We got lied to, Mr. Bush !
From: lightsearcher1
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:02 pm
Subject: We got lied to, Mr. Bush !
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
Give us a collective break, please.
Just MONTHS and in some cases DAYS before
Gulf Part Two last March (2003), most prominent Democrats wanted
Saddam Hussein's head on a platter, period.
"We have known for many
years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction." -- FAT TED KENNEDY
(D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"We know that he has
stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout
his country." -- AL GORE, Sept. 23,
2002.
"[W]ithout 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.
"[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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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.
"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.
"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.
"Hussein has ... chosen
to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies." -- MADELEINE
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
Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and
the means of delivering them." --
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D, MI), Sept. 19, 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."
-- ALGORE, Sept. 23, 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.
"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.
"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. ROBERT GRAHAM (D, FL), Dec. 8,
2002.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
Now Bush is saying 'we got lied to' and guess
by whom? BILL CLINTON. Go figure. It's all Clintons fault. Oh,
and lets talk about Cheney and Scallias. Can you just imagine
Clinton inviting Souter over for a visit? This just gets sillier
and sillier.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
I thought Christine might appreciate this.
"What makes planets go
around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this
problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating
their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will
see the answer is not very different from the truth. The only
difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and
their wings push inward."
(R. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, 1967)
[A planet orbits because it accelerates in
the direction of the sun's gravity. As far as we know, gravity
could be caused by tiny angels beating their wings.]
From:
http://www.geocities.com/ilian73/feynman.html
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:29 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
Uh, tks a lot,
you're demonstrating that the mother of the
gullible politicians (whatever color!) is always pregnant!
A.
----- Original Message -----
From: lightsearcher1
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:02 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush !
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 2:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
At 01:02 06.02.2004, "lightsearcher1"
wrote:
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
You seem to have a thing about panties. Wasn't
there something about panties in connection with Martin Luther
King too?
I am also curious about the connection between
the politics of the guns-and-gallows happy GWB, the Religious
Right, and the future of esotericism, the consciousness soul,
and the Threefold Social Order. Can you explain why anthroposophists
ought to be hawks and vote conservative, perhaps with a few quotes
from the PoF and Barry Goldwater or something?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 6:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
Br. Ron rants:
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
Give us a collective break, please.
Just MONTHS and in some cases DAYS before
Gulf Part Two last March (2003), most prominent Democrats wanted
Saddam Hussein's head on a platter, period.
Brother Ron, Brother Ron, Brother Ron....
You seem to have picked up the current administration's
talent for mendacity, in particular, their talent for selectively
quoting sources to "prove" what they want to prove.
As noted previously, most Democrats -- most
Americans -- did not particularly like Saddam Hussein and would
have happily seen him out of power -- overthrown by the Iraqis
or even choked on a pretzel. <G> But at what cost? Did
Americans want to overthrow Saddam Hussein if it meant:
* undermining our democratic debate with deliberate
deceptions;
* spending hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of dollars
in reconstruction costs;
* killing hundreds, if not thousands of our young men and women;
* killing thousands, if not tens of thousands of Iraqis;
* inspiring more anti-U.S. terrorism;
* nearly destroying the Atlantic Alliance; and
* making the U.S. more isolated and hated than it has ever been
in its entire history?
Um, in a word: No.
In order to sell most Americans on the war
in Iraq -- a war the administration had begun planning from its
first weeks in office -- BushCo had to establish some key "facts"
in the minds of the public and in the minds of the Congress:
** Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological
weapons which were an imminent threat to the United States and/or
its allies.
** Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already
possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.
** Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or
Al Qaeda.
(see more at: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17376
)
Since the CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence
Agency) had found scant evidence to support any of these assertions,
BushCo established The Office of Special Plans within the Pentagon
to do so. Throughout 2002 and early 2003, BushCo and their apologists
in the press berated the traditional intel agencies for being
'soft' on Iraq and Saddam Hussein and promoted their own more
alarmist view.
(see the thorough timeline of the above events
presented at:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
)
Nonetheless, even though the administration
spent most of a year presenting their own "cherry-picked
intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring
all the rest" deliberately "bypass[ing] the government's
customary procedures for vetting intelligence," most prominent
Democrats did NOT want Saddam Hussein's head on a platter in
2002 and early 2003.
(see also: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm
and http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
)
Let's look a little closer at some of those
quotes you presented, hmmm?
Br. Ron quoted:
We have known for many
years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction." -- FAT TED KENNEDY
(D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
But if we read the original speech, we see
that Sen. Kennedy actually said:
"We have known for many
years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned
about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya,
Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence
community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as
an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator
of weapons of mass destruction.
"In public hearings before
the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George
Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying
that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined
to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction,
and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War."
That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be
stopped short of war.
"In recent weeks, in
briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee,
I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred
from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military
superiority.
"I have heard no persuasive
evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear
weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.
"And the Administration
has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer
chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda
or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar,
the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the
Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect
Al Qaeda and Iraq. "
( http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
)
In case you missed that Br. Ron, that was
Ted Kennedy saying, "That is unacceptable, but it is also
possible that it could be stopped short of war."
Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement of
the administration's course.
