The Bush admin knowingly made false statements leading up to the war

[truthmatters]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_us


The study is independent and very conclusive.

[darin]

Default The Bush admin knowingly made false statements leading up to the war

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_us


The study is independent and very conclusive.

Hey Crazy woman. Where in that story does it indicate Bush and his aides KNEW the information was false, at the time they made it? That report it stupid. It's a waste of money and time. I would have told them for FREE "yeah, we were wrong about that..." But - nevertheless, based on the info we had, we did the right thing.

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like enough time has passed since the BUSH LIED crowd was last smacked down and sent packing, that they think people will have forgotten, and they can bring up all their old, discredited accusations again and pretend they have a legitimate argument.

Standard tactic of the left. No wonder they hate the "new media", including the internet... it won't forget what they want it to forget.

[truthmatters]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html


"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

[darin]

That one doesn't work either. Thanks for Lying about the President! You've lied about him at least once today - what's your quota?

[truthmatters]

will you take back your name calling and red squares?

[Classact]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html


"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."You and CNN seem a little confused. Take a look at this CNN report. It seems that the UN concluded that Saddam claimed he "unilaterally destroyed" a couple hundreds tons of WMD chemical biological agents. His claim was that he did that in months following the ceasefire of the Gulf War... The UN had mandated he notunilaterly destroy WMD's but have UN inspectors witness the destruction. According to UN records there were over 200 tons of missing WMD chemical biological weapons that Saddam couldn't account for... he would not allow the alleged witnesses to be interviewed without witnesses... the UN inspectors were concerned about tape recordings or witnesses during interviews of these alleged scientists that took it upon themselves to destroy 200 tons of wmds. Now think back to the time following 9-11 and how just a few ounces of wmds killed postal workers and shut down the Senate. Yes there is some confusion... http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/

[retiredman]

Hey Crazy woman. Where in that story does it indicate Bush and his aides KNEW the information was false, at the time they made it? That report it stupid. It's a waste of money and time. I would have told them for FREE "yeah, we were wrong about that..." But - nevertheless, based on the info we had, we did the right thing.

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying. There NEVER was absolute certainty about any of that.

If I were to say, today, sight unseen, that there was absolutely no doubt that the ashtray in your car was full of cigarette butts at this very moment, I would be lying...even if it were full. I would be lying about the absolute certainty that I had expressed. It was that total lack of doubt - when coupled with the innuendos about Saddam's boy's hooking up with Osama's boy and being on the same page - that came together to propel American public opinion.

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.

[darin]

will you take back your name calling and red squares?

Will you stop making stuff up to support your agenda? Will you EVER honestly report what you find online, or will you continue to lie to support your beliefs?

[truthmatters]

This study was not done by CNN.

[Mr. P]

will you take back your name calling and red squares?

You don't like the consequences of your intentionally misleading inaccurate thread title?

[truthmatters]

methodically propagated

[Dilloduck]

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying. There NEVER was absolute certainty about any of that.

If I were to say, today, sight unseen, that there was absolutely no doubt that the ashtray in your car was full of cigarette butts at this very moment, I would be lying...even if it were full. I would be lying about the absolute certainty that I had expressed. It was that total lack of doubt - when coupled with the innuendos about Saddam's boy's hooking up with Osama's boy and being on the same page - that came together to propel American public opinion.

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.


The very same lies that prominent politicians from both parties were happy to propagate.

[Little-Acorn]

Will you stop making stuff up to support your agenda? Will you EVER honestly report what you find online, or will you continue to lie to support your beliefs?

Oh, come on. If people like truthmutters couldn't lie and make stuff up, they'd never have anything to say at all, and the bandwidth of the board would shrink by 25%. Give him a break.

[darin]

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.

Everybody believed Saddam had WMDs. Do we REALLY Have to go there again?



Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.




"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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."



"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Should I go on?

[retiredman]

The very same lies that prominent politicians from both parties were happy to propagate.

I know of only one democratic politician who expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's... and I am aware of only administation personnel who were pushing the Iraq-AQ connection.

but if any democrats did so, they are liars as well.

[retiredman]

Everybody believed Saddam had WMDs. Do we REALLY Have to go there again?

Should I go on?
please do...but why not spare us the bandwidth by just posting those quotes from democrats that expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's.

[Classact]

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying. There NEVER was absolute certainty about any of that.

If I were to say, today, sight unseen, that there was absolutely no doubt that the ashtray in your car was full of cigarette butts at this very moment, I would be lying...even if it were full. I would be lying about the absolute certainty that I had expressed. It was that total lack of doubt - when coupled with the innuendos about Saddam's boy's hooking up with Osama's boy and being on the same page - that came together to propel American public opinion.

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.Saddam gave the UN a list of his WMD's and 200 tons of those WMD's on Saddam's list were still unaccounted for at the time of the re-start of hostilities. These are the facts, Saddam invaded Kuwait and was forcefully removed and a ceasefire was agreed to that required Saddam provide a list to the UN of WMD's and programs on going. Saddam submitted a list... to become a free nation once again and end the war all Saddam had to do was destroy those items on the list he provided. Do you not agree that Saddam could have destroyed all items in six months? He claimed in 2003 he destroyed 200 tons of WMD's within 6 months of his declaration. Those 200 tons were still unaccounted for.

Clearly, this would indicate Saddam is full of shit, he had no intention of living up to the ceasefire agreement. There was no need for oil for food or any following action if Saddam had just went down the list he could have been a free nation without sanctions in 90 days... if he needed help the US would bring in experts to help him destroy the WMD's. Why do you want to suck up to Saddam a decade and a half later when he never showed any movement to live up to his contract?

[darin]

Saddam gave the UN a list of his WMD's and 200 tons of those WMD's on Saddam's list were still unaccounted for at the time of the re-start of hostilities. These are the facts, Saddam invaded Kuwait and was forcefully removed and a ceasefire was agreed to that required Saddam provide a list to the UN of WMD's and programs on going. Saddam submitted a list... to become a free nation once again and end the war all Saddam had to do was destroy those items on the list he provided. Do you not agree that Saddam could have destroyed all items in six months? He claimed in 2003 he destroyed 200 tons of WMD's within 6 months of his declaration. Those 200 tons were still unaccounted for.

Clearly, this would indicate Saddam is full of shit, he had no intention of living up to the ceasefire agreement. There was no need for oil for food or any following action if Saddam had just went down the list he could have been a free nation without sanctions in 90 days... if he needed help the US would bring in experts to help him destroy the WMD's. Why do you want to suck up to Saddam a decade and a half later when he never showed any movement to live up to his contract?

May wanna just give it up. The guy you're replying to has no use for facts or logic which don't support his superstitions and fantasies.

[retiredman]

Saddam gave the UN a list of his WMD's and 200 tons of those WMD's on Saddam's list were still unaccounted for at the time of the re-start of hostilities. These are the facts, Saddam invaded Kuwait and was forcefully removed and a ceasefire was agreed to that required Saddam provide a list to the UN of WMD's and programs on going. Saddam submitted a list... to become a free nation once again and end the war all Saddam had to do was destroy those items on the list he provided. Do you not agree that Saddam could have destroyed all items in six months? He claimed in 2003 he destroyed 200 tons of WMD's within 6 months of his declaration. Those 200 tons were still unaccounted for.

Clearly, this would indicate Saddam is full of shit, he had no intention of living up to the ceasefire agreement. There was no need for oil for food or any following action if Saddam had just went down the list he could have been a free nation without sanctions in 90 days... if he needed help the US would bring in experts to help him destroy the WMD's. Why do you want to suck up to Saddam a decade and a half later when he never showed any movement to live up to his contract?

I think the conclusions you draw are as legitimate as the next guy's....STILL nothing to show that we were absolutely certain of his stockpiles. Do you recall Rummy saying, not only were we certain of the fact that he had them, we ever knew where they were?

And look, asshole, being against this idiotic counterproductive war is NOT the same as "wanting to suck up to Saddam". Can you debate with ANY honesty? damn.

[retiredman]

May wanna just give it up. The guy you're replying to has no use for facts or logic which don't support his superstitions and fantasies.


weren't you going to go on with the quotes from democrats expressing absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's? I was so anxious to read them!:lol:

[darin]

weren't you going to go on with the quotes from democrats expressing absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's? I was so anxious to read them!:lol:

why would reading those cause you to suffer anxiety?

[truthmatters]

So now they are saying what about this studies results?

They are not true huh?

Or maybe they are saying a dem once thought Sadam had weapons too?



Or that the admin was just too stupid to read the intell properly?


I cant really keep up with the said logic they are using to ignore the finding.

[retiredman]

why would reading those cause you to suffer anxiety?

I am just excited.... why are you stalling?

[Classact]

I think the conclusions you draw are as legitimate as the next guy's....STILL nothing to show that we were absolutely certain of his stockpiles. Do you recall Rummy saying, not only were we certain of the fact that he had them, we ever knew where they were?

And look, asshole, being against this idiotic counterproductive war is NOT the same as "wanting to suck up to Saddam". Can you debate with ANY honesty? damn.In reference to Rummy's statements and and the Intel briefing with source documents the Secretary of State presented to the UN it did appear that we knew where they were... if you recall there were satellite photos and voice intercepts of person on the ground near weapons storage facilities.

The war is not counterproductive nor idiotic. It would be idiotic and counterproductive to have given Saddam a pass when he invaded Kuwait and it would be counterproductive to give him a pass for another decade as he gave the UN the finger. To wait for one of our No Fly Zone flights be shot down would be idiotic... leaving Saddam winking and blinking at the UN Secretary General and his phony anti war weapons inspection team as the status quo wouldn't serve very well in the Mid East in dealing with Iran either. The war was just and necessary!

[truthmatters]

Sadam winking and blinking at UN members was worth the blood and deaths of thousands of Americans?

It was worth Trillions of dollars?


It was worth creating terrorist all over the world who hate the US?

It was worth childrens lives and limbs?

[retiredman]

In reference to Rummy's statements and and the Intel briefing with source documents the Secretary of State presented to the UN it did appear that we knew where they were... if you recall there were satellite photos and voice intercepts of person on the ground near weapons storage facilities.

The war is not counterproductive nor idiotic. It would be idiotic and counterproductive to have given Saddam a pass when he invaded Kuwait and it would be counterproductive to give him a pass for another decade as he gave the UN the finger. To wait for one of our No Fly Zone flights be shot down would be idiotic... leaving Saddam winking and blinking at the UN Secretary General and his phony anti war weapons inspection team as the status quo wouldn't serve very well in the Mid East in dealing with Iran either. The war was just and necessary!

that is your opinion. I disagree and my rationale for that disagreement is just as valid and well thought out as your opinion to the contrary. I happen to believe that 9/11 ought to have made Saddam's relatively meaningless gestures to the UN and the world much less significant. I think that to shift targets away from Islamic extremism to nation building in Iraq was foolish. I happen to believe - and my belief is bolstered by personal contacts with muslims in the middle east - that our invasion of Iraq has created many more enemies than it has eliminated. And that, IMHO, makes it terribly counterproductive, especially when our own intelligence agencies report that, while we have been tied up in Iraq, Al Qaeda - our REAL enemy - has completely recovered to pre-9/11 strength. counterproductive. our real enemy unphased, and more enemies made all at a cost of 31K dead and wounded Americans, nearly a trillion dollars, and five wasted years.

[Dilloduck]

Sadam winking and blinking at UN members was worth the blood and deaths of thousands of Americans?

It was worth Trillions of dollars?


It was worth creating terrorist all over the world who hate the US?

It was worth childrens lives and limbs?

Since we will never know the results of not invading it's impossible to say.

[darin]

I am just excited.... why are you stalling?

So you are EAGER to read them, not anxious?

[darin]

TM - are you going to at Least admit you lied in how you titled this thread?

[Dilloduck]

that is your opinion. I disagree and my rationale for that disagreement is just as valid and well thought out as your opinion to the contrary. I happen to believe that 9/11 ought to have made Saddam's relatively meaningless gestures to the UN and the world much less significant. I think that to shift targets away from Islamic extremism to nation building in Iraq was foolish. I happen to believe - and my belief is bolstered by personal contacts with muslims in the middle east - that our invasion of Iraq has created many more enemies than it has eliminated. And that, IMHO, makes it terribly counterproductive, especially when our own intelligence agencies report that, while we have been tied up in Iraq, Al Qaeda - our REAL enemy - has completely recovered to pre-9/11 strength. counterproductive. our real enemy unphased, and more enemies made all at a cost of 31K dead and wounded Americans, nearly a trillion dollars, and five wasted years.

To claim that our "real" enemy has been left "unphased" is an irresponsible lie.

[darin]

So now they are saying what about this studies results?

They are not true huh?

Or maybe they are saying a dem once thought Sadam had weapons too?



Or that the admin was just too stupid to read the intell properly?


I cant really keep up with the said logic they are using to ignore the finding.



