Bush didn't just lie........

[RKMBrown]

Do you have any Proof of your accusation or are you just relying on Michael Moore's bull shit made up crap?

What did Bush lie about?

The threat of an Iraq attack on the US
Yellow cake
Aluminum tubes
Iraqs involvement in exporting terrorism

He knew all these were lies before he ordered the invasion

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

I see so a couple nutz in an airplane are "credible" threats that should cause us to give up our liberty for some small measure of security. But a nut case running a country the size of Iraq who has millions upon millions of tons of actual weaponry threatening the USA is not credible and we should just ignore that... ROFL

He had no means of delivery in spite of Bush's lies about his drone capability

Bush exploited post 9-11 fear to get what he wanted. He was willing to tell any lie to do so

Then why the war on terror if they have no means of delivery? BTW in the old days people would get on a boat and travel. I'm surprised you are saying they don't have boats in Iraq. Really? Are they that backward? They don't even know how to drive a boat? They don't know how to fly aircraft in Iraq? No intercontinental airlines at all? Not one airplane that can fly across the Atlantic? Odd. They must be all mentally handicapped in Iraq if they can't even get to the USA. Very odd.

 

[gipper]

You can easily detect lies by Rs, but Ds never lie.

Obama lies every day, but in your 'mind' that is okay because he is a D.

Ds good Rs bad.....

2 sides of the same coin nonetheless

Exactly, but partisans on both sides can't see it.

 

[rightwinger]

What did Bush lie about?

The threat of an Iraq attack on the US
Yellow cake
Aluminum tubes
Iraqs involvement in exporting terrorism

He knew all these were lies before he ordered the invasion

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

I see so a couple nutz in an airplane are "credible" threats that should cause us to give up our liberty for some small measure of security. But a nut case running a country the size of Iraq who has millions upon millions of tons of actual weaponry threatening the USA is not credible and we should just ignore that... ROFL

He had no means of delivery in spite of Bush's lies about his drone capability

Bush exploited post 9-11 fear to get what he wanted. He was willing to tell any lie to do so

Then why the war on terror if they have no means of delivery? BTW in the old days people would get on a boat and travel. I'm surprised you are saying they don't have boats in Iraq. Really? Are they that backward? They don't even know how to drive a boat?

Yes, I imagine Bush was terrified of the Iraqi Navy

 

[RKMBrown]

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

I see so a couple nutz in an airplane are "credible" threats that should cause us to give up our liberty for some small measure of security. But a nut case running a country the size of Iraq who has millions upon millions of tons of actual weaponry threatening the USA is not credible and we should just ignore that... ROFL

He had no means of delivery in spite of Bush's lies about his drone capability

Bush exploited post 9-11 fear to get what he wanted. He was willing to tell any lie to do so

Then why the war on terror if they have no means of delivery? BTW in the old days people would get on a boat and travel. I'm surprised you are saying they don't have boats in Iraq. Really? Are they that backward? They don't even know how to drive a boat?

Yes, I imagine Bush was terrified of the Iraqi Navy

Why use an expensive capital ship when all you need is a small yacht? You are not making any sense.

 

[Camp]

All discussions and threads about Bush being a liar that lied us into the war in Iraq end the same way. His defenders deflect into discussions about policies and politics unrelated to the topic of him being a liar that lied to get us into a war with Iraq.

Actgually conservatives point out the obvious: Bush was saying what everyone else, including Democrats, were saying at the time. Then we get to watch them scuttle under a rock.

Nobody was saying there was collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda. Nobody. You are using the method used by the Bush supporters all the time. You are muddying the waters by combining Bush's claim of collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda and general excuses for war with Iraq and the potential for Iraq to assist some terrorist group. The State of the Union Speech was the foundation for linking Iraq with al Qaeda. The outright lie did not have to be repeated, it could simple be alluded to. Over a decade later people are asking for proof that Bush didn't have intelligence to back up his claim. Think about how ridiculous that is. Bush and his administration are allegedly holding back intelligence data that could clear his and their names.

The Czechs maintain to this day there was a link.
There was certainly a link between terrorism and Saddam.
Beleive it or not there were many reasons to go to war. I realize that's hard for you to comprehend but not my problem.

