Who Is Lying about US involvement in Iraq?

All of public record,

You decide........

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
-Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 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."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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, and 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

NOW, THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES.

Looks to me like the Democrats will say anything to try to get elected, or at least unseat "W" in 2004. If they can cause the nation as a whole to doubt, then they can take advantage of the doubt - without any regard for the security of people in Iraq, both Iraqis & U.S. personnel, not to mention U.N. personnel. It's typical of the attitude - the ends justifies the means.

Now...post some quotes of Democrats saying "There were never any WMD's."

19 quotes you used.

3 said "I believe" or a variation.

11 said "PROGRAMS" or "search" or variation of that of WMDs. Never said they actually HAD them.

5 said he HAD them.

So 5 out of 19 fall under your criteria of "lying."

No worse than Cheney continuing to subtly insinuate the connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Of course, it is all political bullshit. The Democrats have the mainstream media in their pocket and all the public has heard for months is that the president lied about the WMD's in Iraq. I must hear the same soundbites fifty times a day both on radio and TV.

If we found a bunch of WMD's tomorrow, they would have another bunch of spin and lies to cover their asses. It's all politics because the White House is occupied by Republicans.

If Al Gore had done exactly the same things Bush has done in Iraq and the war on terror (we all know he wouldn't), the Democrats would be calling him the savior of the world.

The Democrats are masters of spin and lies. (Not to mention outright corruption and dereliction of duty)

The usual suspects will chime in shortly to defend them... if not already by the time this is posted.

Republicans rule.............

NO... Conservatives RULE.

It would be nice if the Republicans remembered that once in a while.

Especially when they (Karl Rove) leak a CIA agents name to an asshole "Crossfire" stooge, Robert Novak. If that attention whore Novak had one shred of decency left, he would NEVER have published her name.

:rolleyes:

You are one who easily buys into Democratic bullshit.

The CIA agent in question is Valerie Plame (or Valerie Wilson. Liberal bitches rarely use their husbands names).

Her husband Joe Wilson is the dirtbag who made the initial accusations. He is the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. He was appointed by Bill Clinton and is a known Bush hater (and Republicans in general).

Novak had every right to use this former State Dept. shitheels wife's name. She is not a covert CIA agent. She is an analyst. Everyone in the insider Washington circles knew her and her husband and which agency she worked for. Novak didn't compromise anything. Besides, his article was written in July. If it was a big deal it would have been an issue in July, not two days before October. It took the dirtbag Democrats two months to create this issue.

The whole thing is manufactured Democrat bullshit. It's just more Bush and Republican bashing. Former Amassador Joe Wilson also does not like Karl Rove and fingered him personally in a speech last month in Seattle for giving Novak his wife's name.

Today Wilson admitted on "Good Morning America" that he was wrong and fabricated the accusation that Karl Rove had anything to with it. I haven't heard ABC News making a big deal out of the fact that this guy lied and slandered Karl Rove.

The whole thing is a non issue and pure Democrat bullshit. Another example of the Clintonites waging war against the Bush government. A lot from the inside. George Bush should have cleaned house as soon as he took office.

Waa, waa, waa, man are you predictable. Please show me a study or some facts to support a liberal bias in what you call the mainstream media. As long as you present opinions as fact you just sound like a Republican demagouge. Learn to think for yourself instead of just regurgitating Rush Limbaugh.

Here's one countering the "liberal bias". I found it with a Google search for "media bias report" http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

Just asking, but who do you consider liberal media? I consider Fox News on TV to be the biggest conservative bastion on TV. Rush Limbaugh and ALL political talk radio is conservatively biased. Liberal radio has never succeeded. If there were a liberal bias how did a coke snorting drunk driver that spent Vietnam AWOL from the Reserves get elected President?

Anyway I consider a lie that leads our country to war a bit more important than "I did not have sex with that woman" (how many years did that go on?) I've looked, but have not found a total for US military KIAs during the Clinton administration. I'd guess it's considerably lower than just counting Bush's last 6 months.

Finally, if there are no WMD program, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to 9-11 and no ties to Al-Qaeda were we justified in invading a soverieng nation?

From today:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia

Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field. ... The Justice Department, at the CIA's request, is investigating whether anyone in the administration broke the law by leaking Plame's name.

