Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

To all of the 911 conspiracy theorists please answer this
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conspiracies and Theories
Author Message
beaz
Newbie


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not confusing anything. You assume way too much, such as Bush lied. Tell me how HE lied. OUR intelligence, along with Germany, Russia and England ALL said they had them, and let's not forget Bill Clinton who said it as well. Did they lie?
Back to top
SteelCityConservative
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
beaz wrote:
This is hilarious! The conspiracy theroists say Bush lied to take us to war. They say he's incompetent and a terrible leader. They blame him for everything wrong with this war and their lives.

Yet he's capable of pulling off the most complex conspiracy the world has ever seen! He personally planted explosives in the twin towers and simultaneously coordinated their demolition with 4 hijackings. Fabricated all the phone calls and first hand accounts and was able to do this to go to war so he could be vilified! What a concept.


You're confusing two separate issues.

First, he most certainly did lie. Weapons of mass destruction being only one example of such lies.

Second, 9/11, and the war in iraq, have nothing to do with each other. The 9/11 conspiracy theory exists apart from the iraq debacle, in that one is quite real, and the other is not.


Exton I challenge you to find me where George W. Bush says Iraq was behind 9/11. I dare you to trie and find it, you wont you people just dont see that Saddam openly allowed terrorists safe haven. He shot at US and British airplanes daily, starved his people using the UN oil for food program to better himself and his loyalists and was the natural choice to take out in the mid-east because he was the only one breaking international rules over and over. The UN even said he was the worst since Hitler.
In February of '03 Colin Powell made an address to the UN, who was reluctant to uphold there own threats with repeated resolution(16 to be exact.) The first half about weapons, weapons that Clinton bombed Iraq for having in Desert Fox in 1998 the day before his impeachment, the ones that every credible intelligence agency said he had or was working on.
The other half was about Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his free reign in Iraq. Did we lie about him? I dont think so, he was the guy beheading people like Nick Berg and several others in his jihad against the west. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....205-1.html

Tell Me Did these these people LIE too?
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SteelCityConservative wrote:

Exton I challenge you to find me where George W. Bush says Iraq was behind 9/11. I dare you to trie and find it, you wont


Uhm. Did i calim that goerge w. bush explicitly stated that iraq was the cause for 9/11?
(I may have, but i don't remember doing so, and if i did, i misspoke)

Of course, george bush does and has tried his very best to link the two. I don't think you'd consider that to be wrong, though.

Quote:

you people just dont see that Saddam openly allowed terrorists safe haven.


Let's have some hard evidence for that.

Quote:

He shot at US and British airplanes daily, starved his people using the UN oil for food program to better himself and his loyalists and was the natural choice to take out in the mid-east because he was the only one breaking international rules over and over. The UN even said he was the worst since Hitler.


I've never claimed that saddam hussein was anything other than vicious dictator.

Quote:

In February of '03 Colin Powell made an address to the UN, who was reluctant to uphold there own threats with repeated resolution(16 to be exact.) The first half about weapons, weapons that Clinton bombed Iraq for having in Desert Fox in 1998 the day before his impeachment, the ones that every credible intelligence agency said he had or was working on.


In 2002-2003, every credible intelligence agency said he had or was working on weapons of mass destruction?

No, that is incorrect.

Quote:

Tell Me Did these these people LIE too?


I don't know. Did they have the same access to intelligence that the president had?
Back to top
SteelCityConservative
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
SteelCityConservative wrote:

Exton I challenge you to find me where George W. Bush says Iraq was behind 9/11. I dare you to trie and find it, you wont


Uhm. Did i calim that goerge w. bush explicitly stated that iraq was the cause for 9/11?
(I may have, but i don't remember doing so, and if i did, i misspoke)

Of course, george bush does and has tried his very best to link the two. I don't think you'd consider that to be wrong, though.

I never got the impression he tried to link 9/11 to Iraq, what he does say is that the same kind people that attacked us on 9/11 and many times before that in different ways and different countries are in fact in Iraq. The proof,

"Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.


POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.



Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months." Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council Feb. 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html)
Read it all if you dare. This is the same report were the weapons claim was made, funny how that is W's big lie but nobody calls him a lier about this stuff.

Quote:

you people just dont see that Saddam openly allowed terrorists safe haven.


Let's have some hard evidence for that.

Quote:

He shot at US and British airplanes daily, starved his people using the UN oil for food program to better himself and his loyalists and was the natural choice to take out in the mid-east because he was the only one breaking international rules over and over. The UN even said he was the worst since Hitler.


I've never claimed that saddam hussein was anything other than vicious dictator.

