Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I heard Walter Cronkite retell his understanding of the Gulf of Tonkin incident on the radio. I want to understand it. As he told it, LBJ intended to escalate the war and needed an "incident" to do so. It sounded to me that he orchestrated an incident that he knew would result in retalliation by the North, and then planned to use that as justification for escalating the war.

It seemed that it was very similar to what Bush did. He went to the Congress and basically said - "We are under attack - support me or be considered a weak dove in the face of a real threat" Of course, no one would dare not support him. But his plea was based on bad information, as was LBJ's. Isn't this pretty much what Bush did? And wasn't Bush's appeal to congress also based on false information - the WMD's?

Isn't this war in Iraq built on a lie?

Nope, not at all.

The definition of a lie would be stating something that you know to be false.

The Clinton administration passed a bill (in 1998 I believe) to try and enact regime change in Iraq because of what that administration thought about Saddam as a threat. To this day, Clinton has said that he can't believe no WMDs were found.

The Chinese, Russian, British, German, French, Italian, U.S. intelligence agencies all thought Saddam had WMD's. The whole world thought he had WMDs. In fact, even Saddam said he had them! When the whole world believes something to be true, that doesn't make it lie if repeating what everyone believes to be true happens to be wrong.

Calling it a lie, is itself a lie. It is really just a liberals way of trying to falsely attack a conservative president hoping the public is too stupid to know the definition of a lie, and hoping that if it is repeated enough, some people will start to believe it.

---------------------------

It's interesting that when we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists, Bush said this was a war on terrorism. He also said that those who support terrorists, or harbor them, are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. We know for a fact that Saddam paid off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, which is supporting terrorism, yet this is never mentioned in the liberal media. Isn't if funny how the war on terrorism, which this clearly is, has been changed by the media to "there aren't any WMDs"? Isn't it also funny how many other weapons violations have been proven, but only WMDs not being found in large numbers are quoted by the liberal press? Isn't it funny that Iraq was found in material breach of it's last chance to avoid war, UN resoution 1441, and this is very rarely mentioned by the press. Isn't it funny how the "very dangerous" explosives that the UN inspectors found in Iraq, prior to the war, weren't taken away, but instead allowed to disappear? Isn't if funny how this story is making the press now, when the weapons were missing for over a year? If they were so dangerous, why did they UN leave them there? If they had these dangerous weapons, how were the sanctions working? Why is this story all of the sudden making the news now, when they were never even seen by the invading forces? (they have been missing for over a year and a half!) How is this Bush's fault, when the UN didn't do anything when it found them? Should he be responsible for something that turned up missing before our troops even got there? (this should show anyone how truly effective the UN really is, and how liberal biased the media is also!--Not to mention how honest Kerry is!)

I wonder how far out front Bush would be in the polls if we weren't inundated by the liberal media bias in this country?

I wonder how far behind Bush would be, if CBS and Dan Rather weren't caught in a liberal smear job with forged documents?--Did you notice how quickly this story went away! Think the Bush bashing story would have gone away this quickly if they hadn't been caught in a fraud? Or how quickly the story of Sandy Burger stealing sensitive documents in his pants in order to help Kerry get elected when away? How about the "Food for oil" controversy that made the sanctions on Iraq totally ineffective?

And then there's poor NBC. Here they are, trying their best to get Bush out of office, and their earlier story (which showed that the weapons were never there once the war started) implicates the other liberal biased news media that are releasing this story now, and trying to implicate Bush in this matter! Gotta laugh at that one!

Rodney

LBJ was pretty much a liar from the start. When he campaigned against Barry Golwater he told the world that the Arizona senator would use nuclear weapons in Viet Nam (a total lie). He also said the Goldwater would advance the war and that he (LBJ) was the peace candidate. This is what got him elected and he went on to escalate the war more than any other president.

As for Iraq...Lie is not necessarily the proper term since we can only guess how much Bush really knew. I will give the devil his due on that.

However, The whole world did Not beleave there were WMD's in Iraq (sorry Rodney but that was a gross exageration)(As a matter of fact,I did'nt even beleave it...(LOL). The evidence that Bush relied on to prove there were was so slight as to be little more than a rumor (and a wrong one at that). Bush wanted the war in Iraq and used a flimsy excuse to get us in there. An excuse that time and US lives has shown us was wrong.

A more accurate statement would be (and I am beng very forgiving in saying this...):

Bush acted rashly and showed extremely poor judgement in going to war with Iraq.