Apparently the CIA is pissed and asked the Justice department to investigate. Why would they make a big deal if she was just an analyst? I don't give a shit who leaked it and I agree with referring to Novak as "asshole "Crossfire" stooge". An investigation should uncover the leak. I'll put $10 on lieing bastards in the White House as the source of the leak. Karl Rove or not, it still smells like the shit the administration would shovel. Madman, I accept payments at paypal to aero_steve@yahoo.com if you want to take me up on it.

Wilson was the Ambassador to Iraq from '88-'91 under Bush Sr. and a career diplomat since '76, so your claim that he is a Clintonite lacks credibility. He was praised by Bush Sr. for negotiating the release of American hostages taken by Iraq in the first Gulf War. Now he's pissed off the current administration and they are doing anything to discredit him. He looks like a good guy being smeared by the assholes in charge.

Damn... You liberals have to come up with more original shit other than everyone who IS NOT a liberal repeats everything Rush says.

Regarding the Wilson/Novak thing.... You must be blind if you can't smell a purely manufactured partisan political mudfest a mile away. The players alone should be a tip-off.

Who do I consider liberal media? It's an easier question asking who is not liberal media. All mainstream broadcast news organizations. Political Correctness is the number one rule. Obviously you have never known anyone who worked in a newsroom (that is someone who was not a raging liberal). Among the broadcast networks ABC is the worst. Peter Jennings is the worst. Then comes Dan Rather and CBS. NBC is somewhat, but not as much as the other two. NBC's "The Today Show" is probably one of the most liberal shows on TV. Almost all the morning shows are but "Today" is the absolute worst. BBC news is heavily biased regarding many areas and issues. Their Middle East reporting is the worst and most obviously anti-Israeli and has a heavy portion of anti-Americanism in their reporting on the war on terror.

Radio.... It is what it is. Everyone knows that most talk radio is conservative. No one is getting fooled there. You know what you are getting going in. Talk radio is not news. It's entertainment. When will you liberals learn this?

The public won't listen to "liberal" talk radio. Why? Because they get all the same liberal garbage all the time from the broadcast and print media. The public is starving for other opinions. That is why conservative talk radio is so successful. Liberals will never understand that becuase you don't see liberal bias in the mainstream.

NPR.... basically leftism broadcast on the taxpayers dime. Listen to 10 minutes of that sickening show "All things considered" and you will understand... unless you are of their persuasion.

The NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post lead the pack in print liberalism. They very often border on anti-Americanism too. They are the root of political correctness and liberal issues because most of the broadcast media follow their trail. All other newspapers owned by these parent organizations follow suit.

AP, Reuters and UPI are extremely biased news sources on many issues. The Middle East for one. They also have a very anti-Israeli and basically "multicultural" slant. Both print and broadcast media rely heavily on them as sources of information. It is "pre-slanted" prior to entry into American newsrooms.

All the media above are extremely guilty of political correctness and the greater sin of moral relativism.

You could literally write books about the liberal slant to the mainstream media and many good ones have been written. A good one regarding how racism (newsroom... not public racism) controls much of what you see and hear is William McGowan's "Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism" . Another great book is Tammy Bruce's "The New Thought Police: Inside the Left\'s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds" . She gives many disturbing examples of media manipulation by the left. She is also a liberal (lesbian and former NOW president). If you can put down Al Frankens book, I can recommend some more for you.

As far as sources of liberal bias.... what are you looking for? A CNN poll or something. Any organizations that track liberal bias are accused of being "right wing" propaganda outlets so why would I even try to give you any? I'll give you a popular one that tracks the daily news and TV programs. Try this link but I already know what you will say. There is no sense listing anymore.

You liberals will always say the Iraq war was started on a lie. There really is no arguing with you regarding Iraq. You seem to have some type of mental block regarding Saddam, his atrocities and his connections with terrorist groups. How many more years would you have let Saddam's dictatorship stay in power? As long as the other European socialists were making money off of him it was OK I guess.

Speaking about media bias, a group of Democratic congressman recently returned from Iraq and guess what.... they claimed the media is painting the wrong picture about what is going on over there and what we are doing. No agenda in the media right?

