As NewsBusters reported, the Washington Post published an editorial Friday that was highly critical of the bribery tactics employed by House Democrats to get their pork-laden Iraq withdrawal bill passed.
As surprising as this event was, even more shocking was a Democrat Congressman so angered by this paper disagreeing with his Party that he said “[the Post] helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for [the Iraq war]."
Displaying such unbridled disgust was Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) who had rather harsh words for the Post on the House floor Friday (video available here):
Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world.
Dontcha just love it? Do Democrats have any responsibility for the decisions they make in Congress? After all, when it comes to this vote, what we’ve been hearing for years is that it was all the Bush administration’s fault. Now, it’s also the media’s fault?
Are these children that have been elected to serve the nation, or adults that are supposed to take responsibility for their actions and their decisions without pointing at others while saying, "He made me do it?"
Regardless of the answer, Obey wasn’t finished:
So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.
Hmmm. But isn’t that a bit of a double standard, Congressman? After all, for quite some time, your Party and its representatives have been telling the American people that the President manipulated intelligence reports to mislead legislators and the public. In fact, you’ve all made a big deal about “specific language,” even so far as criticizing sixteen words in a State of the Union address, correct?
As such, isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to be taking such a Machiavellian position whereby the specific language of this bill, and its atrocious bribery tactics, are irrelevant if they accomplish the goal your after?
Congressman, heal thyself.
*****Update: The Washington Post wasn't as gung ho about the Iraq war as Obey claimed on Friday. In fact, one of the strongest antiwar mainstream media voices in March 2003 was the Post's Walter Pincus. Take a look at his March 16, 2003, article entitled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," as well as his March 18, 2003, article entitled "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" for example.
It appears that Obey isn't familiar with Pincus' work, although facts don't seem very important to many folks who are trying to make a dubious point.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Attack of the Trolls
March 24, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Free StinkerRog - do you like Haterette's Profile?
"I'm a thoughtful commentator on today's political scene." LOL!
So you guys took my comment
March 24, 2007 - 23:19 ET by bushwickbillSo you guys took my comment off, and called me Haterette. I'm devastated.
You use cheesy e-mail expressions like "LOL" tells me all I need to know.
Thought Commentator? LOL!
March 24, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Free StinkerI didn't do it, but my hat is off to whomever smacked you down. :-p
Bye bye Troll!
say bye-bye to the majority
March 24, 2007 - 23:26 ET by bushwickbillsay bye-bye to the majority...oh wait a minute, you already did. say bye to the presidency, too!
Lying Troll, or Son of Fateswebb? Is there even a difference?
March 24, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Free Stinkersay bye to the presidency, too!
It's Jan 2009 already ?
Buh-bye
March 25, 2007 - 12:03 ET by acumen"We don't have the votes" - congressman obey(me)
Now what was that you were saying about a majority? Buh-bye to your non-sensical argument.
"idiot liberals" - congressman obey(me)
Heres a news flash for ya bus
March 25, 2007 - 12:45 ET by BlazerHeres a news flash for ya bushwack. The Republicans are already in the minority, and loving it! Watching the "most ethical congress in history" implode, and resorting to bribery has got to be big fun. LMAO!
Remember the voters in your party that put these clowns in power are probably more moderate, and elected the Blue Dogs who have more in common with conservatives than the kook, moonbat fringe that pulls the Democrat puppet strings on Capitol Hill.
I expect the Republicans will get these Blue Dog votes back, along with the guys, and gals who stayed home or entered 'protest votes' the last election. Bushwack it was the dis-enfranchised conservatives who put the Dumbascraps in power, and believe you me, I am sure they have long since snapped awake.
If you believe the "America has spoken" traitorius captitulist mandate, and that the "non-partisan" witchhunts, and show trials are gonna get these idiots re-elected, then I have 90k hidden in my freezer I'll split with you.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
speaking of cheesy expressions
March 24, 2007 - 23:26 ET by RJI didn't do it either, but speaking of cheesy expressions, who would actually say "thoughtful commentator on today's political scene" with a straight face?
And you've never been here
March 24, 2007 - 23:36 ET by Free StinkerAnd you've never been here under another name either.
Why do you read this, then come back and talk?
<Edit - Wow! That was fast! Troll-B-Gone working it's wonders>
It seems the other label applies more aptly
March 24, 2007 - 23:39 ET by SportPoliticsIt seems the other label applies more aptly - haterette - by what dumb dumb "bushwickbill" < (that's dumb looking,too) posts.