So should Saddam have been left to power, I mean Clinton felt it necessary to take out Melosovich when he definitely was not a threat to the U.S. in any way shape or form.

Quote:

In February of '03 Colin Powell made an address to the UN, who was reluctant to uphold there own threats with repeated resolution(16 to be exact.) The first half about weapons, weapons that Clinton bombed Iraq for having in Desert Fox in 1998 the day before his impeachment, the ones that every credible intelligence agency said he had or was working on.


In 2002-2003, every credible intelligence agency said he had or was working on weapons of mass destruction?

No, that is incorrect.

Really how so?

Quote:

Tell Me Did these these people LIE too?


I don't know. Did they have the same access to intelligence that the president had?


Probably since this is the Clinton era and you know he was sooo open with his stuff.

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

So did Clinton, Albright, Sandy "the burglar" Berger, Levin or Pelosi Lie?

Isn't it funny Berger stuffs top secret doc's in his shoes during the 9/11 commission hearings, hides them at a constructon site then later goes back for them to destroy them and nobody cares, even found guilty and asked to pay a little fine. What was on those Clinton era doc's we will never know. I do know if it was Rice, you would want her head.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
beaz wrote:
I'm not confusing anything. You assume way too much, such as Bush lied. Tell me how HE lied. OUR intelligence, along with Germany, Russia and England ALL said they had them, and let's not forget Bill Clinton who said it as well. Did they lie?


Doesn't matter, Bush is getting ready to get impeached, so we will be leaving there soon. And in regards to the UK, you failed to mention the "Downing Street Memo"
Back to top
SteelCityConservative
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:
beaz wrote:
I'm not confusing anything. You assume way too much, such as Bush lied. Tell me how HE lied. OUR intelligence, along with Germany, Russia and England ALL said they had them, and let's not forget Bill Clinton who said it as well. Did they lie?


Doesn't matter, Bush is getting ready to get impeached, so we will be leaving there soon. And in regards to the UK, you failed to mention the "Downing Street Memo"


What is Bush getting impeached for? What crime did he break and where is there proof? And if he does that just means Cheney will be President, can the liberals live with that?
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SteelCityConservative wrote:
What is Bush getting impeached for? What crime did he break and where is there proof? And if he does that just means Cheney will be President, can the liberals live with that?



It would be easier to list the reasons why he should not be impeached, or, list the amount of times that he did not lie.

That would be awesome if Cheney were president!! That would put him exactly where he does not want to be, in the spotlight. He would have to come out of the dark shadows, where he resides. He would have to talk to press members outside of Fox news. Daily Press Briefings, are you kidding me? He definitely does not want that. He prefers to be in the background. Or, in the bushes in the rose garden outside of the White House Read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....44924.html

Then we could get on to the business of impeaching him.
Razz
Back to top
SteelCityConservative
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Xerxes"]
SteelCityConservative wrote:
What is Bush getting impeached for? What crime did he break and where is there proof? And if he does that just means Cheney will be President, can the liberals live with that?



It would be easier to list the reasons why he should not be impeached, or, list the amount of times that he did not lie.

That would be awesome if Cheney were president!! That would put him exactly where he does not want to be, in the spotlight. He would have to come out of the dark shadows, where he resides. He would have to talk to press members outside of Fox news. Daily Press Briefings, are you kidding me? He definitely does not want that. He prefers to be in the background. Or, in the bushes in the rose garden outside of the White House Read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....44924.html

Then we could get on to the business of impeaching him.
Razz[/quot

Keep dreaming.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
SteelCityConservative wrote:
What is Bush getting impeached for? What crime did he break and where is there proof? And if he does that just means Cheney will be President, can the liberals live with that?



It would be easier to list the reasons why he should not be impeached, or, list the amount of times that he did not lie.

That would be awesome if Cheney were president!! That would put him exactly where he does not want to be, in the spotlight. He would have to come out of the dark shadows, where he resides. He would have to talk to press members outside of Fox news. Daily Press Briefings, are you kidding me? He definitely does not want that. He prefers to be in the background. Or, in the bushes in the rose garden outside of the White House Read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....44924.html

Then we could get on to the business of impeaching him.
Razz

Keep dreaming.[/quote]
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
SteelCityConservative wrote:
Keep dreaming.


I do, every night. Just thinkin' about it now is giving me a chubby.
Back to top
SteelCityConservative
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:
SteelCityConservative wrote:
Keep dreaming.


I do, every night. Just thinkin' about it now is giving me a chubby.


You are gonna have to take care of that chubby yourself when the impeachment never happens. See, you need a crime to impeach him on, what crime can you prove?
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conspiracies and Theories All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics