T Nation

Why Excuse Bush?

Let me start off by saying I understand the polarization of this election, and why some would vote republican no matter what, or some would vote democrat no matter what. But I’m still bothered by many of your die-hard defenses of the Bush administration.

I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory justification for the administrations actions taken before going to war with Iraq. It was the most cynical display of politics I have seen in my life. Would anyone care to dispute that Bush’s speeches were aimed at blurring the line discriminating Osama and Saddam? Do any of you think the “war on terror” was shifted into the “war in iraq” in an honest an sincere way?

Sometimes you have to make the call with the best available information you have at hand.

If he had WMD’s and we didn’t do something the potential existed for Sadaam to use them. That to me is all the justification he needed.

Iran today, threatened a premptive strike, against Israel and the United States. Again, that is enough justification.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sometimes you have to make the call with the best available information you have at hand.

If he had WMD’s and we didn’t do something the potential existed for Sadaam to use them. That to me is all the justification he needed.[/quote]

Are there not other countries in the world that could possibly might have WMDs and could possibly might have negative feelings toward Americans? We ought to be consistent, then.

If this is so, then it deserves our attention, of course – as this might be a case of self-defense as opposed to what we did with Iraq.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sometimes you have to make the call with the best available information you have at hand.[quote]

Some would say that the best available information source we had at hand were the weapons experts we had on the ground that were telling us there were no WMD to be found. Remember them? Remember how our administration refused to believe them? Remember how our administration refused to let them complete their work? Of course letting them complete their work would’ve exposed our “imminent threat” charade and eliminated our major pretense for war…

Sen. John Kerry voted for the war on the same information that President Bush had. Do you think he was honest and sincere?

The CIA gave the best information that they had at the time. It was not bad in some areas, and pretty horrific in others.

So goes the spy game.

The question you must now ask yourself is this: Are we better off with Saddam out of power (and standing trial?) I say we are!

I think we should also consider the fact that Iraq has the worlds third largest oil reserves and that we were keeping their prodution artificially reduced because of Saddam.

In a time of war keeping the nations economy as strong as possible is vitally important to the war effort. High gasoline prices will do more to slow or stop economic growth than just about anything else. China is experiencing phenomenal growth in auto sales and oil consumption. Last years auto sales were up %80 over the previous year. This is the reason why their oil imports are up %40 over last year. China is the reason why Oil will break 50 dollars a barrel in the next few weeks.

Like it or not there were more compelling reasons for getting rid of Saddam as soon as possible than just WMD. Unfortunately we have a whole bunch of activist twits whose first “knee jerk reaction” to anything involving the military is to go out and protest and undermine the governments negotiating position. So WMD got trumped up a little.

To hear all the pissing and moaning about removing Saddam you would think it was Mahatma Ghandi we took out.

Just because there are other dictators around the world who we have not taken out, that is not a reason why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq it’s an excuse.



Peroutka in 04

Where were you before the war, when retards were scoffing at the idea that the war was possibly over oil?

If the illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1,000 US soldiers and the maiming of over 6,000 US soldiers and the deaths of over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians is for OIL, then why not be HONEST and let the Bush administration approach the public with that rationale?

Lets see how much public support there is for a war, based on the idea that invading Iraq is really about protecting Team Bush’s cronies in the oil industry.

What are the odds that the liars in the White House would come clean on that one???

“Liars in the White House.” You have not one shred of evidence that anyone lied about Iraq, or any other matter! Yet, it is easy to type those words, so you do it…sad.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Liars in the White House.” You have not one shred of evidence that anyone lied about Iraq, or any other matter! Yet, it is easy to type those words, so you do it…sad.[/quote]

Do you keep up with current events? I’m not sure you do!

I saw all of these examples on C-SPAN or Meet the Press. You can say “they misspoke” or bend over backwards to excuse them any way you want… fact is they flat-out lied.

GEORGE BUSH told reporters in Crawford that the reason we “had” to go to invade Iraq was because Saddam had kicked the weapons inspectors out. Not true! Yep, Bush said that! But actually, Bush had called the weapons inspectors home! The idiots in the so-called liberal media just kept their heads down, and said nothing about Bush re-writing history. Again, Bush said we “had to” invade Iraq, because Saddam kicked weapons inspectors out! Was it just a Bush ‘brain-fart’? Who knows why Bush said that! But it’s well-established that’s obviously not what had happened!