Is that nana nana boo-boo when bushwick "thoughtfully" comments "say goodbye to the majority and the presidency too ? " LOL
Methinks infant putrant with undesirable idiocy is a better expression for what I see.
Contrast that with the intelligent and hard hitting lead item, and I've decided to call him "nana nana boo-boo" everytime I see him make an infanitle liberal jackass of himself, instead of being a thoughtful commentator.
I'd also like to know what he thinks his name means. It appears to be a smart aleck smarm off, not thoughtful commentary.
You forgot to say "tdf&q
March 25, 2007 - 20:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou forgot to say "tdf", Randy.
You gave yourself away. Bye-bye, Sparky.
Oh I see, now those Democrats
March 24, 2007 - 20:05 ET by GregEOh I see, now those Democrats who voted for the war, and talked up the need for military action in Iraq, are just victims of the very liberal media they love and rely on to spew their nonsense. They didn't think for themselves or get info from actual information within government. Oh no no no, they read the newspaper and voted based on that.
So I guess those same ones saying we need to leave Iraq are only doing so because the Washington post and other liberal media are presenting them that info.
On a related note, I also find it quite interesting (and illogical) for those Democrats, having voted for military action in Iraq, to say that the president had more info than they did at that time, while they're not now saying the president has more info than they do regarding a troop level increase (aka, "the surge"). I guess the president only has more info when it's most politically advantageous for them to use that angle to justify their actions, if they perceive those actions as wrong.
Silly me to think a liberal could be wrong or anything crazy like that. They push for everyone to be a victim in this country, and they set the example well.
GregE
March 24, 2007 - 20:12 ET by gfrrmanYou're talking Democrats.......you know those "gray areas", not black and white. don't forget "nuance"!!! By god, they are the victims here!!!!!.....stupid media. ;-)
Well, well, well. The Demo
March 25, 2007 - 05:42 ET by motherbeltWell, well, well. The Democrats are being led around by their noses by the Washington Post?
Then let's talk about this latest exhortation from the Post, castigating the Democrats for larding up their bill with pork for everyone whose vote they need. The money quote:
"Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war
appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for
an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support."
So why aren't the Democrats falling in line behind the WaPo this time??? If Obey is right, they should be falling all over each other to simply cut the funding. Oh, wait a minute! This time, following the Post's instruction would require some backbone.
idiot liberals
March 24, 2007 - 20:08 ET by acumenIn Congressman Obey's own words - "idiot liberals"
The safety and specifics of the pullout are unimportant
March 24, 2007 - 20:27 ET by sheesh721The laguage of the bill is essentially the details of the bill. The details of the bill is that it calls for a pullout based on election cycles and has no regard for the current situation in Iraq or safety of our troops and/or the Iraqis. Those details he wishes us to ignore are the important parts of the bill. Sending a message to Bush and the GOP is not more important than a war strategy that involves our soldiers on the ground. When will Democrats learn this.
He's esentially saying the details of this bill are unimportant and we're missing the point, the point was to send a message. Cause see here I thought I was against this bill for the safety of our troops and because I disagreed with a bill that would take control from our military. The fact that the bill never would have passed had the Democrats not extorted and bribed their own politicians is just icing on the cake. What ever happened to Pelosi's "most ethical congress" promise?
Well t hank you obey for showing us clearly where you and the Democrats stand on this. The intent was not the well being and safety of our troops but rather getting across a politicized message at the cost of the war, our troops and Iraq. God Bless America.
Isn't this what the democrats
March 24, 2007 - 20:35 ET by BlondeIsn't this what the democrats are all about, really?.....sending MESSAGES?
Yup,
March 24, 2007 - 20:37 ET by gfrrmanYou are right...MESSAGES TO THE ENEMY!!!
Bring on the meltdown!! Hopef
March 24, 2007 - 20:43 ET by NortonalecBring on the meltdown!! Hopefully the MSM won't like being blamed for the war, and will go after the fine gentleman from Wisconsin.
Nortonalec
Yes, sending messages. The
March 24, 2007 - 21:34 ET by motherbeltYes, sending messages. They use that phrase a lot. With Liberals, it's about "sending a message" and having the right intention. The important thing, always, is that they "tried."
In the words of Rush Limbaugh: "Words mean things." Liberals don't get that.