Did bush "knowingly" make false statements?

[truthmatters]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml

our own people say it caused more terror.

It is undeniable children are dead and maimed due to this war.

It is undeniable we will be out trillions of tax dollars due to this war.

It is undeniable that tens of thousands of Americans have spilled their blood and thousands have made the ultimate sacrafice because of this war.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html


"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

[retiredman]

Did bush "knowingly" make false statements?

of course he did. any statement he made expressing no doubt about Saddam's WMD's was a false statement. period. and the only way he could not have "known" the statement was false was if he was incapable of reading.

[darin]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml

our own people say it caused more terror.

It is undeniable children are dead and maimed due to this war.

It is undeniable we will be out trillions of tax dollars due to this war.

It is undeniable that tens of thousands of Americans have spilled their blood and thousands have made the ultimate sacrafice because of this war.


Its undeniable Bush didn't Lie to start this war.

Its undeniable we've killed Terrorists and sometimes their kids.

Its undeniable thousands and thousands of Americans have stepped up to the plate to secure freedom.

Its undeniable about 500,000 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice to secure OUR way of life in the 1940s.

Its undeniable you spit on the graves of american servicemen and women with your lies about our nation, this war, and our President. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

[retiredman]

To claim that our "real" enemy has been left "unphased" is an irresponsible lie.

our own intelligence agencies reported that AQ is every bit as capable today as they were on 9/10/01.

tell them they are irresponsible liars.

[darin]

of course he did. any statement he made expressing no doubt about Saddam's WMD's was a false statement. period. and the only way he could not have "known" the statement was false was if he was incapable of reading.

You're being stupid now. Simply stupid.

[Dilloduck]

of course he did. any statement he made expressing no doubt about Saddam's WMD's was a false statement. period. and the only way he could not have "known" the statement was false was if he was incapable of reading.

When did democrats START bitching about invading Iraq ? Serious anti-war rhetoric.

[hjmick]

Fund for Independence in Journalism

Bevis Longstreth, Board Chairman

Political contributions (http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=10022&last=Longstreth&first=Bevis)

Not exactly unbiased leadership over there at the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

[truthmatters]

How could he give money to the guy who did not believe the lies about the lead up to the war?


Would you expect him to donate to Hillary and Bush after learning about the lies and bad judgement?

[Mr. P]

TM - are you going to at Least admit you lied in how you titled this thread?

When pigs fly!

[truthmatters]

When did democrats START bitching about invading Iraq ? Serious anti-war rhetoric.


I knew MM back then too and we were both very outspoken against the war even before ti started.


dmp, what does methodically propagated mean?

[Classact]

Sadam winking and blinking at UN members was worth the blood and deaths of thousands of Americans?

It was worth Trillions of dollars?


It was worth creating terrorist all over the world who hate the US?

It was worth childrens lives and limbs?There are two facts we all must face, first the US would have never concerned itself in the Gulf War if the Democratic Party would allow domestic oil exploration in the US allowing us to not rely on the ME oil and, since the Mid East is in American interests to maintain as a stable region all actions necessary to maintain stability are necessary to assure America's economy remains stable. We would not have involved ourselves in war with Iraq in the first place had we not found it absolutely necessary and to allow a minor player in the ME to boss around the UN would not be a condition that would lead to stability.


that is your opinion. I disagree and my rationale for that disagreement is just as valid and well thought out as your opinion to the contrary. I happen to believe that 9/11 ought to have made Saddam's relatively meaningless gestures to the UN and the world much less significant. I think that to shift targets away from Islamic extremism to nation building in Iraq was foolish. I happen to believe - and my belief is bolstered by personal contacts with muslims in the middle east - that our invasion of Iraq has created many more enemies than it has eliminated. And that, IMHO, makes it terribly counterproductive, especially when our own intelligence agencies report that, while we have been tied up in Iraq, Al Qaeda - our REAL enemy - has completely recovered to pre-9/11 strength. counterproductive. our real enemy unphased, and more enemies made all at a cost of 31K dead and wounded Americans, nearly a trillion dollars, and five wasted years.Do you remember in American history we had a population of over three million KKK members and those members were not concentrated in the south? I equate radical Islam to the KKK, and it has been pointed out that those who practice terrorism come from all across Islam as did the KKK action players. America cannot "create terrorists" any more than an outside force can recruit KKK members if the support doesn't already exist that provides comfort for the KKK or terrorists. All of Islam gives comfort to terrorists, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran... all of Islam! If you desire to end the KKK the desire must come from the majority, or at least that is the way I remember it coming to an almost end in our history.

My point is this, Islamic people of Iraq danced in the street and fired their weapons in the air when the twin towers fell and they didn't do it at Saddam's orders. I see Islam's support as compared to the end of segregation in the south... the federal government had to intervene to force it to end... if the federal government had asked politely to the leaders of the south to please abide by the law segregation would still exist today.

As I stated above this war, the one that cost 107 US deaths and then re-started to take more US lives is on the hands of those who made the ME our, America's Interests... the interests are assurance of oil moving freely to the US because the Democratic Party and environmentalist will not let us drill here on our homeland. We would ignore the ME until England and France begged us to help them with their oil problems if only we had our own oil supply.

[truthmatters]

"There are two facts we all must face, first the US would have never concerned itself in the Gulf War if the Democratic Party would allow domestic oil exploration in the US allowing us to not rely on the ME oil and, since the Mid East is in American interests to maintain as a stable region all actions necessary to maintain stability are necessary to assure America's economy remains stable. We would not have involved ourselves in war with Iraq in the first place had we not found it absolutely necessary and to allow a minor player in the ME to boss around the UN would not be a condition that would lead to stability."


Like we said before the war even started "this is about oil".

If your party would have allowed for investment in alternative energy we could be leading the industry and selling our technology to the rest of the world and enjoying a growing economy and tons of jobs intstead of watching our kids die for oil and throwing away our national treasure in a way that makes the world hate us.


BTW those Arabs you hate would have a dying economy because oil would be next to worthless.

[Classact]

"There are two facts we all must face, first the US would have never concerned itself in the Gulf War if the Democratic Party would allow domestic oil exploration in the US allowing us to not rely on the ME oil and, since the Mid East is in American interests to maintain as a stable region all actions necessary to maintain stability are necessary to assure America's economy remains stable. We would not have involved ourselves in war with Iraq in the first place had we not found it absolutely necessary and to allow a minor player in the ME to boss around the UN would not be a condition that would lead to stability."


Like we said before the war even started "this is about oil".

If your party would have allowed for investment in alternative energy we could be leading the industry and selling our technology to the rest of the world and enjoying a growing economy and tons of jobs intstead of watching our kids die for oil and throwing away our national treasure in a way that makes the world hate us.


BTW those Arabs you hate would have a dying economy because oil would be next to worthless.America's interests in the Mid East is oil because that is what the American people made it. We would probably have thousands of nuclear non polluting power plants in the US if it were not for Jane Fonda. When consumption exceed domestic production, when was that in the early 60's we didn't move to small cars or start riding motorcycles... oil was cheap even if it came from the ME. It wasn't until President Carter's administration that most Americans realized we imported oil and with gas rationing the voice was loud and clear to fire Jimmy Carter and tear down all of that solar crap and hire an asskicker that will keep gas in "our" pumps.

The Democrats current Energy policy (bill) that contains no energy from oil or coal will be tossed out just like Carter was tossed out when and if they get into power and the ME shuts off their oil to the world. A oil drilling Arab bombing ass kicker will be hired to keep gas in "our" pumps.

If Democrats ran on an agenda to spend one trillion dollars on alternative energy and zero on ME maintenance then perhaps America could be free from the ME if AE progress was fast enough. But, the Democratic Party always has so many different groups to pass out money to they can't concentrate on a single issue like energy. Oh, the needs are so many and oil is cheap if we are lucky.

[truthmatters]

But you love the money being passed out to the oil industry so our kids can die for the oil interests?


I guess you are just a one industry guy huh?

[Classact]

The Jane Fonda impact on American energy... mhtml:http://www.nber.org/~almond/fonda.mht

[truthmatters]

I really dont care all that much about Fonda.

I do care about this country and it is not in very good shape to face the future after years of this current corrupt republican party's reign.

[Classact]

But you love the money being passed out to the oil industry so our kids can die for the oil interests?


I guess you are just a one industry guy huh?No, I'm big into alternative energy, I heat my water with solar energy and have other projects ongoing... if I got a tax rebate I'd buy a wind turbine. I buy cars for cash and mine uses gas and I just want gas at the gas station or whatever fuel when my used car needs filled. I prefer the energy would come from America and would much prefer it come from renewable energy source.

I'd love to have super cheap electricity and an electric car that would get to and from where I need to go.

[truthmatters]

Then you must face the fact that this country should have been investing in alternative energy solutions like the Dems have been talking for decades and if we would have we would be on top of the curve in this technology and would be able to manufacture and sell the technology. Our economy would be steaming along and the middle east would have very little power in the world instead of us spilling our blood and treasure for one industry.

[manu1959]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_us

The study is independent and very conclusive.

his information was based open gerorge tennat's information....george was appointed by clinton....clinton made many of the same statements as did pelosi edwards harry the drunk and the traitor....

[manu1959]

Then you must face the fact that this country should have been investing in alternative energy solutions like the Dems have been talking for decades and if we would have we would be on top of the curve in this technology and would be able to manufacture and sell the technology. Our economy would be steaming along and the middle east would have very little power in the world instead of us spilling our blood and treasure for one industry.

there is no financial incentive to create an alternate energy source....

[truthmatters]

his information was based open gerorge tennat's information....george was appointed by clinton....clinton made many of the same statements as did pelosi edwards harry the drunk and the traitor....



hahahahahaah !

yeah tennent screwed the pooch didnt he.

I will note he did the screwing under Bush and at his behest too.

[Classact]

Then you must face the fact that this country should have been investing in alternative energy solutions like the Dems have been talking for decades and if we would have we would be on top of the curve in this technology and would be able to manufacture and sell the technology. Our economy would be steaming along and the middle east would have very little power in the world instead of us spilling our blood and treasure for one industry.I loved President Carter's AE ideas but he didn't have congress behind him. Both parties fought against his Alternatice Energy plans. If in the early 60's when we started importing oil from the ME we would have put an import tax on foreign oil and used that tax to fund AE then perhaps we would be energy independant now. Now we import millions of barrels a day and transition alone cost billions in transition costs to other alternatives... It looks like the two parties will continue to make it impossible to find middle ground. One will endorse AE and then if a shortage of energy occurs while they are in office they will be fired. If the Democratic Party could get the environmentalist to lighten up a little then perhaps congress could find some middle ground to start working on in this day and age.

[manu1959]

hahahahahaah !

yeah tennent screwed the pooch didnt he.

I will note he did the screwing under Bush and at his behest too.


tennant was a clinton stooge and was under orders from dubi via clinton to mislead the republican administration so clinton the kennedy's and the pelosi could grab power once and for all.....the first 20 mill payment to bill is only the start.....

[NATO AIR]

I'm sorry but the Bush Administration lied methodically to sell the war (so Did Papi Bush, So Did Bill Clinton, So Did Richard Nixon, So Did JFK & LBJ, So Did FDR, So Did McKinley, So Did Andrew Jackson, So DID DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY). Its a dead issue to most people except the die hards.

Arguing with the die hards who won't accept the facts is just... worthless.

The real issues would be:

- how politicized can we allow intelligence reports and gathering to be in the future? Already, we're seeing the Iran NIE getting politicized in what amounts to a power play by SECDEF Gates, CENTCOM Admiral Fallon, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and others against VP Cheney to prevent strikes on Iran.

- when will the rest of the US government (including the White House & Congress) show up and relieve some of the burden of the US military? They're essentially showing up for an Olympics of hundreds of events and they're forced to compete in each and every one of them without backup and generally without that skill set and knowledge. The US military is not an expert at promoting child education, health clinics, building complex transportation networks, negotiating with rival ethnic and religious groups and promoting the growth of labor unions, state-owned industries and small businesses.

I mean Jeez... they do it all but would it be that hard for Washington to jump into the 21st Century here and fund a State Dept. and a Dept. of Everything Else (i.e. nation-building and social/economic/political network repair).

The point here is that stuff like this is stupid... wars have been sold on lies and half-truths for centuries. It will always be that way with rare exceptions.

It won't always be that our intelligence is getting fouled up by competing agendas and our military is being forced to do everybody else's job.

[retiredman]

You're being stupid now. Simply stupid.
explain why you say that.

I laid out my example concerning your ashtray. refute it...calling it stupid is a coward's way out of addressing a problem you cannot debate.

[retiredman]

When did democrats START bitching about invading Iraq ? Serious anti-war rhetoric.

the majority of democrats in congress voted against the resolution. I have personally spoken against the invasion of Iraq since well before it was started.

