Poster Boy Clinton backs Bush?? Yep, sure does.

[jporterweb]

Read it here..


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html


Amazing, maybe Bush wasn't lying. That or Clinton is lying too. Wonder why this isn't being reported in excess? I mean when someone comes out and says the administration was wrong you hear all about it. Now you got someone saying, they were right, and you don't hear a damn thing!

[RedskinsDave]

cricket cricket

[jporterweb]

You are a hypocrite if you try to weasel around the facts of the story. First of all, this was never WIDELY reported. Show me the stories. I want to see at least 10 different stories about Clinton saying this. Cause I bet you can't find them. But you need to sit down and say one of two things. "George W. Bush was not lying, he was going on what information the US had that showed there was WMD in IRAQ up to the fall of Hussein, and that is evident because Clinton saw the same things, and agreed with this fact" or you need to say. "Bill Clinton is full of it. He is a liar, and he just wants to lie to the American People." So please pick one of those two quotes and repeat it if you ever concured that that George W was just lying for a vendetta. Because that is all you an say. Those are the only two options. Either GWB wasn't lying. Or Bill Clinton is. Take your pick.

[RedskinsDave]

I think "widely reported" means Fox News. Maybe it was buried in the Post and NY Times somewhere.

[lakewinola]

I don't have time at work to investigate 10 articles or quotes from this summer concerning the former president. I will find time tonight to look around the net. I have heard it though from him on several news programs.

I do not think that I referred to anyone lying at all, so maybe you should calm down or direct your rage towards someone who does think that the president lied. There is difference between lying and exagerration. It is a fact that intelligence existed towards the WMD conclusions, however it was back and forth through the intelligence community on whether it was credible. Bush simply casted the tie-breaking vote and began speaking of rock solid 100% intelligence. We all know now that the intelligence was faulty, and that there were different interpretations then. Was there doubt as to the accuracy? Yes. Did Bush dismiss doubt? Yes. And finally does this consitute a lie? No. An exaggeration of the evidence? Yes.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by lakewinola
I don't have time at work to investigate 10 articles or quotes from this summer concerning the former president. I will find time tonight to look around the net. I have heard it though from him on several news programs.

I do not think that I referred to anyone lying at all, so maybe you should calm down or direct your rage towards someone who does think that the president lied. There is difference between lying and exagerration. It is a fact that intelligence existed towards the WMD conclusions, however it was back and forth through the intelligence community on whether it was credible. Bush simply casted the tie-breaking vote and began speaking of rock solid 100% intelligence. We all know now that the intelligence was faulty, and that there were different interpretations then. Was there doubt as to the accuracy? Yes. Did Bush dismiss doubt? Yes. And finally does this consitute a lie? No. An exaggeration of the evidence? Yes.

First of all, Why don't you try reading what I write? Hrmm...I don't think I said you did. I said if you did. So get your facts straight. No rage, and I am very calm.

Originally posted by jporterweb
So please pick one of those two quotes and repeat it if you ever concured that that George W was just lying for a vendetta.


From what Clinton has said; Manuel Durao Barroso said,
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." ; he was convinced that they existed. Which means George Bush either did not make stuff up because Clinton was also and I quote "absolutley convinced" according to his conversations, that they existed. That or Clinton also "simply casted the tie-breaking vote and began speaking of rock solid 100% intelligence" because he is again i quote "absolutley convinced".

[lakewinola]

Yes clinton believed, I do not think I have disputed that notion, Clinton also did not go to war over it.

Are you denying that there was any disent in the intelligence community over the reports of WMD? Because that is what you are making it out to be.

The facts are Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD, there were stockpiles still missing from Han Blix report and previous intelligence reports. It is also a fact that Clinton wanted regime change in Iraq. Given that there is not an immediate threat and no proof of Al-Queda ties, Clinton uses the international community to force the issue.

The facts are that Bush wanted regime change, believed that Iraq had WMD. And as it is being reported began planning an invasion of Iraq within the first week of his presidency. He spurned the international community and any kind of pressure they could apply to force the issue. The International community was successful in getting inspectors back into the country. I think they had like a few weeks to begin working again, when Mr Bush decided that now was the time to invade.

Clinton did not use the intellingece to put american soldiers on the ground in Iraq, he used diplomatic arenas to apply pressure, essentially isolating Iraq from the world.