WOW!
March 25, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Sonny LykosIt took a while for you to figure that out, eh? I've been a registered Democrat all of my voting years and I've know how they think for nearly all of the 44 years I've been voting. I just vote "R" to confuse their polling stats. They are the sleazyist people around.
Sheesh !!
Dave Obey comes from one of t
March 24, 2007 - 20:48 ET by CaringwhiteguyDave Obey comes from one of the safest lefty Democrat districts in Congress. He's been in his seat for years and his most distinguished accomplishment has been that he has no distinguished accomplishments. The people of Wausau, Wisconsin and the surrounding area should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to send this extremely unimpressive man to Washington.
Ever hear of Pete Visclosky?
March 25, 2007 - 05:58 ET by Indiana JoeEver hear of Pete Visclosky? I thought not. He's been re-elected as the rep from NW Indiana for about 30 years now, and he hasn't done one damn thing. Another super-safe Democrat seat.
Maybe we should have a contest for most ineffective congressman. Sounds like these two would place pretty high. At least Obey opened his yap one time, give him that much credit. I'm not even sure Visclosky attends House sessions, let alone participates.
Indy,Well here's a little vid
March 25, 2007 - 09:36 ET by BlondeIndy,
Well here's a little video where Obey "opened his yap one time".
It's the plan. About which he's a tad confused...so much so that Popeye has to jump in and rescue him.
Why does Obey stay away from
March 24, 2007 - 20:59 ET by Clear thinkerWhy does Obey stay away from going after all the media outlets that are helping the enemy? He is on my list of ugly Americans.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Well, Obey has a resemblanc
March 24, 2007 - 21:01 ET by ChriswelLWell, Obey has a resemblance to Michael Moore, no surprise he talks like him too.
-cs™
A recent video from Iraq titl
March 24, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Clear thinkerA recent video from Iraq titled...LIVING WITH SNIPERS
http://patdollard.com/
http://patdollard.com/2007/02/24/exclusive-preview-living-with-snipers/ has an Iraqi military interpreter saying the following "F**k Micheal Moore" several times. For some reason it has more effect coming from an Iraqi.
BTW...This guy is now my favorite Iraqi!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Clear,I see you've gone back
March 25, 2007 - 04:39 ET by BlondeClear,
I see you've gone back to Pat Dollard's site and caught more of his videos.
These idiot congress critters ought to be required to view them prior to casting a vote for a "message sending" bill like this.
Children = Democrats."It
March 24, 2007 - 21:08 ET by Scout FinchDemocrats = Bratty Children.
"It's not my fault!"
"He made me do it!"
"I felt like it!"
"It's not fair!"
"If you don't do it my way, I'm taking my toy and going home!"
Take your pick.
So, the Democrats were bamb
March 24, 2007 - 21:38 ET by motherbeltSo, the Democrats were bamboozled by the idiot George W. Bush and railroaded by the Washington Post into voting for a "misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war." What does that say about them and is that who we want making the tough decisions for this country?
Not just David "obeyed"
March 25, 2007 - 00:01 ET by SportPoliticsNot just David "obeyed" the WaPo, he claimed all 2/3rds of the body cowed to the Washington Post's line.
He's an idiot. At least now we know what he thinks he did. He read one stupid newspaper, put his finger in the wind, and decided editorial writers ( whoever those are he speaks of ) were more informed than he a congresscritter, and bowed to their will as he imagined it in his vote.
That is highly irresponsible, but I believe he did do that.
When I have watched c-span, it's not too far between when some moron democrat holds up the WaPo or the NYT and strts rattling away about what they read. Usually it's some moronic charge they have in mind that they base upon a generic twisted wording some abused intern leftie has excitedly found to their liking.
I've seen the critters answer they know everything they know from the NYT newspaper, in hearings, where they are expected to actually be able to do or know something on a matter. A lot of them live by what issues in the rag, or at least pretend to while they're lying on the floor. I understand time is short with their 3 day workweek, but I used to think they actually had access to information. When I found out a total of 6 reps in the entire DC legislature checked out the intel on Iraq before the war, which they ALL had full legal access to, my world changed.
In other words, the chances that David Obey merely read a bit of the WaPo, and gleaned his answer from interpreting broadly and mixing with wind direction what was there, is plenty likely.