[truthmatters]

tennant was a clinton stooge and was under orders from dubi via clinton to mislead the republican administration so clinton the kennedy's and the pelosi could grab power once and for all.....the first 20 mill payment to bill is only the start.....


Funny I dont remember him doing any lying under Clinton?

He did cowtow to the Bush request for cherrypicking the evidence against Iraq though.

Yeah he turned into a scumbag I guess he just needed the Bush charm to turn him.

[truthmatters]

I'm sorry but the Bush Administration lied methodically to sell the war (so Did Papi Bush, So Did Bill Clinton, So Did Richard Nixon, So Did JFK & LBJ, So Did FDR, So Did McKinley, So Did Andrew Jackson, So DID DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY). Its a dead issue to most people except the die hards.

Arguing with the die hards who won't accept the facts is just... worthless.

The real issues would be:

- how politicized can we allow intelligence reports and gathering to be in the future? Already, we're seeing the Iran NIE getting politicized in what amounts to a power play by SECDEF Gates, CENTCOM Admiral Fallon, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and others against VP Cheney to prevent strikes on Iran.

- when will the rest of the US government (including the White House & Congress) show up and relieve some of the burden of the US military? They're essentially showing up for an Olympics of hundreds of events and they're forced to compete in each and every one of them without backup and generally without that skill set and knowledge. The US military is not an expert at promoting child education, health clinics, building complex transportation networks, negotiating with rival ethnic and religious groups and promoting the growth of labor unions, state-owned industries and small businesses.

I mean Jeez... they do it all but would it be that hard for Washington to jump into the 21st Century here and fund a State Dept. and a Dept. of Everything Else (i.e. nation-building and social/economic/political network repair).

The point here is that stuff like this is stupid... wars have been sold on lies and half-truths for centuries. It will always be that way with rare exceptions.

It won't always be that our intelligence is getting fouled up by competing agendas and our military is being forced to do everybody else's job.



Johnson did it and I would have been happy to see him in prison for it.

I really dont think the american public sees this as a non issue like you do.

I submitt that it is treason adn those who do it should be shot as traitors.

Lets try them all and convict the ones who are guilty and shoot them?

DEAL?

[retiredman]

There are two facts we all must face, first the US would have never concerned itself in the Gulf War if the Democratic Party would allow domestic oil exploration in the US allowing us to not rely on the ME oil and, since the Mid East is in American interests to maintain as a stable region all actions necessary to maintain stability are necessary to assure America's economy remains stable. We would not have involved ourselves in war with Iraq in the first place had we not found it absolutely necessary and to allow a minor player in the ME to boss around the UN would not be a condition that would lead to stability.

Do you remember in American history we had a population of over three million KKK members and those members were not concentrated in the south? I equate radical Islam to the KKK, and it has been pointed out that those who practice terrorism come from all across Islam as did the KKK action players. America cannot "create terrorists" any more than an outside force can recruit KKK members if the support doesn't already exist that provides comfort for the KKK or terrorists. All of Islam gives comfort to terrorists, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran... all of Islam! If you desire to end the KKK the desire must come from the majority, or at least that is the way I remember it coming to an almost end in our history.

My point is this, Islamic people of Iraq danced in the street and fired their weapons in the air when the twin towers fell and they didn't do it at Saddam's orders. I see Islam's support as compared to the end of segregation in the south... the federal government had to intervene to force it to end... if the federal government had asked politely to the leaders of the south to please abide by the law segregation would still exist today.

As I stated above this war, the one that cost 107 US deaths and then re-started to take more US lives is on the hands of those who made the ME our, America's Interests... the interests are assurance of oil moving freely to the US because the Democratic Party and environmentalist will not let us drill here on our homeland. We would ignore the ME until England and France begged us to help them with their oil problems if only we had our own oil supply.


your opinions about Islam are not facts. Your opinions about the effects of our invasion of Iraq on the rest of the Islamic world are not supported by my own ongoing contacts with many old friends in the arab world who report the situation as I relayed it to you. Islamic extremism is indeed nationless...which is why our attacking, conquering and occupying one of the few nations in the islamic world with ZERO tolerance for wahabbism was extraordinarily stupid.

[jimnyc]

This "study" is funny in that they forgot to analyze any comments made by democrats about Saddam and WMD in the past 10 years. Funny that they don't mention they have been labeled as left wing for many years. Funny they don't mention how much money George Soros gives them.

There's no doubt in my mind that these numbers are correct. But hell, I can have a discussion with a friend and have made similar statements 30-50 times in the course of one conversation. The Dems cried for a couple of years about Saddam and his desire and/or possession of WMD and I don't see numbers from them in there anywhere. If this organization is "bipartisan", when do they plan on releasing the numbers about how many times the Democrats knowingly stated false information?

[retiredman]

I will stipulate that many democrats made inaccurate statements about Saddam's WMD's.

I will note that very few, if more than one, ever suggested absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's.

I will note that sabre rattling is one thing, invasion/conquest/occupation is another. Bush was the CinC who took us to war. That is far more significant than democrat's inaccurate statements.

I will also note that all but a handful of congressional republicans voted for the use of force resolution, while a majority of democrats in congress voted against it.

[truthmatters]

This study was done to see if this administration led us to war based on falsehoods.

I dont think you will get anyone to waste their time on the study you want.

[NATO AIR]

This "study" is funny in that they forgot to analyze any comments made by democrats about Saddam and WMD in the past 10 years. Funny that they don't mention they have been labeled as left wing for many years. Funny they don't mention how much money George Soros gives them.

There's no doubt in my mind that these numbers are correct. But hell, I can have a discussion with a friend and have made similar statements 30-50 times in the course of one conversation. The Dems cried for a couple of years about Saddam and his desire and/or possession of WMD and I don't see numbers from them in there anywhere. If this organization is "bipartisan", when do they plan on releasing the numbers about how many times the Democrats knowingly stated false information?

That's very true. Zinni and others were bitching about the Iraqi Liberation Act Clinton passed in '98 because they said a lot of the exiles were lying their asses off (which they were, Chalabi especially) and it was based on bad intel. The Dems have been just as bad in this.

[truthmatters]

Do you submitt Gore would have embarked on this failed policy also?

I think you have no proof of that assertion.

[Classact]

your opinions about Islam are not facts. Your opinions about the effects of our invasion of Iraq on the rest of the Islamic world are not supported by my own ongoing contacts with many old friends in the arab world who report the situation as I relayed it to you. Islamic extremism is indeed nationless...which is why our attacking, conquering and occupying one of the few nations in the islamic world with ZERO tolerance for wahabbism was extraordinarily stupid.
Ask your Islamic friends if the US coated all its bombs and bullets in Jewish blood and gave blood transfusions with Jewish blood if captured and buried them under pig intestines how long the war would last.

[manu1959]

Funny I dont remember him doing any lying under Clinton?

He did cowtow to the Bush request for cherrypicking the evidence against Iraq though.

Yeah he turned into a scumbag I guess he just needed the Bush charm to turn him.

believe what you will but clinton put tennant in place and tennant led america into war......and bill is receiving money from those in the ME benefiting from the rise in oil prices....and now he stands to get 8 more years in the white house.....

further clinton saw saddam as a threat as well as obl.....or have you forgotten his speaches and attacks against them and their forces.....

[truthmatters]

Ask your Islamic friends if the US coated all its bombs and bullets in Jewish blood and gave blood transfusions with Jewish blood if captured and buried them under pig intestines how long the war would last.


We know you hate muslims. I think that has already been established.

[truthmatters]

believe what you will but clinton put tennant in place and tennant led america into war......and bill is receiving money from those in the ME benefiting from the rise in oil prices....and now he stands to get 8 more years in the white house.....

further clinton saw saddam as a threat as well as obl.....or have you forgotten his speaches and attacks against them and their forces.....



HAHAHAHAHA come on now Tennent did Bush's bidding and has destroyed his reputation by doing so.

He did his lying at Bush's request not Clintons.

[manu1959]

Do you submitt Gore would have embarked on this failed policy also?

I think you have no proof of that assertion.

no because just as the dems are cooking the elections and blaming the gop the ensured gore lost and bush got in then gave obl the green light.....

why else would gore just drop his lawsuit and walk away same with kerry.....when everyone said it was a slam dunk the the gop stole the elections....

big bill is very close to getting caught it is why he and hillary are so touchy and angry all the time......

[jimnyc]

I will stipulate that many democrats made inaccurate statements about Saddam's WMD's.

I will note that very few, if more than one, ever suggested absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's.

I will note that sabre rattling is one thing, invasion/conquest/occupation is another. Bush was the CinC who took us to war. That is far more significant than democrat's inaccurate statements.

I will also note that all but a handful of congressional republicans voted for the use of force resolution, while a majority of democrats in congress voted against it.

At least some Democrats voted for it. At least some Democrats propagated the very same bad intelligence that the rest had, and quite a few since 1998. Should these individuals get a free pass and not even a single mention in an article pointing out quotes from Republicans, from a left wing organization no less? My point isn't that the article is incorrect about the total # of quotes, but rather is one sided.


This study was done to see if this administration led us to war based on falsehoods.

I dont think you will get anyone to waste their time on the study you want.

I don't think a left wing group heavily funded by Soros will post those numbers either.


That's very true. Zinni and others were bitching about the Iraqi Liberation Act Clinton passed in '98 because they said a lot of the exiles were lying their asses off (which they were, Chalabi especially) and it was based on bad intel. The Dems have been just as bad in this.

Absolutely. Both believed bad intelligence, but it seems only Republicans are trying to be painted as "liars" now. As with the economical situation, neither party here is innocent.

[manu1959]

HAHAHAHAHA come on now Tennent did Bush's bidding and has destroyed his reputation by doing so.

He did his lying at Bush's request not Clintons.

tennant voulenteerd that he had WMD's and that saddam was a threat....bush was set up by clinton and tennant....and you can not prove otherwise.....

[truthmatters]

So now its back to denying the results any study that says what you refuse to hear?

[retiredman]

Ask your Islamic friends if the US coated all its bombs and bullets in Jewish blood and gave blood transfusions with Jewish blood if captured and buried them under pig intestines how long the war would last.


this is how you debate the issues?

sad

[manu1959]

So now its back to denying the results any study that says what you refuse to hear?

i read the study.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

[truthmatters]

what proof do you have they ever thought it was the truth?

[retiredman]

Jim...I notice that the article did not mention any lies by the Nixon administration...or Kennedy for that matter. [/sarcasm off]

point is: the starting point was after 9/11.

[Dilloduck]

When did democrats START bitching about invading Iraq ? Serious anti-war rhetoric.

Some opposed it at the time however a majority of the Dem big shots waited until they saw Iraq as a failure. Just like the press.
They wanted to be on the "right" side of this mess. Egos before conviction.

[retiredman]

i read the study.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....
If I sit here, sight unseen, and state that I am absolutely certain that your hair is red and cut short right at this very moment, am I lying, even if it turns out that your hair is red and short right not?

[retiredman]

Some opposed it at the time however a majority of the Dem big shots waited until they saw Iraq as a failure. Just like the press.
They wanted to be on the "right" side of this mess. Egos before conviction.

Like I said, a majority of congressional democrats voted against it. I have always been against it.

[manu1959]

what proof do you have they ever thought it was the truth?

i asked you.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

what proof do you have that they knew it wasn't the truth....

[truthmatters]

Some opposed it at the time however a majority of the Dem big shots waited until they saw Iraq as a failure. Just like the press.
They wanted to be on the "right" side of this mess. Egos before conviction.


Can you give us names and quotes?

[truthmatters]

i asked you.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

what proof do you have that they knew it wasn't the truth....

I would doubt them in this situation because they had no reason to be so foolish and every reson to lie.

[Dilloduck]

Can you give us names and quotes?

Holy shit TM--how many times do they have to be posted ???

[manu1959]

I would doubt them in this situation because they had no reason to be so foolish and every reson to lie.

i asked you.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

what proof do you have that they knew it wasn't the truth....it appears you are simply guessing....

[truthmatters]

Holy shit TM--how many times do they have to be posted ???


Do you remember this is a time frame of after 911?

[truthmatters]

i asked you.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

what proof do you have that they knew it wasn't the truth....it appears you are simply guessing....


Would you believe me?

[retiredman]

i asked you.....if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

what proof do you have that they knew it wasn't the truth....it appears you are simply guessing....

and YOU avoided my question...why is that?

again:

If I sit here, sight unseen, and state that I am absolutely certain that your hair is red and cut short right at this very moment, am I lying, even if it turns out that your hair is red and short right now?

[manu1959]

Would you believe me?

it does not matter what i believe ..... the question is quite simple....

i asked you ..... if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

for example .... if i told you my eyes were blue and you told everyone they were blue and it turns out they are grey.....were you lying

[truthmatters]

to bad that question has nothing to do with the current thread.

Do you like pancakes?

[manu1959]

to bad that question has nothing to do with the current thread.

