John Kerry Caught in a lie

[Michaelr]

He squirms as good as old slick willie

What a Liar, click here

 

[Ithaca 37]

I do think it's reasonable that he wouldn't want to name anyone who told him something in confidence. Would you name people who told you something in confidence. Think of the possible repercussions if he started naming any foreign leaders, or even higher-ups in their gummints.

 

[Michaelr]

Then he should have kept his mouth shut about it.
If he is going to use it in his campaign then he should have to back it up.

Just like on here, if you make a baseless claim you get flogged.

 

[RockyDog]

I agree that Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth, and other countries should have no bearing on picking our leaders.

BUT, Come on! This is very hypocritical, they are both liars. Obviously alot of leaders want Bush out, look at Spain. Its nowhere near like stating lies in the state of the pres. address like uranium uranium from africa being used to build nuclear weapons and specific amounts of Stockpiled WMDs.

Are there any pol. that arent liars, i dont think so. It's our own fault.

 

[pawclaws]

I'm sure the group of leaders who would like to see Bush ousted would include : Hessein, Bin Laden, Arasteid, Castro, etc. You know I don't think I'd repeat their names either!! Especially if they have contributed to the campaign!!

 

[Michaelr]

LOL, right on paws

 

[ROCKYMTNELKSTALKER]

Kerry was caught in a lie starting in the 60's, then countinuing to the 70's, 80's, 90's, and now the new century.
At least we can say he is consistant.

 

[Nemont]

Rockydog,

Here is quote, guess who said it:

Excerpts from press release

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT


The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors .

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere . The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act, and act now. Let me explain why.


That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse forces and protect his weapons .


First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems , threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.


The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt: If he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

These are the words of William Jefferson Clinton.
Now please explain what Bush lied about. If reviewing the same intel the previous Pesident and his advisor arrived at the same conculsions.
Link to Story

Nemont

 

[JB]

who tells more lies , democrats or republicans?.....do independents fall somewhere in the middle of the two on the lie scale?.....hell i figured all politicians were lying bastards....who'd a thunk it!

 

[RockyDog]

I just cut and pasted the first thing i found in a web search below. I believe that CLinton and Bush were both correct that Iraq was a threat. However, Bush chose to use some real specific accusations that all later turned out to be not true. If you cant accept that these were untruths, or if you try to excuse them because Clinton did almost the same just in a more general way, then you must be warped.


Pasted_____

Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

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

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

 

[Nemont]

Rockydog,
Look I not saying it was true what I am saying is that in the end EVERYONE democrats, Republicans, European's, Middle Easterners etc thought Saddam had the weapons because that is what their intel and analysis were telling them. To have two administrations make the same conculsions using the same data and you can't see that our leaders were acting in what they believed were your countries best interests. I don't know how you can say they lied.
Pretty sure I am not warped.
Nemont

 

[danr55]

...and RD, who was it that emasculated the US Intellengence capability with his claims that we could learn everything we needed to know from space observation? We don't need men on the ground when we have sattelites in the stratosphere..

Bush was wrong. He stated as fact, things that were commonly accepted fact among the Washington community. The only difference between Bush and Klinton is the Bush chose to take proactive measures. Do you think for a minute that this action was unilateral or that it wasn't planned for years before Bush went into office? Do you think it would have been any different if Internet Al had been elected? It may have had a different out come but the same actions would have been taken. Or are you still naive enough to believe that the President still runs this country?

 

[ROCKYMTNELKSTALKER]

One thing I think is important here is the FACT that Iraq did have WMD at one time. It is a well known 100% truth that Saddam did have and did use WMD on his own countrymen. During WW2 when the US dropped the a-bombs on Japan it was an accepted fact that the US had more of these wonderfull little crowd pleasers. The US had the materials and the technology to build more at the time, but at that moment we used the only ywo in our inventory.
So does that mean that the world was wrong in assumeing that we had more, and was it wrong for the US to let the world we had more, NO it wasn't. Just like it wasn't wrong for the US intel. community to assume that Iraq had more or could produce more WMD. Iraq had all the time in the world to dismantle and hide outside of thier country it's WMD articles and it's program.
There was no lie regarding the WMD program, Iraq had/has them, Iraq used them, and Iraq threatened to use them on us in the early 90's. The only problem is that when we finally got a president with enough testicular fortitude to go after them for the WMD program, Iraq had gotten rid of all the evidence.
One other little thing just in case some have forgotten. Bush did not have to get support from the world community to start combat offensives in Iraq again. He didn't even need to get a declaration of war from our legislative parties because we were still at war in Iraq. There was no declared end of hostilities after desert storm, just a signed cease fire. If you doubt this last part, then sit down and do some research on it. You will find that since 1991 there was not one single year that the US, or one of it's allies that were still there, did not shoot down something or blow something up in or around the no-fly zones. Hostilities continued to take place in Iraq for 12 years prior to combat offinsives starting back up. Yes, even under Billary Iraqi's died and US servicemen and women were kickin butt in Iraq.