Obey is one one of these: h
March 24, 2007 - 21:40 ET by zhombreObey is one one of these: http://www.americant...
Yes, and one of these as we
March 25, 2007 - 04:26 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYes, and one of these as well. http://www.americant...
Progressives are of the worst kind.... or should I say, those who take the name 'Progressive' for a much more sinister agenda. They are in no way progressive... as their whole modus operandi is to create a socialist state... a backwards step. The antithesis of progress.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
don't confuse me with the fac
March 24, 2007 - 21:46 ET by botgdon't confuse me with the facts i'm trying to sway the inattentive voters with an emotional reaction to a straw man.
by the way i do remember that the administration convinced me of Sadamms WMDs holdings and i have the quotes from 1998 and 1999 (yes the CLINTON administration) Pretty slick of George to put his lies in the democrats mouths before he was elected. it's good to finally find out that the Post was who has pulled the strings all along (they must be the ringleaders of the vast right-wing conspiracy)
Wow!! In 2003 our administrat
March 25, 2007 - 06:06 ET by BillAdkinsWow!! In 2003 our administration, acting on intelligence from 1998 and 1999, invaded Iraq. That's cutting edge. In other news, Pearl Harbor and Wake Island are on high alert as intelligence from 1941 indicates attack is imminent.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
as free stinker has documente
March 25, 2007 - 09:50 ET by botgas Sua has documented later in the comments the intelligence continued right up to 2003, coming from an agency decimated by Bill.
the simple point which your obviously "nuanced" mind was unable to grasp was that there was no debate on Saddam having WMDs it was only where are they.
It really must have been deja-vu for me to write "don't confuse me with the facts" before you replied
Brain Cells
March 24, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Jerry MackThats what I said! Just count my fingers! I have one active brain cell and I am using it to its' fullest capacity.
Isn't that just like a libera
March 24, 2007 - 23:03 ET by msh1973Isn't that just like a liberal...never take any personal responsiblity for anything you do!
By that criteria, Bush is a '
March 25, 2007 - 06:19 ET by BillAdkinsBy that criteria, Bush is a 'liberal,' as the buck has never stopped at his desk.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
Congress appears to be larg
March 25, 2007 - 00:05 ET by marvlCongress appears to be largely populated with irresponsible, childish, lazy, uneducated, stupid morons. Sadly, they are a reflection of the irresponsible, childish, lazy, uneducated, stupid morons who elected them.
I personally believe we should convert to a 2-branch system: executive and judicial. A lot of this country's woes could be averted by removing Congress from the loop. Besides, they don't appear to serve any useful purpose.
I can't believe what the Demo
March 25, 2007 - 00:21 ET by mostlymoderateI can't believe what the Democrats are doing right now. Terrorism and islamofascism needs to be eliminated right now. I have since realized this myself. In all honesty, I originally was against the War and against G.W. Bush for going. HOWEVER, now that we have started there should be no turning back. The Democrats are letting me and America down.
B@$tards!
influence??
March 25, 2007 - 01:19 ET by misterbillIs too, ----am not
nyah nyah nyah nyah hyah!
I'm telling my mother.
I'm rubber, you're glue, wh
March 25, 2007 - 04:37 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you! ~ The Modern Socialist Liberal Philosophy.
____________________________________________________
" Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine
Noel, Noel, Noel - don't you
March 25, 2007 - 05:59 ET by BillAdkinsNoel, Noel, Noel - don't you do ANY research? In 2004 the Post apologized for it's failures. Pincus wasn't getting play. "Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer
And then, of course, the Post on the anniversary of the beginning of the war, that would be Day 1460 of the Iraq Hostage Crisis, said, "Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031700950.html.
I anticipate that in a few years the Post will apologize again - for not even at this point in history when it is obvious do they acknowledge that Bush lied.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.SillyBill, please don't let
March 25, 2007 - 06:25 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSillyBill, please don't let any facts cloud your judgement.
D
I used to think rhayes had no grasp on reality, then along came BillAdkins!
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Those are 'facts?' That's
March 25, 2007 - 06:32 ET by BillAdkinsThose are 'facts?' That's 'reality?' You just made the top of today's laugh list.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
Obviously the WaPo still hasn't done it's job
March 25, 2007 - 06:50 ET by SportPoliticsObviously the WaPo still hasn't done it's job. I've been hearing for years now there was someone, somewhere who had an alternate view on the WMD before the war, but after all the blustering and years of claims, noone, including the WaPo has produced any evidence.