Do you like pancakes?

it has everything to do with the thread ..... and you know this .... which is why you will not answer the question .....

and no i do not like pancakes ......

[Mr. P]

it does not matter what i believe ..... the question is quite simple....

i asked you ..... if you tell me something you believe to be the truth and it turns out it is not the truth......were you lying....

for example .... if i told you my eyes were blue and you told everyone they were blue and it turns out they are grey.....were you lying

Oh, would you PLEASE stop tearing down this false premise that if something turns out to be false it musta been a lie!! Please, what else but false premise (and lies) have you ever seen this dip shit post?

[manu1959]

Oh, would you PLEASE stop tearing down this false premise that if something turns out to be false it musta been a lie!! Please, what else but false premise (and lies) have you ever seen this dip shit post?

sorry i was bored and was practicing my questioning technique.....

[jimnyc]

Jim...I notice that the article did not mention any lies by the Nixon administration...or Kennedy for that matter. [/sarcasm off]

point is: the starting point was after 9/11.

So, no Democrats made any statements that later turned out to be false regarding Iraq since 9/11?

[stephanie]

Our media has become our enemy..



That they would even run some shoddy story like this, with no solid facts to back it up...... should be proof..

[jimnyc]

it has everything to do with the thread ..... and you know this .... which is why you will not answer the question .....

and no i do not like pancakes ......

Why WOULD any of them answer this question, then they're admitting that their baked up theories about "lies" is a bunch of bullshit.

[manu1959]

So, no Democrats made any statements that later turned out to be false regarding Iraq since 9/11?

i know the answer to that one....

if they did it was because bush lied to them......

can i have a cookie now.....

how about this one.....when clinton said he knew obl was a threat and then did nothing what does that make him for not doing anything.....not to mention when we got hit on 911 clinton has said that he knew right away that it was obl......

[manu1959]

Why WOULD any of them answer this question, then they're admitting that their baked up theories about "lies" is a bunch of bullshit.

if they don't answer it serves the same purpose as answering it.....further if they lie....then they are no better than those they accuse....

[truthmatters]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html


"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."


The study established they did it intentionally.

This is why the question has no bearing.

[Mr. P]

sorry i was bored and was practicing my questioning technique.....

:cheers2: Carry on. You're direct and to the point, just don't expect an answer to what you ask. I'm sure that's nothing you don't know.

[retiredman]

So, no Democrats made any statements that later turned out to be false regarding Iraq since 9/11?

No...some have. The point of the study was to show how the administration used those statements to drive public opinion and policy and a war. Trust me... democrats who voted for this resolution and have not repented and publicly stated what a boneheaded vote it was, will not get my vote in Maine's caucuses on Feb 10... which means Hillary will not get my caucus vote.

[Mr. P]

No...some have. The point of the study was to show how the administration used those statements to drive public opinion and policy and a war. Trust me... democrats who voted for this resolution and have not repented and publicly stated what a boneheaded vote it was, will not get my vote in Maine's caucuses on Feb 10... which means Hillary will not get my caucus vote.

Nope, the point was to do the same as TM suggests in the thread title, again, "Bush lied". That was and is the intent, nothing more.

[jimnyc]

The study established they did it intentionally.

This is why the question has no bearing.

It's a study, TM, and they cannot determine 100% for a fact that this was "methodically propagated". That is simply opinion by the organization. The only thing factual is the statements made that were later learned to be incorrect. Yes, the administration made many statements that were erroneous, but there's still no cut and dry proof of lies or anything done methodically.

[jimnyc]

No...some have. The point of the study was to show how the administration used those statements to drive public opinion and policy and a war. Trust me... democrats who voted for this resolution and have not repented and publicly stated what a boneheaded vote it was, will not get my vote in Maine's caucuses on Feb 10... which means Hillary will not get my caucus vote.

Any idea why a "bipartisan" organization would not include a single Democrat in their counting of statements made?

[truthmatters]

Jim it was a study of the admins statements in the lead up of to the war.

Bush doesnt have democrats in his admin.

[retiredman]

Any idea why a "bipartisan" organization would not include a single Democrat in their counting of statements made?

if the study was looking into how the Bush administration played fast and loose with the facts as it took us to war, I can't see what democrats would have to do with that.

[hjmick]

Interestingly, the other group associated with the study we are discussing here, shares many of the same board members as Fund for Independence in Journalism. The Center for Public Integrity. So we have two "independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism" groups agreeing on the topic at hand, yet they have many of the same board members, including our friend, the afore mentioned Bevis Longstreth. Huh, go figure.

The Center for Public Integrity recieves funding from numerous groups, like the Fund for Independence in Journalism, the Streisand Foundation, the Los Angeles Times Foundation and the Ford Foundation, just to name a few. These are groups well known for their left leaning ideologies.

The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism shares so many board members with the Center for Public Integrity means that the two can hardly be considered a separate entities.

Did I mention, The Open Society Institute, which was founded by George Soros, is a funder of the Center for Public Integrity.

Huh...so much for the whole nonpartisan, unbiased aspect of the report.

[jimnyc]

Jim it was a study of the admins statements in the lead up of to the war.

Bush doesnt have democrats in his admin.

Doesn't change the fact that quite a few democrats made "false statements" on the very same topic.


if the study was looking into how the Bush administration played fast and loose with the facts as it took us to war, I can't see what democrats would have to do with that.

And yet some democrats voted for the war and saw the same intelligence and made very similar statements.

You 2 are ignoring the part where I admit the #'s are likely correct but refuse to admit that it's a little one sided and leaves out a core part of others who submitted similar information to the public.

[hjmick]

B25jjXgzx78

[stephanie]

This study is pure propaganda...

And our media should be ashamed of themselves for running it as if it's a news story...

But of course...it got it's desired affect...didn't it..

Our media has become our enemy

:puke:

[retiredman]

Doesn't change the fact that quite a few democrats made "false statements" on the very same topic.



And yet some democrats voted for the war and saw the same intelligence and made very similar statements.

You 2 are ignoring the part where I admit the #'s are likely correct but refuse to admit that it's a little one sided and leaves out a core part of others who submitted similar information to the public.

I would agree that your assessment is accurate.

[retiredman]

This study is pure propaganda...

And our media should be ashamed of themselves for running it as if it's a news story...

But of course...it got it's desired affect...didn't it..

Our media has become our enemy

:puke:

blah blah...same tired old koolaid soaked rhetoric from the queen of it. At least you're brief.

[April15]

If you need a study to tell you Bush knowingly altered the truth you haven't been paying attention.

[jimnyc]

If you need a study to tell you Bush knowingly altered the truth you haven't been paying attention.

Ok then, I'll bite, list the lies you can prove he personally and knowingly told. Statements he made complimented with outright proof that he knew otherwise for a fact.

[stephanie]

blah blah...same tired old koolaid soaked rhetoric from the queen of it. At least you're brief.


WE wish you were.........."brief"...::poke:

[retiredman]

Ok then, I'll bite, list the lies you can prove he personally and knowingly told. Statements he made complimented with outright proof that he knew otherwise for a fact.

Jim... let me ask YOU... you claim to be a smoker - or were a smoker....If I stated that I was absolutely certain that your car's ashtray was full of cigarette butts, would I be telling the truth, even if your ashtray WERE full of butts? yes or no?

[jimnyc]

Jim... let me ask YOU... you claim to be a smoker - or were a smoker....If I stated that I was absolutely certain that your car's ashtray was full of cigarette butts, would I be telling the truth, even if your ashtray WERE full of butts? yes or no?

I'd rather not be pulled into answering yes or no, if you don't mind, because I see what your point is.

But if a trusted friend of yours told you he has been monitoring my vehicle and told you it was in fact full, and you then made your statement - and it later turned out there wasn't any butts in my car - you didn't lie.

[retiredman]

I'd rather not be pulled into answering yes or no, if you don't mind, because I see what your point is.

But if a trusted friend of yours told you he has been monitoring my vehicle and told you it was in fact full, and you then made your statement - and it later turned out there wasn't any butts in my car - you didn't lie.

If I did not KNOW with absolute certainty, I would say that according to our best intelligence, it appeared pretty clear that your ashtray had butts in it. I would never claim absolute certainty without actually having it.

And in Bush's case, the trusted friend NEVER suggested absolute certainty regarding WMD's. THAT is my point. Every one of the intelligence reports contained caveats and qualifiers...this bit of data was single sourced..that bit of data was from a very old satellite photo, and so forth....NOTHING about Saddam's WMD stockpiles were certain....but yet, Team Bush repeatedly said that there WAS absolute certainty.

[jimnyc]

If I did not KNOW with absolute certainty, I would say that according to our best intelligence, it appeared pretty clear that your ashtray had butts in it. I would never claim absolute certainty without actually having it.

And in Bush's case, the trusted friend NEVER suggested absolute certainty regarding WMD's. THAT is my point. Every one of the intelligence reports contained caveats and qualifiers...this bit of data was single sourced..that bit of data was from a very old satellite photo, and so forth....NOTHING about Saddam's WMD stockpiles were certain....but yet, Team Bush repeatedly said that there WAS absolute certainty.

Honest inquiry - can you point me to specific documents online outlining what exactly was in the intel reports that were used to make their decisions? I only ask because I don't recall the Dems screaming about these caveats when Powell made his speech and others made similar comments. I'd have to know the hard data before I can decide whether or not the intel was strong enough to make a reasonable assumption that it was a "certainty".

[truthmatters]

Doesn't change the fact that quite a few democrats made "false statements" on the very same topic.





And yet some democrats voted for the war and saw the same intelligence and made very similar statements.

You 2 are ignoring the part where I admit the #'s are likely correct but refuse to admit that it's a little one sided and leaves out a core part of others who submitted similar information to the public.



Tell me are you aware the people in congress were not allowed the same intell report as the admin had?

[jimnyc]

Tell me are you aware the people in congress were not allowed the same intell report as the admin had?

Tell me, TM - who specifically was on the intelligence committees? I can assure you for a FACT that quite a few democrats had access to the intel.

[gabosaurus]

I'm not surprised. Bush is, and always has been, a lying sack of shit. His administration has been a steady stream of falsehoods since he took office.
Not that any of the Bush apologists are going to believe this. It's always "liberal bias" and "there is no proof that Bush knew he was lying."
Remember the previous administration with their "Thousand Points of Light"? The Bush administration has the "Thousand Times I Lied." And still counting.

[jimnyc]

I'm not surprised. Bush is, and always has been, a lying sack of shit. His administration has been a steady stream of falsehoods since he took office.
Not that any of the Bush apologists are going to believe this. It's always "liberal bias" and "there is no proof that Bush knew he was lying."
Remember the previous administration with their "Thousand Points of Light"? The Bush administration has the "Thousand Times I Lied." And still counting.

Well you seem rather sure, then how about you list these specific lies and give us appropriate proof that he knew otherwise when he spoke?

[gabosaurus]

Consult the list that was published. Bush is POTUS. He has a huge group of advisers and thought consultants. Everything he says is truly what he believes.
So how about quit making excuses for him. You (and the others) are starting to sound like the fanbots who continually defend Britney Spears for all her misdeeds.

[jimnyc]

Consult the list that was published. Bush is POTUS. He has a huge group of advisers and thought consultants. Everything he has is truly what he believes.
So how about quit making excuses for him. You (and the others) are starting to sound like the fanbots who continually defend Britney Spears for all her misdeeds.

Is this your way of stating you cannot provide me with what I asked? When the many dems on the senate intelligence committee were presented with the same data, why did they not cry to the public that Bush was lying when he spoke about it?

[typomaniac]

Is this your way of stating you cannot provide me with what I asked? When the many dems on the senate intelligence committee were presented with the same data, why did they not cry to the public that Bush was lying when he spoke about it?

What would the point have been? The Culture of Corruption Congress would have outvoted them anyway.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps they didn't know as well.
You want me to go back and cut/paste the entire lists of non-truths? You know what they are. Quit dodging the issue.
Bush is a blatant liar. Get off your knees and admit such.

[jimnyc]

What would the point have been? The Culture of Corruption Congress would have outvoted them anyway.

That's some great logic! Don't say a word about what you supposedly know to be a lie, wait for the war to begin, then claim it was all a lie! Them Dems sure are some smart cookies!

[jimnyc]

Perhaps they didn't know as well.
You want me to go back and cut/paste the entire lists of non-truths? You know what they are. Quit dodging the issue.
Bush is a blatant liar. Get off your knees and admit such.

The intelligence committee received the same intel reports. They never claimed Bush lied when he reported to congress and the American people about the intel. Are they now con-conspirators to lying to us?

And you were so sure of the lies a minute ago, can't you just post them with the irrefutable proof that he knew otherwise when he spoke?

[typomaniac]

That's some great logic! Don't say a word about what you supposedly know to be a lie, wait for the war to begin, then claim it was all a lie! Them Dems sure are some smart cookies!

