Iraq and the "L" Word (barf alert)

Cohen is not stupid. He is just a bigger liar than his fellow democrats. It is not easy to be a bigger liar than them, but Cohen has risen to the challenge and succeeded.

"Does Ted Kennedy's rant---"Lie after lie after lie after lie..." count?"

Cohen would say, "Ah, but that doesn't exactly say "Bush lied,' does it?"

5. "Bush claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat . .

Bush never said this. So Cohen is lying when he claims this. Therefore since Cohen is willing to LIE about what Bush said, it makes the rest of him claims suspect as well.

CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." 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.

From Bill Clinton's Dec 16th 1998 Speech explaining his ordering airstrikes against Iraq during his Impeachment.

So Mr Chohen, did you hero Bill Clinton lie too when he said: First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

cohenr@washpost.com

Here is the scums email address if any of you want to point out the obvious stupidity of this column.

In the third paragraph/section down there is a link titled "Bush lied about lots of things"
When I click it it goes to the US House of Rep. page. However, I get the old "The requested page could not be found"
http://bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

Then there is this lovely place.....
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm

"This kind of lying from Bush is very consistent" comes from this delightful site.....
http://www.lies.com/wp/2005/11/13/bush-told-the-truth/

So, I have not yet found a direct quote where members of of CONgress said, "President Bush is a liar!"
However, they have used every nuance to do so.

Cohen is lost at sea.

"He lied to Congress to start the war. And now 53% of the American public says that *** if it is clear that Bush lied, they would support Congress considering impeachment *** proceedings against the president."

This quote is offered at this site and gets to the heart of what this gibberish. They intend to impeach President Bush and they will lie if they have to in order to succeed.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005940.php

The only ones lying about Iraq are the usefull idiots like Richard Cohen who work for LMSM (Lying mainstream media).
The WAPO sure has been churning out the moonbat crap the last couple of days. What are they trying to divert attention from? LMSM's Plame conspiracy that has now fallen apart and is exposing MSM for the lying story fabricators they are.

Reid originally called Bush a "liar" in 2002 after a speech that Bush gave about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, saying, " President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and the betrayed the country."

2-16-02: "I'm very disappointed. I know my president has lied." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/20/national/main501842.shtml

Later, in an interview with Rolling Stone from June 2, Reid confirmed that he had called Bush both a “liar” and a “loser”:

Q: You’ve called Bush a loser.

Reid: And a liar.

Q: You’ve apologized for the loser comment.

Reid: But never for the liar, have I.