Remember these?

[Jeff Higgins]

Wow Thom, amazing compilation of quotes. Amazing in both its completeness concerning what was said by the Bush Cabinet and his chronies, and in the absolute and complete omission of anything ever said by our previous President and his staff. Now I don't have the time, energy, of frankly interest enough to pursue this, but apparently you do. So here is a two part challenge, assuming the sources you used to compile this list even have this information: One, find similar quotes predating the Bush presidency from people of the same general positions. We all know they are out there; this did not start with Bush. Two; if you (or anyone else in on this discussion) disputes that equivelent Cabinet level officials, Senators, Congressmen, or whatever believed the same thing as Bush and his Cabinet, provide quotes to support that position. I don't think you can. It was accepted as "common knowledge" in our intelligence community, and Europe's, that Iraq had these weapons long before Bush took office. To continue to insist that "Bush lied" or Bush was incompetent just does not hold up. He inheirited the intelligence of his predecessor and the next President will too. There is a great deal more continuity there than you want to admit; there has to be, a new President simply cannot start from square one on this. So, to be fair, and not paint this as yet another Bush problem, please provide us with what the same kinds of folks were saying before Bush took office. I think we all remember it as pretty much the same as Bush and company had to say.

[350HP930]

Our former presidents were at least smart enough to not to invade iraq so who cares what lies and doublespeak they spewed during their presidencies.

I would think that you would be old enough to know that actions always speak lounder than words.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Jeff, one of the Right's favorite points is that Clinton did nothing about terrorism during his two terms and Bush was determined to fix that. I'm inclined to agree.

So why did Bush do nothing in his first year? Why did he focus on some truly stupid missile defense system that we will never need. Why did he attack Iraq when there were no links between OBL and terrorism and Iraq.

Why is OBL still out there? He's the one that killed 3000 of our citizens. Doesn't that make you mad that Bush could care less about OBL? You've seen him say at press conferences he has no idea where he is and OBL isn't the focus on his war on terror. Certainly by Bush's actions he is not seriously looking for him and by Bush's actions he's strengthened OBL. What do you have to say about that? Did you know Bush's "Bring'em on" speech is used in Al Quaida training films?

Bush has soiled and disgraced the memories of every life lost in 9/11. He talks a good game, and can use the big hammer of military might to invade a country that posed no threat to us, but the more delicate intracasies of dimplomacy, foreign relations and fighting the war on terror are completely lost on him.

When was the last time you used a hammer to adjust your valves? that would be the first tool bush would pick up.

Our president is a simple-minded, hick cowboy, nothing more. He'd be a janitor at the high school in Crawford without his dad.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
When was the last time you used a hammer to adjust your valves?

O.k. Shaun, I can take a lot of abuse, but that one tears it. Now you've gone too far. Us old-time Harley mechanics do that all the time...

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the hunt for OSB is still on every bit as much as it ever was. It is not nearly as glamorous and news-worthy as all the Americans getting killed in Iraq every day, so our headline pumping press has nothing to sell us. All the spooks and special ops folks sneaking around on the hunt just don't make headlines the way car bombings do. I'm also relatively sure that if we had the play-by-play on how we are closing in on his suspected location it would make it vastly more difficult for these folks to sneak up on him.

The differences between operations in Iraq and chasing OBL are night and day. The war in Iraq is on such a scale as to provide "news" every day. The OBL chase is such that if it generated news every day I'm sure it would undermine the effort. In it we are counting on intelligence; essentially one disloyal faction or man to rat him out. So just because we do not hear about it every day, and Bush plays it down, does not mean we are not putting everything we have into looking for him. It would probably be just a bit counter-productive for Bush to keep reminding OSB that we are looking for him and outlining just how we are doing that.

[Tim Hancock]

Jeff, quit preaching reality, it is not newsworthy enough!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

With all due respect, you guys are living in a fantasy world, complete with circular logic.

Over three years since September 11, 2001 and we haven't caught the man who planned it?

that you still believe in your government with that track record is sad. that you can so easily justify it to yourself is tragic.