First of all, that's classic politics. :) Second, they could make him look bad, but as I said, that wouldn't have mattered. Personally I doubt they could "prove" he was lying.

[jimnyc]

First of all, that's classic politics. :) Second, they could make him look bad, but as I said, that wouldn't have mattered. Personally I doubt they could "prove" he was lying.

Wouldn't it be their "duty" to speak up if they were privy to the intel and thought Bush was lying about what he saw/read?

[stephanie]

Why haven't the Democrats..........IMPEACHED President Bush??

Isn't that their duty if they "KNOW HE LIED"..

[typomaniac]

Wouldn't it be their "duty" to speak up if they were privy to the intel and thought Bush was lying about what he saw/read?

Sorry, but I don't have any insider knowledge of what was going through their minds in late 2002-2003. :dunno:

In their shoes, I certainly would have spoken up.

[typomaniac]

Why haven't the Democrats..........IMPEACHED President Bush??

Isn't that their duty if they "KNOW HE LIED"..

Here's a simple way to answer that question: If you were in Congress (as an R.), would YOU vote to impeach the bastard?

[jimnyc]

Sorry, but I don't have any insider knowledge of what was going through their minds in late 2002-2003. :dunno:

In their shoes, I certainly would have spoken up.

As I would have... If memory serves me correct, a democrat was the committee chairman with 8 other Dems onboard up until 2003 and even then a democrat remained vice-chairman with 7 other Dems on the committee as well for 2003-4

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_Select_Committee_on_ Intelligence

It was headed by Porter Goss at the time . Im having trouble find all the ohter memebers though.

[Mr. P]

Here's a simple way to answer that question: If you were in Congress (as an R.), would YOU vote to impeach the bastard?

If he lied? You bet yer ass! Would you?

[jimnyc]

I was speaking of the senate intelligence committee, but covering both is fine. These are the respective committees:

Senate:

Dems from 2001-2002 - Bob Graham - Chairman, Carl Levin, John Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Barbara Mikulski

Repubs from 2001-2002 - Richard Shelby - Vice chairman, John Kyl, James Inhofe, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts, Mike Dewine, Fred Thompson, Richard Lugar

Dems from 2003-2004 - John Rockefeller - vice chairman, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Richard Durbin, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Barbara Mikulski

Repubs from 2003-2004 - Pat Roberts - Chairman, Orrin Hatch, Mike Dewine, Christopher Bond, Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss, John Warner

I'm still looking for the specific House members but I know they were reasonably divided between both parties. Currently There are 11 Dems on the committee and 9 republicans, and it was likely that way in the Repubs favor during the leadup to the war.

So my point stands, many Dems had the same access and didn't refute what the administration stated to the public or congress during that time as lies.

[Missileman]

dmp, what does methodically propagated mean?

It DOESN'T mean lie.

[typomaniac]

If he lied? You bet yer ass! Would you?

Even if nobody could PROVE he lied?

[Missileman]

If I did not KNOW with absolute certainty, I would say that according to our best intelligence, it appeared pretty clear that your ashtray had butts in it. I would never claim absolute certainty without actually having it.

And in Bush's case, the trusted friend NEVER suggested absolute certainty regarding WMD's. THAT is my point. Every one of the intelligence reports contained caveats and qualifiers...this bit of data was single sourced..that bit of data was from a very old satellite photo, and so forth....NOTHING about Saddam's WMD stockpiles were certain....but yet, Team Bush repeatedly said that there WAS absolute certainty.

Statements of certainty were reasonable for the following reasons:

1. There is NO DOUBT that Saddam had possessed WMDs.
2. There was not a dependable accounting of what happened to his stockpiles.
3. Saddam said that he still possessed WMDs.

[retiredman]

Statements of certainty were reasonable for the following reasons:

1. There is NO DOUBT that Saddam had possessed WMDs.
2. There was not a dependable accounting of what happened to his stockpiles.
3. Saddam said that he still possessed WMDs.

And absolute certainty is, well, absolute. "reasonableness" is not a measure. Either you are absolutely certain or you are not. And given the intelligence reports that ALL the analysts say Bush received which ALL contained some degree of doubt, Bush had no business claiming absolute certainty when there was none.

[retiredman]

Honest inquiry - can you point me to specific documents online outlining what exactly was in the intel reports that were used to make their decisions? I only ask because I don't recall the Dems screaming about these caveats when Powell made his speech and others made similar comments. I'd have to know the hard data before I can decide whether or not the intel was strong enough to make a reasonable assumption that it was a "certainty".

specific documents? I cannot point you to any. All I know is that I have watched numerous interviews with former CIA analysts who have all said that NONE of the intell was ironclad, and I have read numerous articles online which cover that point... but frankly, Jim...that was years ago.

And how does one ASSUME certainty in any case? Either you have the intelligence which states without qualification or caveat that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's or you do not. The very very best one could ever "assume" is a high degree of probability. Certainty can never be honestly assumed.

[Dilloduck]

And absolute certainty is, well, absolute. "reasonableness" is not a measure. Either you are absolutely certain or you are not. And given the intelligence reports that ALL the analysts say Bush received which ALL contained some degree of doubt, Bush had no business claiming absolute certainty when there was none.

oh crap----you caught George in a loophole. What can I do to make things all better for ya ?

[Mr. P]

Even if nobody could PROVE he lied?

If you can't PROVE it...it's speculation or worse, assumption, neither good enough for impeachment.

[Mr. P]

And absolute certainty is, well, absolute. "reasonableness" is not a measure. Either you are absolutely certain or you are not. And given the intelligence reports that ALL the analysts say Bush received which ALL contained some degree of doubt, Bush had no business claiming absolute certainty when there was none.

Are you suggesting the board accept your notion that intelligence analysis is ALWAYS absolute? No room for common sense or logical interpretation? ALL of us x-military know that's BS.

[Classact]

your opinions about Islam are not facts. Your opinions about the effects of our invasion of Iraq on the rest of the Islamic world are not supported by my own ongoing contacts with many old friends in the arab world who report the situation as I relayed it to you. Islamic extremism is indeed nationless...which is why our attacking, conquering and occupying one of the few nations in the islamic world with ZERO tolerance for wahabbism was extraordinarily stupid.I think Islam respect great force and strength and revels in weakness. I think when we approached Fallujah filled to the brim with terrorists we should have asked all the good guys to leave the city and then ask the Amnesty International to enter the city and remove the cripples and other innocents and then one last chance ask the bad guys to surrender... wait 24 hours and nuke the city and tell the Muslim street this is what will happen to the next city that allows terrorist in your city. Everyone worries about the Muslim street opinion in every action taken like it was a popularity contest the US V. terrorists. I would give them options that would be easy to choose from. I think overwhelming force worked in Japan at the end of WWII and the Japanese were much more a worthley enemy than the cowards in the Muslim world. Rules of engagement would be announced ... you fight fair in uniform or you will be buried under pig guts! You respect international law or I won't respect your religion and traditions to fight like a coward.


this is how you debate the issues?

sadI had to go pick up my kids from school and needed to mark our debate so I could return later so I posted a quick reply so I wouldn't have to search pages of debate.

[Dilloduck]

Bush had no business claiming absolute certainty when there was none

Bush had no business --------??????

Love the arrogance. :laugh2:

[NATO AIR]

Is this your way of stating you cannot provide me with what I asked? When the many dems on the senate intelligence committee were presented with the same data, why did they not cry to the public that Bush was lying when he spoke about it?

Actually most of them didn't even bother to read the damn NIE on Iraq before voting for war.... prominently among them HILLARY CLINTON.

Wow quite presidential of her.

I do know that the most damaging intelligence gaffe was the over reliance on Curveball in spite of serious Agency misgivings about him that were overruled by Cheney. Powell apparently was lied to about the reliability of the source for much of the WMD missile and WMD stuff in general, which came from an (known even at the time by some CIA agents and Washington insiders) Iraqi fraud code named Curveball.

There's actually supposed to be a number of fair books about this issue because its a collective stain on everybody in Washington (Dem and Republican except those who opposed it from the get-go like Zinni, Scowcroft, etc.).

Between Cheney stifling doubts and the CIA not standing up to the pressure, that about did it.

Again, all this is stupid though if you're just going to blame Bush or the Dems.

I really like what Jimmy is getting at here, let's be real with ourselves and know that damn near everybody screwed the pooch on this one so instead of attacking each other we need to hunker down and figure out how to get our intel right and our military planning and support at where it needs to be.

[Missileman]

And absolute certainty is, well, absolute. "reasonableness" is not a measure. Either you are absolutely certain or you are not. And given the intelligence reports that ALL the analysts say Bush received which ALL contained some degree of doubt, Bush had no business claiming absolute certainty when there was none.

Upon what percentage of certainty do you feel he would have been prudent to go to war in Iraq?

[retiredman]

Upon what percentage of certainty do you feel he would have been prudent to go to war in Iraq?


That is not the point. the point is: he misrepresented the FACTS to the American people.

Since, from the very outset, I felt quite sure that a secular baathist dictator would not give the means of his own destruction to a group of wahabbist extremists whose ultimate goal WAS the destruction of secular nation states in the middle east, I believed that the "Saddam will give his WMD's to AQ to use against us" was a red herring. And since I knew that our secretary of state had told the world long before 9/11 that Iraq was a paper tiger incapable of projecting power outside its own borders and that the sanctions were working... and since I had already applauded Bush's tough diplomacy in getting Saddam to allow weapons inspectors BACK into Iraq, I saw absolutely NO reason for us to be rushing to war.

[jimnyc]

specific documents? I cannot point you to any. All I know is that I have watched numerous interviews with former CIA analysts who have all said that NONE of the intell was ironclad, and I have read numerous articles online which cover that point... but frankly, Jim...that was years ago.

And how does one ASSUME certainty in any case? Either you have the intelligence which states without qualification or caveat that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's or you do not. The very very best one could ever "assume" is a high degree of probability. Certainty can never be honestly assumed.

With all due respect, I don't think we can truly rely on "former" employees and online stories. Both the senate and the house intelligence committees were privy to the intelligence and I don't recall a single person, democrat or republican, that stood up when the administration made their case against Iraq that they were lying or misrepresenting the facts of the intel. Yet a few years later they are all screaming that he lied about the intel. Don't you find it a bit odd that none of the Democrats privy to the intel stated otherwise during the congressional testimony in the leadup to the war? I have a sneaky suspicion it's because they believed the exact same thing after seeing the intel.


That is not the point. the point is: he misrepresented the FACTS to the American people.

Again, see above. If he was misrepresenting the facts on purpose as you allege, would it not have been the duty of these committees, comprised of republicans AND democrats, to speak up and claim otherwise?

For that fact, here we are years later and I still don't see a single committee member standing up stating "I saw the intelligence and he reported something other than what we saw".

If he outright lied, or misrepresented, wouldn't it be easy for committee members to prove this?

[jimnyc]

I really like what Jimmy is getting at here, let's be real with ourselves and know that damn near everybody screwed the pooch on this one so instead of attacking each other we need to hunker down and figure out how to get our intel right and our military planning and support at where it needs to be.

Thank you. The fault lies on several administrations, several agencies and all of our politicians collectively - not just "Bush's war" or "Bush did it for oil" or "Bush lied"

They were ALL complicit in bad decisions apparently, and anyone trying to pin the blame solely on one person or one group is being a bit naive.

[BoogyMan]

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying. There NEVER was absolute certainty about any of that.

If I were to say, today, sight unseen, that there was absolutely no doubt that the ashtray in your car was full of cigarette butts at this very moment, I would be lying...even if it were full. I would be lying about the absolute certainty that I had expressed. It was that total lack of doubt - when coupled with the innuendos about Saddam's boy's hooking up with Osama's boy and being on the same page - that came together to propel American public opinion.

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.

MFM I seem to remember the admin showing what they thought was evidence of WMD but only George Tenet called it a "slam dunk."

What you are yet again disingenuously twisting is the fact that we THOUGHT they were there and a danger to us, for that matter, so did many other governments.

[retiredman]

Thank you. The fault lies on several administrations, several agencies and all of our politicians collectively - not just "Bush's war" or "Bush did it for oil" or "Bush lied"

They were ALL complicit in bad decisions apparently, and anyone trying to pin the blame solely on one person or one group is being a bit naive.

I blame Team Bush for overselling the case for war
I blame timid congressional democrats for letting themselves get boxed into a corner where a vote against the war was a vote for the terrorists. I still am furious with every politician, democrat or republican who voted for that war... and who were more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

[jimnyc]

I blame Team Bush for overselling the case for war
I blame timid congressional democrats for letting themselves get boxed into a corner where a vote against the war was a vote for the terrorists. I still am furious with every politician, democrat or republican who voted for that war... and who were more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

"democrats for letting themselves get boxed into a corner"?

Again, what happened with the democrats on the intelligence committees? If Bush oversold the case, why didn't they stand up and speak otherwise about what THEY saw with the intel?

