USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
UH - which President Bush and which war are you saying this about?
Is Newt right?
- Thread starter Big Money
- Start date
UH - which President Bush and which war are you saying this about?
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." --
Thats what Al Gore told the people, Sept. 23, 2002
Gee, I guess he lied, huh... Whats your point
Apparently you lack a grade school understanding in that he did lie under oath and perjur himself. But you never were very good with facts, the truth or reality.
Again, unless you want to call all the following Democrats liars, your rhetoric is nothing more than partisan puffery:
"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 Bill 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
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"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
"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
"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
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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
"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
The inconvenient truth for haters of GW Bush is that he DID obtain the Congressional authority to conduct the mission in Iraq. It's called the JOINT RESOLUTION.
I am fascinated by individuals who continue to rant ignorant about Bush's authorization to go to war when it is as plain as the growing nose on their faces.
maineman
Banned
How could he believe that THERE WAS NO DOUBT when he, in fact, was well aware of the existence of plenty of doubt within his own administration. Again... a statement of fact versus an assertion of an opinion. Clearly, you don't know the difference. And lying under oath, if the lie is not material to the case, is not perjury. Sorry... go ask your lawyer if you need further explanation about that. Libby's lies WERE material... hence his conviction.
And if I were to make the claim you want to put in my mouth regarding my wife's doubts about my love for her, it most certainly would be a lie... just like Bush's was.
maineman
Banned
if less than twelve jurors cannot agree to convict a criminal defendant of a crime, he is, therefore, adjudged to be not guilty. If less than 67 senators cannot agree to convict an elected officials of the crimes and misdemeanors that the house accused him of in their impeachment, he, too, is adjudged to be not guilty. Sorry... but that is how our system works. Don't like it? renounce your citizenship and move somewhere where the system of jurisprudence is more to your liking.
Or move to Mexico and declare yourself a "dual citizen" while accepting payments from the US Treasury?
I don't give a shit how he is 'adjudged'.......if he did the deed, he is guilty, how he manipulates a jury or the law is a different matter.....
If 67 Senators can't agree, the accused is not impeached, the impeachment fails, not guilty in a trial has nothing to do with a persons innocence in committing the deed.
This is not a courtroom, this is a conversation between one reasonable adult and you....
The definition of GUILT is "to be responsible for, usually an offence or misdeed, feeling shame or embarrassment or remorse."
We are not in a courtroom, this is not a trial, we speak of guilt or innocence in this traditional sense....
A rapist is a rapist whether hes caught and found guilty or not....
A thief is a thief whether hes arrested and put in jail or not.....
A murderer is a murderer whether hes caught or not....
People are thieves, murderers and rapists because of the deed they have done, not some legal circus....thats reality.
Words do have meaning outside a courtroom and outside the legal system....words like lying, guilt, innocence, perjury...any dictionary will clear it up for you, if not
ask one of your Mexican peons that has spent a week or two in the US, they could help you.
maineman
Banned
again... our system of jurisprudence states that accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty... Clinton was impeached (indicted) but never found guilty by the court (senate) that heard his case. He was presumed innocent going in and he was found not guilty going out. DOn't like it? Fucking move somewhere where the guilty are presumed guilty.
maineman
Banned
He would only "perjure" himself if he had committed the crime of perjury, which he did not. Do you understand that perjury requires lying under oath about issues that are material to the case in question? Apparently not. If, in a murder trial, the prosecutor were to ask the defendant his height, and he were to reply with a number that was three inches taller than he was, and his actual height had no bearing on the case, then, even though his overinflated statement about his stature was a lie, it would not be perjury. One needs to move beyond grade school reasoning to be able to converse intelligently with adults. I would suggest some extensive study and then, perhaps you might be something more than a obvious idiot.
Who said they'd do that, Admiral?
Robo
Verified User
Actually I'm saying that about both Bushes and every President that involved our military in combative actions since 1941, our last Congressionally Declared War.
Robo
Verified User
And of course you’ll very soon produce the article or amendment in our Constitution that authorizes the Congress to produce a resolution that in effect gives the proxy of the Congress to DECLARE WAR to a president to decide if, when and where HE the President will start a war, right?
Actually if you bother to think on it awhile, what the Congress actually did with their unconstitutional resolution was give themselves a cowardly ”Cover Their Asses” escape from the responsibility to DECLARE all wars as authorized by our Constitution. Their cowardly objective was to pass all responsibility on to the President should the war go badly and that’s exactly what the majority of Democrats in the Congress did when Americas minions turned against the war, the lies, the stupidity and non-necessity of it. Say it isn’t so!
“…..The Congress shall have the power to……DECLARE WAR.………””Article One Section 8, United States Constitution)
Robo
Verified User
YES! Every President that involved our troops in hostile military actions without a formal debated DECLARATION of war presented by the Congress unconstitutionally DECLARED war by their actions. Every war is "DECLARED" by somebody and usually in America unconstitutionally. The bastards call them "police actions" or whatever suits their fancy to cover their asses from the violence they do to our rule of law, the Constitution. The ignorant minions cheer them on and reelect them then wonder why they turn right around and violate the Constitution again and again, run up debt and bankrupt the nation. DUH! probably because y'all morons allow the bastards to get away with it, huh?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But the discussion was kind of focused on the accusation that the President George W. Bush STARTED a war with Iraq.
Robo
Verified User
George W. Bush DID unconstitutionally start a war with Iraq. Congress DID unconstitutionally submit an unconstitutional resolution that allowed Bush to unconstitutionally start a war with Iraq.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And you're sure that's what happened and couldn't possibly be anything else?
But he is not judged to be innocent. And that, Bonehead, is what is relevant.....he is not innocent....he admitted to lying under oath.....no one put the
words in his mouth.....his admissions, Judge Susan Webber Wright's findings, and the fact that a number of Senators DID vote "guilty" all speak to the facts....
That was a LEGAL proceeding, this discussion is not....this is a discussion is about reality and facts....and in the end, confession or lies under oath....perjury, not in
the legal sense, but in the way laymen use the term in everyday life, the common definition found in any common dictionary....
Just a 'guilty' and 'innocent' had different meaning in the courtroom, in every day life they have direct opposite meaning.....