Of course, we now have six doobie dopes all over the place telling us they knew better, as they put their head between their legs and peer backwards at an upside down world.
I still consider it absolutely crazy that anyone claims Saddam didn't have any WMD in the run up to the war. Whole nuclear research buildings and 300 tons of HDX RDX disappeared "under our troops noses after we invaded" - reportedly dismantled with an amazing amount of expertise and carted off to " noone knows where" to this very day, according to then IAEA headmaster Mohammed himself, and you should recall the gigantic press complaint attacks that lasted for months over that incident.
So, there are a lot of quite uncertain people pretending they can do a job they haven't proven to be capable of, and have admitted they did not have the qualified personnel or access to do. Just two, then soon no translaters, no access due to security, and when they did show up - they found looted smoking wreckage and specifically targetted information stores like destroyed harddrives and just dismantled and laboratory bleached professionally scrubbed scenes. A report of that with "we didn't find much", should leave a smart person with a distinct impression, but then in this wacko environment, lying and sensationalizing everything wins over base common sense almost every time.
People take only the few words that are what they want to hear,from the tens of thousands the very same people spoke on the matter, and disseminate that special word or phrase as " the answer given concerning WMD".
It's amazing how black and white a nuanced liberal suddenly becomes when they finally get the 2 or 3 words they've been demanding someone say to them after countless crying and whining they be allowd to claim that propaganda prize.
I certainly do not believe them, I know better.
300 tons of HDX RDX disappe
March 25, 2007 - 08:12 ET by Free Stinker300 tons of HDX RDX disappeared
SP - I rember those reports :-)
"Saddam had no WMD, but some of it was in our custody and disapeared under the noses of our troops!"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I used to think LibertyorDeath was the most ignorant Troll visiting Newsbusters, then along came BillAdkins.
SillyBill, facts are for grown-ups!
March 25, 2007 - 07:03 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsBillAdkins Says: Those are 'facts?'
Curious, I know from your profile you think Fox News tells only lies, but do you now include on that list as liars:
Worldnet Daily
Newsmax
CNN
MSNBC
BBC
PBS
Snopes
Free Republic
Human Rights Watch
New York Sun
World Tribune
New York Times
National Review
Washington Post
And various politicians, among others who say you are wrong?
Are they all liars or are they all fools who George Bush tricked?
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Did you even review your 'fac
March 25, 2007 - 07:33 ET by BillAdkinsDid you even review your 'facts?" Check out one you cite, http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp and then get back to me. That put a hole in your 'facts' immediately. Then there's http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm which is a report on use of WMD internally BEFORE 1990 and before the Gulf War. Never mind these events were well known prior to that war, George HW Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory then. As to Newsmax, I do find suspect anyone who would give away Ann Coulter books with each subscription. And World Nut Daily - get real. "Buried Migs," yep - they're dangerous. And FreeRepublic? No, they don't have an agenda. You have no credibility.
"I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
They're all liars, and Sill
March 25, 2007 - 07:39 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThey're all liars, and SillyBill is the only person who knows the truth. Very special.
No 'cherry picking' there.
And he has no agenda.
That's real credible.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Moonbat Obfuscation
March 25, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Free Stinker"Buried Migs," yep - they're dangerous.
Once again, the Liberal Moonbat tries to obfuscate.
The point is Saddam wasn't supposed to be buying NEW MIGS after the Gulf War. By your reasoning, USA nuclear warheads are not dangerous because they haven't been launched.
And you carefully avoided commenting on the CNN, BBC, NY Sun, etc. articles. I wonder why that is? As far as Free Republic goes, most of those links are TRANSLATIONS of Iraqi documents, not news items. Makes me think you never bothered to read any of it.
USA nuclear war heads are dan
March 25, 2007 - 08:06 ET by BillAdkinsUSA nuclear war heads are dangerous because they exist - and Iraq's WMD in 2003 were non-existant, but for relics of the Iran - Iraq War. The article about Migs said in one sentence they were new and in another that they were aged and Saddam didn't believe they could match up to the US modern fighters. (I get a kick out of how you guys cite evidence from 1998 or predating the Gulf War). Once again you Disingenuous RightWingNumbnutz try to spin your version of gold from horses--t.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
So wait, now you admit he did have WMD?
March 25, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Free Stinkerbut for relics of the Iran - Iraq War.