[retiredman]

"democrats for letting themselves get boxed into a corner"?

Again, what happened with the democrats on the intelligence committees? If Bush oversold the case, why didn't they stand up and speak otherwise about what THEY saw with the intel?

You remember...in the immediate post 9/11 world, there were boogymen everywhere, and Rove was brilliant in casting the vote for the war authorization as a vote for the war on terror and not Iraq..and the timing with the midterms was equally brilliant. But again: I am furious with ANY democrat who let themselves be cowed into supporting it. And I also believe that intell briefers can emphasize what they DO know and de-emphasize what they don't know or how old or single sourced or otherwise tenuous their knowledge is.

[jimnyc]

You remember...in the immediate post 9/11 world, there were boogymen everywhere, and Rove was brilliant in casting the vote for the war authorization as a vote for the war on terror and not Iraq..and the timing with the midterms was equally brilliant. But again: I am furious with ANY democrat who let themselves be cowed into supporting it. And I also believe that intell briefers can emphasize what they DO know and de-emphasize what they don't know or how old or single sourced or otherwise tenuous their knowledge is.

So, they saw the intel themselves with their own eyes and were somehow duped by the administration anyway with words?

And if that's the case, now that it's all said and done, why aren't any of the Democrats from the committees speaking up about any falsehoods or misinterpretations based on what THEY saw with the intel?

And IF they cannot properly assess the intel, and can be swayed away from what they are seeing and reading with their own eyes, would you agree that they probably shouldn't be serving on an intelligence committee?

My point of all this is based on the many who claim Bush lied or misrepresented the intelligence. With so many countries, and so many of our own politicians seeing the very same intelligence, I'm still baffled that not a single person stood their ground at the time and called him on these supposed lies or misrepresentation.

[retiredman]

So, they saw the intel themselves with their own eyes and were somehow duped by the administration anyway with words?

And if that's the case, now that it's all said and done, why aren't any of the Democrats from the committees speaking up about any falsehoods or misinterpretations based on what THEY saw with the intel?

And IF they cannot properly assess the intel, and can be swayed away from what they are seeing and reading with their own eyes, would you agree that they probably shouldn't be serving on an intelligence committee?

My point of all this is based on the many who claim Bush lied or misrepresented the intelligence. With so many countries, and so many of our own politicians seeing the very same intelligence, I'm still baffled that not a single person stood their ground at the time and called him on these supposed lies or misrepresentation.

who knows what they SAW or whether they HEARD? and AGAIN... (and again and again and again) my statement about Bush LYING is ONLY ONLY ONLY in regard to his team's repeated pronouncements as to the absolute certainty of the intelligence. I am not saying that he MADE ANYTHING UP OTHER THAN THE ASSERTION THAT THE INTELLIGENCE WAS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.

[jimnyc]

who knows what they SAW or whether they HEARD? and AGAIN... (and again and again and again) my statement about Bush LYING is ONLY ONLY ONLY in regard to his team's repeated pronouncements as to the absolute certainty of the intelligence. I am not saying that he MADE ANYTHING UP OTHER THAN THE ASSERTION THAT THE INTELLIGENCE WAS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.

As far as I know the committees are privy to all the intelligence that the administration receives from the various agencies. If there's concrete proof anywhere that intelligence was withheld from them, I would love to see it.

And the administration went to bat claiming they were certain about Iraq possessing WMD's. It's possible the intelligence was valid and the stuff in the satellite photos was moved/shipped elsewhere. It's also possible that the intelligence was bad and they were wrong. But claiming they were certain they existed DOES NOT equate to a lie. If they KNEW it did not exist and reported otherwise, then I would agree with you.

[Classact]

All readers and contributors on this thread should go back in time a little to understand what exactly went down leading up to the re-start of hostilities with Iraq. The background of how this vote came about goes all the way back to 1973 when the Department of Defence went to an all volunteer force. The brilliant generals that designed the "One Army Concept" designed it so another war similar to the Vietnam War could not occur without the entire nation being aware that a major conflict was on the horizon. How did these generals force the public to become involved in the process, they designed the war force so it could not go into a major war without the Reserve Components. So what, you may say but what this does is cause mobilization of Army National Guard and Reserve forces in every state that results in hometown newspaper headlines along with local news linking with national news... every community has a dog in the fight... If there was simply a large standing Army that required no reserve call-up the American people could miss the significance of a troop build up even though the soldiers from the standing army were from each state. Remember, think leading up to the vote of confidence what was going on... for months reserves had been mobilized and were in Kuwait and other areas ready for battle... the American people were fully aware that war was around the corner.

Now, consider this each Senator and Congressperson is elected by 20% of possible eligible voters of the state or district. 60% of eligible voters don't usually vote leaving 20% with a D and 20% with an R and maybe 2% to decide who is elected. The President is addressing the nation, his Secretary of State and he are addressing the UN and all citizens have big ears and eyes and are missing nothing, because everyone has a dog in the fight. Suddenly, Senators and Congress-persons find themselves in a abnormal situation where all the possible voters are looking at their actions and the politician is required to decide on a major vote as to what he/she will support. They think my state isn't vulnerable to a terror attack so I'm safe to vote NO or my state could be attacked and if I vote NO and they attack my career is over because 100% of the awake voters will demand my head.

Now take a look at this page, it is only one page and read it top to bottom but spend most of your time on the grey block about mid way down the page starting with: FACT BOX http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

What did you notice about the fact box? Well there are very few limitations on the president aren't there? Why is that? Why didn't someone demand an amendment that the President return to the Congress prior to re-starting the hostilities? Why oh why, please do explain.

Now if there are any doubters that a yes was a yes for war and a no was a no for authorization then take it on yourself to find your Senators/Congressperson's speech leading up to that vote and see what they said. The speeches are open to the public, go to CSPAN.ORG and search the dates a week before the date of my link. If you view Senator Kerry's speech you will hear him worry about Un-Manned Ariel Vehicles flying over Boston dumping WMD's in chemical and biological streams... he also says I'm voting for this to give President Bush the moral backing in hoping the backing will avoid the necessity for hostilities. Why didn't Senator Kerry just offer an amendment saying, President Bush must return to the Senate and give a classified briefing on all information supporting war... He must also state that all diplomacy has been exhausted and offer his proof and then we will vote to authorize the action. Why no amendments?

[retiredman]

As far as I know the committees are privy to all the intelligence that the administration receives from the various agencies. If there's concrete proof anywhere that intelligence was withheld from them, I would love to see it.

And the administration went to bat claiming they were certain about Iraq possessing WMD's. It's possible the intelligence was valid and the stuff in the satellite photos was moved/shipped elsewhere. It's also possible that the intelligence was bad and they were wrong. But claiming they were certain they existed DOES NOT equate to a lie. If they KNEW it did not exist and reported otherwise, then I would agree with you.

Come on Jim... we are not talking about intelligence being withheld. We are talking about briefers going over the intelligence and not necessarily relaying the level of confidence (or lack thereof) they may have had with that intelligence. You show a picture of a trailer and tell senators it is a mobile chem lab, when, in fact, it might have been (and in fact was) something else. You report that HUMINT sources say Saddam is making bombs, but don't bother to tell the senators that the source has given some intell in the past that proved to be false, so you are not entirely confident he's gotten this one right either.

and spin it any way you like, claiming absolute certainty when absolute certainty does not exist is a lie.

I am absolutely certain that your car ashtray has cigarette butts in it right this minute.

that's a lie, even though I am pretty damned sure I am right.

Saying, I am pretty damned sure there are cigarette butts in your car ashtray is NOT a lie.

There IS a real substantive difference.

[Classact]

<snip>

and spin it any way you like, claiming absolute certainty when absolute certainty does not exist is a lie.

I am absolutely certain that your car ashtray has cigarette butts in it right this minute.

that's a lie, even though I am pretty damned sure I am right.

Saying, I am pretty damned sure there are cigarette butts in your car ashtray is NOT a lie.

There IS a real substantive difference.I would argue that the Congress of the US is obligated to carry out their responsibilities under the oath they take. Let's put this into perspective, if this were a murder trial by jury and the President were the prosecuting attorney and the congress were the jury then it is the responsibility of the jury to review all evidence prior to making judgment of guilt or innocence. Clearly, the jury could have demanded DNA and they did have access to classified information and the ability to call all Intel authorities before closed door committees. Give the jury's authority who is to be blamed for the guilty verdict in the murder case if the jury failed to meet their responsibilities? Congress had full authority to amend the vote authorizing re-starting hostilities, and that includes the minority... clearly the Republicans, now in the minority have displayed they can stop many less serious legislation, damn one Senator can stop it if he or she so desires. You give the jury a pass and blame the Prosecutor.

[jimnyc]

Come on Jim... we are not talking about intelligence being withheld. We are talking about briefers going over the intelligence and not necessarily relaying the level of confidence (or lack thereof) they may have had with that intelligence. You show a picture of a trailer and tell senators it is a mobile chem lab, when, in fact, it might have been (and in fact was) something else. You report that HUMINT sources say Saddam is making bombs, but don't bother to tell the senators that the source has given some intell in the past that proved to be false, so you are not entirely confident he's gotten this one right either.

and spin it any way you like, claiming absolute certainty when absolute certainty does not exist is a lie.

I am absolutely certain that your car ashtray has cigarette butts in it right this minute.

that's a lie, even though I am pretty damned sure I am right.

Saying, I am pretty damned sure there are cigarette butts in your car ashtray is NOT a lie.

There IS a real substantive difference.

We'll agree to disagree then. But it appears quite a few Democrats outright lied to us then too. And knowing the Democrats put people on intelligence committees that are too inept to be there is not very reassuring to me. I hope in the future the Democrats can improve and place people on the intelligence committees that are capable of doing their jobs.

But the bottom line is this, and there's no way around it, anyone who wants to accuse this administration of "lying or misrepresenting" the intelligence must also accuse quite a few agencies, quite a few Democrats and quite a few other countries of lying and misrepresenting the very same intelligence.

[retiredman]

We'll agree to disagree then. But it appears quite a few Democrats outright lied to us then too. And knowing the Democrats put people on intelligence committees that are too inept to be there is not very reassuring to me. I hope in the future the Democrats can improve and place people on the intelligence committees that are capable of doing their jobs.

But the bottom line is this, and there's no way around it, anyone who wants to accuse this administration of "lying or misrepresenting" the intelligence must also accuse quite a few agencies, quite a few Democrats and quite a few other countries of lying and misrepresenting the very same intelligence.

If democrats were briefed as to the caveats and qualifications that were attached to the intelligence and said nothing about Bush's unjustified surety, you are right.

And AGAIN... the intelligence is not in question from MY perspective, only Team Bush's assertions of absolute certainty. It is only that assertion of certainty when none existed that I consider lying in that it was a statement that served to convey a false impression.

[truthmatters]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946

here is a sample of the study.

It has a statement by the Bush admin and then it is followed by a documented fact which proves they said something which they knew to be untrue.


Sample:


On September 8, 2002, Bush administration officials hit the national airwaves to advance the argument that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly stated that Saddam Hussein "now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium."

Condoleezza Rice, who was then Bush's national security adviser, followed Cheney that night on CNN's Late Edition. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein's government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."


This is then followed by a fact which proves these statements did not match the information they obviously had at the time.

I wish I could post it but I cant do more than two parragraphs.

[Classact]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946

here is a sample of the study.

It has a statement by the Bush admin and then it is followed by a documented fact which proves they said something which they knew to be untrue.


Sample:


On September 8, 2002, Bush administration officials hit the national airwaves to advance the argument that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly stated that Saddam Hussein "now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium."

Condoleezza Rice, who was then Bush's national security adviser, followed Cheney that night on CNN's Late Edition. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein's government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."


This is then followed by a fact which proves these statements did not match the information they obviously had at the time.

I wish I could post it but I cant do more than two parragraphs.I didn't see specific lies. The president was the prosecutor and the congress the jury. A couple of congressmen went on the mike to speak out with Scott Ritter, the moron from WA or OR state I think and the rest of congress avoided joining in like they avoid joining in with the Democrat running for prez that went on a UFO. Congress didn't cross examine the facts nor seek the truth if you claim there was un-truth.

[truthmatters]

read the page I linked.

They give specific things someone in the admin says and then shows how they knew it was already false.

Bush says to Polish press that they had found WMDs in Iraq and days before he does this he ahd already been told it wasnt true.

explain these things please?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

BTW Bush had intell he did not allow the congress to see.



Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

[Little-Acorn]

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying.

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.


Borrowed from another post in this forum:

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, I'm certain about that - Nancy Pelosi in 2002

Unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons - Jay Rockefeller 2002

We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability - Joe Biden 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country - Al Gore 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction - Ted Kennedy 2002

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 - John Kerry Jan 2003

------------------------------

The rest of this thread has been reserved to accept apologies from the usual Bush-haters and other leftist hysterics, and their acknowledgements that their heroes Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Gore, Rockefeller, and Biden et. al. deserve to be impeached just as much as George W. Bush does.