Even if there was that one time single meeting in Prague, it does not equate with aid and protection. If the meeting occurred it would have most likely been to confirm that the two parties would not antagonize each other. They were enemies with no chance of ever becoming friends.
This is the visible uncontested lie no one has ever been able to refute. It was seen live and is captured on video.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any Proof of your accusation or are you just relying on Michael Moore's bull shit made up crap?

What did Bush lie about?

The threat of an Iraq attack on the US
Yellow cake
Aluminum tubes
Iraqs involvement in exporting terrorism

He knew all these were lies before he ordered the invasion

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

You're a dunce. No wonder you are irked.
The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North. He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us. Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Freewill]

Clinton went after OBL AND al Qaeda. The GOP was so wrapped up in him getting him impeached over some blow jobs that they sabotaged the most serious efforts.

www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

Yeah old billy, blew up a pill factory, a bunch of tents meanwhile being blown himself. Yeah quite the warrior.

It wasn't just a pill factory. That is the same lame line used by the GOP to threaten Congressional investigations and neutralize military effort to take out OBL and al Qaeda assets. A "pill factory" is in fact a pharmaceutical facility with the necessary equipment and machinery need to produce chemical and biological weapons. The almost 100 cruise missiles launched at Bin Laden and al Qaeda were meant to be the beginning of a campaign to find him and kill him. The intelligence community feared that a wide open investigation(s) of the type being used by Republicans would endanger agents and informers in the field as well as methods of gathering information about al Qaeda.
You guys won't read the link I provided because it is a timeline of pesky facts that debunk you nonsense. You will scream and whine for links and when you get them you run away from them. Prove to you the sky is blue and you will deflect into a conversation about the sky at night.

What you have posted and what is in the link you provided has been so debunked I find it interesting that you keep repeating it. Seems to me that your sources are at fault. True, the Lewinsky sexual harassment by the president was a underlying cause of him walking the dog but never the less the pill factory was never proved to be anything else. And guess what, If we are to believe the supplied article, Clinton lied and people actually did die.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Evidence[edit]
The key piece of physical evidence linking the al-Shifa facility to production of chemical weapons was the discovery of EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the plant during a CIA clandestine operation. EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid, is classified as a Schedule 2B compound according to the Chemical Weapons Convention and is a VX precursor.[4] Although several theoretical uses for EMPTA were postulated as well as several patented processes using EMPTA, such as the manufacture of plastic, no known industrial uses of EMPTA were ever documented nor any products that contained EMPTA. It is, however, not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention as originally claimed by the U.S. government. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from the presence of EMPTA near (but outside) the boundary of Al-Shifa that this was produced in the factory: EMPTA could have been "stored in or transported near al-Shifa, instead of being produced by it", according to a report by Michael Barletta.[5]

Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons. According to Clinton Administration officials, the plant, moreover, was heavily guarded, and showed no signs of ordinary commercial activities. However, a British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant's construction between 1992 and 1996, stated that the plant was neither heavily guarded nor secret, and that he never observed evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics, and the owner of the factory stated emphatically in interviews that the plant was not used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and that there was no evidence to the contrary.[6] Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government. Clarke also cited Iraq's $199,000 contract with al Shifa for veterinary medicine under the UN's Oil for Food Program. David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector also said that Iraq may have assisted in the construction of the Al-Shifa plant, noting that Sudan would be unlikely to have the technical knowledge to produce VX.[7]

Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[8]

However, a Clinton State Department official had stated that a money manager for Bin Laden had claimed that Bin Laden had, indeed, invested in Al Shifa. And that the Al Shifa manager even lived in the same Sudan house Bin Laden himself had previously lived in.[9][10]

The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."[11] The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters: "I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee's history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here."[12]

Nonetheless, Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.[13]

Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there.[8]

Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was from the start opposed by the U.S. Nor has the U.S. ever let an independent laboratory analyze the sample allegedly containing EMPTA. Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.[5]

You can cheer lead for al Qaeda all you want, even a dumb person can understand that the machinery used to make biological and chemical weapons are the same ones used to make legitimate medicine. The bombed factory was funded and built by al Qaeda. Clinton and the USA were telling countries not to work with or support al Qaeda and bin laden. Tough crap that you and those like you objected. With support the attacks against him might have brought about some positive affect.

