All of the lies wrapped up nicely in one little video

[ViolaLee]

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/

Check this one out. It's pretty darn good. Sums it all up for anyone who wasn't clear on the lies.

Cheers, happy watching. :D

[Stoner]

I heard them mention WMDs. Now I didn't watch all of that neolib propaganda crap but was curious if they included these quotes in that clip?

"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

"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

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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

"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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

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

[Pookie]

Interesting. It was different.
Purrs,

[ViolaLee]

Stoner, that wasn't neolib propaganda crap. That was clips of your neocon government officials telling lies and then lying about telling the lies. You should watch it, so you can comment on it intelligently ;) and without changing the subject to other things.

[jafar00]

Stoner, every single one of those quotes has been proven to be a lie. What was your point?

[Labrocca]

Well that was a very good video. It certainly has better presentation than most of these kook videos.

However a lie requires INTENT...no one has proven that..no one. Prove it to me and I will stand at the White House calling for impeachment myself.

[Stoner]

Stoner, every single one of those quotes has been proven to be a lie.

So you're saying none of those people made those statements?

[jafar00]

Stoner, every single one of those quotes has been proven to be a lie.

So you're saying none of those people made those statements?


Who said them and that they were indeed said is not in question. The truth contained within is since every claim was proven false.

[Stoner]

Sorry, Jafaar. Those are their words. You can't flip flop and try and change it.

[BoogyMan]

I have waited a while to chime in on this thread and find it disheartening that a single and simple point is being overlooked, and I hope it is unintentional.

That point is that for the comments to be a lie there has to be volition involved. That meaning that there has to be some intention to deceive. No matter how much you dislike the person you cannot prove such volition, nor can you backup the assertion that the commentary is a lie.

[ViolaLee]

The intention was to take us to war.

The intent was to convince Americans that Iraq was somehow to blame for 9/11.

Labrocca and Boogy, don't you see that?

It's so clear to me.

[Stoner]

don't you see that?



The only people that see that are neolibs that listen to moveon.org and Kos.

Rational people who think through issues and use reason can't possibly come to that conclusion.

[Buck Laser]

don't you see that?


The only people that see that are neolibs that listen to moveon.org and Kos.
Rational people who think through issues and use reason can't possibly come to that conclusion.

Stoner, I'm really tiring of your constant whining about "libs", and your suggestions that they look only at leftist sources. That isn't true, and you know damned well it isn't. Most of the other conservatives here are able to disagree with ideas without implying disrespect for the people. That minor skill seems to have escaped you.

I rarely bother to open threads you begin, mostly because they're about tabloid news items. When you comment on someone else's topic, it invariably involves some nasty little dig at anyone who dares to disagree with you.

I s'pose this will get thrown into Fool's Paradise, but dammit, I am tired of Stoner having liberty to diss anyone he cares to with impunity, and without speaking to the real issues.

Contrary to your assertion, I don't get my ideas from Kos or MoveOn, but I look at them along with more sources than you can imagine. If you can show a single time that I've echoed Kos or MoveOn in one of my posts, I'll apologize. You can't do it, and you know it. Why? I don't post stuff from there.

[ViolaLee]

don't you see that?



The only people that see that are neolibs that listen to moveon.org and Kos.

Rational people who think through issues and use reason can't possibly come to that conclusion.


I have to strongly disagree. Rational people who are lied to get angry. Rational people hear Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Powell and Rice contradict themselves about the Iraq AQ connection and about Iraq's WMDs and about why we are at war in Iraq and they come to the conclusion that the Bush admin are a bunch of lying sacks of shit. That's why rational people have given them a 30% and below approval rating.

[Labrocca]

The intent was to convince Americans that Iraq was somehow to blame for 9/11.

No...that was a RESULT...prove intent please.

I don't see that video saying that Saddam or Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The video itself makes the LEAP of Saddam = Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda = 9/11, hence Saddam = 9/11.

Where in the video does any of the comments say Saddam = 9/11 cuz I must have just missed it.

Rational people who are lied to get angry.

That's an oxymoron. Rational people don't get "emotional". And you can't prove a LIE. You can prove that the administration made statements that were proven untrue.

INTENT...INTENT....

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Saddam did have links before he took the slow ride.
2. He surely had international terrorist links.
3. He was a tyrant.
4. He had to be brought down.
5. To win a war for America his very difficult as best these days.
6. Unless you just bomb em and fly to safe territory.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[ViolaLee]

There ya go, see? Chessy was duped, just like the Bush admin intended.

The intention was to invade Iraq. The means were the lies told to convince Americans that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. Labrocca, watch the video again. I've watched it three times now, and the lies are clear.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

It's crystal clear that the Bush admin wanted to get Iraq so they fixed the intelligence to make it happen.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)

Here's another article about Rummy's evil plans. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1716840,00.html)

We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.

LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

Meanwhile Saddam didn't have WMD. Saddam wasn't connected to the 911 terrorists. Al Qaeda 911 terrorists came mainly from Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.

All of these statements are very carefully concocted lies to convince Americans that Iraq was the source of 911. A lie that 70% of Americans believed.

Now do you see the lies and the intent?

[jose]

next week i´m going to see if i can get some ¨put¨options on the old USA (inc)

[Labrocca]

Fine Viola...liars all of them. Now what? What do you plan to do about it? I plan to do nothing.

[Buck Laser]

don't you see that?


The only people that see that are neolibs that listen to moveon.org and Kos.
Rational people who think through issues and use reason can't possibly come to that conclusion.

Stoner, I'm really tiring of your constant whining about "libs", and your suggestions that they look only at leftist sources. That isn't true, and you know damned well it isn't. Most of the other conservatives here are able to disagree with ideas without implying disrespect for the people. That minor skill seems to have escaped you.

I rarely bother to open threads you begin, mostly because they're about tabloid news items. When you comment on someone else's topic, it invariably involves some nasty little dig at anyone who dares to disagree with you.

I s'pose this will get thrown into Fool's Paradise, but dammit, I am tired of Stoner having liberty to diss anyone he cares to with impunity, and without speaking to the real issues.

Contrary to your assertion, I don't get my ideas from Kos or MoveOn, but I look at them along with more sources than you can imagine. If you can show a single time that I've echoed Kos or MoveOn in one of my posts, I'll apologize. You can't do it, and you know it. Why? I don't post stuff from there.

Just a gentle bump because I want to see if Stoner can reply rationally.

[ViolaLee]

Fine Viola...liars all of them.

Right, well, do you really believe it or are you just sick of hearing about it?

Now what? What do you plan to do about it? I plan to do nothing.
I guess you're just sick of hearing about it. I tell you one thing, if I were a Republican, or if it were the Democrats lying to take our country to war, man, I'd be so mad, you'd see smoke coming out of my ears. You think I seem angry now?

I'm angry for my beloved country. I'm angry at the party I've never supported. If I had to add the anger that I'd have at the party I've voted for all my life, I'd post on 10 boards about instead of just 3.

All I know is, if republicans like you, aren't going to do anything about it, the rest of us better make damn sure Republicans don't win any more elections.

They don't have to be accountable to their constituents because the ones like Labrocca aren't planning on doing anything about it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. I plan to do nothing too, just like congress and the senate.
2. I think maybe only the left wing kooks want to do something.
3. But who really ever listens to them, I ask?
4. I just stop and stare at them, and of course ridicule them..

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[ViolaLee]

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

1. Introduction

The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations.

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

If we do nothing, we won't be keeping our Republic.

[ViolaLee]

Here's another video showing 6 examples of the Bush administration lying about the lies they told connecting Iraq and 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-6A59qzAU