[hjmick]

Borrowed from another post in this forum:

Borrowed? Will you be returning them when you're finished? :D

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself)

[Little-Acorn]

Zezactly. :D

[retiredman]

Borrowed from another post in this forum:

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, I'm certain about that - Nancy Pelosi in 2002

Unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons - Jay Rockefeller 2002

We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability - Joe Biden 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country - Al Gore 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction - Ted Kennedy 2002

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 - John Kerry Jan 2003

------------------------------

The rest of this thread has been reserved to accept apologies from the usual Bush-haters and other leftist hysterics, and their acknowledgements that their heroes Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Gore, Rockefeller, and Biden et. al. deserve to be impeached just as much as George W. Bush does.

Shame on Gore and Pelosi for expressing certainty about Saddam actually possessing weapons of mass destruction, and shame on any democrat who voted to give the chimp the authorization to use force.

[bullypulpit]

And then, there's this interesting little graphic showing how the prevarications of the administration increased as they applied political pressure to secure authorization to take military action against Iraq both at the UN and at home. This would indicate a deliberate pattern of lying by the administration, with the goal being the invasion of Iraq.

<center><img src=http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/Charts/WarCardChart_Thumb.jpg></center>

You can find the text of the the key false statements by the administration and the information contradicting them <a href=http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946>HERE</a>.

You can do a Boolean search of all 935 documented falsehoods <a href=http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx>HERE</a>.

You have to understand, now, that these 935 falsehoods are only those made by the Bush administration. Not included are the repetition of these, and the spreading of new ones by those members of Congress who actively supported the war effort, the right wing noise machine, including FOX Noise, and the slavish devotees of the administration for whom any thought of the Bush administration lying the nation into a war of aggression creates a cognitive dissonance of such a magnitude that it threatens to cause their pointy little heads to explode.

[jimnyc]

This would indicate a deliberate pattern of lying by the administration, with the goal being the invasion of Iraq.

Hey Bully! When you get a chance, please visit the other thread in this section about the democrats who lied. Please tell us your thoughts on their deliberate lies to the American public and what you think their goal was.

Thanks!

[bullypulpit]

Borrowed from another post in this forum:

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, I'm certain about that - Nancy Pelosi in 2002

Unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons - Jay Rockefeller 2002

We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability - Joe Biden 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country - Al Gore 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction - Ted Kennedy 2002

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 - John Kerry Jan 2003

------------------------------

The rest of this thread has been reserved to accept apologies from the usual Bush-haters and other leftist hysterics, and their acknowledgements that their heroes Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Gore, Rockefeller, and Biden et. al. deserve to be impeached just as much as George W. Bush does.

Could it be they were operating on the assumption that the Bush administration wasn't lying?

[bullypulpit]

Hey Bully! When you get a chance, please visit the other thread in this section about the democrats who lied. Please tell us your thoughts on their deliberate lies to the American public and what you think their goal was.

Thanks!

See above.

[jimnyc]

Could it be they were operating on the assumption that the Bush administration wasn't lying?

Oh, I see, it's ok for the Dems to make statements that later turned out wrong, because they thought the information wasn't a lie. But the Bush administration operating on the assumption that the intel was valid makes them liars? The same intel that the democrats on the intelligence committees read and were briefed on daily.

[retiredman]

Oh, I see, it's ok for the Dems to make statements that later turned out wrong, because they thought the information wasn't a lie. But the Bush administration operating on the assumption that the intel was valid makes them liars? The same intel that the democrats on the intelligence committees read and were briefed on daily.

no. It's not OK. any democrat who expressed certainty about Saddam's current ownership of stockpiles of WMD's lied. and shame on them.

As I said, every democrat who voted for the use of force resolution and who has not repented remains on my shit list.

[bullypulpit]

no. It's not OK. any democrat who expressed certainty about Saddam's current ownership of stockpiles of WMD's lied. and shame on them.

As I said, every democrat who voted for the use of force resolution and who has not repented remains on my shit list.

'Bout sums it up for me as well.

[bullypulpit]

Oh, I see, it's ok for the Dems to make statements that later turned out wrong, because they thought the information wasn't a lie. But the Bush administration operating on the assumption that the intel was valid makes them liars? The same intel that the democrats on the intelligence committees read and were briefed on daily.

The evidence shows that the Bush administration was cooking the intel it was presenting to Congress and the American people so that it would comport with the policy of war with Iraq. In other words, "...The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy..."

For anyone, Democrat or Republican, to be stampeded into a vote because they're more worried about their political fortunes that about undertaking their constitutionally mandated duties shows just how unfit they are to hold their offices.

[Classact]

read the page I linked.

They give specific things someone in the admin says and then shows how they knew it was already false.

Bush says to Polish press that they had found WMDs in Iraq and days before he does this he ahd already been told it wasnt true.

explain these things please?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

BTW Bush had intell he did not allow the congress to see.



Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."This is also a very informative link: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

[bullypulpit]

This is also a very informative link: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

See post# <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=191442&postcount=176>176</a>

As for Mr. Beck, his problem is obvious...

<center><img src=http://www.popeye-x.com/images/head_up.jpg></center>

[Dilloduck]

Could it be they were operating on the assumption that the Bush administration wasn't lying?

ya--they were tricked by stupid old George---bet that leaves a mark :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

As for Mr. Beck, his problem is obvious...

The gauge in which you guys use to absolve the Democrats of any responsibility over their repeated comments Vs. that of the Republicans is absolutely hilarious!

[Classact]

See post# <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=191442&postcount=176>176</a>

As for Mr. Beck, his problem is obvious...

<center><img src=http://www.popeye-x.com/images/head_up.jpg></center>I'm a little confussed about this George Soros guys plans for the world.
http://www.soros.org/

Don't you think he is more of a match for your picture?

[bullypulpit]

I'm a little confussed about this George Soros guys plans for the world.
http://www.soros.org/

Don't you think he is more of a match for your picture?

Yeah...Human rights, how fucking sinister. Dismissed.

[jimnyc]

Yeah...Human rights, how fucking sinister. Dismissed.

Do you think Soros is aware that he donates so much money to people that have lied repeatedly to the American people like the Democrats have?

[Pale Rider]

I'm a little confussed about this George Soros guys plans for the world.
http://www.soros.org/

Don't you think he is more of a match for your picture?

Here's the original he must have copied and saved. I keep it just for people like bull and tm. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2116/2093273754_4fb7884b81_o.jpg

[Chessplayer]

I find it odd that Dick Cheney was so against invading Baghdad in the early 1990s, but was so for it in 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

"Do you think the US forces should have gone on to Baghdad?"

"No."

Dick Cheney used the words, "Quagmire."


Why did he change his mind?

[Yurt]

I find it odd that Dick Cheney was so against invading Baghdad in the early 1990s, but was so for it in 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

"Do you think the US forces should have gone on to Baghdad?"

"No."

Dick Cheney used the words, "Quagmire."


Why did he change his mind?

You aren't a true chess player. If you were, you would stop and consider the long range/term goals......

[retiredman]

You aren't a true chess player. If you were, you would stop and consider the long range/term goals......

by that, I take it that you are referring to that "goal" of a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates and shining the light of freedom into all the dark places in the middle east causing all Muslims to rise up and overthrow their autocratic governments and put aside their millennium long enmities?

[typomaniac]

Do you think Soros is aware that he donates so much money to people that have lied repeatedly to the American people like the Democrats have?

Do you think Exxon is aware that they donate so much money to people who have lied repeatedly to the American people like the Republicans have? :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Do you think Exxon is aware that they donate so much money to people who have lied repeatedly to the American people like the Republicans have? :rolleyes:

Odd, I was replying to Bully who quoted a link about Soros in his reply and referenced him. I don't recall me defending Exxon. But anyway....

I think Exxon is too busy counting the billions they have made, indirectly funded by the inept Democrats on the intelligence committees followed by the lies of their colleagues.

[nevadamedic]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_us


The study is independent and very conclusive.

Once again the Liberal Mass Media spreads lies.

Of the subject, do you happen to be related to Gabby? You both have the same idiotic hatred of one of the greatest President's in the history of our country. You guys are just mad that Al Whore lost.

[red states rule]

when they said that there was absolute certainty as to Saddam's cache of WMD's they were lying. There NEVER was absolute certainty about any of that.

If I were to say, today, sight unseen, that there was absolutely no doubt that the ashtray in your car was full of cigarette butts at this very moment, I would be lying...even if it were full. I would be lying about the absolute certainty that I had expressed. It was that total lack of doubt - when coupled with the innuendos about Saddam's boy's hooking up with Osama's boy and being on the same page - that came together to propel American public opinion.

Saddam had WMD's! We were CERTAIN! Saddam's men had met with Atta BEFORE 9/11! That had been confirmed! Any minute now, Saddam could be handing over those WMD's to Al Qaeda for them to attack us again! We can't wait for inspectors! We can't wait for diplomacy! We need to invade TODAY!!!

group-think hysteria fueled by lies.

You never cease top amaze me MM how you can ignore so many facts, and the words of your own Dems - and LIE so damn much in a feeble attempt to provide them cover

On 04, all the liberal bullshit you have spread on this thread was debated. You libs lost.

With the US now winning in Iraq, a left wing hate group (funded by Soros) has to try and distract from the success in Iraq by having the liberal media run this "report"

Bottom line (and the words of Dems prove it) if Pres Bush lied about Saddma and WMD's so did Bill and Jilary, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, and most of the current Dems in DC

[retiredman]

You never cease top amaze me MM how you can ignore so many facts, and the words of your own Dems - and LIE so damn much in a feeble attempt to provide them cover

On 04, all the liberal bullshit you have spread on this thread was debated. You libs lost.

With the US now winning in Iraq, a left wing hate group (funded by Soros) has to try and distract from the success in Iraq by having the liberal media run this "report"

Bottom line (and the words of Dems prove it) if Pres Bush lied about Saddma and WMD's so did Bill and Jilary, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, and most of the current Dems in DC


the fact that Bush beat Kerry in 04 has nothing to do with the fact that his administration lied about the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's in 02-3

[red states rule]

the fact that Bush beat Kerry in 04 has nothing to do with the fact that his administration lied about the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's in 02-3

The administration did not lie - they said the same thing your beloved Dems said for years

Of course, you do have the balls to admit that fact. You will always give the Dems a pass no matter what the facts are

[jimnyc]

the fact that Bush beat Kerry in 04 has nothing to do with the fact that his administration lied about the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's in 02-3

As did quite a few Democrats as shown with my multitude of quotes. Funny how those who want to speak the truth only point out one version of the facts.

[red states rule]

As did quite a few Democrats as shown with my multitude of quotes. Funny how those who want to speak the truth only point out one version of the facts.

Here are a few of those Dems Jim

Bush lied? What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD?
January 24, 2008 - 16:03 ET

ORIGINAL PUBLICATION DATE: JANUARY 30, 2004


"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"[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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

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

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |

"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 |



http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

[retiredman]

As did quite a few Democrats as shown with my multitude of quotes. Funny how those who want to speak the truth only point out one version of the facts.

I have never denied that democrats spoke of Saddam's WMD's... I do dispute that they spoke about them with the absolute certainty used by the Bush administration...and I have always stated that those democrats who were beating those war drums remain on my shitlist...those who voted for war and have not repented that vote remain on my shitlist. period.

[red states rule]

I have never denied that democrats spoke of Saddam's WMD's... I do dispute that they spoke about them with the absolute certainty used by the Bush administration...and I have always stated that those democrats who were beating those war drums remain on my shitlist...those who voted for war and have not repented that vote remain on my shitlist. period.

So you will NOT vote for Hillary if she is the Dems choice?

[jimnyc]

I have never denied that democrats spoke of Saddam's WMD's... I do dispute that they spoke about them with the absolute certainty used by the Bush administration...and I have always stated that those democrats who were beating those war drums remain on my shitlist...those who voted for war and have not repented that vote remain on my shitlist. period.

Then you need to re-read the many quotes I posted. Hell, I even bolded the portions where they spoke with certainty! "No doubt" "I am certain" "We know for sure" - these statements made by the Dems ARE with certainty.

[Joe Steel]

The administration did not lie - they said the same thing your beloved Dems said for years


OK, then.

You're establishing the Democrats as the standard for truth.

We're making progress.

For the record, though, just because a Democrat says something doesn't make it true. They (or anyone else, for that matter) can make declarations they firmly believe to be true solely because they've accepted them on faith. That doesn't make them true nor does it mean they lied when the things are shown to be untrue. But when someone has command of the resources to determine the truth, has directed those resources to find the truth, knows the truth and then misrepresents it, it's a lie.

[red states rule]

OK, then.

You're establishing the Democrats as the standard for truth.

We're making progress.