Didja bother reading the article? Didja? No one was cheering for al Qaeda WTF is wrong with you considering that is your level of argument? Really am I to believe that you were a lover of Saddam because you and your ilk say that Bush lied us into war? Really? Is that the kind of game you want to play?

Read the article, and if you are old enough you should remember, that everything Clinton's administration said about the Pill factory was either not supported by the evidence or down right BS.

So what who funded the Pill factory if it was supply medicine to those who needed it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Who said anything about al Qaeda?

Bush and his buddys did.

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002
So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002
Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002
This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
10/28/2002
He's got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002
This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
10/31/2002
We know he's got ties with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
11/1/2002
in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002
He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002
We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002
This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002
And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002
He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002
This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
11/4/2002
He's had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
11/4/2002
This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
11/4/2002
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Speech
1/28/2003
"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Bush 2/16/2003

"I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Dick Cheney 1/21/2004

Just to list a few

That was nowhere in Rumsfeld's objectives you posted.

You rejected those objectives when you stated "First off Donald Rumsfeld doesnt speak for the entire US government" so I decided to tackle things Bush said before the war. Also if you clearly read the resolution you refer to Al Qaeda is mentioned. "Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

Again, check the Iraq Resolution passed by Democrats in Congress. That lists the objectives. We accomplished every one of them.

I did. It doesn't list objectives. It lists the "many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq."

Yes there were contacts between the two. Yes Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism. Yes t was hard to distinguish Iraq, a state actor of terrorism, from al Qaeda, a non state actor of terrorism. Yes, you cited Rumsfeld and I showed how we achieved all his objections. Yes the Resolution does state objectives. Yes there were UN resolutions as well, which the UN refused to enforce, probably because they were getting paid off by Saddam.
So far you protest only that I've made my case and you havent.

 

[Freewill]

All discussions and threads about Bush being a liar that lied us into the war in Iraq end the same way. His defenders deflect into discussions about policies and politics unrelated to the topic of him being a liar that lied to get us into a war with Iraq.

Nah... Bush did not lie to get us into a war with Iraq. The liars that say he did are just making shit up.

At the first STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS following the 9/11 attacks, Bush stated in his live speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to terrorist, including al Qaeda. He mentioned al Qaeda specifically, telling us their was collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda. There was none. When you or anyone else can show that Saddam was giving any kind of aid and protection to al Qaeda I may be convinced to revisit the issue. Until that time I consider Bush's lie during the speech to be the open salvo in the scam that followed.

Here is his quotes on Iraq:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

President Delivers State of the Union Address

My how different the actual speech sounds then what your sources have told you. I suggest you start questioning your source of information.

Oh, and did you forget about this: Saddam Rewards Suicide Bombers Families - ABC News
After 50 minutes of fiery speeches praising Saddam and Arafat and vilifying President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 Palestinians are called to the stage one by one. Each is handed a check — a gift from Saddam Hussein.

Each recipient is the mother, father, wife or other close relative of either a suicide bomber or someone killed in a clash with Israeli soldiers or security guard

Today's donation: a total of $285,000 — a princely sum in the economically distressed Gaza Strip.

 

[irosie91]

what was the lie?

 

[Tuatara]

What did Bush lie about?

The threat of an Iraq attack on the US
Yellow cake
Aluminum tubes
Iraqs involvement in exporting terrorism

He knew all these were lies before he ordered the invasion

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

 

[The Rabbi]

I listened to Saddam make threats of attacks on the US. I listened to reports of Iraq shooting at our planes. I saw the yellow cake. I saw aluminum tubes. I saw that EVERYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST had some involvement in exporting terrorism, and still do. Where's the lie again?

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

 

[irosie91]

Saddam was not a nice person

 

[Tuatara]

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

 

[Camp]

Clinton went after OBL AND al Qaeda. The GOP was so wrapped up in him getting him impeached over some blow jobs that they sabotaged the most serious efforts.

www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

Yeah old billy, blew up a pill factory, a bunch of tents meanwhile being blown himself. Yeah quite the warrior.