[Tim Hancock]

Shaun, I can't resist a little sarcasm here and there. I CAN respect differing opinions on the war in Iraq or Middle East policy in general. But the when the Bush haters start claiming that we are not trying to get OBL, or that Bush is worse than SH, or that SH could not even POSSIBLY have hid his weapons, I can't help but think sour grapes.

Do you really think that finding and capturing one man that could be anywhere in the world is a piece of cake? If he is ever caught, it will mostly be due to luck!

[Jeff Higgins]

Shaun, there are fugitives from the law in our own country that have evaded capture for longer than that. This man lives and operates in an area of the world that has been notoriously hard to penetrate for any Western country's intelligence or military. He is among friends that are willing to risk everything to help hide him. The cultural, political, and even geographical obstacles hindering our efforts are probably insurmountable. I would be surprised if we ever catch him. I'm not sure how that point of view qualifies as a fantasy or what kind of circular logic I presented. I'm equally unsure as to how that reflects poorly on our government's track record. I think this may be a more difficult task than many who oppose Bush would like to think. It has turned into just another (rather disingenius) point to harp on to try to discredit Bush. Sort of like the "Bush lied" rhetoric we are hearing once again.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I haven't read all the posts between Thom's original and this one, so I'll just ask my question:

Who cares?

It's been long settled that W and his administration believed that there were WMD (a point on which they might have been mistaken -- something else that's been settled for a while).

It's also been settled that many foreign intel. agencies believed Iraq had WMD and/or had active programs to acquire such. The CIA did not believe Iraq was looking for yellowcake in Niger; the CIA was wrong on that point. As were once-media-darlings, now-confirmed liars Clarke and Wilson.

It has also been settled that links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were old and deep. Though -- and this is important for the memory impaired -- W and his admin never said, and often specifically denied, that Iraq was invovled with/responsible for 9/11.

Iraq had WMD. The UN knew it and documented their existence (and, to the extent possible under a non-cooperative Iraq regime, documented their numbers) in UN Reports. The UN and even Secular Saint Blix, who can do no wrong, ever, for the shallow thinkers, acknowledged Iraq had WMD and had not certified their destruction as required by, oh, 17 SC resolutions.

The fact that Iraq's documented WMDs were not found -- and that evidence of their total destruction was not found actually means ... now read this next part slowly, W-haters ... that they likely still exist and we simply didn't find them. Whether they were moved or sold or are still hidden in Iraq somewhere ...

Iraq had WMD, which were inventoried and which "everybody" (meaning the UN and those who bother to read their reports) knew and acknowledged existed and we have no proof of their destruction --- which is basically what all the "inspections" were about.

So if you want to assume that they were destroyed, along with the capacity to re-make them (as required); -- but no records of such destruction were ever provided to the UN; fine. Seems naive and foolish to me, but I'm getting used to that hereon.

Yawn.

More to the "point" of this "thread" as I infer it, however, is that Clinton and those in his administration, as well as many on the D side of the aisle, both before and during W's term, have stated they believe Iraq (1) had WMD (2) was a threat and (3) needed to be dealt with.

Why no litany of Clinton (and his party's) "mistakes" on these matters? Many, many of them believed the same things; and had had access to substantially the same intel. W and his admin had (so this whole "they lied to us" thing is just embarrassingly ridiculous)

Is it b/c the Dems didn't have the balls to do anything about their claims? Or after 2 pages of essentially the same quotes from R's you were too tired to fill the same amount of space with Democrats' quotes?

JP

[widebody911]

The only rationale for going to war - spoken or unspoken - that has not been debunked, is money. And you can't argue the fact that Halliburton, Brown & Root, and a whole lot of other Bush campaign contributors have profited nicely from the war, and they didn't have to do anything more dangerous than cross Pennsylvania Ave during rush hour.

Your boy GWB is directly responsible for the deaths of over 1000 American troops, the maiming of thousands more, and the deaths of who-knows-how-many Iraqi 'collateral damages'. All to gain control of Iraq's oil and stuff the pockets of the VP and their various campaign contributors.

Hitler only did it for ideaology.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I watched this farce of a timeline on Bush on Fox last night. All the talk around going to war was about resolution 1441, which is all about whether Iraq has WMDs or not, all about being able to account for known weapons, hey, the same ones we sold Saddam, etc.

