posted on June 3, 2004 04:16:02 PM new
The lefties all say that Bush lied about WOMD's in Iraq. Well, what about Britain's Tony Blair? Did Blair lie, too? Blair himself is a Labor Party far lefty, why would he want to support George Bush? Britain's intelligence agency MI6 is probably better than the CIA and Blair would have known if Bush was trying to pull a fast one. Did Bush fool Blair and Blair's MI6?
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 3, 2004 04:31:05 PM new
Blair is getting his fair share in the UK. His political career is over. As soon as I hear from my friend in London, I'll get you a direct quote from someone who does criticize him. Blair is nothing but a pants kisser. He kissed Clinton's backside and he kissed Bush's.
posted on June 3, 2004 04:35:09 PM new
Because Tony Blair isn't running against President Bush is my opinion. But they have raked him over the coals in here too. You must have missed it.
=======================
I hold the position that since the clinton administration ALSO believed saddam had womd....they either they've both lied to us or neither lied to us. But it's the ultimate in hyprocrisy when they both said the same thing...to blame one and not the other. [there - I feel better now ]
posted on June 3, 2004 04:55:53 PM new
Why don't you compare the number of countries that believed Bush against the number that didn't EAG. It was a political gamble for Blair and he lost along with his buddy Bush.
posted on June 3, 2004 05:02:07 PM new
Blair got much of his intelligence from us and he followed Bush like a faithful puppy. Yes, Tony Blair lied to the people of Great Britan. Whether he did it on purpose or not is still up for grabs. We do know that our government purposely decieved us though.
BTW - Cheryl is right, Blairs job has been hanging by a thread for awhile now.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 3, 2004 06:16:28 PM new
Tony Blair believed what he was telling the people of the UK was the truth. Turns out it wasn't. He lied because he believed a liar. That's how you don't lie on purpose. I'm sure if he had known he was being lied to, things would be far different. His job is on the line and he is not liked in the UK. He will not be re-elected. Had he come forward and admitted to the people of the UK that what was told to him was less than truthful, he'd be in a far different position.
posted on June 3, 2004 07:52:49 PM newTony Blair believed what he was telling the people of the UK was the truth. Turns out it wasn't.
That is not lying. Do I need to post a definition of the word "lie?"
What about Britain's intelligence agency? Its human intelligence in the Middle East is better than the CIA's. They would have known if there were no WOMD's in Iraq. And what is Blair's motivation for supporting Bush in a big lie? Blair is a member of the LABOR party for cryin out loud!
And what about 'ol Bill Clinton who bombarded Iraq for 5 days in 1998 because Saddam Hussien would not give up his WOMD's? Did Bill Clinton lie, too?
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 3, 2004 08:19:10 PM new
EAG, the point is ithat Blair is and has been under as much fire in the UK as Bush has here and has come much closer than being kicked out of office (much easier to do in the UK than here). If bringing Blair into the picture of the debates here is your new form of delection it's painfully obvious that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Let ask you something... how do you defend Bush passing knowingly false information off on this country and the world in order to justify his desire to go to war?
(Beore you as know I know it was "knowingly false info... Powell has since said so.)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 3, 2004 08:21:40 PM new
What is Blairs motivation? He has no spine. When have you every heard this man disagree with anything? He is much better suited to be hthe leaer of France.
Why do you think his approval ratings make Nader popular?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 3, 2004 08:57:04 PM new
Perhaps it doesn't matter to many here whether Blair lied or not, as most if not all of us are not British Citizens. It matters very much to most of us whether or not Bush lied. Personally, I don't think the President would recognize a WMD if he sat on one, and hadn't and still hasn't the faintest clue whether there were actually any in Iraq at the time we went to war. He told us they were there because his string pullers told him to say that. It's the same as an intentional lie however. He's the President, and if the President isn't responsible for his own words, nobody is.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 3, 2004 09:00:54 PM new
My wife was born in Britain and I am in touch with my in laws on a regular basis. It's hard to gage the shift of support from his own party as my in laws are Conservatives and have always voted that way.
At one point however they were pleased with the direction Blair was taking but since he began his unswerving support of Bush they detest him.
I find it hard to believe there has not been a vote of no confidence to this point.
