Bush and the Conservatives: In Their Own Words

**Rankenstein** · 08-31-2007, 05:35 AM

On serving your country:

"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." - Dick Cheney

"So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." - Tom De Lay

On Saddam, Iraq and the Bush War:

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, March 2003

"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." - Donald Rumsfeld, June 2003

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." - Paul Wolfowitz

"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight another day." - George W Bush

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, 2003

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" - George W. Bush, 2004

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." - Ari Fleischer

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." - Paul Wolfowitz

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." - George W Bush on the Iraq war, to Pat Robertson

"Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said." - Donald Rumsfeld

Pretty amusing, or pretty disturbing, take your pick.

**John Scott** · 08-31-2007, 05:51 AM

Hardly a war at all when compared to the the US Civil War, WW2, etc.

Amusing how the anti-war folks latch onto the WMD thing. Entirely a non-issue IMO.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/6...non-issue.html

**Rankenstein** · 08-31-2007, 05:58 AM

You say 'anti-war' like it's a bad thing, John.

Anyhoo, it's Bush and the people around him who latched onto the WMD thing. Didn't they do a hyooooooooge Colin Powell presentation on it? Can't blame folks for thinking it was important, can you?

**John Scott** · 08-31-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Can't blame folks for thinking it was important, can you?

The only ones who think it is important are the anti-war folks, and they didn't support the war to begin with, and the people who did support it don't care about WMD. That right there, my friend, makes the WMD issue a Non-Issue.

It's like a cop who goes to a judge and asks for a search warrant on the basis of a belief that a certain house will have 500,000 corpses in it, along with 10 grams of crack.

The cops enter the house, find the 500,000 corpses, but the 10 grams of crack isn't there, and all the Left anti-war folks can say is "see, the crack wasn't there".

Rather obtuse, no?

**Rankenstein** · 08-31-2007, 07:33 AM

Well, maybe so, but I was for the war, particularly on the basis of WMDs - all the scare stories in the european media that Saddam had missiles ready to launch, be in the air and reach most european targets in 45 minutes. Sure, I thought, get rid of Saddam pronto.

I don't like our countries being led to war under false pretences.

Why do you think the Bush administration chose to lie about it?

kristeejo · 08-31-2007, 08:02 AM

It's always an "issue" with me when the president lies...especially one that sets about a war.

ewomack · 08-31-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

The only ones who think it is important are the anti-war folks, and they didn't support the war to begin with, and the people who did support it don't care about WMD. That right there, my friend, makes the WMD issue a Non-Issue.

That's a huge assumption and generalization that should have evidence to support it. It also makes the assumption that if "the right people" don't consider an issue an issue, then it isn't an issue. You could excuse anything based on such an argument.

The anti and pro war Americans are all citizens of the United States and are all supposed to have a voice. By implying that only the opinions of the pro-war people matter on this issue denies a portion of the citizenry a voice.

**John Scott** · 08-31-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewomack

That's a huge assumption and generalization that should have evidence to support it.

There is plenty of evidence to support it. Look at the polls. When they announced that there were no WMD's, the polls hardly changed. WMD's were obviously a extremely minor issue to people who supported the war.

**John Scott** · 08-31-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kristeejo

It's always an "issue" with me when the president lies...especially one that sets about a war.

So you're saying that the lying is an issue. This does not contradict my statement that the absence of WMD's is not an issue.

The absence of WMD's - non-issue.

Lying - issue.

**John Scott** · 08-31-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Well, maybe so, but I was for the war, particularly on the basis of WMDs - all the scare stories in the european media that Saddam had missiles ready to launch, be in the air and reach most european targets in 45 minutes. Sure, I thought, get rid of Saddam pronto.

I don't like our countries being led to war under false pretences.

Why do you think the Bush administration chose to lie about it?

I have no idea what the European partners believed or what motivated them to go to war.

**Rankenstein** · 09-03-2007, 02:10 AM

Well, that's what I'm saying. It was the threat of WMDs that we were told could hit European targets.

"Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, carried the headline "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", while the Star reported "Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War".
- From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

The lie was also enthusiastically peddled by our UK government too, that's for sure. And Dr David Kelly, the guy who spoke out and called them on it, ended up 'committing suicide'.

