Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Bush lied…

Five months before the Iraq War, the following speech was given:
"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."
No, this speech was not given by George Bush or John McCain. This was a speech given on October 10, 2002 by Hillary Clinton. Similarly, on October 10, 2002, John Edwards, once a member of the Senate intelligence committee and one time Democratic Presidential candidate said,
"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."
If Bush lied, so did Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other Democrats. Please take time to read John Hawkins’ excellent articles about the other myths propagated by the Left: here and here.

8 comments:

jazzycat said...

It is very frustrating isn't it to see such dupes as l'oiseau buy in to the propaganda of the left? It is scary to watch people leave Sanitytown marching in lock step to Kooksville based on a total lack of discernment along with blind faith in the Dan Rather MSM reporting.

Robert said...

To be fair, I wouldn't call L'osiseau a "dupe." Frankly, I think Obama's followers are willing to overlook the left's complicity in the war by virtue of the fact that they no longer support it and they believe in their overall agenda.

I wish I could say that the right was immune from such group think, but we're not. Sadly, the right has been willing to accept candidates like Bush that we had deep reservations about in 2000 (he looked like the new breed of big government Republicans). We rallied behind Bush because he said a lot of the right things, we sure as heck didn't want Gore, and we were willing to shelve our concerns based on a desire for the presidency.

We've accepted a lot of neo-cons and other big government Republicans over the past 8 years. However, I think that's changing. Conservatives sat out the 2006 election and I think they're preparing to do that again in 2008. Perhaps we're no longer willing to simply shelve our concerns just to keep someone out of office. Both McCain and Obama threaten to bring us to the same place; Obama just faster than McCain. Frankly, being anti-Obama is not a good platform. You've got to be FOR something rather than against.

Maybe the right is waking up and realizing we're not going to be "dupes" anymore. The question is - what will happen in the meantime? What will happen to the country before the next Reagan comes to power?

jazzycat said...

Robert,
You can make a case that many Republicans are duped, but one is not a dupe to vote for Bush over Gore or for McCain over Obama.

As for l'oiseau. He is on record a few comments back for the following:

Bush lied that Iraq most definitely had WMDs.

dupe: a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.

The only way he could believe that thinking is from the MSM and the left. It is L'osieau who is not being fair as this post points out. We conservatives will start being a lot more effective if we start calling the left on their lies instead of worrying about being unfair to them.

Dennis said...

jazzycat,

I hear what you're saying, but on the other hand, l'oiseau has never called any of us names.

I would prefer to return the courtesy to him/her and focus on the issues.

jazzycat said...

Dennis,
I will honor your request. I meant it as a description of a mindset rather than a derogatory name. I have been duped in my life and when that happens, I am a dupe. IMO, people who accuse Bush of lying about WMD's or stealing the 2000 election are dupes of the left on these issues.

When l'oiseay backs up his claim that Bush lied about the issue of WMD's, I will give him an apology. Again, I appreciate your work here and will honor your request.

L'oiseau said...

Jazzycat, it is a lie to say that WMDs definitely existed in Iraq when they did not, and it was not proven that they did. That was all that comment was about.

Thanks, Robert and Dennis for your defense of me. I had a response, but Robert pretty much covered it. And I have stayed away for a while because of Jazzycat specifically, so it means a lot to me that you have "defended" me here.

I'm a SHE, too :)

L'oiseau said...

Oh, also, I would never ever disagree with you that Hillary lied also. Of course she did. She could possibly be the worst liar in politics. Maybe, Bill, but what's the difference?

I don't see how any of this negates anything that I've said previously.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

I'm glad you're back.

Just a clarification: There is no doubt by anyone that Iraq had WMD before and during the first Iraq war (he used some of them on the Kurds).

We had no evidence that he had disposed of them by the time of the second Iraq war which is one one of the reasons we thought he still had them (the other reasons we thought he still had them were 1) the world's intelligence sources said so and 2) He kept trying to block U.N. inspectors who were looking for them.