1441 was all about being able to take inventory.

Here's what it wasn't about:

Iraq threatening to use WMDs against any other country

Iraq having ties to terrorists who could use WMDs against any other country

We went to war because we couldn't verify things Iraq didn't have.

Over 1300 US soldiers have died because of that.

[Superman]

You got guts, Len. I feel kinda sorry to see folks ganging up on you here, but that's what happens sometimes and usually it is the libs who are shouted down. FWIW, I didn't deny that Iraq had WMD. It was a question in my mind, but I had no answer. It did look like the inspectors were beginning to resume their work, and it looked like Saddam was setting aside the games he had played, so that inspectors could inspect. I sensed that Saddam was seeing the handwriting on the wall.

What I did know was that Iraq had no delivery system that could threaten the US, and that Saddam and bin Laden could not possibly hate each other more. In the eyes of bin Laden, Saddam would probably be lower than the Infidel. There was no love lost there, whatsoever.

Nor is there love lost between myself and Dubya. I've confessed here that everything about him is detestable to me. He reminds me of the little pipsqueak on the playground that would sneer and taunt and stand next to the playground monitor for protection. And in my perception, he's much more than just a complete coward. He's a ruthless, amoral opportunist. I feel I can see it in his eyes. He's a moral relativist who believes that economics and commerce are moral issues, or at least tools toward ethical outcomes. My guess is that he himself, is the first person he has deceived. On so many many topics, his idea of what is "right," and his idea of what is responsible public policy, is diametrically opposed to my personal view.

So, with these perceptions in mind, I'll report that I was STRONGLY, VIGOROUSLY opposed to the Iraq military action, regardless of whether Saddam had WMD, and regardless of whether the inspectors were making progress. His view is insane, as are those of you who, like Dubya, consider this whole mess to be as simple as a WWF wrestling match. It is simple, but only because a simpleton on whom these pesky and intricate international considerations are LOST is in charge.

We have taken focus from OBL. And we've moved intelligence folks from that hunt, to this "action." And all because Dubya wanted everyone to see he has the biggest balls in international politics. Congrats, Dubya. He sure drove that message home, and now the world's sympathy for us is entirely gone, our ethical "high road" is gone. our dollar is going where my breakfast has now been placed and a thousand brave Americans are dead along with more than 100,000 Iraqi citizens. We have a destabilized middle east now. This could not possibly be a bigger mess.

So, no, I did not know whether Saddam had WMD or not. But I did have the good sense to know better than to flip off just about every other country in the world, and made Amierica into the new terrorist organization. From here on out, my country will be viewed as imperialist bullies. If we are ever allowed into an association of peace-loving countries, it will be in spite of an aire of distrust. In the meantime, we are making a mess that will be even more expensive to clean up, than it was to make.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Superman


Nor is there love lost between myself and Dubya. I've confessed here that everything about him is detestable to me. He reminds me of the little pipsqueak on the playground that would sneer and taunt and stand next to the playground monitor for protection. And in my perception, he's much more than just a complete coward. He's a ruthless, amoral opportunist. I feel I can see it in his eyes. He's a moral relativist who believes that economics and commerce are moral issues, or at least tools toward ethical outcomes. My guess is that he himself, is the first person he has deceived. On so many many topics, his idea of what is "right," and his idea of what is responsible public policy, is diametrically opposed to my personal view.

WOW!!!!! You've crystallized EXACTLY how I feel about Bush. Bravo! Thank you!

[Jeff Higgins]

Wow, guys, I guess I'm kind of out of my league here. I don't have and have never had such strong feelings about our President, no matter who is currently filling that role. I couldn't understand all the Clinton haters at the time, and I don't understand all the Bush haters now. Both men have their respective strong and weak points and both seem to elicit very passionate feelings of support or hatred. I was not exactly a Clinton supporter, but I cannot deny the good he did during his terms. I'm not exactly a Bush supporter, although I did vote for him in the face of no viable alternative. I have argued in support of both with their nay-sayers simply because they were or are our Presidents. I find it more than a little interesting to read or listen to assesments of a man's character, personality, morals, motivations, or whatever by folks who clearly have never met the man. On what are these assessments made? I may find myself dissagreeing with the man's actions or policies, but I always thought it might be a bit of a stretch to infer personality traits from those actions. Now it appears to have reached the point where these same personality traits are judged to be present in a particular President's supporters. C'mon, guys, we all know it is not that black and white. Intelligent people did vote for Bush. Just because they adopt an opposing political viewpoint does not mean they are any less bright than the next guy. Boy, I just don't recall things getting so heated and personal in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, or elder Bush years.

