Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why did the Bush Administration say this before 911???Caught Lying?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by jack, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    . Secondly, Colin Powell, our own Secretary of State, stated in February of 2001 that Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMD's and that UN sanctions and U.S. airstrikes had prevented them from aquiring a capability to develop new ones or to be a threat to his neighbors. Those are the exact two claims that were continuosly employed to justify invading Iraq.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

    SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

    We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2007
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Powell has all the dirt... the man resigned for a reason... and not because he "wanted to spend more time with his family"...

    i mean, c'mon... everyone paying real attention has learned that it was Colin Powell and the State Department who was vehemently opposed to Cheney/Rumsfeld's agenda, and thus, left out of the loop... when, in fact, the STate Department should have been at the center of the rebuilding efforts and PR...

    Powell was ordered to give that bogus speech (written by Libby) to the UN, and hated having to do it... it's all right here, from the 2:50 mark on, and there's no denying it... he knew the majority of speech was bullshyt, but agreed to support his commander in chief on the eve of war... he managed to throw some things out from his UN speech, but it didn't matter... he knew he had just been the voice for a lie to the world...

    his legacy is forever tarnished, ... and he knows it...

    still, Powell's much-anticipated book next year, if it hasn't been squashed already, will be a bombshell...
  3. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Harry why would the bush administration say this before 911????????

    Then months later claim he had the WMD smorgasboard?

    Why?
  4. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Fogbuster you appear to be on the up and up, why would the bush administration say this before 911? then months later claim iraq has the whole enchillada of wmd's???????
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Well, jack, the piece speaks for itself. Why do YOU think Colin Powell said what he said?? What do you think he was he saying "between the lines"??


    //
  6. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What powell said then was the truth...


    Between the lines:confused:

    I am not john nash.....


    So what did you read into the message fog?
  7. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Nothing more than what it says. It is what it is.



    //
  8. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So you are saying that the bush administration lied to the public with their claims of WMD's in Iraq?????????
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    I didn't see that in Powell's interview, and no, I don't think Bush lied. We've been around that tree already. Nothing more to say about it, thanks.



    //
  10. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Thats being dishonest in this discussion.

    Why would a man of faith behave in this way..

    Honestly, you sure seem to deflect the question with obfuscation and misdirection..Why do you do that?

    So I ask you ''FogBuster'' , Why did the bush administration change their stance on Iraq having WMD's from feb 2001 t0 after sep 11..

    WHY?
  11. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Assessments change, sometimes on a daily, even hourly, even by the minute basis. What Powell said BEFORE 9/11 and what he said AFTER 9/11 were different. If you want to hang with PC, and say "Libby put words into Powell's mouth", fine. Take it up with Powell.

    Think what you like about Bush or anyone else, including me. If you think I'm being "dishonest", then so be it. I sleep very well at night.

    Anyway, you're a little late to the party. This thread died about a year ago.


    //
  12. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So the assessment changed from nothing to a full fledged nuclear arsenal, complete with chem-bio mobile labs and UVA's that could attack the USA???????????

    How did they do that FOG????

    C'mon, clear the fog for me? Explain please?
  13. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    The inspectors were still inspecting, the sanctions were about to be lifted on Hussein. He was prepared to start selling his oil using Euros instead of dollars, in the minds of out 'leaders' (Cheney and the neocons) this was unacceptable.

    The assessment never changed. The stance on how much fear they could spew to the American public and international communities is what DID change.

    There are two types of people in this world. People who eat the bullshizz that the neocons serve and have been serving since 2001, and those who understand that they have been taken advantage of by those same powers, who use fear and patriotism as the hammer that swings their elite agenda.

    asking people who eat the BS to explain things to you isn't going to do anything but polarize. They are still eating this BS pie, and loving every freedom tasting minute.

    We the people need to stand up, listen up and grow the flunk up. We are being led by evil people who feast on our emotions.

    9-11 was a lie or 9-11 caused a lie, or both. either way, its a swindle.
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Hey, jack, since you insist on calling me "Fog", when my handle is Fogbuster, you won't mind if I call you jack-azz, right?? Oh, nevermind. Doesn't matter if you care or not. You're a jack-azz. Period.


    //
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13


    Bush never said that Iraq definitely HAD WMD. Bush said that Iraq had no complied with the agreements Iraq had signed at the end of Gulf war I. He alsoptalked of the 16-17 UN resolutions Iraq had ignored. He talked about attempts to restart their WMD programs and the suspicion cast by Iraq's refusal to allow open inspections.

    Bush talked of a "gathering threat".

    BTW when the Sectary of State is traveling in the Middle East he has to speak very carefully due to diplomatic considerations, both in the country he is visiting (Egypt) and in the region. What would be the point of him inflaming the situation. As to what he precisly believed the truth to be who can say.

    It seems childish and naive to think he would tell the unvarnished truth to a foreign press corp.

    Will BB be lying when he says he is approaching the Jet game like any other, and that he harbors no malice towards Mangini? Should he be fired when he 'lies' and says the Jets are a good team this week?
  16. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    FogBuster:)

    So how did such a transformation in the intelligence assessment on Iraq
    change in mere months?

    Think about this?

    Half a Trillion dollars and over hundred thousand lives have been spent on overnight assessment change?

    And you don't want to discuss it, WHY??????????
  17. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The bush administration claimed iraq had reconstituted it's nuclear program..

    The bush administration claimed they knew where the wmd's were in iraq..

    You don't remember that patsfan13?????
  18. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I don't know. You'll have to ask the Bush administration.


    Think about what?? The decision to go to war after 9/11?? Have thought about it, and spoken about it here and with other people.

    I've said I was against the pre-emptive use of force in Iraq. But once the genie left the bottle, there was no putting it back: we need to win and win decisively. Those who would do harm to the U.S. and the rest of the world need to be stopped. Knowing what you know now about Hitler, would you have tried to stop him in 1930, 31, 32???

    It's been "discussed", jack. Why do you still want to discuss it????? Why not let things play out the way they are??? Seems like the bad guys in Iraq and elsewhere are on the run, or at least lying low. What better course do you have to offer than what is being done right now??? Please enlighten us all. I'm sure if you have something better than what Bush and the Democrat Congress has to say you could maybe even get elected to replace someone like, say, Barney Frank, or Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry or any of the other totally Democrat representatives Massachusetts has. What do you say??? Give it a go???? You seem to have the nads. Why not hit the campaign trail with your "better ideas" ???


    //
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    Please quote where that was said with a reference. Bush claimed they were 'attempting' to do so.

    I can't remember things that have only been fabricated by the left.
  20. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I knew that Iraq had been CRUSHED in 1991, there standing army smashed and their weapons programs were destroyed......Well at least according to powell in feb 2001

    And germany in 1930 had a navy,airforce and mechanized infantry capable of conquering a good swath of europe..

    So whats your point fogbuster?

    Other than not admitting the obvious...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>