bluelight

Congress hearings coming up...New york times talking about the biggest scandal since Watergate might be ahead.....

Looks like we have started the march towards a new Us government.












Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency

digitalwanderer

When are they starting the hearings? And does this have anything to do with the fight over the investigation into what the security agencies did/didn't do to prevent 9/11? (I've heard THAT is gonna be an absolute BOMB! Supposedly Bush was briefed that Al Quaida was planning to hijack a plane and ram it into a building as a flying missile...in August. If that's true.... )

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

JavaFox

Well, bluelight, one might be tempted to see these trials and mock America, but I see this as a positive thing. Politics in America can get ugly, but this sort of thing just shows how well our system works. If there is malfeasance and dishonesty within our government, it is, almost invariably, discovered.

In regards to Digitalwander's post, I have difficulty controlling my anger over what was posted. I have no doubt that you are outraged over the attacks of 9-11, as nearly every American is. That was an attack that none of us will ever forget. Eventually it will become a dusty story for children to read in school, but for me it will always be a deeply personal and deeply painful memory. If you are outraged about 9-11, I urge you to not be partisan and look at things objectively. If Bush had credible intelligence to believe an attack on America was emminent, and he did nothing, I will condemn that. But you must also look at Clinton.

Bush was in office for about a year before 9-11, but whatever he could have done to harm America in that period of time must PALE in comparison to the lackadaisical and downright treasonous attitude of the Clinton administration towards international terrorism, and specifically al Qaeda. His own aides have said that he cared more about everything than terrorism. I strongly believe with no iota of doubt that had Clinton not been in office, 9-11 would not have occured, and even a hardliner like you (this isn't a criticism -- I'm a hardliner, too) would find that hard to deny in the face of so many presidential missteps, mistakes, and ineptitudes.

Falstaff

his bad information that led to a tomohawk strike that precipitated a chain of events, he had the chance to get Bin Laden....but he didn't. Clinton knew about Bin Laden for two terms, he knew of him in Afghanistan, hell even National Geographic knew where Bin Laden was....
Bill Clintons legacy

__________________

JavaFox

Jeff touches on a few things, and there are more (as I am sure he is familiar with).

Clinton was indeed offered UBL on a silver platter by the Sudanese government.

The Clinton administration refused to see the WTC bombing as a terrorist act and treated it as a criminal act.

Under the Clinton administration, two US embassies were bombed as well as the USS Cole. Basically nothing was done in retaliation.

When Clinton sent Mogadishu. Guerillas there, trained by al Qaeda, RPG'ed Black Hawk helicopters and killed American troops. In response, Clinton pulled the troops out. This move emboldened UBL.

So, please, before you guys start spewing some conspiracy theory (not saying it's not true, just saying it's theory) stuff about how you think the Bush administration knew about 9-11, wake up and look at the well-known facts about Clinton.

Falstaff

Let's start a Clinton bashing thread...because I believe we are here now, because Bill Clinton was chasing tail and not doing his job...he was and always will be, THE BILL CLINTON SHOW....nothing more and nothing less.

__________________

JavaFox

Well he did some good things (Kosovo, for example), but his approach to foreign policy insofar as terrorism was concerned makes him, in my opinion, among the top five worst American presidents.

Falstaff

I get a laugh or two here at www.rushonline.com
but for all the good things you can attribute to Clinton, he still couldn't past the half truths and lies he told...

__________________

bluelight

No it has nothuing to do about that.

The congress will question the Bush government about the lies.

Both POwell and Rumsfeld will be questiuones.

Thye New York times chief editor says this might become the biggest scandal since Watergate.

That means...media will also be doing what they can to find the truth...




Bluelight

JavaFox

I have little regard for what the NYT has to say about virtually anything, but I take great pride in the fact that our system works.

bluelight

IM not talking about wheter if he had info on an attack against Usa,
I dont know anything about that ...yet...and consider that as part of all the garbage conspiracy rumours that are everywhere.


The WMD issue..on the other hand is something else.

