Why people will vote for Bush, page 3

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

Thanks for proving my point.

So, your point is when people are wrong they are evil?

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
No, I'm saying that if you don't hold Bush accountable for all of his mistakes then you are ignorant of the facts, evil, or simply unwilling to allow yourself to believe that you've been lied to. I'm not asking you to believe in conspiracy theories, just stop telling me he didn't lie to us. He did, on many, many occasions.

Lets start by you telling me exactly what lies has Bush told? Then we can go from there.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Right, all those Republican senators who just came out and said this war was a mistake (see above) and the Army War College and the Retired Generals who were always against this war have been watching too many damn movies!

Were there some people that thought it was impossible to have a "democratic form of government in Iraq?" Yes there were, and it is possible they were right, but as i have shown in other threads even the previous administration was already working on ousting Saddam by force if he didn't agree to let the weapons inspectors unrestricted access.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Which lies did Michael Moore tell? Which of the sources that I cited have been spoon fed to me? USA Today, maybe. The AP? Army War College? The United States Congress? Are they all liars, too? *shudder*

Moore's lies, ok lets start by naming a few of them. This is what i remember at this moment.

First, according to him Iraq was a happy place before the war, which if you read reports from the UN and other organizations it was a lie and hundreds of thousands of people have died under Saddam's rule, including his own people. Tie to this that he never mentions that in iraq 500,000 children under the age of 5 died because of the UN sanctions against Iraq which would have happened again if we had not gone to war with Iraq and more sanctions would most probably have been put in place by the UN.

Second, he mentioned that those people who died in the 2001 flights were all cowards, "scarely cats" he obviously did not know that in flight 93 people fought the terrorists and it was why it went down. Not only that but you have to be a moron to give fault, accuse and insult innocent people who died because of terrorists.

Third, Moore said that Bush was the one who gave the green light to the Bin Laden family to leave the US, which according to Clark this was not so, since it was Clark himself who told the Bin Ladens it was better if they left the country and he made all the arragements.

Fourth, he says he is looking out for the working people, yet he has bashed and insulted the working class, as an example in Britain he did this because he wasn't getting enough money for his speech..and not to mention he labels all Americans as "stupid and ignorants" among other things obviously not knowing there is diversity in America and different levels of education.

Fifth in "Bowling for Columbine" Moore makes the public believe that in a certain bank in the states 9can't recall the name of state or bank from memory) you can come out of the bank with a gun if you open an account with them, which is an outright lie as you have to go through the background check as if you were going to buy a gun.

About the other sources you mentioned, you have to be specific, with links, and point to the information they are giving, then we can take it from there.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I actually DO want to listen to you. You're obviously suggesting that the Iraq war would have happened no matter what, right? Well, I'm waiting to hear your justification for that absolutely ridiculous statement starting......now.

I have already posted the proof for this in other threads, quoting democrats including the former democratic president Clinton. Let me give you those links again, and at the same time, since you want more, let me make some more quotes in here....

Link. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Excerpt from above link.

Tuesday February 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
...............
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
...............
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)

HON. CARL LEVIN

in the Senate

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `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.'
.............
Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled `UNSCOM Main Achievements': `UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'
..........
Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.
...........
Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Actually, none of the world said that about Saddam. They wanted inspectors and UN action and a MULTILATERAL force if needed. I noticed you decided to throw in the BIG LIE about Saddam helping Al Qaeda again, too. Is there no hope that you might listen to your own president on this issue:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to September the 11th" -George W Bush

But maybe you do. I'm waiting.

Let me give you some quotes from democrats.

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

................
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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

If you need more quotes let me know.

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX

XxaudioholicxX:"I think you are the one who should educate yourself. I present to you in return for your comments above this":

Quote from: www.cnn.com...
"Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

I love this link. It is the smoking gun! Putin said Saddam was planning terrorist attacks, so OF COURSE we should have invaded him! Funny how we never heard this from Powell or Rumsfield or Bush as justification for going to war. Even if we had, where is there any evidence of this? I guess you're going to take one corrupt leader's word for it, just as you'll take OUR corrupt leader's word for anything. Look what else Putin said (did you read this link or just copy it from holmes' signature?)

"However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks."

So we're back where we started. I ask you for your "educated" opinion on this point. How was Saddam going to carry out these attacks? With his Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe he was going to sponsor terrorist attacks by flying airplanes into buildings. Maybe he was going to T.P. the White House!

You seem to think that, simply because Putin says so, Iraq had it in for us, but this is common knowledge. In actuality, you can look all over the Middle East and find regimes who hate America. Any one of these nations (which we don't have sanctions on and which actually have armies and WMD) could be planning attacks right now. Maybe the real debate is whether invading Iraq has increased their resolve to do so. As you so eloquently put it, "Who knows for sure?" We'll find out one of these days, I fear.

By the way, I like this link. It says the Bush administration appeared "Surprised" when that report came out. I wonder why? Here are some suggestions...

A State Department official told Reuters that "everyone is scratching their heads" about Putin's remarks.

Putin's statement Friday "may have come as a result of a concrete agreement with the Bush administration," said Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow office of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. "But we might not know for a while what the agreement was."

And here, the Administration just sounds totally out of touch (surprise):

Speaking with reporters at a roundtable Friday, Secretary of State Collin Powell was equally vague. "Yeah, I don't - I'm not familiar with what the Russians might have given us, but I'd just have to yield to my friends in the intelligence community," he said. "Those sorts of things usually come from service to service, and I just haven't had a chance this afternoon to see what the CIA is saying about it."

Whole story:

www.sptimes.ru...

Also, from the NYT, a little education about Al Qaeda-Iraq ties and the credibility of who you've been listening to. This Administration really thinks that if you say it enough times, everyone will believe it regardless of lack of proof. Seems to be working on you.

from the NYT, June 19, 2004

From a NYT editorial, June 19, 2004:

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that "an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.

Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the "evidence is overwhelming" of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a "whole series of high-level contacts" between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's "longstanding ties" amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.

Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner" who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.

When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has "been pretty well confirmed." If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.

Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to "tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable" to the public, but that "his job is to connect the dots."

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.