Judge to Obama: 'Why The Hell, You LIED. It's all theatre, Who are you kidding?. Bully!'

a reply to: Milah

If you watch very very closely, you will observe Obama's (and ilk) lips move.

That's the clincher to your title, the rest is just them stealing my oxygen.

But, even right here on ATS, the forest cannot be seen through the trees.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: smurfy

Do you mean the problem of truth? Like, would there have been a Gulf war (1) without the Bush senior lying through his teeth about Iraq's nuclear capability? possibly not.

I wonder if people would recognize truth if they ever saw it.

As to Gulf war one. The Kuwait's came running to the US of A to save them from Saddam.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait in early August 1990. Alarmed by these actions, fellow Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt called on the United States and other Western nations to intervene.

www.history.com...

Back to the TOPIC.

Well, first off it is totally on a topic about lies. So you want to link to the, 'History' channel for a ahem, simplistic text book version of the gulf war of circa 1991.
This was written by Michio Kako in 1992, likely when the memory is fresh, and before the story gets bastardized.

"On the eve of the Gulf War, opinion polls indicated that the U.S. public was evenly split, about 45 to 45 percent, on military intervention. To tip the scales, the Bush administration unleashed a blistering torrent of accusations, branding Saddam Hussein a threat to Middle East oil, a renegade, a trampler of international law, and even a new Hitler. None of these tactics, however, proved particularly effective in rousing war fever. A sizable fraction of the U.S. people resisted administration propaganda and preferred to pursue patient negotiations, rather than to pull the trigger.

Then, the Bush administration unleashed the unsubstantiated claim that Iraq would develop the atomic bomb within one year--even though most nuclear physicists concluded it would take about ten years. Within days, well meaning Americans who had grave reservations about the use of bloodshed to restore a reactionary, feudal emirate, began to wave the flag and support invasion."

a reply to: smurfy

Yeah, it was Bush's fault and no one else is to blame:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Your response was entirely off topic by the way, so I digress and return to on topic content.

I refuse to add anything here, because most I see is the standard progressive liberal tactic > name calling. When they have nothing to add , nothing to refute , name calling...SAD

a reply to: Gothmog

well there's nothing of substance in the first place, so what can you realistically expect??

originally posted by: Gothmog
I refuse to add anything here, because most I see is the standard progressive liberal tactic > name calling. When they have nothing to add , nothing to refute , name calling...SAD

I think you can see a little more than that. At least ONE poster on this thread openly acknowledges and ADMITS that he will ignore the truth hands-down if he has an issue with the messenger.... even if he seemingly would accept it otherwise.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
www.politicususa.com...
www.forwardprogressives.com...

Takes a liar to know one.

You seem to be able to spot them from a mile away.

(I tried but I couldn't resist that....lol)

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: smurfy

Yeah, it was Bush's fault and no one else is to blame:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Your response was entirely off topic by the way, so I digress and return to on topic content.

My prediction... nobody will reply to your post with a response of any substance.

a reply to: eluryh22

Why post substance in reply to waffle??

given eth info available lots of people thought bad things about Saddam..........but AFAIK none of those mentioned above were in the government that actually invaded while lying about what they did know.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: eluryh22

Why post substance in reply to waffle??

given eth info available lots of people thought bad things about Saddam..........but AFAIK none of those mentioned above were in the government that actually invaded while lying about what they did know.

Ummm....they ALL were in the government at the time. And they were all for invasion.

Funny, when the democrats said it you wave it off by saying "given the info available lots of people thought bad things about saddam..." As if that excuses their belief that he was up to no good with WMD's. But when that same information is used by the seated President, its all his fault?

Sorry, but I don't think I have ever seen a more biased and disjointed post.

a reply to: eluryh22

I agree. Its is difficult to spew the party rhetoric when the truth is standing right there in direct opposition to your statements. The typical response is to wait a while, go off topic, attack some other issue, blame Bush for a while, redirect, redirect, misinform, go back on topic, then attack again.

And its sad that no matter how ridiculous it is, it still manages to interfere with any real efforts at solving problems we all face every day. Fighting blind rhetoric wastes limited resources that could be used to fight real problems.

a reply to: Milah

Why is it I've wanted to kick the crap out of every president
since John F. Kennedy except for Jimmy Carter?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Yeah, it was Bush's fault and no one else is to blame:

Who mentioned fault? It's not clear what you mean. Both Bush Presidents clearly lied in the immediate to a devastating war, so did Lyndon Johnston in his time. All as precursors to devastating wars, and mass killings.
Thing is they all lie, you don't seem to get that.
There is no use quoting out of power people of the time, however since you included Madeleine Albright in the summary, this is her take on it a month ago,
Headline...Another Bush gets it wrong,

"Since leaving office, I have come to a détente with many of my Republican friends, agreeing not to keep rehashing mistakes of the past and to instead focus on the future of America’s foreign policy. However, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s brazen attempts to rewrite history in a series of campaign appearances last week cannot go unchallenged. By blaming President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the rise of ISIL, Governor Bush is clearly seeking to absolve his brother’s administration of responsibility for today’s problems in Iraq. This argument may serve Governor Bush’s political interests, but it does a disservice to the truth.
No honest discussion of the situation today in Iraq can brush aside the mistakes that were made by the Bush administration during the invasion and its aftermath, much of it based on faulty intelligence and flawed assumptions.
They sent too few troops to secure the country. They replaced a government that was a sworn enemy of Iran with one that had close ties to the mullahs. They disbanded the Iraqi Army and dismissed thousands of Sunni officers, who soon launched a violent insurgency.
None of these facts were acknowledged by Governor Bush in his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library or in his recent campaign appearances in Iowa, because they undermine his attempts at blame shifting.....more,

Read more: www.politico.com...

That's rhetoric for you, now you need to decide what she was talking about back then, or the Clintons back then, in specifying 'Nuclear' since it was clear that Sadaam had no chance of any viable nuclear weapon for years to come, if at all...back then. So, did she lie, by knowing more than others, or was it rhetoric? You decide. Has she apologised to the war/s dead in either case?
Look at things today, big brother watching and listening you 24/7...who's going to fix that..or am I talking in rhetoric?
That is the whole point of my other post.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If you think my post is the most biased you've ever seen then yeah - you should apologise - as should your teachers.

I'm not a Democrat.