View Full Version : Baghdad Is Bush's Blue Dress

02-06-2004, 04:01 PM
Now, can we talk of impeachment? The rueful admission by former chief US weapons inspector David Kay that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction or the means to create them at the time of the US invasion confirms the fact that the Bush Administration is complicit in arguably the greatest scandal in US history. It's only because the Republicans control both houses of Congress that we hear no calls for a broad-ranging investigation of the type that led to the discovery of Monica Lewinsky's infamous blue dress.

In no previous instance of presidential malfeasance was so much at stake, both in preserving constitutional safeguards and national security. This egregious deception in leading us to war on phony intelligence overshadows those scandals based on greed, such as Teapot Dome during the Harding Administration, or those aimed at political opponents, such as Watergate. And the White House continues to dig itself deeper into a hole by denying reality even as its lieutenants one by one find the courage to speak the truth.

A year after using his 2003 State of the Union address to paint Iraq's allegedly vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction as a grave threat to the US and the world, Bush spent this month's State of the Union defending the war because "had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." Bush said officials were still "seeking all the facts" about Iraq's weapons programs but noted that weapons searchers had already identified "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."


02-06-2004, 06:20 PM
Three things you seem to be missing...

1)There's ZERO evidence that the President deliberately mislead anyone about anything.

2)The only legal requirement the President needed to invade Iraq was Saddam being uncooperative to weapons inspectors. And everyone involved found Saddam to be obfuscating.

3)It's part of the Presidents oath and mandate to protect the US. If he percieves a threat, he's required by that oath to eliminate it.

So where's the malfeasance?

02-06-2004, 11:47 PM
Did you click on the link and read the entire article??
Maybe that would help you fill in what you say is missing. We are not allowed to paste entire articles, so I just copied and pasted the beginning only and supplied the link for the entire thing.

02-07-2004, 01:45 AM
Not needed. The three points I made were valid before the war, and they're valid today. If you like, I'll repeat them..

1)There's ZERO evidence that the President deliberately mislead anyone about anything.

2)The only legal requirement the President needed to invade Iraq was Saddam being uncooperative to weapons inspectors. And everyone involved found Saddam to be obfuscating.

3)It's part of the Presidents oath and mandate to protect the US. If he percieves a threat, he's required by that oath to eliminate it.

Again, if the President percieves a threat to the US, it's within his purview to eliminate that threat, it's part of his oath. If he deliberatley lied about facts in his possession, that's something which needs to be addressed. If he merely presented the worst possible scenario in order to guide us towards a war which he felt was needed, than that's him doing his job. I can point out a dozen half truths presented by John Kerry in almsost every speech he has presented against Bush during his campaign. He's done it in order to further his agenda. What's the difference?

02-07-2004, 11:51 PM
Did you read the entire article?? Or perhaps you did not wish to be bothered by facts since your mind is already made up? If you choose to not read the entire article for whatever reason, it looks like we won't be able to have any meaningful discussion about it. :cry:

Typical Mepublican tactic, keeping repeating a fallacy often enough and pretty soon maybe people will begin to believe it. :rolleyes:

Yeah, sure, the president only needs perception of a threat to act.
To hell with needing any substantive proof...hell no...we got us some perception. :rolleyes:

02-09-2004, 10:21 AM
I can't bring myself to spend the time on sources that are THAT slanted. I don't read stuff from far right wing sources either. If there asre pertinant facts, reproduce them here(facts, not opinions). As for substantive proof...the head of the DNC was just on NPR and even HE admitted that the evidence he and everyone else saw led him to believe Saddam had WMD's.

02-09-2004, 07:31 PM
>"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.
>is our bottom line."
>- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program."
>- President 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." S
>- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
>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 Sens. 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
>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 invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
>continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
>continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
>a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
>the United States and our allies."
>- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
>December 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
>mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
>and the 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
>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
>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
>and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
>next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
>the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
>- 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.
>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.
>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
>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 is calculating 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