[creaturecat]

What about this Iranian thing?
it's got me worried!:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Iran-in-US-sights-for-air-strikes-Hersh/2005/01/18/1105810879512.html

[speeder]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Boy, I just don't recall things getting so heated and personal in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, or elder Bush years.

Jeff, With all due respect, how old are you? The country was split in half, (at least), during the Viet Nam war, and Nixon was truly despised by the left half. Reagan wasn't much more popular with 1/2 the country, Bush Sr. was pretty hated for Iran/Contra, etc., and Carter was absolutely ridiculed while in office. Ford was sort of a lame-duck eunich, so you got that one right at least.

No other President in history has misled the country into a war, and what a shining war it is, so comparisons all do fall a little short I'll admit.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm 44, Denis. I'll readily admit I was either too young or not paying attention during most of those administrations. It just seems to me that some of our current zeal, either for or against whoever happens to be in office, is much greater than in the past. I have always thought it might be due to the loud-mouth moron talk radio personalities on the one side and the quite clueless Hollywood liberal types and intellectual elitists on the other. I remember it as ramping up during the Clinton years from the likes of Limbaugh and company. Those of us that more or less straddle the fence (purples?) are often amazed at how virulent the avowed blues and reds get. Often to the obvious detriment of achieving anything at all or working together in any way. And now the assumptions made about a leader's personality or character; I prefer to make those judgements after I have gotten to know some one. Judge their actions and policies and work to support the ones you like and change the ones you don't. To judge a leader as immoral (Clinton) or stupid (Bush) is impossible from our vantage point.

[Superman]

I'm not so sure. One of the truly inexplicable capabilities of the human mind is first impressions. They say that somewhere around half of what you understand about a person, you gather in the first ten or twenty seconds of meeting them. Even decades later, your first impression assessment of them will have been found to be incredibly accurate. Yes, we are fooled occasionally, but they say we have an uncanny (to say the least) ability to assess someone's "person" just by watching them move for ten seconds. They don't even have to speak.

No, I have not met Dubya. Don't need to. Some of you are very supportive of him, and that's nice. I would not trust him to watch my beer while I turn the burgers.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Jeff, I think actions speak pretty loudly. We've gone over the whole war and 9/11 scare tactics for ever, but here's a brand new one.

The wedge issue of gay marriage came out of nowhere during the election season. It was one of his top priorities. It brought out his base in record numbers and it painted democrats as immoral, evil people.

So you would think that the amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage (god it hurts just to type that ) would be a top priority? It was part of every stump speech, it was part of the Republican Platform...

Well, guess what, it's off the radar, dropped like a hot potato, no longer on the agenda. It served its purpose.

This one example defines the character of our president.

[Mike(dat's me)]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa


We invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

Shaun, what I don't understand is how you stand so adamently behind some facts, while you disregard others.

Forget the whole wmd crap for a minute. Back up to the 98-99 time frame (as mentioned earlier), when Iraq routinely denied inspectors access to places, survalince showed trucks leaving facilities before inspectors arrived, yada yada yada.

The UN should have backed thier sanctions then and dealt with Iraq. They did not. Fast forward a year. With a 365 day period there were something like 640 incidents of Iraq targeting UN planes in the No Fly Zone. Each incident was handled differently, but some were missles being launched at the planes.

Is this the NO THREAT you so boldly boast? Hmmm. Iraq needed to be dealt with one way or another, I wish we wouldn't have waited until 9/11. Then these excuses wouldn't be here...

Saddam needed to be removed since the 80's... at least someone had the spine to do it.

And Iraq will be a better place in the end. Three of my troops got back this weekend. I'd relate thier stories to you, but they would be tossed aside as "thats not possible, people aren't happy there"!