• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NOT for dis......we all know why

passin thru

Well-known member
Did George W. Bush "lie" about weapons of mass destruction? Nope...and there is no evidence to prove that the president acted in bad faith. And what's more, as Mona Charen explains, there are even documents recently released that show Bush was right. However we all know that the resident LIBERALS will ignore and resort to the HATE BUSH mantra. That is Ok we do not expect any better of you.




http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2006/03/24/191136.html

President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics.

One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because last week, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.

Before turning to the documents though it is worth pausing for a moment to dwell on the bad faith of Bush's opponents.

The whole world knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons at least twice: once against the Iranians and once against the Kurds within Iraq. (He had also threatened to use them against Israel.)


The whole world further knew that Saddam engaged in a protracted game of cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, first throwing roadblocks in their path and finally expelling them from the country (a violation of the cease-fire agreement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, which required Iraq to account for its weapons and prove that they had been dismantled and destroyed).

The entire world also knew that the U.S. and Britain had not rushed to war with Iraq. To the contrary, the build-up to the 2003 invasion was lengthy and deliberate, giving ample time to the Iraqi dictator to hide or destroy his WMDs.

And yet when coalition forces failed to find caches of weapons, the cry on the left was "Bush lied." It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would Bush want to launch a war on false pretenses? Would he purposely create a political problem for himself? Why? To enrich Halliburton? This is fever swamp talk.

Yet it was heard among leading members of the Democratic Party, not just in the MoveOn.org milieu. Nor was it correct to claim, as so many on the left did, that Bush altered the rationale for war after he failed to find WMDs. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the president sketched his vision of a democratic Iraq that he hoped would begin the transformation of the despotic and violent Middle East into something more enlightened and free. He mentioned "disarming" Iraq by force, but it was far from the sole rationale for war.

Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as The Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic.

The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shiite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."


Mona Charen is the author of Do-Gooders and Useful Idiots.


eyes.gif

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein
 

BBJ

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Is this also not " spin".... just your version of ' spin'?


OK you nailed us!

So the documents that were declassified and released were forged by the right wing wackos?

:roll:
 

passin thru

Well-known member
The funniest part is that kola didn't respond to these documents..........only came up with an accusation of spin....................Trying to divert attention away from the facts...........those darn pesky facts get in the way huh kola
Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
WHOA here buddy..... I didn't accuse anyone of anything....I ASKED a question... that was all.....talk about spinning something out of sorts....you just did a wonderful example.

And now that you mention it.....no one answered it either. Ok...answer like you guys pushed me that other day.


YES or NO....it's that simple!!!! Go back and read my posts before you get yer drawers in a wad with me.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Yes and all you are trying to do is divert the thread away from the course and make accusations. What someone did some other day has no bearing on this thread.

In order to dismiss these documents you have to come to the conclusion that either:
1 Sadam or Al Quieda did a Dan Rather on these documents
2 Admit connections
3 Admit nothing........stick with the Hate Bush agenda

Nice spin you have
th_tornado.gif


Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein
The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."
 

sw

Well-known member
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Gee, how come none of these people can use facts to push their agendas? I guess facts don't matter, only unless half truths told many times over mean that they are in fact truths.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
sw said:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Gee, how come none of these people can use facts to push their agendas? I guess facts don't matter, only unless half truths told many times over mean that they are in fact truths.

Yup. It's the liberel way! :wink:
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Thanks everyone, I just don't think it is right to ignore things and try to hijack threads that have some serious documnts mentioned. After all keeping their feet to the fire is only right since our young men and women are overseas and it is not right to distort these connections.
I owe it to our brave military peeople to not let these liberal distort things.

It is intellectually dishonest to for some liberals to condemn Bush and the reasons we went to war and then for them to say they support the troops when they are the ones lying to them. If they want to support our troops...........fine just don't lie to them.
Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein[
The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."

troops_460.gif

neverforget.jpg

POW.jpg
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You mean I have to have facts and be a " cut and paste" guru to just ask a question? I didn't say, use or "cut and paste" those 'quotes' on your last reply to me....I just asked a simple question that required a simple answer..PERIOD.

Do yo not agree that each side has it's version of " spin"?

I didn't condem Bush in my post...I do my part to support the troops overseas as best as I can..and I didn't hijack your thread....I asked you a question. Why is that so scary?????

This is like Black Sambo and the tigers....this is quickly turning into butter!
 

passin thru

Well-known member
You ask a question that has no bearing whatsoever on these documents, that my friend is trying to hijack a thread.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein
The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."

troops_460.gif


PS If you would want to ask a question, maybe you could start a new thread
 
Top