PDA

View Full Version : President Bush's news conf.



Pain_is_temp
04-13-2004, 08:01 PM
What were your thoughts on Bush's press conference?

Personally I have not seen tap dancing like that since before Gregory Hines died. He never did answer a question with a direct response, his standard response was always "Iraq was a danger".

I was especially impressed on well he completely pulled a 180 after the question about him and Cheney testifing together instead of seperately as the 9/11 commision requested.

Also it was good to see a reporter calling him to the mat about NEVER taking responsibility for his mistakes, or even admitting he ever makes mistakes.

mariners216
04-13-2004, 08:13 PM
Say what you want about him, but I don't think even I could've dodged the question about apologizing to the families of 9/11..

I feel such pride in my president.:o

BigKazWSM747
04-13-2004, 08:36 PM
Did anyone else notice that he came in very humbly and then went out guns blazing?

Pain_is_temp
04-13-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Did anyone else notice that he came in very humbly and then went out guns blazing?

It seemed to me that he was getting bothered by the nerve of all those reporters actually questioning his policies and ideas.

How dare them want honest answers to questions important to the American people.

Ruthless4Life
04-13-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Pain_is_temp
It seemed to me that he was getting bothered by the nerve of all those reporters actually questioning his policies and ideas.

How dare them want honest answers to questions important to the American people.

He who that questions Bush is either an unpatiotic American or a terrorist.

Debaser
04-13-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Ruthless4Life
He who that questions Bush is either an unpatiotic American or a terrorist.


Originally posted by a. americanus


As usual, the libs have more venom for the president than they do for the terrorists. Nary a word about them. Giving the terrorists a pass, and instead ragging on the president. What great Americans. :rolleyes:

Yep, it's true apparently.

CerealKiller
04-13-2004, 11:12 PM
Reality TV gone haywire !!

He just doesn't get it.

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU CAN'T SPREAD FREEDOM BY FORCE.

LordNeon
04-13-2004, 11:15 PM
I liked it when he actually claimed he could not cite ANY mistakes he had made as president.

Hey George, I can help you there ...

CerealKiller
04-13-2004, 11:25 PM
A reporter asked him point blank: "One of the biggest criticisms of you Mr. Bush is that you never admit a mistake, no matter what the issue is. Do you feel that this is a fair criticism?"

His "answer": Well, I think the American people know where I stand, and I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.

In what world is that an answer to that question?

ripped_holla
04-13-2004, 11:29 PM
Article I found already...

Bush Press Conference Again Scripted Beforehand

Paul Joseph Watson | April 14 2004

George W. Bush's Tuesday night press conference was the usual torrent of endlessly repeated cuddly sugar coated questions followed by the same endlessly repeated worn out monotone responses.

Interesting enough though Bush again let it slip that the press conference was scripted and that the questions had been vetted beforehand by the White House.

Near the end of the conference Bush took a question;

-----------------------------------------------

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."

-------------------------------------------------

Anyone who watched the TV footage witnessed the embarrasing sight of Bush pausing for at least five seconds and saying absolutely nothing. Bush's admonition that the question should have been written 'ahead of time' (like the rest) proves that this was an impromptu question in an otherwise carefully scripted briefing.

Many people have speculated that Bush actually wears an ear piece and the responses are fed through to him and he just repeats them. I have done radio interviews but I'm by no means a master of public speaking. If a radio host asks a question about a topic that I have no detailed knowledge of then I can at least give a surface answer and so could most other people. Bush, the President of the most powerful country on earth, could not even do that. He literally stood there in silence fumbling around 'waiting for an answer to pop into his head' (or through the ear piece).

This pep rally for the Neo-Cons has again fallen flat on its face and Bush has only further proven that he runs absolutely nothing in Washington and is just the frontmen for the real powerbrokers behind the scenes.

Starsky
04-14-2004, 12:21 AM
Liberals = Press Corps. They are running operation "Kerry Campaign Rescue". Even with 24/7 unpaid advertising, Kerry still can't drum up more support than "I hate Bush, you'll do".

Ruthless4Life
04-14-2004, 12:44 AM
Politics aside, Kerry does seem undoubtedly a lot brighter than Bush.

xx0725
04-14-2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by stephane_lajoie
every BIG press conference (politic, sports, music etc) is scripted. That's the way things are.