It is interesting that you now do not claim Bush didn't lie you try to weigh the severity of his lies by comparing to other liars and hold those duped as responsible for being duped.
posted on June 3, 2004 09:19:33 PM new
I agree Blair is very unpopular and that he's toast in the next election. To say Blair has no spine is ridiculous. He showed leadership that Churchill would've been proud of.
But none of the lefties want (or are able) to answer the questions:
What were Blair's motivations for lying about Iraqi WOMD's and supporting Bush, his ideological opposite?
Did the MI6 go along with the lie? Why?
Did Bill Clinton lie when he said he was attacking Iraq's WOMD's in 1998?
The answer is that Clinton did not lie about Iraqi WOMD's. Blair did not lie about Iraqi WOMD's. And Bush did not lie about Iraqi WOMD's.
The point of this thread is that if Bush was lying, there is no way in hell that Blair would have supported Bush.
Here's a list of those (besides Bush) who believed Iraq had WOMD's:
-Bill Clinton
-Tony Blair
-Colin Powell
-John Kerry
-The CIA
-The MI6
-Spain
-Italy
-Poland
-20+ other countries
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 3, 2004 09:25:15 PM new
But you left one out EAG
"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
posted on June 3, 2004 09:57:32 PM new
I would have thought you'd seen all the quotes I've posted before, EAG. Quotes from clinton....on the day he bombed iraq 12-16-98....then in 2003 saying 'on the day he left office he didn't know if saddam still had womd.' [paraphrasing here]
But here's a whole list of dems speaking out on the issue....guess they were all lying.
If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998.
Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
----------------
PLUS during the clinton administration clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act....anyone can look that up. CALLED for saddam's removal.
posted on June 3, 2004 10:18:01 PM newRewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq
by John Hawkins
If you picked up a paper in the last week or so, you probably got the impression that George Bush spent a year demanding an Iraqi invasion based on claims that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons with uranium bought in Niger.
But now that the war is over, we've found out that it was all a lie & there were never any weapons of mass destruction to begin with. So far, nobody has suggested putting Saddam back in power, apologizing, and sending him a fruit basket, but just give them time.
Of course, that wasn't how it actually happened.
While the Bush administration certainly talked extensively about weapons of mass destruction, they also continuously discussed Iraq's breaking of UN Resolutions, freedom for the Iraqi people, and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda & terrorism.
But I'm sure many of Bush's critics were too busy screaming about a "war for oil" & "US imperialism" to pay attention to what the Bush administration was actually saying; so we'll have to forgive them.
However, I want to address these claims that Bush lied in the build-up to the Iraq war. So let's take on the big issues, one by one.
First off, Bush certainly said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Here's just one of Bush's quotes on the subject,
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
Whoops, I'm sorry! That was actually Bill Clinton in 1998. Gosh, it just sounds so much like what President Bush was saying during the build-up to the Iraqi war that it must have just slipped in. So let's try this again.
Here's just one of Bush's quotes on the subject of WMD & Iraq,
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
Shoot, I did it again. That's actually Hillary Clinton in October of 2002. How did that get in there?
---------------
to read the rest of how the 'left' has rewritten history...read the link as explainations are there to what people REALLY said....not what the left states they said.
I think we can all "search" the Internet for articles that suit us and then cut and paste. It takes more than Linda has to post original thoughts. She's the right side of skylite's left. LOL!
posted on June 4, 2004 05:32:20 AM new "I think we can all "search" the Internet for articles that suit us and then cut and paste. It takes more than Linda has to post original thoughts. She's the right side of skylite's left. LOL!"
Oh Wow! What a good observation!!! Cut and Paste is her lifeline...her source of salvation in a crisis.
posted on June 4, 2004 05:56:57 AM new
ebayauctionguy and linda K you guys are grasping at straws trying to defend your failed parties leaders. You need to face reality Bush, Cheney and yes Blair are all finished as leaders. The American prople and leaders of the world does not trust them any longer.
posted on June 4, 2004 08:34:24 AM new
bigpeepa - I understand that being faced with the truth of just how many democratic leaders, world leaders, etc ALSO believed saddam had womd upsets the left.
But it is the truth.
And my admiration for President Bush having the 'backbone' to take action and remove that threat is enormous. Rather than how clinton basically ignored all the attacks on American interests to the point that BinLaden makes the statement America is a paper tiger. Now he KNOWS we're not.
]