Also...just as you say...i have claimed in discussions with Americans since the beginninng of all this....Americans will eventually throwout ..any government that fools them...unless that goverment tightens up things so firmly that it gets impossinble and that governmeny gets to stand...."above law"

This is also what migt very well become the case this time ( the removal of a government....in elections or or by law)





Bluelight

JavaFox

Kerry, Liberman, or Clinton might have a chance in 2008.

bluelight

Yes i thought you had confidence in hiow your system works...and your congress will now as it seems see to it that it does.

If you like New York times or not is irrelevant.

In this case they...and all other media that will cover this...are part of the "machine" that will you assure of....that your system works.

And....if they ( the congress ...and the media) comes up with facts that your government did lie...(and people will talk...if there is anything to talk about ..believe me) then they can start counting.

And reading the qoutes i posted says a lot.If ons starts digging i figure one could come up with several hundred similar pages....


For those lies...they sold the UN..Germany...France...Blix..Unity....etc etc etc..

And created the most moronic political stament so far ....."The French fries argument"


Well...It seems the French fries is about to choke them now......





Bluelight

JavaFox

Yes, well, it is pretty clear that the US gov't overstated some of their claims.

You could likewise fill books with the lies found in the anti-war rhetoric extolled by French and German leaders, as well. Nobody really bought the "we don't want war argument" -- it's pretty clear that at least some of the anti-war motivation has its roots in demographics (there are many Muslims in France) and economics (oil contracts, anyone?). I'm not justifying my government's bad behavior here, just making a statement. I guess we all share some blame here.

bluelight

Quote
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003



Not only did they overestimate....they kicked the UN down into the ditch and pissed on several other nations.

Bluelight

JavaFox

Point well taken, but then not many nations were discounting that claim, bluelight. You act like France and Germany said "There are no WMD!" That's not what they said at all. France and Germany acknowledged that there might be WMD, and they believed that the UN, not the US, should take care of them. So while you are right, the US did use WMD as a big justification, it's not as if many nations disagreed with that. It was the means, not the ends, that anti-war nations objected to.

bluelight

Quote
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003




And ....this is the running point.....the majority did not agree to the agenda of Mr Paul.

Bluelight

JavaFox

...? Did you have to post the same quote twice?

bluelight

Yes because he is summoning up everything the others are saying and since he is the chief ideolog behind all this his words are what counts most in this case.

Bluelight

GOG

Your government ridiculed the weapons inspectors in Iraq and called them useless because they couldn't find anything. In their eager to show the superiority of their own intelligence service they began an invasion with support from 1/4 of the UN member states, many of them bribed with US money. With this act you have not only invaded a sovereign nation on false grounds, you have also undermined the whole UN as an organisation, well done USA...

Falstaff

in that respect.....undermines itself.....

__________________

JavaFox

To my knowledge, the only good things to come out of the UN are the International Declaration of Human Rights and the International Driver's Permit. Can anyone show me otherwise?

And, really, if we are just a plain ol' nation that should be expected to participate in the omnipotent UN, how could we have undermined them?

bluelight

Because they understood youy were telling lies?

Sure.

Had your government not been so totally lacking of diplomatic abilities..and had they not adapted the..rightwing extremist

"Usa can..and should rule the world" penned down by among others Wolfwitz then there would have been coalition led by the UN but like like Gulf war...run by you...

But you didnt want that.

You wanted "To rule the world according to your new securityy policy...so you spit europe in tne face and aven had the guts to lay the blame on Europe.

Also...as New York times says...had they cincentated on the humanistic side of the issue...for which...

There were.REAL proof...then they`d also have had less problems building a coalition...but...i think they needed the....Usa risks being attacked...to get the majority in Usa in favour of sending people to Iraq.



There is currently a large crise in Congo...Tens of thousands have died....how many peole do you have there and how many do you plan to send there...and...how much oil is there in Congo compared to Iraq??


Bluelight

JavaFox

If other nations are so courageous and alturistic, let them send troops to the Congo. There may be little oil in the Congo, but Africa is a rich land filled with resources of every type. Your theorem doesn't really stand up, considering that nations such as Nigeria are indeed OPEC nations.