Yes, and this fact makes his bumbling and stumbling all the more painful. Bush looked out of it last night: he was tired, defensive, and fuzzy. Considering he had a 9-day vacation in Crawford, I can't understand how he could return and do such a piss-poor job. I am ashamed to call this mush-mouth my president.

Pain_is_temp
04-14-2004, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Liberals = Press Corps. They are running operation "Kerry Campaign Rescue". Even with 24/7 unpaid advertising, Kerry still can't drum up more support than "I hate Bush, you'll do".


I love how anyone who asks a question in this country is automatically labeled a liberal. Are we just supposed to accept everything the President feed us, knowing full well that it does not add up? If everyone just believed blindly everything Bush had to say and did not doubt his ability and aptitude this country would be nothing but Republicans.

Damn how bad would that be, I almost got sick thinking about it!

Also:


Kerry still can't drum up more support than "I hate Bush, you'll do".


Sounds an awful lot like the **** all the Republicans were spewing against Al Gore back in 2000, "We can't have more politics similar to Clinton's!" It seemed to work for Bush, ohh wait not really, the Supreme Court bought it though.

Viking22
04-14-2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by xx0725
Yes, and this fact makes his bumbling and stumbling all the more painful. Bush looked out of it last night: he was tired, defensive, and fuzzy. Considering he had a 9-day vacation in Crawford, I can't understand how he could return and do such a piss-poor job. I am ashamed to call this mush-mouth my president.

I'm proud. I don't feel my president needs to be a great actor and pull off some incredible "performance". I'm just happy with most of the descisions that come out of his administration.

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski". He was a good "performer", wasn't he? To bad he's a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Ruhanv
04-14-2004, 08:22 AM
It was embarrassing for Bush but also about time that he stepped out in front of the press. He looked just as bad with Tim Russert. It just seems that he cannot think on his feet and is not on top of the issues. Imagine he is having a conversation with the Russian president and goes "I wish an answer could pop into my head"!?!?

Kerry, like Clinton or even Bush sr. is a statesman and respected whereas Bush is America's running joke.

Viking22
04-14-2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Kerry, like Clinton or even Bush sr. is a statesman and respected whereas Bush is America's running joke.

You're saying Clinton wasn't a running joke????????

There are more jokes about that man than any other american president.

Ruhanv
04-14-2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Viking22
You're saying Clinton wasn't a running joke????????

There are more jokes about that man than any other american president.

Not as a statesman. The rest of the world loved and trusted him as they don't give a hoot about a BJ in his office. Most world leaders have something on the side and half the people on the planet are cheating on their partners. As a statesman and a president he was very well received internationally and as a result benefitted the US significantly. Most Americans are completely clueless in regards to the trade war with Europe (and soon the be the rest of the world) that Bush has dragged the US into. This is seriously slowing down the growth in the US economy.

jestros
04-14-2004, 10:05 AM
Anyone notice his texas accent was gone?
Must be part of his campain strategy.
To me he seemed very apologetic, tail between his legs.

LordNeon
04-14-2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by jestros

To me he seemed very apologetic, tail between his legs.

Apologetic? Bush? LOL. He said that he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made in his entire presidency. Even most Republicans would take issue with that, if only privately. I hear no apology from Dumbya.

Viking22
04-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Apologetic? Bush? LOL. He said that he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made in his entire presidency. Even most Republicans would take issue with that, if only privately. I hear no apology from Dumbya.

Name me the last president that admitted on national television that they made mistakes 6 months before an election.

The reporter was doing nothing but trying to bait the president with that question. I can't believe you don't understand this.

jestros
04-14-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Apologetic? Bush? LOL. He said that he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made in his entire presidency. Even most Republicans would take issue with that, if only privately. I hear no apology from Dumbya.

I dont mean with the words he said, I just mean his tone. Usually he puts on that accent and says "Yur either with us or against us, us Gawd fearin americans will put a wuuppin on the axas of Eval."