For the record, though, just because a Democrat says something doesn't make it true. They (or anyone else, for that matter) can make declarations they firmly believe to be true solely because they've accepted them on faith. That doesn't make them true nor does it mean they lied when the things are shown to be untrue. But when someone has command of the resources to determine the truth, has directed those resources to find the truth, knows the truth and then misrepresents it, it's a lie.

So explain post #200

Dems were saying what Pres Bush was saying about Iraq in the 1990's

Was George Bush feeding the Dems false intel in the 1990's?

[jimnyc]

OK, then.

You're establishing the Democrats as the standard for truth.

We're making progress.

For the record, though, just because a Democrat says something doesn't make it true. They (or anyone else, for that matter) can make declarations they firmly believe to be true solely because they've accepted them on faith. That doesn't make them true nor does it mean they lied when the things are shown to be untrue. But when someone has command of the resources to determine the truth, has directed those resources to find the truth, knows the truth and then misrepresents it, it's a lie.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Quite a few of the Democrats that spoke of WMD with absolute certainty were on the intelligence committees and were briefed by the various intel agencies on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. A few even spoke of specifically what they learned by their briefings and viewings of the intelligence. So, either they believed what they saw with their own eyes from the intelligence agencies or they are too inept to have been on those committees, your choice.

[Joe Steel]

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Quite a few of the Democrats that spoke of WMD with absolute certainty were on the intelligence committees and were briefed by the various intel agencies on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. A few even spoke of specifically what they learned by their briefings and viewings of the intelligence. So, either they believed what they saw with their own eyes from the intelligence agencies or they are too inept to have been on those committees, your choice.

The intelligence of the pre-Bush era may have been wrong. If it was, it was because it wasn't all that important and the intelligence apparatus didn't put all that much effort into determining what Iraq really was doing. That's bad but it's not criminal if no one dies. Bush had a reason to have good intelligence and, presumably, ordered the apparatus to provide it. When he found-out that Iraq was not a threat, he ordered the apparatus to produce intelligence to make Iraq look like a threat so he could start a war. That is criminal.

The Democrats accepted the intelligence on faith. If they were wrong, it was because they were gullible. Bush had control of the intelligence apparatus and ordered it to distort the intelligence to support his agenda. That's deceitful.

[Sir Evil]

The intelligence of the pre-Bush era may have been wrong. If it was, it was because it wasn't all that important and the intelligence apparatus didn't put all that much effort into determining what Iraq really was doing. That's bad but it's not criminal if no one dies. Bush had a reason to have good intelligence and, presumably, ordered the apparatus to provide it. When he found-out that Iraq was not a threat, he ordered the apparatus to produce intelligence to make Iraq look like a threat so he could start a war. That is criminal.

The Democrats accepted the intelligence on faith. If they were wrong, it was because they were gullible. Bush had control of the intelligence apparatus and ordered it to distort the intelligence to support his agenda. That's deceitful.

What a fucking idiot, where is the facts behind your claims?

So you are essentially claiming stupidity on the democrats part? I mean after all you have facts to prove that Bush pulled the wool over their eyes yet the dems themselves couldn't figure out what a simpleton like yourself did? :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

The intelligence of the pre-Bush era may have been wrong. If it was, it was because it wasn't all that important and the intelligence apparatus didn't put all that much effort into determining what Iraq really was doing. That's bad but it's not criminal if no one dies.

Hey, Joe, this is one of those times where it pays to actually read what others post here before replying! EVERY single quote I posted by the Democrats was since Bush was in office and most of them were from September 2002 forward. And a bunch of those quotes are from Democrats who were on the intelligence committees during the run up to the war. They viewed the intelligence photos. They read the reports from the agencies. They listened to briefings from the many intelligence agencies on an almost daily basis. Then they spoke to the American public and apparently lied to us!

[Chessplayer]

I think so.

[Joe Steel]

Hey, Joe, this is one of those times where it pays to actually read what others post here before replying! EVERY single quote I posted by the Democrats was since Bush was in office and most of them were from September 2002 forward. And a bunch of those quotes are from Democrats who were on the intelligence committees during the run up to the war. They viewed the intelligence photos. They read the reports from the agencies. They listened to briefings from the many intelligence agencies on an almost daily basis. Then they spoke to the American public and apparently lied to us!

And it might pay you to actually read the something other than Regime propaganda. The Democrats were deceived by an Administration determined to have a war. Bush et al were manipulating the intelligence to make the war possible. The reports, the photos and all the rest of what the intelligence apparatus produced was fixed around the policy. It was intended to deceive and it worked.

[jimnyc]

And it might pay you to actually read the something other than Regime propaganda. The Democrats were deceived by an Administration determined to have a war. Bush et al were manipulating the intelligence to make the war possible. The reports, the photos and all the rest of what the intelligence apparatus produced was fixed around the policy. It was intended to deceive and it worked.

That's comical! But I made my statements based on irrefutable quotes that have been posted here. Care to post irrefutable proof that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence from the FBI, CIA, NSA.... and had them brief the committees with manipulated information? Since there were Democrats on the committee, and they had intelligence documents in their own hands - you're saying they read and possessed intelligence that was manipulated. Can you show us how? Proof that Democrats had false/manipulated data in their possession and were purposely misled by a slew of intelligence agencies all at the doing of the Bush administration? I'd like to see your proof that the intelligence they saw and heard from those agencies was doctored.

[retiredman]

So you will NOT vote for Hillary if she is the Dems choice?

No... given who your party has running, Hillary will be the lesser of two evils, by a long shot.

[retiredman]

Hey, Joe, this is one of those times where it pays to actually read what others post here before replying! EVERY single quote I posted by the Democrats was since Bush was in office and most of them were from September 2002 forward. And a bunch of those quotes are from Democrats who were on the intelligence committees during the run up to the war. They viewed the intelligence photos. They read the reports from the agencies. They listened to briefings from the many intelligence agencies on an almost daily basis. Then they spoke to the American public and apparently lied to us!


I am not sure how you can say that the members of the intelligence committee independently read raw intelligence reports. They certainly read summaries and were briefed by the agencies (all of whom work for the administration and not congress, by the way), but I do not think that you can say that members of congress were privy to unvarnished intel.

[jimnyc]

I am not sure how you can say that the members of the intelligence committee independently read raw intelligence reports. They certainly read summaries and were briefed by the agencies (all of whom work for the administration and not congress, by the way), but I do not think that you can say that members of congress were privy to unvarnished intel.

I think it's a bit of both. I think they did in fact have access to a decent amount of raw data but also relied on analysts for a lot of the interpretation. I just finished reading the entire transcript of the senate intelligence committe report on pre-war intelligence. This was reported on by Pat Roberts (R) and Jay Rockefeller (D) and I thought they both did a spectacular job of putting things into perspective. First and foremost, they found that the intelligence community was the major source of the problems and that they all agreed that the failed results had nothing at all to do with politics or pressure.

Which leads me back to where I stood on this issue right from the very beginning, that democrats and republicans alike believed Iraq possessed WMD as a result of too much trust in the intelligence community, and more specifically the CIA.

I don't know why I get angry debating this issue with people. I wish everyone could react in a manner that the bipartisan group did that performed the report. Everyone has such a desire to place blame and find guilt rather than acknowledge that there were major failures within our intelligence divisions, and our politicians collectively acted and reacted to this intelligence.

[retiredman]

If Harry S. Truman were president, where do you think the buck would stop?

[jimnyc]

If Harry S. Truman were president, where do you think the buck would stop?

Little quips won't change the fact that the intelligence divisions failed, and were on a failing path for many, many years now.

Would it be fair of me to state 9/11 could have been avoided when Clinton had a chance to have Bin Laden taken into custody? Putting aside extraneous circumstances, the buck stopped with him.

[retiredman]

Little quips won't change the fact that the intelligence divisions failed, and were on a failing path for many, many years now.

Would it be fair of me to state 9/11 could have been avoided when Clinton had a chance to have Bin Laden taken into custody? Putting aside extraneous circumstances, the buck stopped with him.


In may of '95, when Sudan supposedly offered OBL to Clinton, he has ZERO legal justification that would have allowed him to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.

I will not deny that the intelligence failed. You should not deny that Team Bush's repeated assertions of absolute certainty and complete absence of any doubt served to convey a false impression....while they were running the show.

[jimnyc]

In may of '95, when Sudan supposedly offered OBL to Clinton, he has ZERO legal justification that would have allowed him to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.

Yes, because the intelligence agencies didn't have the appropriate information. Where did the buck stop for them in 95?


I will not deny that the intelligence failed. You should not deny that Team Bush's repeated assertions of absolute certainty and complete absence of any doubt served to convey a false impression....while they were running the show.

Can't have it both ways. I've given at least 7 Democrats that reported to the public with absolute certainty about Iraq and WMD. You can keep blaming Bush until the cows come home but NOTHING will change the facts of what is very well documented.

[retiredman]

Yes, because the intelligence agencies didn't have the appropriate information. Where did the buck stop for them in 95?



Can't have it both ways. I've given at least 7 Democrats that reported to the public with absolute certainty about Iraq and WMD. You can keep blaming Bush until the cows come home but NOTHING will change the facts of what is very well documented.

Is it safe to blame Jeffrey Dahmer's high school teacher for not figuring out he was going to be a bad guy? OBL had not DONE anything directly against americans or american interests in May of '95.

Bush was in charge. Bush LED the charge. It happened on Bush's watch. That is all the reason any of us needs to "blame Bush" for invading Iraq to disarm a country that had no arms...and for chasing the UN inspectors out of the country so he could invade RIGHT AWAY.... our going to war preemptively and precipitously will ALWAYS be Bush's responsibility and his alone.

[jimnyc]

Is it safe to blame Jeffrey Dahmer's high school teacher for not figuring out he was going to be a bad guy? OBL had not DONE anything directly against americans or american interests in May of '95.

And yet you'll continue to blame Bush for not figuring out that the intelligence was flawed.


Bush was in charge. Bush LED the charge. It happened on Bush's watch. That is all the reason any of us needs to "blame Bush" for invading Iraq to disarm a country that had no arms...and for chasing the UN inspectors out of the country so he could invade RIGHT AWAY.... our going to war preemptively and precipitously will ALWAYS be Bush's responsibility and his alone.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Call one a liar while absolving the multitude of LIARS from within your own party. I have no need to convince a hack otherwise. Ta Ta!

[retiredman]

And yet you'll continue to blame Bush for not figuring out that the intelligence was flawed.



Hey, whatever floats your boat. Call one a liar while absolving the multitude of LIARS from within your own party. I have no need to convince a hack otherwise. Ta Ta!

no. I have only ever blamed Team Bush for their continual assertions that that the intelligence was certain and their use of public approval such assertions created as cover in their rush to war.

and how many times do I have to tell you that every single democrat who expressed any level of confidence about Saddam's stockpiles or especially those who voted for the use of force resolution without repenting is absolved of NOTHING by me?

[bullypulpit]

Little quips won't change the fact that the intelligence divisions failed, and were on a failing path for many, many years now.

Would it be fair of me to state 9/11 could have been avoided when Clinton had a chance to have Bin Laden taken into custody? Putting aside extraneous circumstances, the buck stopped with him.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored intelligence which contradicted its policy of invading Iraq. The intelligence was there, the administration willfully ignored it.

As far as an opportunity to capture bin Laden, Richard Clarke, a counter-terrorism expert who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, categorically denies that such an opportunity ever presented itself to Goat-boy. It's more of an urban legend perpetrated by right wing-nuts in order to blame someone else for 9/11.

[red states rule]

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored intelligence which contradicted its policy of invading Iraq. The intelligence was there, the administration willfully ignored it.

As far as an opportunity to capture bin Laden, Richard Clarke, a counter-terrorism expert who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, categorically denies that such an opportunity ever presented itself to Goat-boy. It's more of an urban legend perpetrated by right wing-nuts in order to blame someone else for 9/11.

Explain post # 200 with the statements from the Clintons and the Dems made in the 1990's

Was Pres Bush feeding them false intle back then?

[jimnyc]

As far as an opportunity to capture bin Laden, Richard Clarke, a counter-terrorism expert who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, categorically denies that such an opportunity ever presented itself to Goat-boy. It's more of an urban legend perpetrated by right wing-nuts in order to blame someone else for 9/11.

Would this be the same Richard Clarke who has cast accusations out there about the current administration? The same Richard Clarke who is trying to sell a book? And Clinton would never lie, right? The whole thing with Sudan is just an urban legend with no truth to it? Only us wing-nuts believe it to be true? What did manfrommaine state about where the buck stops?

Thanks for adding 2 more liars to my growing list!!

Read this link and listen to the audio at the end where Clinton states he didn't take him into American possession, and then of course later claims his own words weren't "factually accurate". Liars who can't even keep their lies straight! LOL

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/11/115514.shtml

[red states rule]

Here is a another link for BP to check out

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37805