Bush began using these same diplomatic channels, thinking they would not bear fruit. However Inspectors were allowed back into the country. So Bush, wanting regime change more than exposing WMD, sold us on the imminent danger possessed by the Iraqi dictator and we went in.

Who knows what would have happened if inspectors had a year to conduct their search? Maybe they would have concluded that no such weapons existed. Then we'd have a harmless dictator with no threat to our soil. Taking him out then would be like us invading Cuba tomorrow to overthrow castro. Or taking him out with as a humanitarian move, would go against what Mr Bush campained on.

Bottom line, is that diputed intelligence that was not 100% accepted by the professionals who write it was used to put american soldiers on the ground when there were other means to accomplish the removal of WMD.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by jporterweb
You are a hypocrite if you try to weasel around the facts of the story. First of all, this was never WIDELY reported. Show me the stories. I want to see at least 10 different stories about Clinton saying this. Cause I bet you can't find them. But you need to sit down and say one of two things. "George W. Bush was not lying, he was going on what information the US had that showed there was WMD in IRAQ up to the fall of Hussein, and that is evident because Clinton saw the same things, and agreed with this fact" or you need to say. "Bill Clinton is full of it. He is a liar, and he just wants to lie to the American People." So please pick one of those two quotes and repeat it if you ever concured that that George W was just lying for a vendetta. Because that is all you an say. Those are the only two options. Either GWB wasn't lying. Or Bill Clinton is. Take your pick.

I think that pretty much says it all jporterweb. Since when are democrats interested in the truth anyway? It's always a personal vendetta, and a war to have a seat. No matter how much proof anyone comes up with (and we both know there has been barrels full that we have provided for them) they will not see the truth, but keep thier blinders on. It's sad and pathetic, I know, but how else will the democratic party stay alive?

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by jsarno
I think that pretty much says it all jporterweb. Since when are democrats interested in the truth anyway? It's always a personal vendetta, and a war to have a seat. No matter how much proof anyone comes up with (and we both know there has been barrels full that we have provided for them) they will not see the truth, but keep thier blinders on. It's sad and pathetic, I know, but how else will the democratic party stay alive?

Thanks...finally someone to back me up. That's exactly what I think. No matter what you show them, it's just not enough. You could show them a damn nuclear device filled with Anthrax spores with sadams handwriting on it inside that spider hole he dug and it still would meet skeptics.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jporterweb
You could show them a damn nuclear device filled with Anthrax spores with sadams handwriting on it inside that spider hole he dug and it still would meet skeptics. Fine. So show me that. Or something like it. If you can't, stop claiming you know they exist. It makes you look ridiculous.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Of course Clinton believed the Iraqis had WMD. So what? The fact is that Clinton suspected, but did not know or have proof and therefore knew it would irresponsible to claim that he knew or had proof. And even further he knew it would be incredibly reckless to wage an aggressive war and occupy another country based on suspicions and hunches.

The Bush White House repeatedly claimed they knew Saddam Hussein possessed WMD in 2002 and 2003. What's more, the Bush White House even boasted they knew exactly where that WMD was located.

So where is it?

[lakewinola]

I can't believe people believe 100% that WMD's are there and that the intelligence used in the lead up was 100% accurate.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by Spence
Fine. So show me that. Or something like it. If you can't, stop claiming you know they exist. It makes you look ridiculous.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Of course Clinton believed the Iraqis had WMD. So what? The fact is that Clinton suspected, but did not know or have proof and therefore knew it would irresponsible to claim that he knew or had proof. And even further he knew it would be incredibly reckless to wage an aggressive war and occupy another country based on suspicions and hunches.

The Bush White House repeatedly claimed they knew Saddam Hussein possessed WMD in 2002 and 2003. What's more, the Bush White House even boasted they knew exactly where that WMD was located.

So where is it?

Manuel Durao Barroso said,
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

absolutely convinced? hrmm. that doesn't sound like suspects. That sounds like he KNEW they had them. Or maybe but Absolutely he means, well I think maybe the might.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by lakewinola
I can't believe people believe 100% that WMD's are there and that the intelligence used in the lead up was 100% accurate.

I wish you wouldn't continue to put words in my mouth. I've never been 100% sure. but I am 75% sure they've been there. As for the intelligence. I don't claim that it was all 100% accurate. But I don't believe that it wasn't the slightest bit accurate.