Heavily Armed
04-14-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Not as a statesman. The rest of the world loved and trusted him as they don't give a hoot about a BJ in his office. Most world leaders have something on the side and half the people on the planet are cheating on their partners. As a statesman and a president he was very well received internationally and as a result benefitted the US significantly. Most Americans are completely clueless in regards to the trade war with Europe (and soon the be the rest of the world) that Bush has dragged the US into. This is seriously slowing down the growth in the US economy.

Trusted the man with the moniker "Slick Willie"? The guy lied about almost everything.

Woden
04-14-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
Say what you want about him, but I don't think even I could've dodged the question about apologizing to the families of 9/11..

I feel such pride in my president.:o

Why should he apologize?

Woden
04-14-2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Reality TV gone haywire !!

He just doesn't get it.

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU CAN'T SPREAD FREEDOM BY FORCE.

Based on what?

Woden
04-14-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by xx0725
Yes, and this fact makes his bumbling and stumbling all the more painful. Bush looked out of it last night: he was tired, defensive, and fuzzy. Considering he had a 9-day vacation in Crawford, I can't understand how he could return and do such a piss-poor job. I am ashamed to call this mush-mouth my president.

Why should it matter how he delivered it? You understood what he was saying didn't you? He doesn't need to do anymore than that-it's about the message not the delivery.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
Say what you want about him, but I don't think even I could've dodged the question about apologizing to the families of 9/11..

I feel such pride in my president.:o

I do not think that he needs to apologize for the event. He took the appropriate actions after 9/11 to bring many of these terrorists to justice and the fight continues. Why should he apologize? He hasn't done anything wrong.

Why should he take responsibility for this event happening? I do not believe that the government failed these people. The terrorists are solely to blame for this. You cannot look at hindsight and say someone is to blame for not foreseeing something.

As for his performance last night, I felt that he came off as very defensive and nervous. It was very unlike him. I liked his message though. He knew the reporters would be out to put him in a corner.

And, who cares if he bumbles words every now and then. Give him a break! It doesn't mean he is stupid, he is just not eloquent.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Apologetic? Bush? LOL. He said that he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made in his entire presidency. Even most Republicans would take issue with that, if only privately. I hear no apology from Dumbya.

No, you are inaccurate. He DID say that he is sure that he has made many mistakes as President.

Why would he want to create a John Kerry ad by admitting them? Come on, no President is going to admit their mistakes like this.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Kerry, like Clinton or even Bush sr. is a statesman and respected whereas Bush is America's running joke.

That is your opinion.

I do not believe that he is America's running joke and far from it.

I and many people that I know respect GWB more than John Kerry.

CITADEL
04-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
That is your opinion.

I do not believe that he is America's running joke and far from it.

I and many people that I know respect GWB more than John Kerry.

Look at the way we are viewed by others from around the world and then maybe you can see why people think he's a joke.

As for his speacking abilities, no one here can talk. You try talking in front of the nation and having cameras in your face and see how good you do. Yeah I know he's the president blah blah blah, that doesn't make it any easier. I actually found myself feeling sorry for him because of the intense situation he was in. I know that's gotta suck.

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Woden
Based on what?

Based on history.

Can you think of any successful democracy that was imposed by force upon a population that had only experienced totalitarian government in the past?

America didn't gain its freedom by some big army coming in and whupping them.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Look at the way we are viewed by others from around the world and then maybe you can see why people think he's a joke.


I understand that some around the world feel that he is a texas cowboy with guns blazing, but personally, I do not think that it is as big of a deal as people seem to think. It is no more a joke then when Clinton was getting head in the oval office.

Other countries still need us and his aggressive attitude towards Iraq and terrorism have sparked some changes in other countries (Libya and North Korea).

He cannot say it, but I think Iraq was an example.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Based on history.

Can you think of any successful democracy that was imposed by force upon a population that had only experienced totalitarian government in the past?

America didn't gain its freedom by some big army coming in and whupping them.

So, your opinion is that democracy can not work for Iraq since we are the ones who freed them from a dictator? Then I guess we should give up now and get out. :rolleyes:

That is really a stretch.

EAE
04-14-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Based on history.
Can you think of any successful democracy that was imposed by force upon a population that had only experienced totalitarian government in the past?
America didn't gain its freedom by some big army coming in and whupping them.
Wasn't Japan a totalitarian state prior to the end of WWII?

kmac12
04-14-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by EAE
Wasn't Japan a totalitarian state prior to the end of WWII?