So wait, now you admit he did have WMD?
Please make up your mind. I'll wait until later to discuss the Uranium, or the fact that all he had to do to make US go away was show that he either 1. Destroyed what was left from the Iran-Iraq war, or 2. Used it up in the War.
BTW - Would you like to store some of his "degraded" chemical warheads in your living room. They are harmless. After all, they are "degraded".
Billy the clown
March 25, 2007 - 08:30 ET by Sua Sponte 75The point which you obviously missed concerning the burried MIGs was that if you can hide half a dozen or so of those, then it's a safe bet you can hide/move something smaller i.e. WMD's and pre-cursors. You know what Saddam believed? And you're trying to say the below items just "didn't exist" anymore? Talk about spin and beating a dead horse.
Yes, and you forgot to mention that these individuals also lied:
On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs.
In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction.
Headline: Clinton Demands Total Access for U.N. Arms Inspectors
Subheadline: Source: Annan expected to make Baghdad trip
Date: February 17, 1998
Source: CNN
The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:
5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Headline: Clinton Speech: Iraq has Abused its Last Chance
Date: December 16, 1998
Source: CNN
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
A letter from the Senate Committee on Armed Services to President Bill Clinton on October 9, 1998. It reminds the president of the February resolution authorizing military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions "concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
The letter concludes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Signed by following Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.
Headline: Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes
Source: NewsMax
Byline: Carl Limbacher and Staff
Dateline: Thursday, August 5, 2004
The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.
Headline: The Iraqi Connection & Al Qaeda
Source: UK Observer
Date: Sunday November 11, 2001
By: David Rose
Headline: Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
Source: CNSNews.com
Byline: Scott Wheeler
Dateline: October 04, 2004
Oil Funds Pay for Bombers
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
1. Saddam was known to have WMD and used it in at least 3 separate situations.
S. Hussein used Chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War [Wikipedia]
S. Hussein used Chemical weapons vs. the Kurds in N. Iraq [phrusa.org] Also see this [Free Republic] S. Hussein used Chemical weapons against the Sunnis in S. Iraq [Human Rights Watch] Statements to the effect that Iraq had or was seeking WMD made by: President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy BergerRep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Carl Levin, V.P. Al Gore. Also see this for many of the same or similar remarks [Snopes & acsa.net]
Letter to Pres. Clinton, signed by: Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, & others 10-09-1998. [Snopes] Letter to Pres. Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham & others, Dec, 5, 2001. [Snopes]
2. There is a long list of WMD, delivery systems, and banned conventional weapons found in Iraq
Various WMD/Weapons [WorldNet Daily]
Uranium in Iraq [Newsmax]
Uranium Enrichment Program [Newsmax]
Jordan - Foiled WMD Attack [MSNBC]
Sarin & Mustard Gas [Foxnews]
WMD hidden in Syria [Newsmax]
Iraqi commander confirms Iraq had WMD [American Thinker]
MiGs found buried in the sand [BBC]
Banned Missiles found [Foxnews]
Still More Banned Weapons found [WorldNet Daily]
Still More Banned Weapons found (part 2) [WorldNet Daily]
More WMD found in Iraq ! [Foxnews]
Unexamined Bunkers that may contain WMD [NY Sun]
UN Inspectors think WMD moved to Syria [World Tribune]
WMD Moved to Syria/Lebanon [WorldNet Daily]
Suspected ties between Saddam and the 2001 Anthrax ‘Attacks’
Iraqi Dissident Talks About WMD Moved to Syria [Free Republic]
Iraq Sulfur Mustard Gas Chemical Weapons Have High Quality After 12 years of Storage
Chemical Material Hidden Underground [Free Republic]
Highly Radioactive Atomic Neutron Device [Free Republic]
Request For 500 KG Of SODIUM CYANIDE A Precursor For A Chemical Weapon [Free Republic]
Plan To Produce Mobile Laboratories [Free Republic]
Procurement of 50,000 Aluminum Tubes That Can Be Used For URANIUM ENRICHMENT [Free Republic]
Secret Nuclear Project [Free Republic]
Chemical Gear for The Chemical Group [Free Republic]
Chemical Platoon Still Exists And Active [Free Republic]
Saddam Met with his Nuclear Group IN 2002 [Free Republic]
