1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[FACT] The Democrats LIE!...

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by ROXRAN, Mar 3, 2006.

Tags:
  1. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    Turn this around, change the name to Bush, Bush to possibly Clinton?, and Democrats to Republicans, and the cycle will be in perpetual motion...The seeth of visceral hate, spite and negativity will rear it's ugly head in ways that will make the last election look like kindergarten...and of course it only gets nastier. I love it.
     
  2. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    The problem is people lied gary, people. plural. The drums of war was of glee to the God of War from the democrats as well. They LIED and slanted voices don't care. This is the problem!
     
  3. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    no. im not conceding this crazy notion that i only care about this crap because bush is a republican and im not. when clinton bombed sudan and afghanistan to avoid the publicity about his scandal it was sickening and i was fairly pissed. but bush didn't do that. bush is directly responsible for creating a civil war and having upwards of a hundred thousand people killed due to lies.

    that isn't something thats comparable. you wanna talk about democrats lying? fine. go back a while and nail jfk and lbj on it. they lied. but please dont compare clinton with bush in terms of lying.
     
  4. thegary

    thegary Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    the problem is that you are a moral relativist
     
  5. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,317
    Likes Received:
    8,174
    I don't see these as lies... They all relate to Iraq in 1998 and earlier. Clinton ordered a strike against Iraq in December of 1998 to further cripple Saddam's ability to make weapons. The post-war reports cited these actions as one of the reasons WMDs were not found.
    All these quotes come from Dem Pols after Bush was President. It is quite clear that the intelligence provided to the Senate, House, and others was cherry-picked by the Administration. I'll admit there is political opportunism evident in these quotes, but if you want to make the case for lying you have to address what they really knew and to look at that you have to look at what and how they got the information and if that information was tarnished in some way. I think it's clear it was tarnished.
     
  6. mateo

    mateo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    263
    Once again, its not about Dems vs. Reps. They both suck. But quote away, I dont like either side. Your point about the Clinton/Bush thing is dead on. Both sides act like a bunch of teenage girls. Its sickening.
     
  7. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,928
    Likes Received:
    17,528
    Not one of those people advocatd going to war. They advocated doing something about it, but never said nor asked to go to war. Furthermore they didn't get the information about the intel that Bush got.
     
  8. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Heck who isn't a moral relativists these days.
     
  9. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,791
    Likes Received:
    3,395
    Everyone has told a lie. Therefore if Bush lies it is no big deal. It does not matter what Bush lies about since everyone has told a lie.

    If you are concerned about his lies you are a Bush hater and stupid; you need to lighten up and maybe go to the Lakewood Church of Love or something and be positive.
     
  10. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,437
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    I STRONGLY disagree.

    In America (you know...in reality...not in Eden) we have about 4,600 classifications of Murder.

    1st degree
    2nd degree
    Manslaughter
    Involuntary manslaughter
    etc etc etc

    Lying about taking an entire country into war - 1st degree lying
    Lying about a BJ - involuntary manlying ;)

    On top of that, Bush has been shown to lie repeatedly about various issues. Some would call that being a pathalogical liar. The kicker is... Bush's lies are of consequence to national security.

    I can live with standard political lies. That is your point right? That we should forgive Bush because all politicans lie?

    Well Bush has taken the "typical policial lie" and elevated it to new heights!
    By many accounts of historians and politicians, this Bush administration is responsible for a shift in American politics the likes that nobody alive today has ever seen. That CANNOT be dismissed. How important you feel it is probably is a matter of your personal views but right-wingers shouldn't dismiss it as simple partisian politics as usual. Nothing about Bush's politics is "usual."
     
  11. HAYJON02

    HAYJON02 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,776
    Likes Received:
    271
    I really liked this post.
     
  12. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,437
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    Thank you. Notice the lack of response? ;)
     
  13. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    So you can accept and live with standard political lives? The problem with "living" with standard political LIES is that this is brevity on further consequences of LIES...the consequences can hit light or hard...the timetable can be affected in a moment's notice or 30 years from now that are more profound than murder itself. Your anology of murder is trivial and weak because we know the outcome of the 4,600 acts of murder. The result is a death, and the degree is determined by classifying premeditation or heinous actual act. the problem of accepting standard political LIES is that acceptance blurs the line of the magnitude. A LIE is a LIE because justification is what we accept if we agree with the political thought process...LIES of national security carry no more weight than any LIE because as stated the Democrats have LIED on record. The "new heights" of lying is based on slanted political opinion in great part. For some reason we lesson focus on LIES from your Congressional government? You ACCEPT when you are in keeping with the thought process and make excuses...

    You are only part of the problem and NOT the contribution of the solution...
     
  15. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    Excuses!....The bottom line is they LIED! geesh! The Democrats love to eat from two sides of the cake...Clearly this reasoning is valid towards Bush as well. The more I hear of this type of non-sense, the more clarified the case that there is no common sense leadership that can cater towards expanding the neo-demo base. The Democratic party is a joke and a party of fools who slap each other on the back and idiotically assume they are going somewhere...
     
  16. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
    by John Hawkins
    Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

    "[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 (your biggest whopper)

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 ooooohhh, la, la

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 , there goes your boy again...

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 (aka, the devil)

    "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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


    "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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 (damn you demos!)

    "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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
     
    #36 ROXRAN, Mar 4, 2006
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2006
  17. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Dude, a lot of those statements are based on the intelligence which we now know was cherry picked and misrepresented to Congress by the Bush Administration. You have in your quest to be an apologist for the consequences of Bush Administration policy missed the entire damn point. Bush led the country into war and manipulated the facts. He politicized the issue by taking his "authorization of force" to Congress just prior to election time to get acquiescence from the "soft on defense" Democrats in Congress and he intentionally circumvented the War Powers Act to get his war, a law expressly created to prevent this kind of nonsense. Then when the UN didn't buy his dog and pony show he blew off the whole process and went to war with his mighty coalition because while the entire world was trying to make decisions based on unfolding evidence, Congress was forced to make an election time decision before all the facts were known. The fact that people lie doesn't make it okay to have squandered thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Bush owns this war and all of its consequences, period.
     
  18. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,928
    Likes Received:
    17,528
    If I was presented with only part of the evidence like the people who made those statements were too, I would believe it. However, now that we know that Bush had other evidence that this people didn't, and this is what makes their statements not a lie.

    If somebody told me adn showed only black and white movies and said the technology didn't exist to film in color. If later I found out that color existed I would see that I was wrong but not lying.

    Bush however, had both black and white, and color movies, but chose to only produce evidence that color films existed.
     
  19. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,069
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    I don't think you can truly prove the information was so far substantially "cherry-picked" and misrepresented to Congress by the Administration...Bush had pretty substantial intelligence given to him which was passed out...that is the bottom line facts.
     
  20. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    its been proven the they cherry-picked information.. look it up
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now