I believe so and Nazi Germany was too.

Looks like forcing democracy didn't work in those situations either. ;)

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
So, your opinion is that democracy can not work for Iraq since we are the ones who freed them from a dictator? Then I guess we should give up now and get out. :rolleyes:

That is really a stretch.

WE can't even talk are buddy country Kuwait into a democracy and WE liberated them 13 years ago. Or Saudi Arabia. What chance do WE have in Iraq ?

WE should get out. WE should have never been there to begin with. Iraqs problems are Iraqs problems and should be solved by Iraqis.

Democracy can only work if people want it and have the intestinal fortitude to fight for it, not have it jammed down their throats by someone who thinks it's best for them.

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
I believe so and Nazi Germany was too.

Looks like forcing democracy didn't work in those situations either. ;)

Didn't exactly invade them alone or without provocation did we ?

Woden
04-14-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Didn't exactly invade them alone or without provocation did we ?

So? Can you name a time in history where a previously Totalitarian nation was invaded without provocation and alone, had Democracy imposed on them, which then failed?

kmac12
04-14-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Democracy can only work if people want it and have the intestinal fortitude to fight for it, not have it jammed down their throats by someone who thinks it's best for them.

What makes you think the Iraquis do not want it?

kmac12
04-14-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Didn't exactly invade them alone or without provocation did we ?

We still answered your previous question. :)

Ak47
04-14-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
We still answered your previous question. :)

those were completely different circumstances. Germany wasnt always a totalitarian country, Hitler took over. We didnt force democracy on them, we just got rid of Hitler. We were backed by most of the world in that war as well. Plus, Hitler was actually an imminent threat that needed to be taken out by full scale war. To even compare WWII to the iraq war is rediculous.

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Woden
So? Can you name a time in history where a previously Totalitarian nation was invaded without provocation and alone, had Democracy imposed on them, which then failed?


So you think the right thing to do is invade without provocation or do you just like making stupid comments ?

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
We still answered your previous question. :)

Yippee ! Two points for you.

Isn't it just a bit hypocritical to demand that Iraq become a "Democracy" but tolerate Kuwait and Suadi Arabia being repressive dictatorships?

Woden
04-14-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
So you think the right thing to do is invade without provocation or do you just like making stupid comments ?

Well I do think we did the right thing in Iraq but that is besides the point. You asked if we could name an example of this working and I asked you for an example of it not working (with your specifications). Can you?

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
What makes you think the Iraquis do not want it?

I don't know what they want, but they don't seem to be fighting for democracy.

CerealKiller
04-14-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Woden
Well I do think we did the right thing in Iraq but that is besides the point. You asked if we could name an example of this working and I asked you for an example of it not working (with your specifications). Can you?

No, but I'm not a big history buff.

This may end up being the example you're looking for.

ripped_holla
04-14-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Woden
Well I do think we did the right thing in Iraq but that is besides the point. You asked if we could name an example of this working and I asked you for an example of it not working (with your specifications). Can you?

The United States has never built a working democracy after toppling a government.

For starters, look at Somalia and Bosnia.

kmac12
04-14-2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Yippee ! Two points for you.

Isn't it just a bit hypocritical to demand that Iraq become a "Democracy" but tolerate Kuwait and Suadi Arabia being repressive dictatorships?

Yippee? You are the one who made the statement about history. We just gave you examples. If you would like to retract your original statement, then go ahead.

I am not arguing that Iraq may not accept democracy, but you made a blanket statement about how it will not work based on history. This is not true.

If the Iraquis want democracy then I think that it will work, and vice versa. It still remains to be seen whether or not they want it. They are going to have elections next year and chose their own leaders. We are definately influencing them to be a democracy, but who knows how it will turn out down the road.

And, no, it is not hypocritical based on why we went to war with Iraq. We believed that they had WMDs and were a 'post 9-11' threat. In hindsight, some of the intel was bad and we haven't found any WMDs yet (if we ever will who knows), but in the end, we got rid of a ruler that ruled with fear and hated this country with a passion. Yeah, it sounds like a cop out, but BFD.

Person
04-14-2004, 08:44 PM
When did America stop being a Republic and start being a Democracy??

