Revisionist History?

[Clashman]

...or comedy gold?

You decide.

* "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.

* "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

* "The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

* "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

* "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."-- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

* "We know for a fact there are weapons there." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003.

*"The dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction," Bush, Jan. 22, 2003

* "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- Bush, Jan. 28, 2003.

* "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.

* "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Bush, March 17, 2003.

* "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." -- Fleischer, March 21, 2003.

* "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." -- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003.

* "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003.

* "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -- Bush, May 3, 2003.

* "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -- Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003.

* "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003.

* "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -- Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003.

* "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the -- our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." -- Bush, July 17, 2003.

*"I don't think they existed,".... "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War (news - web sites), and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s,"...."I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find,"..... "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about." David Kay, the man hand-picked by Bush to find WMD's, Jan 23rd, 2004

 

[Clashman]

I would like to add that my personal vote for this would have been comedy gold had it not involved the deaths of thousands, (if not 10's of thousands), of innocent people.

 

[archie4oz]

Then there's the old classic Bush vs. Bush...

rtsp://a1703.v9950f.c9950.g.vr.akam...ai.com/9951/dailyshow/stewart/jon_7131_300.rm

 

[Clashman]

That link isn't working for me. I remember the clip though. Anyone know of another place where I could get it? I've been meaning to get ahold of it for awhile.

Anyways, I think it's one thing to change your stance on an issue over the course of a political career. It's another thing completely to say one month that "We know exactly where they are", and then just over a month later say that "We never expected to find them right away", and at the same time accuse the people who opposed you of being "revisionist historians".

 

[epicstruggle]

Personally going for "other" or more appropriatly "biased post". You could have redemed that poll/post, by including many quotes from clinton. Clinton also said that saddam had wmd. Not to mention all the other countries who thought so too.

What it now looks like is that the one hand didnt know what the other hand is doing. Saddams scientists/generals were all fooling the big man and others(our spies/sources for one) as to their progress.

You mention all the thousands of innocent who might have died from the war. But do you care that over 400,000 had already been killed by saddam, and countless more would have died had he stayed in power. I guess you dont really care about those people, right? typical, your hatred of bush colors your judgement. Personally I thougth we should have gone in long ago, and then to other countries with similar human rights problem.

later,
epic

 

[Clashman]

First off, I admit my biases up front. Having a bias is nothing to be ashamed of. It's certainly never stopped you from posting anything.

Secondly, you say thousands killed in this war as if it's in dispute. Bare minimum civillian estimates are around 8,000, and over 600 coalition troops, with the actual toll likely much higher. This doesn't include cannon fodder draftees, people who didn't take their dead to the hospitals and just buried them right away, people who died of secondary causes, etc. And this is just the first fricken year. At what point does what's going on there become wrong? How much is enough? 15,000? 100,000? It obviosly isn't enough that the public was deliberately misled about the reasons for war in order to manipulate them. It also obviously isn't when we're locked into a long-term guerrilla war with no exit strategy. It isn't when cronyism creeps into the bidding process. It isn't when our government tries to limit any attempts at democracy in those countries to a mere facade. So when does it become wrong, epic? I'd like to know.

As far as Clinton goes, I've never been one to shy away from criticizing him, or the Clarks, Edwards, Kerrys, Deans, and Even Naders of the world. But to my knowledge, none of them ever said "We know right where they are" one month and then said "You can't expect us to find them right away" the next. If you can find some examples, well "Bring 'em on!"

 

[Heathen]

Could you add an option for 'Politicians, shoot the damn lot...'?

 

[Clashman]

And another thing, invading and bombing every country with a bad human rights record is about the dumbest fucking thing in the world you could do. We could have saved 10 times the 400,000 people killed by Hussein during his 25 year reign this year alone if we had taken the money spent on making bombs and instead had distributed vaccines, food, and medicines in impoverished areas, both worldwide and domestic. We could have created programs to accept political refugees into assylum. We could have built schools and roads. Hell, we could have halfway paid for a Mars trip. But no, instead we have to kill thousands of people and throw a country of 25 million people into utter chaos so that we could say "we did something", no matter how asinine the action actually is. Yeah. Great idea.