So, yes John, for hundreds of millions of people in Europe (many more people than in the United States) WMD was the major issue, and it was for the rest of the world as well, hence Colin Powell making his big presentation it. It was pivotal.

**John Scott** · 09-03-2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

So, yes John, for hundreds of millions of people in Europe (many more people than in the United States) WMD was the major issue, and it was for the rest of the world as well, hence Colin Powell making his big presentation it. It was pivotal.

Who?

Was WMD's the issue for you? Did you support the war? I want to find one of these people whose decision to support was based on WMD's - I have so many questions for such a person.

And no, it wasn't a big issue for most people. The only people who it was a big issue for was the anti-war folks.

There is proof of that in the surveys - if the people had based their support on WMD's, the support would have dropped suddenly when it was announced that there were no WMD's. It didn't. If you watch the graphs the majority still supported the war even after "No WMD's" was established.

**Rankenstein** · 09-03-2007, 03:15 AM

Yup, that's me. I supported the war, based on the idea that Saddam was mad, had WMDs and could easily use them on European targets.

Here's some graphs showing dropping support for the war after it was announced that the WMD line was a crock:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in606621.shtml
There you go, 25% drop in support.

The war was the right thing to do, and it's great that Saddam's gone, but it was done for the wrong reason. The reasons that you are giving for the war, while they're reasonable after the fact, are not good enough justification for the war in Iraq because there are plenty more oppressed countries in the world, far more worthy of such special attention from America or any other right-thinking nation.

So, what are these questions?

**John Scott** · 09-03-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

The war was the right thing to do, and it's great that Saddam's gone

Then what are you complaining about?

Quote:

but it was done for the wrong reason

Since when does the ulterior motive make an ounce of difference? I don't care if somebody does the right thing for fame, greed, ignorance or sexual perversion - AS LONG AS HE DOES THE RIGHT THING.

Quote:

There you go, 25% drop in support.

A lot of graphs there, which one shows a sudden growth in opposition to the war coinciding with the "No WMD" announcement?

**Rankenstein** · 09-03-2007, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Then what are you complaining about?

The lies and deceit. These people are not fit to represent any of us. They sent our soldiers out on the back of lies and false pretences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

A lot of graphs there, which one shows a sudden growth in opposition to the war coinciding with the "No WMD" announcement?

These ones:

Bush's approval rating:
4/2003
Approve 73%
Disapprove 21%

2/2004
Approve 47%
Disapprove 44%

Iraq was a threat that:
3/2003
Required immediate military action 60%
Could have been contained 31%
Was not a threat 7%

3/2004
Required immediate military action 42%
Could have been contained 45%
Was not a threat 12%

Iraq has WMDs?:
4/2003
Probably does 81%
Probably doesn't 12%

2/2004
Probably does 52%
Probably doesn't 39%

I'd call that pretty damn solid. Drop in belief that Bush was doing a good job, drop in belief that Saddam was a threat, drop in belief in WMDs.

And finally, the Bush adminstrations handling of intelligence about WMD:
2/2004
Interpreted accurately 32%
Exaggerated to build support for war 59%

Hang on, that's weird! 59% of Americans say WMDs were exaggerated to build the case for war? I thought you were saying WMDs weren't much at all to do with the case for war?

**John Scott** · 09-03-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

The lies and deceit. These people are not fit to represent any of us.

If you problem is with the lying, then try to complain about the lying.

I hate to give lessons, but here goes anyway.

(FICTION: )

A man was going to shoot and kill my daughter, my son and my ex-wife.

So I shot and killed him.

This was ruled justifiable homicide.

Turns out, I was lying. He was only going to kill my daughter.

Does this make the kill wrong? NO.

Is lying wrong? YES.

They are two different issues.

Quote:

Bush's approval rating

Rank, Bush does a lot more than just run a war in Iraq. His approval rating is affected by many, many factors.

Quote:

Exaggerated to build support for war 59%

And at the same time:

Quote:

2/2004
Approve
47%
Disapprove
44%

The majority of respondents approved, the minority disapproved.

What's that tell you? WMD's? Pfft.