3. Saddam Hussein had a History of Aggression, attacking 5 other nations.
Attacked Iran Iran-Iraq War [Wikipedia]
Attacked Kuwait Gulf War [Wikipedia]
Attacked Saudi Arabia Gulf War - previous to Desert Storm [Wikipedia]
Attacked Israel Gulf War - previous to Desert Storm [Wikipedia]
Attacked Bahrain Gulf War - previous to Desert Storm [CNN]
4. Terrorists have been found in Iraq & there were numerous associations between Iraq & terrorists (mind you no one has ever said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11)
Abu Nidal (Planned Rome Airport Machine Gun Massacre) [National Review]
Abu Abbas (Planned Achilia Lauro Hijacking) [CNN]
Terrorist Training Camp Found in Iraq [Foxnews]
Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Quaida affiliated terrorist in Iraq) [CNN]
Former Iraqi Prime Minister admits Saddam ties with terrorists [Newsmax]
Iraq & Terrorists collaborated [NY Sun]
Al-Zarqawi harbored/protected by Saddam's regime [Kaleejtimes.com]
Zarqawi in Iraq Long Before the War Started [Free Republic]
Iraqi Intelligence met with Bin Laden in 1995 [Free Republic]
Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests [Free Republic]
Saddam Orders The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists To Be Treated The Same As Iraqi Soldiers [Free Republic]
Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 [Free Republic]
Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers [Free Republic]
Afghani Taliban Consul Spoke of a Relationship Between Iraq and Bin Laden [Free Republic]
Saddam Ordered 25,000 Dollars for Each Suicide Terrorist Against Israel [Free Republic]
Iraqi Intelligence Asks Hamas To Conduct Terrorist Attacks Against The US [Free Republic]
5. Other Casus Belli
Radar tracking & SA missiles fired upon "No Fly Zone" Aircraft - a violation of Gulf War surrender terms [cdi.org]
Assassination attempt on former President George Bush, Sr. [Washington Post]
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (One of 1075 Documents)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
"I used to think rhayes was an asshat, then along came billy"
Yawn. This is boring. It seem
March 25, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberYawn. This is boring. It seems we have to deal with tards like this about once a month. I feel like we are back in 2003 or 2004. These obviously-smarter Liberals still need their hand held and the information repeated to them, over and over, slowly.
Also, Billy, you never responded to my Franklin Pierce comment a few days ago, about how he was obviously a much worse president than your two front-runners. I notice you tend to disappear when confronted with facts that make your brain hurt.
It's a nicespring, sunny Sunday outside. I am sure you will be spending it underneath the kitchen sink, hating life.
It seems we have to deal wi
March 25, 2007 - 09:30 ET by Free StinkerIt seems we have to deal with tards like this about once a month.
I wonder if they some old Trools keep coming back under new names.
I also wonder if they realize their constant bleating (posts) contribute to the Ad revenue for Newsbusters? LOL!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"George W. Bush simply reminds leftists everyday what they will never be. And they hate him for it." --Tammy Bruce
"Newsbusters simply reminds Stalinists everyday what they will never be (smart, informed, logical). And they hate us for it." --Free Stinker
roger, i for one appreciate t
March 25, 2007 - 10:15 ET by botgroger, i for one appreciate the research done by Sua as i've only been online 3 months and most of the people i deal with are ignorant of our recent history thanks to the MSM but are willing to listen (unlike Billy) to facts and reason. So if you can put up with us we appreciate it. (think of this as doing those miserable crunches) Sua, i attributed your work to frre stinker earlier, sorry.
"and a nice picket fence"
You must think you're more in
March 25, 2007 - 19:42 ET by BillAdkinsYou must think you're more interesting than you actually are, shrubber. Didn't see it and it doesn't rank. Bush is the reigning and forever worst president in American history. It's day 1475 of the Iraq Hostage Crisis - at least Carter's ended at about 440 days. And that's Bush's legacy of incompetence, his record of failure and the brand of disgrace. Hell, Reagan would be so embarrassed to be a Republican he'd switch to Democratic.
But hey, don't listen to me - here's Joe Galloway who's been facing the fire since at least '65: "I can promise the president from Texas that this ill-begotten, poorly planned and mismanaged war will be his lasting legacy when, in 22 months, he packs his bags and heads home to the ranch in Crawford.
Iraq will hang around his neck - and those of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Douglas Feith - like a rotting albatross for all the days of their lives." http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_5499778
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.