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

Search this site powered by FreeFind