[lakewinola]

This statement sure sounds like someone who is 100% sure.

Originally posted by jporterweb
Thanks...finally someone to back me up. That's exactly what I think. No matter what you show them, it's just not enough. You could show them a damn nuclear device filled with Anthrax spores with sadams handwriting on it inside that spider hole he dug and it still would meet skeptics.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Manuel Durao Barroso said,
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

absolutely convinced? hrmm. that doesn't sound like suspects. That sounds like he KNEW they had them. Or maybe but Absolutely he means, well I think maybe the might. JPORTER, you're proving my point. Clinton never says that he has proof. He never claims to have evidence. He thinks something to be true [absolutely convinced of it], but has no proof. Therefore, he didn't wage an aggressive war and occupy another country based on what he thought or suspected.

If you want to wage an aggressive war, kill thousands of people, alienate virtually the entire planet, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, don't just tell me what you think, I want to see what you can prove.

So where is it? This isn't very complicated. The Bush White House said they knew the WMD existed and they knew exactly where they were located. Well, assuming they did the sensible thing and drove to those places where they said they KNEW the WMD were located, where is all the evidence? We've been occupying the country since April. Surely, the Bush admin has had time to send a few teams of inspectors over to places where they said they KNEW the WMD was located.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
stop claiming you know they exist. It makes you look ridiculous.


Actually that's the other way around Spence. Numerous intellegence from others countries have agreed with the US...your chum Clinton even agreed. It's not that they have them, that much is obvious since we sold the freakin things to them years ago, it's finding them. Since we can't find Bin Laden, does that mean he doesn't exist? Of course not. We gave Iraq too much time to either dismantle or hide. You try finding a needle in a haystack. It's not very easy.
So I tend to believe the experts not affiliated with the democratic party that there is indeed WMD, it's not rocket science. We keep coming closer every day. finding documents about Iran etc that have plutonium and such. The only thing that looks ridiculous is the demcratic party using this as fuel to get a candidate elected. It's a shame to use a system like that. Sickening even.

Is it possible that WMD have been gone for a while, yes. But all intellegence points otherwise. So who you going to believe? The world, or the democratic party? (that's rhetorical)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
Clinton never says that he has proof. He never claims to have evidence. He thinks something to be true [absolutely convinced of it], but has no proof. Therefore, he didn't wage an aggressive war and occupy another country based on what he thought or suspected.

Clinton didn't have a massive attack with airplanes into the WTC to push the issue either. That put the USA square in the middle of a war on terror. So either they could protect us and go after these people, or sit back and wait for the next attack. I am confident had this exact situation occured to Clinton, he would have done the exact same thing.

If you want to wage an aggressive war, kill thousands of people, alienate virtually the entire planet, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, don't just tell me what you think, I want to see what you can prove.

You have already seen that Spence. The documents proving we sold them the WMD, it's all been around here. How about the thousands of documents from people and countries that know better...that it is their job to find this stuff out...how about those documents?
If there is no WMD (highly unlikely, but IF) Bush was still not in the wrong because he was going off the best intellegence not only this country has to offer, but this WORLD has to offer. It's either ignore the world or believe the evil. He made the wise choice.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by lakewinola
This statement sure sounds like someone who is 100% sure.

no, that is a statement about how overly skeptical Liberals are. Has not a damn thing to do with my opinion on WMD.

[Spence]

JSARNO, the fact that the immoral administration of Ronald Reagan allowed WMD to get into the hands of Saddam Hussein is not pertinent to this point. Sure, it says a lot about President Reagan and the Republican party, I am with you there. But that's where it ends. The questions is not whether or not Iraq once possessed WMD. We know they did. They've used them in the past. The question is whether or not Iraq possessed them when the Bush admin said they did--in 2002 and 2003. You keep dodging that point. I don't blame you. It destroys all your points and you're not about to acknowledge that. According to intelligence gathered since the invasion of Iraq, the best estimate is that Iraqi WMD were destroyed in 1991, most likely, or 1996, at the latest.