You are damn right we were justified in going into Iraq. Should the government reveal Al Qaeda ties when we are still hunting them down just to appease dirtbag whining liberals. No of course not. Police don't comment on ongoing investigations, why should the government in international affairs. Especially when we are still at war and will be for some time.

You also obviously don't keep up with news either. US intelligence reported in August that Iraq's remaining WMD's are in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon (a country under occupation by the police state Syria).

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Hollywood movies and television shows are loaded with blatant yet subtle forms of liberal social engineering. Sitcoms are the best example of manipulating public opinions on many issues.

The CIA rule.......Bush is just a patsy

Thank you for probably one of your most thoughtful and intelligent posts on XOC. With plenty of sources, kudos. I've ordered the 2 books you suggested. I'll get back to you in a couple weeks after I've read them. I do have a couple friends that are newspaper reporters around here neither report on politics (usually) but are liberal. I live in one of the 2 (out of 105) counties in Kansas that voted Gore in the last election. Being a liberal in a college town is much more common than finding a conservative here. Well there is Fred Phelps about 20 miles west in Topeka, but I don't think anyone would want to claim solidarity with him.

I was wondering if the Media Resource Center would be brought up. You didn't need to. It makes no bones about it having a conservative slant. I purposely left it out of my last post. I think it does no good to say you are correcting bias when you have a stated bias yourself.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/lbb/bozellbio.asp

I'll agree with all the news outlets you stated as not being conservative, I'll read your books and get back to you before I'll say ALL of them are liberally biased. Anyone you consider neutral? I've been looking at sites that track bias and haven't decided if any of them don't have a bias themselves.

I have no mental blocks about what Saddam did to his people. Is it our problem to fix? Does the USA have an obligation to be the world's police force? I've always considered Syria more of a threat than Iraq ever was, but the Bush family has a hard on for Saddam. If the USA is going to get into overthrowing countries we don't like, we should have rolled right on into Syria and invited Isreal to retake Lebanon. Where do we draw the line? Should we take over every Muslim country that supports terrorists? That's most of them. This war was a half baked from the beginning and it will cost Bush his Presidency. I say half baked for no other reason than they didn't have an exit strategy.

A CNN story. Well everything they say must be true right?

Wilson was a State Dept. employee for many years. However Clinton made him a policy advisor on Africa for the National Security Council. That makes him a Clintonite. The Bush admin is having numerous problems with all the Clintonites left in high positions. I've said it a million times. Bush should have cleaned house and hand picked everyone. Clinton did.

This whole thing started by Wilson getting pissed at the administration for Bush's remark in the State of the Union speech regarding British intelligence finding evidence that Iraq may have purchased uranium from Niger. He was sent to Niger earlier to check this out and claimed he found no evidence. He also got in trouble with the administration for not revealing forged documents relating to this issue. He also claims he never submitted a writtten report on his mission to Niger. WTF? A mission to Niger and there is no written report. Sounds like bullshit. This became an ego problem for Wilson and during the summer he started bitching about it on TV shows. He also wrote this Op-Ed peice in the NY Times:

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/070903_wilson.htm

The guy probably fucked up and he thought the Bush admin was making him look bad.

The Democrats have picked up on this and are using it as an issue to thier advantage. I find it curious the Democrats who are crying the loudest about this issue like Chuck Schumer are the same Democrats who voted against the law protecting agents in the field when he was a congressman. The same Democrats who hobbled our CIA.

Novak never mentioned in his article that anyone in the White House was his source. He said "Two senior administration officials". That could be any number of people in numerous agencies. Novak even says it was no one in the White House. It's most likely an intelligence figure who does not like Wilson. It could be George Tenet himself. Who knows. Tenet is a Clintonite and Bush should have fired that guy on day one. At least on Sept. 12, 2001.

This is Novaks article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

This is all Democratic bullshit and it started with this asshole Wilson's bruised ego.

You got me curious, so I looked this one up. The story is from the fringe. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't think the story is credible. I could find no mainstream new organization with this one, liberal, conservative or otherwise. That's my last one for tonight. It's late

Ahhh.... The media outlets I mentioned in my previous post are the worst. The LA Times and The NY Times lead the pack for print. Then of course you have the socialist and commie rags like "The Nation", but anyone who is even slightly politically savvy knows what that is from the get go....

