Bush and Blair crumble

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Bush and Blair crumble
7
Sat, 01-31-2004 - 12:21pm
Whoop de doo. That war on terror thing was all a storm in a cracked tea-cup with an American coffee cup distintegrating as we speak, wasn't it?

What leaves me gobsmacked is how on earth the US population were kept so shrouded from the truth when the Brits shouted down sadcase Blair from the start. For goodness sake we're talking fundimental types here. Always dangerous, n'est ce pas?

Whose going to be in when the leafless one leaves?





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 01-31-2004 - 1:19pm

>"US population were kept so shrouded from the truth"<


Actually that's not accurate. Many over here had their eyes wide open but there was little press coverage of peace/anti-war demonstrations. There was a climate of

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 02-01-2004 - 1:59pm
<< That war on terror thing was all a storm in a cracked tea-cup with an American coffee cup distintegrating as we speak, wasn't it?>>

Of all the garbage that I've heard from EUoidiots since 9-11, I must say that you're remark is one of the most offensive, and one that I don't think you should be making, at least not until Islamofascists hijakc & fly British Air planes into the London Business distict and Parliament.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-01-2004 - 10:18pm
You need to remember that 9/11 left us extremely vulnerable. We haven't had an attack on our mainland of that magnitude since the Brits left (and I'm not sure that even then there was a single event with that much slaughter). The attack, unprovoked, on defenseless civilians, did something to our national psyche that is going to affect us for a very very long time.

Because of that there IS great concern about terrorists. I would choose to phrase it in less incendiary terms than "war" since that word has some very negative connotations. We're in a struggle to keep our nation from having another terrible attack like that of September 11.

Many of us didn't confuse the issue of Iraq with the effort to keep the United States free of attacks. Even our Army War College came to the conclusion that the conflict in Iraq was a liability in the effort against terrorism. But our leader kept juxtaposing Iraq with 9/11 and in the minds of many citizens of the United States that meant a causal type relationship. He deliberately played his speeches that way--I loathe him for it. Ironically, he had my support after the terrorist attacks. But manipulation, deception, spin, denial, and arrogance blasted his image for many of us. I just hope that whoever follows him will be more honest, diplomatic and less involved with the oil industry.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-02-2004 - 8:00am
Well said!

cl-Libraone





 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Wed, 02-04-2004 - 1:26am
You mean President Bush did not invent the idea of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?! Gosh, someone should tell the media and the Democratic presidential candidates.


How soon they forget!


Old records can still bite!!!!

"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 , 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 > >

"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

(D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), 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 invigorated 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, > December 5, 2001 > >

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and 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 weap ons

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 > >

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-04-2004 - 3:01am
Your post and quotes further prove what David Kay has said....this is an intelligence failure and in no way did the President either lie, or distort any information.

The sad thing is that many of the vocal Democrats either do sit, or did sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but cannot recall seeing all of the same intelligence and evidence that Bush based his premise of war on.

Bob Graham and John Kerry are two of the most guilty of this. Kerry even admitted this over the summer in an interview with Tim Russert (I think it was with Tim). He said virtually the same thing that Dick Gepardt said, which was that he privately spoke with George Tenet and asked him if the intelligence on Iraq seemed to be legitimate and correct. When Tenet said yes, Kerry and Gepardt both said that this is what aided them in their decision to vote for military action...

Avatar for kathaksung
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2003
Wed, 02-04-2004 - 9:19pm
You can expect it's a tactic to help Bush and Blair get rid from pressure on them and get ready for their next term. The result will be no difference than Wurren Commission on Kennedy's death.

A wolf ate the sheep. Other beasts demand an explanation. "I ate it. So what." Wolf pointed fox to form an independent commision. Which of course quitted wolf. So wolf can continue for its next victim.