Your point about the 9/11 attacks is irrelevant. As even Mr Bush has been forced to admit, there is absolutely no evidence Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bringing up 9/11 only reinforces the case for going after Osama Bin Laden, who was actually responsible for the attacks, and not Saddam Hussein. You're wrong about Clinton's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Both he and Al Gore have said they would have invaded Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Makes sense because Osama was in Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

And I don't know what intelligence "experts affiliated with the Democratic party" you are referring to. The most damning testimony against the Bush admin's case for Iraqi WMD has not been made by Democrats, it has been made by professional intelligence servicemen and women. These are people who work for the CIA, State Department, and the National Security Agency.

You see to regard anyone who has evidence disproving the Bush admin's pathetic case as a person who is acting out of political motivations. That only proves your lack of honesty.

The largest point, the one you keep ignoring, is that the Bush admin not only said Iraq had WMD, but said they knew exactly where they were located. Okay, so where are they?

[Spence]

People who are interested in facts and truth should have a look at the epic report (http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate) produced by the Carnegie Endowment about the Iraq War. It blows the lid off the Bush admin's phony WMD case and demonstrates how on just about everything, from predicting there would be no guerrilla war against U.S. occupation to assuring American taxpayers that they would not have to foot the bill for reconstructing Iraq, the Bush admin is guilty of either incompetence or outright deception.

Liars and incompetents. Right there in black and white. Read it if you've got the guts.

[jsarno]

you are too funny Spence. This circle will continue to go round and round. I expect nothing less from you at this point. I just hope the millions of Americans see the truth. If dean is elected, then obviously they have not.

I gotta hand it to you though (without arguing points over and over again) you definitely stand your ground. Gotta respect that. ;)

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence

So where is it?


My guess is in one of those mass graves somewhere in Iraq...

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
cricket cricket


Dave - THAT is funny! :funpost:

[Skinzaholic]

Seems every liberal on here is quickly thumbing through their "1 Million Excuses for Debate" to find some sort of reasoning behind the obvious.

1. Saddam had WMD.
2. Everyone knew it (who needed to know it).
3. Saddam took his 12 years to bury and destroy them (as any good mad man would).
4. I blame Bill Clinton.

[jporterweb]

lol... I like #4 Skinz

[Keino]

Umm About #3...if he was destroying them wasn't he complying with the UN? If he was Burying them, we should be able to find them, right?

[jporterweb]

He destroyed some that much was certain. But not all of them. So where are the ones that are unaccounted for? We'll find them. You try finding a stockpile of weapons underground in a desert the size of Texas.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic

4. I blame Bill Clinton.

CLASSIC! :lol1:

[Spence]

Kenneth Pollack is a best-selling author who wrote the influential book "The Threatening Storm," supporting war against Iraq in 2002. He was a prominent "liberal hawk" on Iraq and he served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. He ought to be able to shed some light for all concerned: As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.

Most problematic of all, the OSP often chose to believe reports that trained intelligence officers considered unreliable or downright false. In particular it gave great credence to reports from the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader was the Administration-backed Ahmed Chalabi. It is true that the intelligence community believed some of the material that came from the INC--but not most of it. (In retrospect, of course, it seems that even the intelligence professionals gave INC reporting more credence than it deserved.) One of the reasons the OSP generally believed Chalabi and the INC was that they were telling it what it wanted to hear--giving the OSP, in a kind of vicious circle, further incentive to trust these sources over differing, and ultimately more reliable, ones. Thus intelligence analysts spent huge amounts of time fighting bad information and trying to persuade Administration officials not to make policy decisions based on it. From my own experience I know that it is hard enough to figure out what the reliable evidence indicates--and vast battles are fought over that. To have to also fight over what is clearly bad information is a Sisyphean task.

The Bush officials who created the OSP gave its reports directly to those in the highest levels of government, often passing raw, unverified intelligence straight to the Cabinet level as gospel. Senior Administration officials made public statements based on these reports--reports that the larger intelligence community knew to be erroneous (for instance, that there was hard and fast evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda). Another problem arising from the machinations of the OSP is that whenever the principals of the National Security Council met with the President and his staff, two completely different versions of reality were on the table. The CIA, the State Department, and the uniformed military services would present one version, consistent with the perspective of intelligence and foreign-policy professionals, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Vice President would present another, based on the perspective of the OSP. Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/pollack.htm).

[lakewinola]

A little more for Spence's previous post. This is how Cheney was personally involved in getting false and misleading intelligence to support the war.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660169/