 

[Clashman]

Could you add an option for 'Politicians, shoot the damn lot...'?

Sure thing.

 

[Heathen]

This sort of conversation makes my head hurt, too many high horses to navigate a clear route through. Sooner or later you're going to crack your skull on one of them.

how about a nice big group hug before things get out of hand?

 

[epicstruggle]

But no, instead we have to kill thousands of people and throw a country of 25 million people into utter chaos so that we could say "we did something", no matter how asinine the action actually is. Yeah. Great idea.

Again, you forget to mention the countless thousands (dare i say millions) of people who would have died under saddams continued regime. Look it doesnt matter what i say to you. But try to get your facts straight. Clinton did say that saddam was a growing threat. We bombed his country at least 30 times before bush even took office.

Btw "utter chaos" is something you must see, because I see more children going to school, better water/electricity distribution, people freely worshiping the way they want, people free to express their feelings. I guess seeing happy iraqis is quite disheartening to you.

later,
epic
ps i am biased. But Im not a bush yes man. I disagree with him in the following areas:
-advocate a wall between mexico and US
-balance budget amendment
-go to nationwide sales tax
-others

 

[epicstruggle]

And another thing, invading and bombing every country with a bad human rights record is about the dumbest fucking thing in the world you could do.

Actually doing nothing, is the "dumbest fucking thing in the world you could do".

later,
epic

 

[Clashman]

So now everything but going to war is "doing nothing"? Gimme a break.

And by the way, selling anthrax and other chemical and biological agents, as well as the helicopters to spray them with, was "The dumbest fucking thing in the world to do". Wonder who pulled that one off.

 

[epicstruggle]

So now everything but going to war is "doing nothing"? Gimme a break.

Ok, heres a break. Theres lots of things that can/should be done before a war is necessary. How about having a strong UN that takes the innitiative before things get out of hand. Just one suggestion. Ill give more if you want.

And by the way, selling anthrax and other chemical and biological agents, as well as the helicopters to spray them with, was "The dumbest fucking thing in the world to do". Wonder who pulled that one off.

Again, when you selectively quote information you can make Stalin look like Ghandi. In reality at that time we were fighting against the commies. We had to have relations with bad people to keep a balance with the USSR. During the Afghan war in the 70's we had to help osama to fight the reds. But i guess you gloss over the facts and present what you want.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

So now everything but going to war is "doing nothing"? Gimme a break.

decided to add another. How about seizing all the millions/billions of dollars these dictators have stashed away in swiss(et al) banks. Might slow them down.

later,
epic

 

[RussSchultz]

And by the way, selling anthrax and other chemical and biological agents, as well as the helicopters to spray them with, was "The dumbest fucking thing in the world to do". Wonder who pulled that one off.

Didn't we already debunk this?

p..s Yes, you are engaging in revisionist history.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Revisionist pollsters...shoot the damn lot...

 

[Humus]

how about a nice big group hug before things get out of hand?

 

[Clashman]

Didn't we already debunk this?

p..s Yes, you are engaging in revisionist history.

No, in fact you didn't debunk this. People like Legion surmised that we couldn't prove that they used the actual chemical and biological strains we sold them, which is true only because we can't find any samples of them anymore. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact use the helicopters we gave them to gas Kurds and suppress the Shias in S. Iraq.

Insofar as arming Hussein to stop communism, that's a load of crap. We armed both Iran and Iraq, (and encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam, therby facilitating the Halabja incident). Stopping communism had nothing to do with it. Making money so that they could fund another illegal terrorist organization in Latin America did.

 

[RussSchultz]

Yes, dual use helicopters, dual use chemicals and biological agents. All bought on the free market, and incidentally also purchased from Dutch, German, French, Russian, etc. companies.