Two Tongued Philosophy

[Clay]

I don't think this has been posted here yet. I checked snopes.com and this list looks legit so far. It looks to have been around for at least a week or so, maybe longer. Below is the list as I found it, none of the comments are mine:

Oh and stumbled across this tidbit tonight too:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/zarqawi_document_040209-1.html


Bush on Iraq
If you really believe that President Bush lied - - that there never were any WMD in Iraq and he took us to war soley for his oil buddies, consider this:[list=1]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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

"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" - 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 weap ons 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
[/list=1]SO NOW THE DEMS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy

[UDawg]

tehehehehe good post maxi. Hmmm I wonder why no one has commented on this?

[intercede007]

Originally posted by UDawg
tehehehehe good post maxi. Hmmm I wonder why no one has commented on this?

I know right? Didn't get much of a rise out of anyone either that Iraq paid off Germany, Russia and France. I'll post it again just incase anyone missed it the first time.

Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (2 separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million


France
Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million


Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia
The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States
Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa
Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan
Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon
The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar
Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad
Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil
The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)
The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine
The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million

And everyone thinks President Bush has a credability issue. :rolleyes:

EDIT

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129.html

Link to the article containing said list.

[UDawg]

Thems is powerfull arguments. Kudos guys!

[PsychoSy]

Ah, thank you! This thread is perfect for what I've got brewwing here! :angel:

When it comes to gaffes ... I mean GAFFES - both on economic & PR standpoints - you just have to stand back in awe at Scott "Clueless" McClellan. Oh, he's definately no Ari Fliescher ...

Check this out ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040219-3.html

Q: Just one point on a related question, if I could. You talked this morning at your gaggle about when the recession started. You know, the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) now takes it to the fourth quarter of 2000. The National Bureau of Economic Research says it's seen no compelling reason to move the date from March, 2001, where it is now, and even your own Bureau of Economic Analysis in this chart shows that there was actually growth in the fourth quarter of 2000. So how do you peg the start of the recession to that fourth quarter?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think any way you look at it, the economy was declining and weakening well before the President took office, and that that decline led us into a recession. That balloon was deflating well before this President took office. The facts are pretty clear.

Q: But you have said that you inherited a recession. What it would appear is that you inherited slower growth, but not a recession.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, as I said, that any way you want to look at it, the economy was weakening, the economy was declining well before the President took office, and that is the reason we were headed into a recession. This President acted to get us out of a recession. But the facts are pretty clear. There is no question that the economy was weakening well before the President took office. GDP peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000..."

Q: I just want to be clear on one thing, though. I'm sorry for monopolizing your time here, but when you say, GDP peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000, that's your declaration, no one else's, correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can get you all the sources for all this information. It's well-known.

Let's all chip in and give Scotty a copy of the 2004 Economic Report of the President!

Why?

Page 31 says it all in black and white ...

"monthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001 ..."

You don't make gaffes like this with the press. Be that left wing media or right wing media, they don't like getting blatant disinformation and spin. The really striking thing, though, is how snarly some of the mutts in the White House media kennel are getting as we see here ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040218-9.html#4

Q Scott, does the White House stand behind its report issued just nine days ago, the Economic Report, there will be 2.6 million new jobs created this year?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went through a little bit of this earlier today. I think that people can debate the numbers all they want; the President is focused on acting on policies to create as robust an environment for job creation as possible ... blah ... blah ... blah

Q: Well, you say this is a changing economy, and you also said earlier that this report was based on economic data that is now three months old. So would it be wrong for the Democrats, later this year -- if you don't meet this 2.6 million forecast of jobs -- would it be wrong for them to beat you on the head about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It would be wrong for people to raise taxes at this point in our economy. And there are some -- (laughter) -- well, there are some that are advocating letting the tax cuts that the President worked to pass expire. And what that would be doing is ... yada ... yada ... yada

Q: When you dismissed the premise of John's question by saying, people can debate the numbers, let's be realistic here, the debate is going on between your Council of Economic Advisors and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Are there people here in this White House who never believed that forecast?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, John, I think that the Council of Economic Advisors puts out an annual report on the economy; it's the President's Economic Report. And they do that every year. They've been doing it for some 20 years now. That's based on economic modeling and the data that is available at that point in time. The President is interested in the actual number of jobs being created, and the President is interested in making sure that everybody who is looking for a job can find one. That's where the President's focus is.

That's why I say people can debate the numbers all they want, but the President is going to be looking at the actual numbers of jobs being created. And the number of jobs being created is growing ...

Q: But it would appear, though, that people very high up in this administration didn't have a whole lot of faith in the forecast of the report that went up to Congress just a week ago in terms of the job creation numbers.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's an annual economic report that is put out by the administration based on the economic modeling and the data that's available at that point in time.

Q: Can you answer the specific question, though? Was this report -- was the prediction of this many jobs, 2.6 million jobs, vetted prior to publication by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report, David. It goes through the usual -- it goes through the usual --

Q: That's not the question. Was it or was it not vetted by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report. It goes through the usual --

Q: So you don't know, or it was, or it wasn't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I get -- can I finish that sentence?