Starsky
04-14-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by ripped_holla
The United States has never built a working democracy after toppling a government.

For starters, look at Somalia and Bosnia.


For starters, look at Germany and Japan, not humanitarian operations.

supergarr
04-14-2004, 09:10 PM
bush never could publicly speak well. Its a surprise he became president

Heavily Armed
04-14-2004, 09:19 PM
I didn't see the President's speech yesterday. Had a couple things going on that kept me away from the tv. But I've read with interest other people's take on how Bush did. I've also talked to several people who saw the news conference, one being a friend living in Texas. I also watched Nightline to get that angle. Everyone saw the the same thing, but with widely different opinions. Why is that? Because many people already have their minds made up, good or bad. That said, people see and hear exactly what they want and expect. If you like Bush, you think he did all right. You look and hope for things to support and say "attaboy". If you don't like him, you think he floundered miserably. You look for things to verify your dislike. I, of course, am guilty of the same prejudices on people I've already judged, specifically politicians. I wonder how a completely undecided person viewed the President's performance.

BigKazWSM747
04-14-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I didn't see the President's speech yesterday. Had a couple things going on that kept me away from the tv. But I've read with interest other people's take on how Bush did. I've also talked to several people who saw the news conference, one being a friend living in Texas. I also watched Nightline to get that angle. Everyone saw the the same thing, but with widely different opinions. Why is that? Because many people already have their minds made up, good or bad. That said, people see and hear exactly what they want and expect. If you like Bush, you think he did all right. You look and hope for things to support and say "attaboy". If you don't like him, you think he floundered miserably. You look for things to verify your dislike. I, of course, am guilty of the same prejudices on people I've already judged, specifically politicians. I wonder how a completely undecided person viewed the President's performance.

From his speech at the beginning I was actually starting to warm up to the guy some because he sounded much less cocksure and arrogant than he had before. Of course after about 2-3 questions he started becoming more and more like the Bush i've become so used to seeing. For the time when I decided to supress my personal feelings and hear him out (which I did after about 10-20 secs and noticing the difference) to about 2/3rds of the way through the questions that is what I noticed. With that said though, I can't say I was near as annoyed/mad as I was after most of his usual addresses such as the State of the Union.

mariners216
04-14-2004, 09:33 PM
I just dropped my sandwich I was eating.

Tough Crowd just started on comedy central and ****n Quinn actually criticised President Bush. I was shocked. Then again, he must be one of those raging liberals in the media.:rolleyes:


LOL Jim Norton just said "You know, actually, I don't think he came off that bad until the questions started.":D

ripped_holla
04-14-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Person
When did America stop being a Republic and start being a Democracy??

We're still a republic. :)

philly007
04-14-2004, 10:11 PM
Here's a interesting article-

http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000247.html

Crimson-Model
04-14-2004, 10:37 PM
History will look back at this and say 'This man was a fool.''

mariners216
04-14-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Crimson-Model
History will look back at this and say 'This man was a fool.''
And think, we'll all be able to say we were there when...

Heavily Armed
04-14-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
From his speech at the beginning I was actually starting to warm up to the guy some because he sounded much less cocksure and arrogant than he had before. Of course after about 2-3 questions he started becoming more and more like the Bush i've become so used to seeing. For the time when I decided to supress my personal feelings and hear him out (which I did after about 10-20 secs and noticing the difference) to about 2/3rds of the way through the questions that is what I noticed. With that said though, I can't say I was near as annoyed/mad as I was after most of his usual addresses such as the State of the Union.

Thank you for your insight. Interesting.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 04:30 AM
I agree with some of the comments here in regards to personal perceptions. Most people already have their view of Bush and everything he does and says will be seen through that paradigm.

What baffled me was the fact that he is still trying to present Saddam's old regime as having been some sort of vague threat to the US and part of his wider campaign against this vague concept of "terror". This in the light of the 9/11 commission, especially as there has been so much critisism in regards to a lack of focus on Al-Queda specifically within the CIA and FBI. It seems as if Bush has resumed his pre 9/11 policy of focussing his attention on Iraq, which was probably the mid eastern govt that was the most hotile towards Al-Queda. The fact that no arab speaking special ops were able to be deployed in Afghanistan or Pakistan in searching for Osama (remember the real guy behind 9/11???) because they were tied up in the quagmire in Iraq, is simply inexcuseable!

kmac12
04-15-2004, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
The fact that no arab speaking special ops were able to be deployed in Afghanistan or Pakistan in searching for Osama (remember the real guy behind 9/11???) because they were tied up in the quagmire in Iraq, is simply inexcuseable!