DICK CHENEY said that there was “no doubt” that Saddam had “reconstituted” his weapons programs (translation: he was building WMDs) and that he “continued to make and posess some of the most lethal weapons known to man”. Cheney said there was “NO DOUBT” about it. However, we now know that when Cheney said it, there was PLENTY of doubt being expressed that there were no WMD, and that Cheney and others dismissed the doubts because that’s not what they wanted to hear!

DONALD RUMSFELD said he knew where the WMDs were. Not only did Saddam have WMDs, Rumsfeld knew exactly where they were!!! Not a figure of speech, he said HE KNEW exactly where they were.

CONDI RICE said there had never been any indication that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons. But Rice was the head of US security during the 2000 G-8 summit (in Genoa Italy, if I recall). During the G-8 summit, they were on high alert for terrorist attacks, including attacks by airplanes (kamikaze, so to speak). As head of security for the president, she would know that. Also the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief, which Rice tried to claim was a ‘historical’ document, mentions Al Qaeda “chatter” referring to airliners being used as weapons and flown into buildings more than once. Yet Rice testified that the concept of using airplanes as weapons was new and inconceivable.

These are just a few quick examples! I’d trust these people about as far as I could throw them!


The problem is what you characterize as a lie!

The best intelligence at the time said that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Is John Kerry a liar for saying that there were WMD’s in Iraq, and then voting to attack Iraq, or was he simply making a decision based upon the best intelligence of the day?

I think I pay close attention to what is going on, and I don’t judge others as liars (including Kerry) until all the facts are in!

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October of 2003, during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

“When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime,” he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he traveled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalization.

From 1998 then President Clinton said this:

"What if Saddam Hussein “fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.”

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

“Just consider the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.”

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability–notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

“Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They’ve harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.”

“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

And who else said the same things? Well let us look back and see…Oh my Look at some of those who SAID that Iraq, had WMD, but still claim Bush lied Bush lied… Well if President Bush lied, then President Clinton and all these others listed below lied as well…

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

SO WHO is Lying???


Lumpy I think you over simplify some of this and from reading your posts I see a double standard. First off the issue of legality and sovereignty. Saddam committed an illegal war of aggression to gain territory when he invaded Iran a sovereign nation and member of the UN. Next he invaded Kuwait, another sovereign UN member. Then he sent missiles into Israel, yet another sovereign nation. Then there is Sri Lanka. And last but certainly not least there was the assination attempt on President Bush. Trying to kill a former president because he challenged Saddam when he was in office, is a direct attack upon the presidency of the United States and a violation of American sovereignty and in and of itself is a justifiable reason for invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power. That assasination attemp, even though it failed, was a blatant threat to any successive president who would challenge him and a violation of international law. It also is proof that Saddam held a grudge for the gulf war and was willing to risk war with the United States to settle that grudge. It also proves that Saddam had the motivation to be involved in 9/11. Because of these reasons and more I don’t think Saddam deserved any benefit of the doubt. Especially when it meant risking millions of American lives playing a guessing game with a serial killer.

Next is the oil. The revenue Saddam got from oil made him dangerous. No matter what we did, he always had a source of cash with which he could finance his proven grudge against the US. Thanks to China worldwide oil demand is skyrocketing and prices are going up,which is going to take a toll on the world economy. It is not right to make the entire world suffer so that someone so unworthy of life as saddam can survive. The economic benefits of keeping oil prices down as long as possible has the potential to save lives around the world. It’s not just freinds of Bush who are going to benefit from restoring Iraq’s oil production, you will too Lumpy.

And finally, it hurts when I see the pictures all the fine young men and women who have died bringing freedom to Iraq. It’s made all the more painful when I think that piece of shit Saddam could have stopped playing games with the inspectors and gone into comfortable exile and spared us the loss. A lot of them believed what they were doing was right. To say it was wrong to go into Iraq denigrates their sacrifice.