It wasn't just a pill factory. That is the same lame line used by the GOP to threaten Congressional investigations and neutralize military effort to take out OBL and al Qaeda assets. A "pill factory" is in fact a pharmaceutical facility with the necessary equipment and machinery need to produce chemical and biological weapons. The almost 100 cruise missiles launched at Bin Laden and al Qaeda were meant to be the beginning of a campaign to find him and kill him. The intelligence community feared that a wide open investigation(s) of the type being used by Republicans would endanger agents and informers in the field as well as methods of gathering information about al Qaeda.
You guys won't read the link I provided because it is a timeline of pesky facts that debunk you nonsense. You will scream and whine for links and when you get them you run away from them. Prove to you the sky is blue and you will deflect into a conversation about the sky at night.

What you have posted and what is in the link you provided has been so debunked I find it interesting that you keep repeating it. Seems to me that your sources are at fault. True, the Lewinsky sexual harassment by the president was a underlying cause of him walking the dog but never the less the pill factory was never proved to be anything else. And guess what, If we are to believe the supplied article, Clinton lied and people actually did die.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Evidence[edit]
The key piece of physical evidence linking the al-Shifa facility to production of chemical weapons was the discovery of EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the plant during a CIA clandestine operation. EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid, is classified as a Schedule 2B compound according to the Chemical Weapons Convention and is a VX precursor.[4] Although several theoretical uses for EMPTA were postulated as well as several patented processes using EMPTA, such as the manufacture of plastic, no known industrial uses of EMPTA were ever documented nor any products that contained EMPTA. It is, however, not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention as originally claimed by the U.S. government. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from the presence of EMPTA near (but outside) the boundary of Al-Shifa that this was produced in the factory: EMPTA could have been "stored in or transported near al-Shifa, instead of being produced by it", according to a report by Michael Barletta.[5]

Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons. According to Clinton Administration officials, the plant, moreover, was heavily guarded, and showed no signs of ordinary commercial activities. However, a British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant's construction between 1992 and 1996, stated that the plant was neither heavily guarded nor secret, and that he never observed evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics, and the owner of the factory stated emphatically in interviews that the plant was not used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and that there was no evidence to the contrary.[6] Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government. Clarke also cited Iraq's $199,000 contract with al Shifa for veterinary medicine under the UN's Oil for Food Program. David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector also said that Iraq may have assisted in the construction of the Al-Shifa plant, noting that Sudan would be unlikely to have the technical knowledge to produce VX.[7]

Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[8]

However, a Clinton State Department official had stated that a money manager for Bin Laden had claimed that Bin Laden had, indeed, invested in Al Shifa. And that the Al Shifa manager even lived in the same Sudan house Bin Laden himself had previously lived in.[9][10]

The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."[11] The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters: "I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee's history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here."[12]

Nonetheless, Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.[13]

Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there.[8]

Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was from the start opposed by the U.S. Nor has the U.S. ever let an independent laboratory analyze the sample allegedly containing EMPTA. Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.[5]

You can cheer lead for al Qaeda all you want, even a dumb person can understand that the machinery used to make biological and chemical weapons are the same ones used to make legitimate medicine. The bombed factory was funded and built by al Qaeda. Clinton and the USA were telling countries not to work with or support al Qaeda and bin laden. Tough crap that you and those like you objected. With support the attacks against him might have brought about some positive affect.

Didja bother reading the article? Didja? No one was cheering for al Qaeda WTF is wrong with you considering that is your level of argument? Really am I to believe that you were a lover of Saddam because you and your ilk say that Bush lied us into war? Really? Is that the kind of game you want to play?

Read the article, and if you are old enough you should remember, that everything Clinton's administration said about the Pill factory was either not supported by the evidence or down right BS.

So what who funded the Pill factory if it was supply medicine to those who needed it?

See how wrapped up in your own bullcrap you can get. First, who wrote your article? More important, why was it so important to take away the ability of Saddam to make WMD's but not important that an Osama bin Laden funded built and controlled facility equipped to produce large quantities of biological WMS's be destroyed? "So what" is your response to al Qaeda at having a WMD factory. And you mock Clinton for taking it out of operation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

 

[Freewill]

Yeah old billy, blew up a pill factory, a bunch of tents meanwhile being blown himself. Yeah quite the warrior.

