A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe GWB isn't lying.......



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 04, 04:52 PM
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe GWB isn't lying.......

The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and the
war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes into
consideration:

"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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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 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
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 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,
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, 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
destruction
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
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 weap ons
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



Now who's lying?





  #2  
Old February 1st 04, 09:57 PM
RobbelothE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Then there's this from President 'wanna be' Wes Clark. He was certain Saddam
had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam wanted more.

"[Saddam Hussein]…is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable.
He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively
pursuing nuclear capabilities…. Saddam Hussein's current retention of
chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates
the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law…..
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and
weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United
Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the
President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides
strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts…. I would offer the
following considerations:
- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further
strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination
to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US
option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point
authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use
of force, if other measures fail….

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either
initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition,
including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring
force to bear."

Statement Of General (Retired) Wesley K. Clark
U.S. Army Before The House Armed Services Committee
United States House Of Representatives
September 26, 2002
Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)
  #3  
Old February 1st 04, 11:23 PM
Rick Folkers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq might
have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to war.
Only George made that mistake.

War is too important, too big a step, to enter into without being sure and
honest with the people of the country. Bush either lied or did not insure
his information was correct. Either fault in a president cannot be excused
and he must go.

I supported the war and still think it was the right thing to do. And I
voted for Bush in 2000. But the contempt with which he held the people and
the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a false
reason makes him just another low life politician. And that is saying
nothing about his disasterous domestic policy.


  #4  
Old February 2nd 04, 02:15 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rick Folkers" wrote:

Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq might
have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to war.
Only George made that mistake.


If that had been the only (or even the main) reason for going to war,
you might have a point. It's a shame the US government presented
*several* reasons for going in, especially since the anti-war folks have
latched onto that one reason while forgetting all of the others...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #6  
Old February 2nd 04, 03:58 AM
Rick Folkers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Note that I did not say it was the only reason. But, my forgetful friend,
it was
the reason Bush used to sell it to the people and Congress to get his
supporing
legislation. Can you really deny that?


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Rick Folkers" wrote:

Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq

might
have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to

war.
Only George made that mistake.


If that had been the only (or even the main) reason for going to war,
you might have a point. It's a shame the US government presented
*several* reasons for going in, especially since the anti-war folks have
latched onto that one reason while forgetting all of the others...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.



  #8  
Old February 2nd 04, 04:35 AM
Tom Cervo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to the
Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That was
NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
Bush.
Period.


How many Guardsmen do you know?
  #9  
Old February 2nd 04, 08:18 AM
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are seriously Wrong, he does a great job supporting us!
You couldn't be further from the Truth. But everytime he shows
support, people like you spin it up into a "political statement for
his re-election" what a bucket of **** you lay. Speaking of Clinton,
every Navy unit I was in despised him and we hoped to God he never
payed us a visit.
Just like the whole WMD arguement you are trying to debate
now! The original Poster of this thread hit the nail on the head.
Nobody has that kind of power, including the President. What,
you can't make up your own mind? Did he hypnotize you into believing
what he (and everyone else) was saying about Saddams possesion of
WMD's? I guess he just hypnotized every Democrat and media agent into
beleiving it too! LOL, get a clue, this thing ain't over yet.
Your kind also bashed Pres. Bush daily about "his" inability
to find Saddam, like it was him personally out there searching for
him! hahaha! Then, when we did find him, you spun it all up into a
bucket of **** about how "inhumane" he was treated, and how much
better the Iraqi people would be with him still in power. And nobody
gloated, just were very satisfied and showed pleasure at him being
caught, and brought to justice.
So what will your kind say when we catch Bin Laden?
What will you say when we find the evidence Saddam had WMD's
and destroyed and moved them because he was scared about getting
attacked and overthrown? Don't you think that military force worked?
What the hell are you thinking? That we will threaten him with
scorched earth if he doesn't comply with the worlds laws, and then not
act?

people like you On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:58:38 -0600, "Rick Folkers"
wrote:

Too bad he does not support them better.


"RobbelothE" wrote in message
...
Subject: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
From: "Rick Folkers"
Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a

false
reason makes him just another low life politician.



An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to

the
Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That

was
NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President

Bush.
Period.


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)



  #10  
Old February 2nd 04, 08:23 AM
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't know any, but recently all the media has been printing
about Guardsmen is they are squealing about having to get called up
for duty. The articles are from SOLDIERS (guardsmen) bawling about,
"this isn't what we signed up for".
LOL, if this is true, I refuse to believe that a grown man
that has reaped all the benefits (pay, education, etc.) would howl
about fulfilling his end of an oath to his country and contract that
he signed and swore to.

On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:

An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to the
Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That was
NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
Bush.
Period.


How many Guardsmen do you know?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.