In summation Bush’s actions on Iraq are excusable because Saddams aren’t

Cheney had “no doubt” that there were some really nasty things in Iraq because he took seriously the statements of all those “retards” like Half-Bright, Burgler, Lewinsky’s Boyfriend, Drunken Bum With A Trust Fund, Triple K, War Criminal (confessed), Trustfund, Nostils, The Shrew, The Whip, The Minute Diary, Bore, and others. I guess that’s what he gets for listening to such “liars.”

Be HONEST, Lumpy, and tell us why you spend so much time here. Maybe if you cut down on the posts and spent more time at the business, you could afford some health insurance and not bitch about your small income, out of which you would gladly pay more taxes (how?). Or maybe you have a small income and can’t afford health insurance because you are surrounded by people who vote like you.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Is John Kerry a liar for saying that there were WMD’s in Iraq, and then voting to attack Iraq, or was he simply making a decision based upon the best intelligence of the day?[/quote]

Kerry didn’t “vote for war”. I see this misconception repeated here all the time. The vote was to give Bush discretion to act, IF weapons inspections weren’t working (they were) and IF Bush went to the UN for a vote (he didn’t) and IF Bush built an international coalition (our 90% U.S. - 10% the rest of the world cannot be called a true coalition).

The vote was NOT a vote for invasion. As I wrote in another thread, Congress was negligent and may have even broken the law in passing the power to act over to the president (Congress has to vote in order to declare war). But the resolution was NOT a war resolution.

To Chuckmanjoe
The Clinton administration had a policy of regime change for Iraq. But it was a policy of regime change FROM WITHIN. Not a policy of intervening. Clinton’s idea was to encourage the Kurds and others to depose Saddam. Not to send US troops!

[quote]ZEB said
I think I pay close attention to what is going on, and I don’t judge others as liars (including Kerry) until all the facts are in![/quote]

You have no compunction about smearing John Kerry’s war record. I’ll take your comments about impartiality as seriously as I take Chuckmanjoe’s.

Or your own crap, Lumpy?


Kerry’s war record was the topic of the day. Hence, we all discussed it. I never once stated that he lied. Did he lie? Why are 250 men lying about his record. It sort of makes you wonder huh?

So, if Kerry voted to give Bush the power to act, does that not make him a criminal in some way?

“…a policy of regime change FROM WITHIN.”
You can’t be that stupid. Do really think that the regime was going to fall any time soon? In fact, that august body that you think should have blessed any potential action by the United States was helping consolidate Saddam’s power with the Oil for Bribes program. Guess which country was most likely raking in the most from it? Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey comes to mind.
Typical Clinton it was: Vigorously condemning something that in the end he wouldn’t lift a finger against, and never intended to.

Lumpy how can you expect us totake you seriously when you make remarks like the inspection were working? Hans Blix and a dozen inspectors covering a country the size of Texas was a joke.

It’s easy to talk about coalition building but in order to do that we would have had to take a long time and give Saddam the chance to get off his own first strike, plus we would have had to comprimise the mission. The price to bring the French on board would have been ridicously high.

Let us turn back the pages, and go back to BIll Clinton once again. And something that is not mentioned in the press and media. And that is Bill CLintons’ War with Serbia. Oh we can’t talk about that!! Well, let us look at htis War with Serbia.

How does Bill Clinton justify his war? In a recent speech at National Defense University President Clinton likened events in Kosovo to those in Nazi Germany: a “vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression fueled by religious and ethnic hatred.”

Who NATO Killed
Since the Nato airstrikes began on March 24 Serb officials say more than 2,000 civilians have been killed and more than 7,500 wounded. Nato has owned up to bombing raids and missile attacks that have killed 460 civilians, according to a tally by Agence France-Presse. By all accounts, the bombing was indiscriminate, killing farmers, suburbanites, city dwellers, factory workers, reporters, diplomats, people in cars, busses and trains, hospital patients, the elderly and children. Indeed, by our count, Nato bombing raids have killed more than 200 children. Hundreds more will almost certainly perish in the coming months, through environmental factors, such as poisoned water supplies and lack of electrical power to run vital hospital equipment. The following list of civilian casualties is far from comprehensive. We compiled it from daily reports by the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry and wire services, including Agence France Presse, Reuters and AP.