Again, Br. Ron quotes:
"We know that he has
stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout
his country." -- AL GORE, Sept. 23,
2002.
But in reading the actual speech, we find
Al Gore stating:
"Moreover, if we quickly
succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate
military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President
Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth
rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a
far greater danger to the United States than we presently face
from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological
and chemical weapons throughout his country.
"We have no evidence,
however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist
group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan – with
no central authority but instead local and regional warlords
with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than
these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction
might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.
"If we end the war in
Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily
be worse off than we are today. "
( http://www.gore2004us.com/gorespeech2a.html
)
Again, hardly calling for the US to go it
alone and retrieve Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.
Similar misrepresentation / misinterpretation
of the intent present in the speech as a whole can be found in
the quote from John Kerry (see: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
) and the second Al Gore quote (see: http://www.gore2004us.com/gorespeech2a.html
)
Again and again, perusal of the entire speech
as given (easily found via simple google searches) shows that
Democrats did NOT agree with the administration's policy of pre-emptive
war vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Your selective quotes
twist the truth.
Moreover, the quotes from Democrats on the
subject dating from 1998 also do not support a strategy of pre-emptive
war, but were made in support of President Clinton's December
16, 1998 bombing attack on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
As the Center for American Progress timeline cited above notes,
"former weapons inspector
David Kay now admits that the previous policy of
containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq –
destroyed any remaining
infrastructure of potential WMD programs."
Clinton was able to accomplish this without
sending troops on the ground or collecting Saddam Hussein's head
on a proverbial platter.
Too bad your boyz couldn't do the same. Oh,
wait. They didn't have to -- as the CIA and other intelligence
services tried repeatedly to point out. BushCo invaded Iraq because
they wanted to -- because Iraq was supposed to be the
first step towards a new American empire. Alas, Americans actually
have little taste for naked imperialism... and are even less
likely to want to risk American lives to accomplish it.
Sorry, Br. Ron, but whilst it is true that
"mistakes were made" in the run up to the current war
-- these particular mistakes were made by BushCo and not their
Democratic counterparts. (The Dems made mistakes of their own,
of course, but it wasn't in calling for Saddam Hussein's head
on a platter.)
Musing on what the President was responsible
for and when he will take responsibility for it...
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
Br. Ron rants:
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
Give us a collective break, please.
Just MONTHS and in some cases DAYS before
Gulf Part Two last March (2003), most prominent Democrats wanted
Saddam Hussein's head on a platter, period.
Brother Ron, Brother Ron, Brother Ron....
You seem to have picked up the current
administration's talent for mendacity, in particular, their talent
for selectively quoting sources to "prove" what they
want to prove.
<snip>
Ye-hah JoAnn!
Bout time we've seen a good long post from
you!
Well done!
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 12:05 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Bush
!
Thanks, Jo Ann, I've gotten this list of quotes
out-of-context 5 or 6 times (once from you-know who), and it's
easy to fall for it. However, what are they saying? We may be
dumb - but so are they. Now, thanks to your research, it turns
out "they" weren't so dumb after all.
Frank
Br. Ron rants:
The Devo-craps recently have their panties
all in a twist saying "WE GOT LIED TO!" that President
Georgey Bush "tricked them" about Mr. Saddam having
weapons of mass destruction.
Give us a collective break, please.
Just MONTHS and in some cases DAYS before
Gulf Part Two last March (2003), most prominent Democrats wanted
Saddam Hussein's head on a platter, period.
Brother Ron, Brother Ron, Brother Ron....
You seem to have picked up the current
administration's talent for mendacity, in particular, their talent
for selectively quoting sources to "prove" what they
want to prove.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Gisele
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] We got lied to, Mr. Blair!
Jo Ann Schwartz wrote:
Musing on what the President was responsible
for and when he will take responsibility for it...
JoAnn
~~~~Well said JoAnn!!!
Meantime, over here:
Tony Blair was sent 3 intelligence reports
in the 6 months during the run up to the Iraq war, including
one that warned him that information on whether Saddam Hussein
still held any chemical or biological weapons was 'inconsistent
' and 'sparse'. The revelation add to the mystery of how the
Prime Minister could tell Parliament last week that, when war
began, he still believed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction
capable of being deployed in just 45 minutes.
In fact, John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint
Intelligence Committee, and the Secretary of State Defence, Geoff
Hoon, knew that it was only "battlefield mortar shells or
small-calibre weaponry" that could be deployed that quickly
- but seemingly nobody told the Prime Minister, who said in the
Commons last week that he did not find out until after 18 March,
when MPs voted to go to war.
Yesterday Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary
who resigned as Leader of the House in the run-up to the war,
urged the committee of inquiry set up under Lord Butler to investigate
why a vital piece of information was apparently withheld from
the man who made the decision to send British troops in to fight.
(The Independent, 8-02-04)
Gisele writes:
As the Anglo-American New World Order advanced
implacably, the world economists and political historians divided,
and the sneering 'cock-up' theorist laughed at the 'conspiracy-theorist',
but is there anything left to sneer or laugh about now? Me thinks
Bro. Ron is just trying to cloud the water by internal little
political squabbles, but the bigger international picture is
what's important - who is allied to whom and why, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
