Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[NYcarbineer]

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.



Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There wasn't any 'agreement' between the parties. If most Democrats didn't want the authorization, it can't mean that the Democrats agreed to it.

40% of the Dims voting wouldn't agree with you.

If what you are trying to grunt out is the claim that "bipartisan" requires a majority of both sides, then you would be better served by proving that point.

40% of one side and just shy of 96% of the other side amounts to bipartisan support, otherwise.

So 40% is now a majority? What's 60% then?

btw, your logic means that the 2009 stimulus bill was bi-partisan, so the Republicans are just as responsible for that as the Democrats are. Correct?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

Pathetic. Come back when you're ready to address the fact that the previous admin and the Israeli and British intel agencies (among many others) believed there to be WMD's in Iraq.

This nonsense got old years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Or maybe the Democrats who voted for it voted for it because they were being fed false information from unreliable sources by an administration that was actively trying to get us into a war.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And this is fucking hilarious:

"We 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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"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

Who cares? What's your point? Hillary Clinton would probably be president today if she hadn't stupidly voted for the war, and remained unrepentant.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Or maybe the Democrats who voted for it voted for it because they were being fed false information from unreliable sources by an administration that was actively trying to get us into a war.

How could that be? Bush is a moron and they're all genius'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And this is fucking hilarious:

"We 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

Did you support the Iraq war?

 

[rightwinger]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"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

Thats odd...

I didn't see Clinton asking to invade Iraq

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"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

Who cares? What's your point? Hillary Clinton would probably be president today if she hadn't stupidly voted for the war, and remained unrepentant.

Just pointing out the fullofshitedness of the claim that Bush made it all up. That's all.

 

[rightwinger]

And one more point on the FACT that the Iraq War Authorization WAS bipartisan. The SENATE also had to provide its assent. And it did.

And it was a MAJORITY of the DIM Senators who voted "aye." 29 outta 50 of em, in fact.

Yep

And it ended up costing Hillary the Presidency

 

[Sallow]

Anyone else find it "interesting" this comes OUT NOW?

It's not out just now..it's been known for quite some time.

No one listened.

It appears no one is listening now..or even more infuriating..is "surprised" by this..

 

[hortysir]

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/435525_iraq15.html Intelligence source admits lying about WMD

No shit????









I think Saddam may have lied, just a little, about it too

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"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

Thats odd...

I didn't see Clinton asking to invade Iraq

But wait.. the point was that Bush lied. Ok, now not so much.. anyhoo... don't the words " and we have to use force" pretty much sum it up? Or, was Clinton just blustering, as usual? And yes, I know he didn' invade Irraq. He chose to invade an intern instead.

 

[hortysir]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza....

<snip>

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Just admit Bush was and is a Bufoon and go away.

Point proven

 

[Sallow]

This is even funnier:

"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

Who cares? What's your point? Hillary Clinton would probably be president today if she hadn't stupidly voted for the war, and remained unrepentant.

Just pointing out the fullofshitedness of the claim that Bush made it all up. That's all.

Bush didn't "make it up". He had an agenda going in..and it was buttressed by the PNAC, who were unsuccessful in goading President Clinton to attack Iraq. Bush was talking about attacking Iraq during the election..and his mind didn't change once he won. He made multiple appointments from the PNAC. Once 9/11 happened they cherry picked intel to make the case..for invasion.

That's been known well before the troops even hit Iraq. The rest of the country is just now catching up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Or maybe the Democrats who voted for it voted for it because they were being fed false information from unreliable sources by an administration that was actively trying to get us into a war.

How could that be? Bush is a moron and they're all genius'.

No, you're a moron for happily wishing for the needless deaths of thousands of young American soldiers.

You are a disgrace.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who cares? What's your point? Hillary Clinton would probably be president today if she hadn't stupidly voted for the war, and remained unrepentant.

Just pointing out the fullofshitedness of the claim that Bush made it all up. That's all.

Bush didn't "make it up". He had an agenda going in..and it was buttressed by the PNAC, who were unsuccessful in goading President Clinton to attack Iraq. Bush was talking about attacking Iraq during the election..and his mind didn't change once he won. He made multiple appointments from the PNAC. Once 9/11 happened they cherry picked intel to make the case..for invasion.

That's been known well before the troops even hit Iraq. The rest of the country is just now catching up.

Time to change the foil there buddy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Or maybe the Democrats who voted for it voted for it because they were being fed false information from unreliable sources by an administration that was actively trying to get us into a war.

How could that be? Bush is a moron and they're all genius'.

No, you're a moron for happily wishing for the needless deaths of thousands of young American soldiers.

You are a disgrace.

Wow, how do you come to that conclusion? WTF did your parents do to you?