Five Nato missiles hit Aleksinac, a small mining community, on April 6. Seventeen civilians, taking shelter in a basement of a house, were all killed. Although there is no military presence in the residential area that was bombed, more than 400 homes were destroyed.

Nato missiles hit Ariljaca, a small town outside Pristina, on April 28, killing two and injuring a dozen civilians.

Near midnight on June 1, 14 missiles destroyed a block of houses in a suburb of Belgrade killing 5 and injuring 20.

Around 1 a.m. on May 20, Nato cluster bombs hit “Dragisa Misovic” hospital in downtown Belgrade. The neurological ward, the maternity ward, the gynecological ward and the children’s ward for lung diseases were destroyed. Nato later admitted that one of the laser guided bombs overshot its target by about 1,500 feet (460 meters).

During the attack 4 women were in active labor. A woman who, at the time of the attack, was having a Caesarean section, was also injured. She was transferred to the basement where her baby was finally delivered! In the attack 4 patients were killed, and several women in labor were wounded.
On May 8, Nato airstrikes hit the Chinese Embassy, destroying half of the building. According to the Chinese Government there were about 30 people in the building at the moment of the attack. Four Chinese citizens were killed and at least 20 injured.

On Friday, April 23, around 2 a.m., the building of the Serbian National Broadcasting Network was destroyed by Nato air strikes. The building is in the very center of Belgrade, a few hundred feet from a children’s theater, St. Marko’s Church, the City Childrens Center and the local market. More than 20 civilian employees of the TV station were killed.

On April 16, Milica Rakic, a three-year-old girl, was killed in the Nato attack on Batajnica, a residential suburb of Belgrade.

The administrative center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was hit several times. The building is in the very center of Belgrade, near the city hospital, which has the largest delivery ward in Belgrade. Several civilians, who were passing by the building at the time of the attack, were killed.

On April 13, a cluster bomb hit the Veterans Army Hospital in downtown Belgrade, injuring sixteen patients…
nd this list goes on and on and ON…


Oh my, you mean ALL these civilians were killed?? Where was Michael Moore when this was going on? Did HE make a movie on this? Or write about this? What about the mainline press and media Oh we can’t forget about the actors actresses and musicians. Anyone SPEAK OUT and say we MUST get ouy of Serbia!! Did we have massive demonstartions by the far left and the peace activists?





  • vs. -

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, Defendant.



  1. In this action seventeen members of Congress seek declaratory relief declaring that the Defendant, the President of the United States, is unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the Congress of the United States as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, and despite Congress’ decision not to authorize such action.

  2. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution was required to be submitted on March 26, 1999, within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of United States Armed Forces. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, pursuant to Section 1544(b) of the Resolution, the President must terminate the use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no later than sixty calendar days after March 26, 1999. The President must do so unless the Congress declares war or enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day period, or the President determines that thirty additional days are necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.

ANd the lawsuit is very interesting…


Here can read more on this War on Serbia form here. Very eye opening articles…


Bill Clinton is finding this out the hard way. His ill-conceived decision to prod NATO into bombing Yugoslavia in March has wreaked havoc. The hundreds of thousands of refugees, the civilians killed by NATO bombs, the U.S. soldiers captured, the solidification of domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the dangerous chill in U.S.-Russian relations-all these have come to pass since Clinton made his fateful decision.


Now, by dropping its bombs on the Yugoslav captial, the United States has committed an act of war against another country. War! This was done without provocation or threat to U.S. territory, citizens or interests. Our justification for initiating battle with Yugoslavia was our displeasure with the methods that country was using to quell an internal rebellion. The moral repercussions of this seem to have been lost amidst our self-righteous war fever. America started a war with another country over an internal matter!

The Serbs have done nothing to injure the United States. They have not so much as trampled the White House grass. Yet we drop bombs on them.


London, 21 April, 1999(Tanjug) - It`s quite clear now that NATO aggression on Yugoslavia is essentially American - Britain “war against Serbia”, suggests today’s “Guardian”.

The President of the US, Bill Clinton and the Prime Minister of the Great Britain, Tony Blair, lead NATO aggression as if they are leading the pre - election campaign, states the newspaper, explaining that like in their pre - election campaign, the essence is in media manipulation and in the games with so called “new speech”.