I think you need to think about the situation.

Given that Bush believes that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with (which is debatable and I am not trying to debate that) and it is part of the war on terror (Saddam being a terrorist), he sent those arab speaking special ops to Iraq for a purpose. We are fighting a war on terror, not just a war against Al Queada and Osama. Bush says that Iraq is part of the war on terror (whether you agree or not). That was his justification.

kmac12
04-15-2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
What baffled me was the fact that he is still trying to present Saddam's old regime as having been some sort of vague threat to the US and part of his wider campaign against this vague concept of "terror".

He wasn't the only one who thought Iraq was a threat (all of the following quotes are post 9/11)....

"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. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

Please stop blasting the President for believing there were WMDs and that Saddam was a threat. He was not the only one who believed it and I could post more quotes, but I will spare you.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 07:20 AM
And this was all said before the inspectors went back in and all the evidence that these remarks were based on were blown away. The fact that Iraq was a greater concern than Al-Queda is baffling. We have Saddam locked up but those responsible for 9/11 are still at large.

kmac12
04-15-2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
And this was all said before the inspectors went back in and all the evidence that these remarks were based on were blown away. The fact that Iraq was a greater concern than Al-Queda is baffling. We have Saddam locked up but those responsible for 9/11 are still at large.

Yeah, because they denied the inspectors access until Oct 2002. Even after they went in, Iraq never proved to the weapons inspectors that all of their WMDs were destroyed.

My guess is that they were hiding or getting rid of them during late 2001 and early 2002.

But, they still did not allow full access.

You are defending someone who seemed to have something to hid for 12 years, broke UN resolution after resolution AND never fully proved to the UN that he had disarmed. Pre-Iraq war, our government and the UN believed that he had WMDs. Period.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 07:37 AM
I am sorry but you obviously don't read very widely. At least 95% of WMDs and their associated programs were destroyed by the UN before 1998.

The inspectors were kicked out because the US was using the UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq which is a breach of international law.

When the inspectors went back in, it was not as simple as simply not finding actual weapons. When WMDs are developed, they leave chemical and radioactive traces behind for years and its' quite easy to establish that they don't exist anymore. We also know for a fact that there were no new programs since 98.

The question that is not being asked, is why Bush used forged evidence when he knew it was forged? Why was it forged in the first place and who would benefit from it?

kmac12
04-15-2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
I am sorry but you obviously don't read very widely.

It is true that I cannot read eveything, but I read alot. I am informed. I just have a different opinion.


At least 95% of WMDs and their associated programs were destroyed by the UN before 1998.

That number was debatable AND not 100%. They STILL had weapons programs to develop and were suspected of developing more based on intel.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm


The inspectors were kicked out because the US was using the UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq which is a breach of international law.

This was not proven. You are just going by speculation by the Iraquis and Ritter.


We also know for a fact that there were no new programs since 98.

For a fact? Please provide this fact via link, resource or something that is pre-Iraq war.


The question that is not being asked, is why Bush used forged evidence when he knew it was forged? Why was it forged in the first place and who would benefit from it?

Your accusations of Bush are unfounded and unproven. Purely, speculation on your part.

If it is proven that he 'forged' evidence, then I will be one of the first ones to blast him for it.

kmac12
04-15-2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
The question that is not being asked, is why Bush used forged evidence when he knew it was forged? Why was it forged in the first place and who would benefit from it?

Another point is that David Kay's statements are being overlooked...


Chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay complained Sunday that initial reaction to his interim report on Iraqi weapons focused too much on the failure to find chemical or biological weapons and not enough on secret laboratories and rocket programs investigators have found.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-05-kay-iraq_x.htm

"It's not a political issue. It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information" - David Kay

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-25-powell-comments_x.htm

But, it is just like Democrats and liberals to instantly accuse the President of forging evidence and mis-leading the country. He is a victim of poor intelligence which needs to be fixed. I bet that will ultimately be the observations by the 9/11 commission. Better intelligence.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
[B]It is true that I cannot read eveything, but I read alot. I am informed. I just have a different opinion.