It wasn't just a pill factory. That is the same lame line used by the GOP to threaten Congressional investigations and neutralize military effort to take out OBL and al Qaeda assets. A "pill factory" is in fact a pharmaceutical facility with the necessary equipment and machinery need to produce chemical and biological weapons. The almost 100 cruise missiles launched at Bin Laden and al Qaeda were meant to be the beginning of a campaign to find him and kill him. The intelligence community feared that a wide open investigation(s) of the type being used by Republicans would endanger agents and informers in the field as well as methods of gathering information about al Qaeda.
You guys won't read the link I provided because it is a timeline of pesky facts that debunk you nonsense. You will scream and whine for links and when you get them you run away from them. Prove to you the sky is blue and you will deflect into a conversation about the sky at night.

What you have posted and what is in the link you provided has been so debunked I find it interesting that you keep repeating it. Seems to me that your sources are at fault. True, the Lewinsky sexual harassment by the president was a underlying cause of him walking the dog but never the less the pill factory was never proved to be anything else. And guess what, If we are to believe the supplied article, Clinton lied and people actually did die.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Evidence[edit]
The key piece of physical evidence linking the al-Shifa facility to production of chemical weapons was the discovery of EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the plant during a CIA clandestine operation. EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid, is classified as a Schedule 2B compound according to the Chemical Weapons Convention and is a VX precursor.[4] Although several theoretical uses for EMPTA were postulated as well as several patented processes using EMPTA, such as the manufacture of plastic, no known industrial uses of EMPTA were ever documented nor any products that contained EMPTA. It is, however, not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention as originally claimed by the U.S. government. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from the presence of EMPTA near (but outside) the boundary of Al-Shifa that this was produced in the factory: EMPTA could have been "stored in or transported near al-Shifa, instead of being produced by it", according to a report by Michael Barletta.[5]

Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons. According to Clinton Administration officials, the plant, moreover, was heavily guarded, and showed no signs of ordinary commercial activities. However, a British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant's construction between 1992 and 1996, stated that the plant was neither heavily guarded nor secret, and that he never observed evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics, and the owner of the factory stated emphatically in interviews that the plant was not used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and that there was no evidence to the contrary.[6] Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government. Clarke also cited Iraq's $199,000 contract with al Shifa for veterinary medicine under the UN's Oil for Food Program. David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector also said that Iraq may have assisted in the construction of the Al-Shifa plant, noting that Sudan would be unlikely to have the technical knowledge to produce VX.[7]

Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[8]

However, a Clinton State Department official had stated that a money manager for Bin Laden had claimed that Bin Laden had, indeed, invested in Al Shifa. And that the Al Shifa manager even lived in the same Sudan house Bin Laden himself had previously lived in.[9][10]

The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."[11] The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters: "I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee's history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here."[12]

Nonetheless, Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.[13]

Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there.[8]

Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was from the start opposed by the U.S. Nor has the U.S. ever let an independent laboratory analyze the sample allegedly containing EMPTA. Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.[5]

You can cheer lead for al Qaeda all you want, even a dumb person can understand that the machinery used to make biological and chemical weapons are the same ones used to make legitimate medicine. The bombed factory was funded and built by al Qaeda. Clinton and the USA were telling countries not to work with or support al Qaeda and bin laden. Tough crap that you and those like you objected. With support the attacks against him might have brought about some positive affect.

Didja bother reading the article? Didja? No one was cheering for al Qaeda WTF is wrong with you considering that is your level of argument? Really am I to believe that you were a lover of Saddam because you and your ilk say that Bush lied us into war? Really? Is that the kind of game you want to play?

Read the article, and if you are old enough you should remember, that everything Clinton's administration said about the Pill factory was either not supported by the evidence or down right BS.

So what who funded the Pill factory if it was supply medicine to those who needed it?

See how wrapped up in your own bullcrap you can get. First, who wrote your article? More important, why was it so important to take away the ability of Saddam to make WMD's but not important that an Osama bin Laden funded built and controlled facility equipped to produce large quantities of biological WMS's be destroyed? "So what" is your response to al Qaeda at having a WMD factory. And you mock Clinton for taking it out of operation.

There is no evidence to support what you are saying THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Show the evidence or at least go back to your handlers and ask for clarification. You keep repeating the same untrue statement and I have been nice enough to just say you have been misinformed, to continue would means something quite different.

 

[Freewill]

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

Who's on second?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

TRANSLATION: Hillary is fucking toast - so scream BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH

Oh, is it racist to point out the demagoguery of you sleazy fucks?