You can't even bring yourself to calling the media liberal. You think you are being clever by saying they are "not being conservative". Come on...

I can't name any moderate media organizations. There is no such thing anymore. The only thing that can be measured is how far they lean either left or right. The absolute truth is that there are many, many more that lean to the left. Another issue is political correctness. That in some way destroyed the news industry. Words are powerful. PC removed many words from the venacular and it also dictates what stories will be reported on and that is a shame.

My local newspaper at one time was a good moderate paper. No longer. It is squarely to the left. It even has an outright hatred for the 450,000 inhabitants of the area. You see, the problem is the population of my borough is 70% white. The paper on a daily basis prints articles claiming that everyone who lives here must be some kind of a racist because the borough is not "diverse" enough. Bias issues are on the front page everyday. It's either bias or not enough diversity. It is now printing gay marriage photos. Besides the local articles telling the populace how racist they must be, all the other articles are reprints of LA Times and AP articles. It is owned by Newhouse Publications (same company as the LA Times). I cancelled it two weeks ago. I couldn't take it anymore. It's a shame. It was a good local paper at one time. I've been reading it since I was a teenager but I won't be anymore. According to the letters to the editor lately, I'm not the only one cancelling either.

You live in a college town. Maybe that explains some of your liberalism. Most college professors today are the worst of American society.

Is the US supposed to be the world's police? I don't know. It certainly isn't the UN. All they do is talk, collect huge salaries and do absolutely nothing. They are pure international socialist welfare cases. A total waste of time and effort. Someone has to step up to the plate. For your information, FDR, the Democrats big hero, once envisioned the US as the world's police force along side Britain.

Regarding an Iraq exit strategy... We have one. It's being worked on right now. Do you liberals think building a new country and government takes 4 weeks? How long are you willing to wait? Would you have given Clinton or Al Gore more time? Don't you think you are sounding like a spoiled little child who needs instant gratification? Iraq will take a couple of years and the administration never said otherwise. In fact Bush even said the war on terror may last through several presidencies. Possibly our whole lives. War is no time to act like a spoiled little kid. An obvious partisan Democrat spoiled kid.

Guilty, I ordered the books you suggest and I'll return to this topic. Until then I'll withhold judgement on calling a media outlet liberal.

Man I hate insomnia. 3 hours sleep in 48 hours sucks.

You are being dishonest with that BS just like last week. What part of "We don't know." don't you get?

This is my favorite. I thought it was all dreamed up in Texas Ted? Why do people continue to reelect this jackass? I think it is sad that this is what is left of the Kennedy family in politics.

I know it is hard at times, but why don't the majority of you just sit back and trust the government? You can't expect them to release highly classified material just to appease the liberal press.

For goodness sakes, you liberals trusted Clinton.

Complete trust is a bad thing. And classified info - that should not even be on the table.

The problem is, there is so much coming out that sounds suspect (even if it turns out to be nothing).

Trust no one should be the mantra.

How can you say that the media is liberal? Have you completly forgotten how they jumped all over Clinton for lying about a blow job? For eight years the media continued to dig and dig and dig, and all they could come up with was lying about a blow job. You know why that's all they could find? Because that's all that was there.

Now you have Bush in the White House with LOTS of questionable activities going on around him, and you hear next to nothing about it. The story is reported for maybe a day, and then you don't hear about it again.

The media is liberal?? Man, that's a line NIXON came up with, and you people have been bitter about it ever since.

Hey WilMac, are you forgetting how CNN (Clinton News Network) stuck up for him during the whole thing? You better do some checking.

God all he did was lie to a court under oath. What's the big deal? :rolleyes:

I've done some checking. I was sitting outside the capitol building every day with other news photographers. CNN was there every day. They were sticking up for him? They were reporting the news just like everyone else was.

Why don't you tell me how they were sticking up for him. Give me a quote with a date that I can look up.

Until then, you're simply repeating something that O'Reilly and his cronies have beaten into your head.

The big deal is that he should have never been there in that chair answering those questions in the first place. What was Ken Starr investigating? As far as I remember, he was supposed to be investigating whether the Clinton's profited on a land deal that went belly up. Tell me how that relates to a blow job.

And also please tell me you wouldn't have done the same thing if you were in his place.