Q: When you answer the question. Let's hear it. What's the answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: The answer was, it is an annual economic report and it goes through the normal vetting process. And if you would let me get to that, I would answer your question.

Q: -- the full economic team vetted the prediction --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual economic report. It's the President's Economic Report. But again, the President --

Q: Just say yes or no --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it goes through the normal -- it goes through the normal vetting process.

Q So the answer is, yes. I'm not done yet, I've got another one.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Why -- if you're suggesting that people will debate the numbers, that's kind of a backhanded way to say, oh, who cares about the numbers. Well, apparently, the President's top economic advisors do, because that's why they wrote a very large report and sent it to Congress. So why was the prediction made in the first place, if the President and you and his Treasury Secretary were going to just back away from it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I disagree with the premise of the way you stated that. This is the annual Economic Report of the President and the economic modeling is done this way every year. It's been done this way for 20-some years.

Q: So why not -- why aren't you standing behind it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think what the President stands behind is the policies that he is implementing, the policies that he is advocating. That's what's important.

Q: That's not in dispute. The number is the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but the President's concern is on the number of jobs being created --

Q: My question is, why was the prediction made --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the President's focus is on making sure that people who are hurting because they cannot find work have a job. That's where the President's focus is.

Q: Then why predict a number? Why was the number predicted? Why was the number predicted? You can't get away with not -- just answer the question. Why was that number predicted?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this, and I've asked -- I've been asked, and I've answered.

Q: No, you have not answered. And everybody watching knows you haven't answered.

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree.

You probably wondering what was the big dispute here? To make a very long story short, the forecast released in the Economic Report of the President called for a 2.6 million job increase from the average payroll level in 2003 to the average payroll level in 2004. However, the economy would have to produce ALOT more than 2.6 million jobs by the end of this year - try 5.3 million jobs, for starters. Which is why the CEA had ALREADY lowered its 2004 employment target even BEFORE the Economic Report of the President was released ... and the political prostitutes didn't tell anyone. Even the current CEA forecast is wildly optimistic stating that it would still require the economy to produce an estimated 320,000 jobs a month over the balance of the year -- almost six times the rate of payroll gains seen since last September! So now, the White House decides to back away from it's own fraudulant forecast - a move that makes itself and the CEA look like complete incompetent idiots in the process ... and this very keen White House reporter caught 'em with their pants down! :D

With that said, c'mon boys and girls! Let's all chip in and give McClellan his own copy of the President's report (apparently he can't afford one after all these tax cuts), and let's give both "John" and "David" - The Snarling Tag Team Reporters" - a Peabody! We can use people like them to keep the feet of President Kerry/Edwards in the fire come this November!! :D

In the meantime, they're a doing a find job setting the Shrub aflame! :)

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by MaxPower
I don't think this has been posted here yet. I checked snopes.com and this list looks legit so far. It looks to have been around for at least a week or so, maybe longer. Below is the list as I found it, none of the comments are mine:

Oh and stumbled across this tidbit tonight too:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/zarqawi_document_040209-1.html

and your point is what, that the democrats are hypocrits? sure they are but does that change the fact that bush lied to the american people and the world? no. the credibility issue stays.

[intercede007]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
and your point is what, that the democrats are hypocrits? sure they are but does that change the fact that bush lied to the american people and the world? no. the credibility issue stays.

Lied about what?

That the world intelligence community believed Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction? Got news for you guy, intel is not infallable. The CIA thought so, the British thought so, France and Russia might have if their governments weren't paid off first.

Lied or believed wrongly? Ocean of differance in those statements.

[Riptide]

Originally posted by intercede007
Lied or believed wrongly? Ocean of differance in those statements.
Yes, but a difference some of those here absolutely refuse to acknowledge. I kinda tried to get that across with that kay thread I started several weeks back now but it fell mainly on deaf ears.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by intercede007
Lied or believed wrongly? Ocean of differance in those statements.

world intelligence did not "believe" that iraq had wmds. iraq did have wmds, 10 frickin years ago. the claim that there were new ones or the existing ones even useable was a mere assumption. even the frickin cia admitted that the evidence was weak. the white house didnt listen back then. they wanted this war and they wanted it at any cost. tony blair even went as far as claiming the well-known 45 minutes. bush claimed that iraq bought uranium in niger, which turned out the be false. this clearly indicates that they were desperately seeking for reasons to "justify" their invasion.

sorry, but this is a cheap excuse. you cant act like you are all-knowing and are completely convinced of your case and after the air gets thin bugger out and claim you were fooled by your own intelligence.

you guys who make this case now were with the bushman and blair and all the way and never issued a single doubt that they just might be wrong. now that even your leaders claim that they have no point you jump on the same bandwaggon all off the sudden. the anti-war folks at least had the same point all the way. :rolleyes:

[Clay]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
and your point is what, that the democrats are hypocrits? sure they are but does that change the fact that bush lied to the american people and the world? no. the credibility issue stays. Meh, don't really have a point. Just posted it for public consumption. Evidently you have all of the facts to be able to accuse President Bush of lying. ;) Myself, I am far removed from all of the facts. What the media spoonfeeds us can hardly pass as facts, much less all of them. I hate it because I know apathy is the worst of the worst mindsets to have but I constantly feel myself feeling apathetic. :( So, guess I posted this to just sit back and see what kind of discussion it would bring.
(popcorn)

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by MaxPower
Meh, don't really have a point. Just posted it for public consumption. Evidently you have all of the facts to be able to accuse President Bush of lying. ;) Myself, I am far removed from all of the facts. What the media spoonfeeds us can hardly pass as facts, much less all of them. I hate it because I know apathy is the worst of the worst mindsets to have but I constantly feel myself feeling apathetic. :( So, guess I posted this to just sit back and see what kind of discussion it would bring.
(popcorn)

i see :) well, we it seems we have our little debatte now anyway ;)

as for the media i totally agree with you. i try to switch to alternative media but often end up not making it for some reason. also, i try not to get pissed off about every tiny bit of news but you know its hard ;)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
and your point is what, that the democrats are hypocrits? sure they are but does that change the fact that bush lied to the american people and the world? no. the credibility issue stays.

In light of all the quotes we see up there, does that make the Clinton administration liers also? You cannot say that the president lied and Clinton and his administration didn't since they said Saddam had WMD while president Bush was a govenor. You can't have it both ways.

The point we are making is that the opposition to the war is using false arguments to support their opposition not to the war but to the president. The simple fact is that you do not hate the war, you hate Bush.

[Clay]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
i see :) well, we it seems we have our little debatte now anyway ;)Yeah, looks like I stepped in it again! :Das for the media i totally agree with you. i try to switch to alternative media but often end up not making it for some reason. also, i try not to get pissed off about every tiny bit of news but you know its hard ;) Amen to that.

One question about this earlier statement of yours:and your point is what, that the democrats are hypocrits? sure they are but does that change the fact that bush lied to the american people and the world? no. the credibility issue stays.So if you admit that democrats are hypocrits (blanket statement BTW but probably spot on) then they're liars by default right? Lying is a prerequisite to being a hypocrite. So all of the democrats quoted above lied to the American people and the world as well. :p Yes, the credibility issue remains - across the board...nothing new under the sun.

[Riptide]

Originally posted by UDawg
The point we are making is that the opposition to the war is using false arguments to support their opposition not to the war but to the president. The simple fact is that you do not hate the war, you hate Bush.
I agree with this 100%. In david kay's words, "We were all wrong". They had every reason to believe he still had WMD. How many times do we have to go over this? There were items unaccounted for that they knew he had of which their ultimate fate was in question. The answer to this mystery needed to be cleared up. He forced us to invade in order to provide the answers. He was acting suspiciously. Yet some people think it was right to continue mollycoddling him?

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by UDawg
In light of all the quotes we see up there, does that make the Clinton administration liers also? You cannot say that the president lied and Clinton and his administration didn't since they said Saddam had WMD while president Bush was a govenor. You can't have it both ways.

The point we are making is that the opposition to the war is using false arguments to support their opposition not to the war but to the president. The simple fact is that you do not hate the war, you hate Bush.

that basically. the democrats were chickens during the whole war issue which made it so easy for bush to get his invasion. so why do you assume i will protect clinton anyway? :)

besides, the peace activists in the streets and across europe and the world were opposing the war all the way, on the grounds that it was unjustified. make no mistake and mistake the democratic party as the peace movement. ive been out on the streets and protested and had my own share of this war, believe me here.

and personally i hate both, bush and war and capitalism ;)

So if you admit that democrats are hypocrits (blanket statement BTW but probably spot on) then they're liars by default right? Lying is a prerequisite to being a hypocrite. So all of the democrats quoted above lied to the American people and the world as well. Yes, the credibility issue remains - across the board...nothing new under the sun.

its something new because clinton didnt invade iraq. he did bomb them multiple times but didnt stage a full scale invasion. bush on the other hand did. there is the difference.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by Riptide
They had every reason to believe he still had WMD.

*cough* un inspections in iraq *cough*

[Riptide]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
*cough* un inspections in iraq *cough*
It's funny though because part of the reason we believed he had those weapons were due to items the UN themselves catalogued previously (ie, those unaccounted for thingamajiggers). But since he never fully cooperated and never provided documentation of the fate of those items something had to be done. And inspections just weren't going to do it, obviously.

*edit* Maybe I should just shut my trap. After all, just how many times have we been down this road anyway? Which is probably why Udawg isn't chiming in here. :) :D

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Riptide

*edit* Maybe I should just shut my trap. After all, just how many times have we been down this road anyway? Which is probably why Udawg isn't chiming in here. :) :D

I'm just not that interested this topic. I am not saying I am temped but just not that interested.
;)

[Clay]

Yeah, this dead horse is uber-stanky now. :p BTW, war will always suck but Capitalism rocks! :angel: