Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell.........To use specific cases to illustrate, Moore knowingly edited Heston's speech so that the overall message was not original, as he knowingly lied about a particular plant making missles (to make a point about the American military machine), whereas if Bush lied about WMD's, then so did the Clintons and other major liberal political figures. But then, I don't believe Bush intentially lied either...........
|
Lebell, Clinton wisely confined the U.S. response to Saddam to maintaining the
"no fly zones" in the nothern and southern skies of Iraq, occasionally launching
prescision cruise missle strikes on strategic Iraqi targets, and making verbal
assaults on the Iraqi leader, continuing a strategy similar to GWH Bush's
after the 1991 war.
Powell and Rice both declared in 2001 that this strategy had rendered Saddam
impotent and specifically noted that he has not re-armed but needed to be
monitored.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
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."
|
Quote:
<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
|
If you truly believe that Bush did not knowingly mislead Americans about
the threat level actually posed to this country by Saddam and about the
specifics of his nuclear and other WMD threat to the U.S., and that Bush
was simply given "bad intelligence" about Iraq, how do youi explain Powell
and Rice's pre 9/11 declarations, and Bush awarding former CIA director
George Tenent the Medal of Freedom; the nation's highest award, a few
months ago. I submit that it takes an extreme amount of blind faith in Bush,
or denial, or an uncurious inclination, in order to post a belief that Bush did
not intentionally distort and spin the facts as to Iraq's actual threat level
to the U.S. late in 2002 to early 2003. If your "out" is to remind me that
that you don't believe that Bush "intentially lied either", my response is
that in matters as weighted as whether to initiate an invasion and occupation of another country, necessitating the ordering of U.S. troops to
put their lives on the line to defend the security of the U.S., intentionally
making misleading statements about WMD's and threat assessments to trusting citizens and soldiers do not need to be categorized as "lies" to be
regarded as outrageous and possibly treasonous!