And Rodney...Nice to have you back but you (like Bush) failed to answer the questions I left for you below.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"The evidence that Bush relied on to prove there were was so slight as to be little more than a rumor (and a wrong one at that). Bush wanted the war in Iraq and used a flimsy excuse to get us in there. An excuse that time and US lives has shown us was wrong. "

The weapons inspectors that were in Iraq BEFORE saddam kicked them out said there were still WMD. Saddam had the capabilities to produce WMD. There were WMD in iraq. Saddam did support terrorists. The word of several trusted Middle Eastern leaders (who were very close with saddam BTW) said that he had WMD. Al qaeda had several gas chambers in Afghanistan being under construction that worked. Those technologies are more likely from iraq than to other countries.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

Even Bush has had to admit it. You might want to get up to date...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The suposition that gas chamber tech in Afghanistan had to come from imported technology is irrelevent to Iraq. it could have easily come from the old USSR which occupied the area for 20 odd years. With Osama's vast wealth he could have gotten that from anywhere. You need more than rumors and theories...

Kind of like clutching at straws there.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

had gotten the technology from the former USSR then why were they only doing tests on dogs? if that technology had been in the area they would not have still been testing it on dogs by the time we found it. As soon as the taliban and Osama found out about it they would have had it, and if it had come from the former USSR they would have heard about it a lot longer ago.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

They don't like dogs?

Kind of hard to take out the locals for tests when you are hiding in their country.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

but why wouldn't they be gassing the captured resistance fighters? (the NA, people speaking out, etc).
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

However, The whole world did Not beleave there were WMD's in Iraq (sorry Rodney but that was a gross exageration)(As a matter of fact,I did'nt even beleave it...(LOL)

Yes, I have to admit you are right. I should have said the whole world's intelligence thought they had WMDs at the time,-- I forgot about you!----LOL..

Been busy again, I missed your other question below, I'll try to find it and answer.

Rodney

That's why they should give me one of those high paying CIA jobs!

As to below. Nice try Buddy..You dodged even more gracefully than our commander in Chief!

The question put to him did not ask about what judges he would pick. The moderator asked him where he would stand on Roe vs Wade. Bush twice diverted the question to that of what judges he would pick, effectivly dodging the question (probably the smoothest political manuver of his career!

As to the other part below...Once again "slicker than slick Willy!"

The point of the comment AND the Sanctions was to keep WMD'S out of Iraq. What ever money Saddam made on the side is irrelevant. The point still is that the sanctions worked because there were no WMD's.

Did you ever think of running for office Rodney? The way you spun those answers shows you have the stuff politicians are made of! (lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The moderator asked him where he would stand on Roe vs Wade.

No, as I remember it, he was asked if he would be nominating judges that would overturn row vs. wade. (and he answered that question by saying no litmus test, so no he wouldn't.) They didn't ask him his position on Row vs. Wade.

The point of the comment AND the Sanctions was to keep WMD'S out of Iraq. What ever money Saddam made on the side is irrelevant. The point still is that the sanctions worked because there were no WMD's.

Again, no. The economic sanction worked initially, but when the food for oil program started, so did the scams that made the economic sanctions ineffective, like Bush said, "they weren't working.". The economic sanctions were supposed to put pressure on Iraq, so they would comply with the resolutions that he had been ignoring over the years. The food for oil program allowed him to get around these sanctions. (not to mention the French and German trade violations) I'll use your logic on you. If the economic sanctions were working, why did Saddam and his sons have soooooooo much money found on them, in semi-trucks, etc. Why were their numerous palaces so ornate if funds weren't available due to the years of sanctions? Why did Saddam retain chemical, nuclear, biological warefare scientists if he wasn't interested in WMD programs?

Did you ever think of running for office Rodney?

Not a chance! I like raising animals for a living too much, even though it is a heck of a lot of work for proportionally much less money than other occupations.

Rodney

It was kind of subtle.

I was saying that the intelligence agencies all believed this, and I was referring to all of them, because when I think of intelligence, I don't think of you.---Just kidding!

Rodney

The point that is often missed is when you throw government into the same statement with intelligence you have created an Oxymoron.

As to your joke: As Edmund Drew said (in the movie HARVEY) "My father told me to be pleasant and smart. I tried smart, pleasant is nicer."

Sorry but no taco. The first time the moderator asked he implied choice of judges. the second time he refined the question to directly address Roe vs Wade. Bush dodged tottaly.