That number was debatable AND not 100%. They STILL had weapons programs to develop and were suspected of developing more based on intel.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm



Actually we had no new evidence of Iraq developing new programs since 1998. The issues mentioned in the above CIA reports have all been debased since. Reports such as the allumium tubes for instance that have been proven to be too thin. We knew this before the war started.



This was not proven. You are just going by speculation by the Iraquis and Ritter.

This did not need to be "proven". More inspectors than just Ritter stated that the CIA were using the inspection teams.




For a fact? Please provide this fact via link, resource or something that is pre-Iraq war.

We don't have a single thread of evidence that he did create new programs since 98. We never did and even the CIA's report above that you provided only mentions pre 98 data. Dual use technologies do not act as proof as a firetruck or pesticide can be classified as such.

[/QUOTE]

Your accusations of Bush are unfounded and unproven. Purely, speculation on your part.

If it is proven that he 'forged' evidence, then I will be one of the first ones to blast him for it.

I never said Bush forged the evidence. We knew the reports about uranium purchases were forgeries in October 2002, 5 months before his state of the union speech. He obviously chose to use a forged document as he needed to use whatever he could to create a premise to overthrow Saddam. He wanted to do this since the day he took office. The question still remains as to who would want to forge it and for what benefit. Who would benefit financially or politically from Sadam being removed?

kmac12
04-15-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Actually we had no new evidence of Iraq developing new programs since 1998. The issues mentioned in the above CIA reports have all been debased since. Reports such as the allumium tubes for instance that have been proven to be too thin. We knew this before the war started.

Again, I point to faulty intel before the war. Please be specific about what we knew before the war. Links? Resources?

Your defense to this point is 'debased since'? That is not a defense for the faulty intel (the basis for Bush going to war).


This did not need to be "proven". More inspectors than just Ritter stated that the CIA were using the inspection teams.

Links? Please provide. I am not saying that it isn't true. I just haven't read it and would like to (although I wouldn't doubt that we have used them for intel).


We don't have a single thread of evidence that he did create new programs since 98. We never did and even the CIA's report above that you provided only mentions pre 98 data. Dual use technologies do not act as proof as a firetruck or pesticide can be classified as such.

Wrong again. Please see my previous post. Here is what Kay said....

"We have actually found quite a bit, although we have not yet found shiny, pointy things that I would call a weapon." Kay said his team found evidence of "a vast network of undeclared labs engaged in prohibited activity" related to biological and chemical weapons. - David Kay


I never said Bush forged the evidence. We knew the reports about uranium purchases were forgeries in October 2002, 5 months before his state of the union speech. He obviously chose to use a forged document as he needed to use whatever he could to create a premise to overthrow Saddam. He wanted to do this since the day he took office. The question still remains as to who would want to forge it and for what benefit. Who would benefit financially or politically from Sadam being removed?

Please provide proof that it was forged and that it was known by Bush before Oct 2002 like you state.

It is easy to make accusations and state opinions. It is another to make false statement and pass them off as fact.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 09:35 AM
Here are a few:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085616/

Joe Wilson's (old friend and advisor of Bush sr.) personal account is probably the most compelling:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Read the rest on http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Kay found uunsed labs but no smoking gun. Even those silly mobile labs turned out to be a wild goose chase.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 09:39 AM
The fact remains that he focussed intelligence and military resources on a modest dictator without any Al-Queda connections that had been economically crippled, at the expense of going after Al-Queda itself. Does he even care about 9/11?

kmac12
04-15-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
[QUOTE]Here are a few:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085616/


Try again. You are not proving your case that Bush had knowlege of this intel being false.

From your own links...

Who made the forgeries? "Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so."

"There is no evidence that the forgeries were part of a dirty tricks operation by the United States or any other government to discredit Iraq, even though U.S. and British officials said the documents supported their case against the Baghdad regime."

Again, your links never associate Bush knowing about these forgeries before he used them in his speeches. I believe that claim is absurd and unfounded.


Joe Wilson's (old friend and advisor of Bush sr.) personal account is probably the most compelling:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Read the rest on http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Why is it so complelling to you? It is his opinion and he was pissed at Bush.


Kay found uunsed labs but no smoking gun. Even those silly mobile labs turned out to be a wild goose chase.

This was to refute your statement 'We don't have a single thread of evidence that he did create new programs since 98'. Obviously, David Kay believes differently. I will stick with his opinion over yours.

I still believe that we have an intelligence problem in this country. I think the 9/11 panel will make recommendations for change. You are too quick to point the finger at Bush and not the intelligence community.

Why can you not accept that the faulty intel is to blame?

We went to war based on that information. I stand behind the decision even if hindsight tells us that the WMDs are not there presently.

kmac12
04-15-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
The fact remains that he focussed intelligence and military resources on a modest dictator without any Al-Queda connections that had been economically crippled, at the expense of going after Al-Queda itself. Does he even care about 9/11?

Yes, he cares about 9/11. But, why put blinders on and not pay attention to the rest of the world? That is very dangerous and one of the reasons 9/11 happened to us.

You are misinterpreting his view on the war on terror. We are not just at war with Al Queda, but with terrorists around the world.

He does not want to sit idly by and allow a potential threat to harm this country or our allies. It is very straightforward.

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 10:10 AM
This is simply idiotic. Bush sent one of his father's closest confidants to establish if the Niger story was true. Wilson came back saying it was utter nonsense at least 9 months before Bush's state of the union speech. Even here in the UK it was already becoming accepted that it was crap during the end of 2002.

No one is saying that the US or any of its' allies created these forgeries. It did not have to be a govt as such even but it simply seems that people have forgotten that someone else wanted the US to go to war with Iraq. As the FBI have said, it was most probably one of the Iraqi groups that were in opposition to Saddam, possibly the Chalabi cartel who also provided us with all the other "evidence" leading up to the war.

What wider war on terror??? If you want to widen the war, take out Saudi Arabia. Why go for the only govt in the mid East where Wasahbism has been outlawed and who's leader Osama has called an Infidel. If Osama ever got his hands on WMDs he probably would have used them on Saddam before he used them on us. They had a huge conflict of interest and many operating members of the Taliban in Iraq had been imprisoned. Rumsfeld conveniently failed to mention that the terrorist training camps found in Iraq were in the Kurdish controlled region where Saddam had no influence or control.

Bush has virtually ignored Al-Queda since the Afghani invasion at the expense of going after Iraq.

kmac12
04-15-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
What wider war on terror???

There are others out there who hate this country as much or more than Osama. The US has the capability to fight Al Queda and other terrorist organizations at the same time. Do you not disagree? We do not have to completely fight them.

We already took out the taliban. Our forces in Afghanistan are stable.

Like Bush and numerous others have said, before 9/11 the terrorists were at war with us, but we were not at war with them. He changed that after 9/11. Now, when there is a potential threat, we deal with it.


If Osama ever got his hands on WMDs he probably would have used them on Saddam before he used them on us.

Wow, I think you are way off on this comment. He already attacked us using jets. Has he attacked Saddam in the past? I do not doubt that Osama would use a nuke here first pre or post Saddam reign.


Bush has virtually ignored Al-Queda since the Afghani invasion at the expense of going after Iraq.

I believe that he is winning the fight with Al Queda not ignoring them. To this point, we have not had another terrorist attack in this country. I think he has been successful.

Ak47
04-15-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
He wasn't the only one who thought Iraq was a threat (all of the following quotes are post 9/11)....

"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. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

Please stop blasting the President for believing there were WMDs and that Saddam was a threat. He was not the only one who believed it and I could post more quotes, but I will spare you.

After watching this, how can you take the allegations of Iraq being an imminent threat before the war seriously?

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

kmac12
04-15-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
After watching this, how can you take the allegations of Iraq being an imminent threat before the war seriously?

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Ive seen this clip a thousand times. I wish they would admit that the intel was bad, but they obviously cannot. I think they are trying to present an image to the world that what we did was right.

Again, I do not think that Iraq was as serious a threat that the President laid out, but I believe the bad intel lead us to war. Hindsight is 20/20.

We need serious reforms in our intelligence community. Starting with funds for more human intel.