Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Please identify which Clinton you're whining about when you post, you're obvioius hatred of the entire clan makes it difficult to distinguish which one you're currently bashing
2) The rationale of Bush lying is the fact he intended to invade Iraq no matter what and used whatever he could, fact or fiction to promote his cause, mis-stating an IAEA Repooprt being a perfect example.
Last I checked, both Clintons either 1) Attacked Iraq or 2) voted to attack Iraq.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer
Too funny. The first three links I clicked reported that:
- (CNN) 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former Iraqi military facility (CNN quoting a U.N. nuclear watchdog agency)
- One anti-Bush site that stated Bush's comment that Iraq was "six months away from developing nuclear capability" was wrong because the IAEA had said that "Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability."
- The third was an IAEA board finding noting "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply" with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement."
So now we're at 17 pages and no reference to an actual Bush lie. But not a total waste as we have even more confirmation of the real lie; that is, that Bush lied.
I guess you'll just happily ignore Bush making the claim that an IAEA report stated Saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon?
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Senator Hillary Clinton
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of<br>United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html - broken link) 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
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons
I know, I know.. both clintons were lied to by Bush..
Gee, you're not going to somehow try to pin Bush's predisposition to attack Iraq and the rationale for his lies on Clinton, Bill or Hillary?
I'd still like to hear why, soon after the 9/11 attacks several members of the Bush administration were looking for ways to tie Iraq to 9/11 when:
Early checks showed how many hijackers from Iraq? 0
Libya had a history of state sponsored terror against the US
Iraq had NO history of state sponsored terror against the US
So the biggest lie of all is that the adminstration took a rational approach to investigating/avenging 9/11
No, I'm not trying to pinpoint Bushs predisposition on the Clintons, either one of them. I'm AGAIN trying to point out the inconsistancies in the liberals bs about Bush.
If your going to accuse Bush of outright lying, then you have to at least be honest and point out that Clintons used the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions, along with the rest of the world.
Last I checked, UN was investigating and taking actions against Saddam well before Bush was president, and to say that Bush lied for the purpose of drumming up some world wide conspiracy against Saddam is laughable. Bush wasnt president when the UN, or the world started to investigate all of Saddams atrocities.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Senator Hillary Clinton
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of<br>United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html - broken link) 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
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons
I know, I know.. both clintons were lied to by Bush..
Please point out EXACTLY WHERE either Clinton says the IAEA has stated "Saddam is 6 months away from a nuclear weapon" ?
WHERE do they cite a non-existent report?
Simply saying he was working to rebuild his programs or "will keep trying" IS NOT the same thing.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No, I'm not trying to pinpoint Bushs predisposition on the Clintons, either one of them. I'm AGAIN trying to point out the inconsistancies in the liberals bs about Bush.
If your going to accuse Bush of outright lying, then you have to at least be honest and point out that Clintons used the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions, along with the rest of the world.
Last I checked, UN was investigating and taking actions against Saddam well before Bush was president, and to say that Bush lied for the purpose of drumming up some world wide conspiracy against Saddam is laughable. Bush wasnt president when the UN, or the world started to investigate all of Saddams atrocities.
You are sadly so obsessed with the Clintons you can't see much of anything else.
Bush LIED about a non-existent IAEA report, just where/when did the Clintons do the same?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If your going to accuse Bush of outright lying, then you have to at least be honest and point out that Clintons used the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions, along with the rest of the world.
If you're referring to Bill it's damn foolish to expect 1998 intel to be relevant after 9/11
If you're referring to Hillary, I don't believe the Congress has access to the same level of intel as the CinC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
