posted by
Offy
on November 11, 2005 at 8:00 PM
| link to this | reply