Using your own logic. Saddam allways fed himself first. He and his family would be the last to suffer from sanctions and he allwayds directed funds towards his pet projects over the needs of the people....your point?

Too bad snakes don't vote...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I have to agree with rearfang. Joe Wilson clearly described the Niger yellow cake forgeries. Our own top notch experts described how the aluminum tubes were not appropriate to nuclear weapons development and perfect for missle firing tubes. The mobile weapons labs - at first the administration refused to release details about where they were located but eventually gave in. When the UN went to those sites they showed there were no working labs.

It sure seems to me that the evidence the administration put forth before the war was BS. I don't see how anyone who pays any attention whatsoever could even pretend that we invaded Iraq because we thought it had WMDs. Bush always says, the whole world thought there were WMDs, but thats just spin. A lot of people bought it because they wanted to trust their president.

Bush always says, the whole world thought there were WMDs, but thats just spin. A lot of people bought it because they wanted to trust their president.

No it's not. Every intelligence agency in the world believed it, not just the American public. The French, German, Chinese, Russian, Brittish, Italian intelligence agencies all said the exact same thing! Look it up. The UN voted unanimously for 1441 based on their countries intelligence reports and ours.

Here are some quotes from the prior administration to prove it to you. Notice that some of these quotes are prior to Bush even becoming president, and all these quotes come from leading Democrats.It is clear that the democrats are extreme hypocrites today, when it comes to the subject of Iraq and WMDs. They wouldn't be taking this position today if there was a dem. in the white house instead of a republican to run against!

"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 [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 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 mas 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

Rodney

Where did you get that long list of quotes?
What web site?

The reason I ask...There are people who are actuaally looking for the truth and people who are trying to hide it. For instance, among your long list of quotes where democrats are supposedly defending the Bush administration's war you say:

"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

Yet this is actually what Ted Kennedy said that day:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."
=======

I'm sorry, but that stuff - deliberately taking quotes out of context - just makes you look like a partisan hack with no credibility. Its not really that valuable to just regurgitate here what you've heard on rabid right wing radio. It doesn't further the discussion and certainly doesn't help your credibility.

Those quotes all came from the congressional record, but I got them from the following web site.

http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=285848&PT=PERSONALITIES

Kerry said many of these same things just prior to running, during the primaries, and while running for pres.

It was only within the last month or so that he changed his position to what it currently is.

Another interesting fact is that the Clinton administration, in 1998, got a bill passed that said something to the effect that we would to enact regime change in Iraq because of the threat Saddam posed. Iraq being a threat to national security was something that this govt. believed long before Bush came into the picture.

Do an internet search on the Clinton administration and Iraq regime change and you will find plenty of articles. It's very hypocritical for the democrats to go after Bush like they have when they approved of regime change when Clinton was in office-- and we hadn't even had the 9/11 attack yet.

Here's some more interesting/contradictory quotes from Kerry.

(this one is about the first gulf war that he voted against, but here he says he supported it!)
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31

(during debates on Iraq regime change in the Clinton administration)
Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - The New York Times

(yet he voted against funding for their supplies)
Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”)

and my personal favorite, Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." --I don't know the source for this one, but I think it is also from the congressional record.

These quotes really show how radically his position changed once he started running for pres.

Rodney

Sorry - by deliberately taking quotes out of context in order to decieve, you loose. Now everyone knows all they need to know about you - and ignore you.

You come off as a deserate idealouge who will say anything to protect your conservative wingnut views learned from right wing trash talk radio. Thats really boring.

yawn...

Please explain to me how those Kerry quotes could have another meaning, how they could have been taken out of context?

For instance, when Kerry said "Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”)

after saying this, he then voted against funding for them!

Can you tell me how that quote could be taken out of context to mean something else? I'm pretty imaginative, and can't think of a way that it possibly could be. Let's see if you have more imagination than I do!

He says I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition and then he himself votes agains it!!!

And then I get a typical liberal response from you, when you are wrong, claim you are the winner of a debate and then go away. And you think that makes me look bad?

Rodney

I just checked one of the quotes and found it was basically a lie. So either you didn't bother to check the assertions or you did and didn't care. Either way, your promoting lies. Boring.

Yawn.

Please tell me which one! Please!

I really don't believe you. If you found proof that something was false, why wouldn't you say what it was in your post?

You sound just like Kerry. I have a plan, but I can't tell anyone what it is until I get elected!.......LOL

Which quote didn't he say?

Rodney