If you're going to use this liberal crap I'm going
back to quoting Rush :)
> Let's consider just a few of the things that were
> conveyed as the gospel truth:
>
When did he ever say this was the gospel truth anyway?
> � "The Iraq regime is a threat of unique urgency.
> . . . [I]t has
> developed weapons of mass destruction." President
> Bush, Oct. 2, 2002.
Let's start with the correct quote in it's entirety.
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat
of unique urgency. We know the treacherous history of
the regime.
It has waged a war against its neighbors; it has
sponsored and sheltered terrorists; it has developed
weapons of mass death;
it has used them against innocent men, women and
children. We know the designs of the Iraqi regime.
In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled
biological and chemical weapons.
It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those
weapons."
That is actually true. We know Iraq developed weapons
of mass death and used them against they're own
people.
The last two sentences are questionable. They had the
weapons and they didn't destroy them all so naturally
everyone thought there were stockpiles.
Yes, he was wrong about the rebuilding of the
facilities.
Then he goes on to say that's based on what the UN has
said:
"U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq could have produce
enough biological and chemical agent to kill millions
of people. The regime has the scientists and
facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking
the materials needed to do so."
>
> � "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
> Hussein now has
> weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is
> amassing them to
> use against our friends, against our allies, and
> against us." Vice
> President Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
And that's what the entire world believed. We did find
some weapons so technically that was correct.
Also, where do you think all the chemical weapons al
Qaeda had in Jordan came from? Can't prove it but
think about it.
> � "We said they had a nuclear program. That was
> never any debate."
> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, July 13, 2003.
>
STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you be certain that they had
these weapons ready to be used. You're not certain of
that.
RUMSFELD: I didn't say that. I said we found the suits
that an Iraqi would wear, were they going to use those
weapons or deal in that kind of a conflict. We had
ours, as well. Our people were all equipped with those
kinds of protected devices. They had to be, because we
were convinced and remain convinced, that they had
that capability. We know this from 12 years -- the
U.N. has said so; the defectors have said so; all the
intelligence community; the debate in the U.N. wasn't
whether they had chemical/biological or a nuclear --
we never said they had a nuclear weapon -- we said
they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.
The debate was -- how long should you wait after they
violate 17 U.N. resolutions before you enforce those
resolutions?
Again this is true. We know they kept all the nuclear
scientists around waiting for the inspectors to leave
and we're pretty sure they tried to buy uranium.
> � "We do know that there have been shipments going
> into . . . Iraq . .
> . of aluminum tubes that . . . are only really
> suited for nuclear
> weapons programs, centrifuge programs." National
> security adviser
> Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002.
That's what they thought and have admitted they were
mistaken.
> � "There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons
> stocks. . . . With
> respect to biological weapons, we are confident that
> he has some
> stocks of those weapons and he is probably
> continuing to try to
> develop more." Secretary of State Colin Powell,
> Sept. 8, 2002.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: There's no doubt
that he has chemical weapon stocks. We destroyed some
after the Gulf War with the inspection regime, but
there's no doubt in our mind that he still has
chemical weapon stocks and he has the capacity to
produce more chemical weapons.
With respect to biological weapons, we are confident
that he has some stocks of those weapons, and he's
probably continuing to try to develop more. And
biological weapons are very dangerous because they can
be produced just about in any kind of pharmaceutical
facility.
�No doubt in our mind� doesn�t sound like he�s
claiming it to be he gospel truth to me.
> � "The more we wait, the more chance there is for
> this dictator with
> clear ties to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda,
> more time for him
> to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these
> weapons again."
> Secretary Powell, Jan. 26, 2003.
There�s nothing wrong with this statement. We do know
he had ties with al Qaeda. The recent report stated
there's no proof Iraq was involved with 9/11.
>
> A year ago we were told by a senior administration
> official that Iraq
> could "really finance its own reconstruction, and
> relatively soon." We
> now shell out more than $4 billion a month from the
> U.S. Treasury.
The price of freedom is not cheap.
> We were told last summer that the number of Iraqis
> signing up to fight
> "numbered in the thousands" -- only to see Iraqi
> troops refuse to
> fight at Fallujah and others switch sides, and hear
> military leaders
> admit that that the Iraqi forces weren't ready for
> prime time.
That�s a liberal way to spin it. The Iraqis asked if
they could handle it there own way and we said yes.
-sm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
