Bush: The worst president ever?

[CptStern]

Definition of a lie from dictionary.com

1 A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Bush didn't lie, he was mislead. He did not present that information on purpose. You have shown as much valid information as we have valid information for Iraqs WMDs. Which is no hardcore evidence, just a whole lot of pieces to the puzzle.

Another way I look at it, why isn't there a huge investigation of Bush lying? Because they know it is just a bunch of BS and won't hold up.

for the last time ...it was bush who created the misconception ...his admin pushed for an invasion of iraq at any cost:


""I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' "

 

[Foxtrot]

What is wrong about each of these:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

1) Sounds more like an exageration than a lie, but can't those tubes be used for enriching it if they are set up in a certain way? I was watching a show on TV that explained that, all they need to do it set it up a little different.
2) No real evidence that they president knew it was fake, it could have been anywhere along the line.
3) What is this? 4 days before the war started? Obviously they built up enough evidence to get the war approved already.
4) Common spin, no lie though.
5) So it could have been used as that, but the Iraqi government may have not been in control of it.
6) Not a lie, just misinterpited. They didn't have to fly them from Iraq
7) I could probably find a link, but didn't we find evidence of chemical labs and documents describing how the weapons should be used?
8) It is an estimate of what they have, and besides the use by date on those usually aren't that big of a deal.
9) With the intelligence they had, that is where they could have believed they were.
10) He could have been refering to something else, but I don't think he was, was it verified to not be a chemical weapons lab when he said that? If he didn't know it was not a lie.

 

[No Limit]

Just to prove republicans are mindless programmed bullshit machines here is what you wrote on page 12 of this thread:

I think something needs to be cleared up here, Bush did not lie. He was mislead, there is a big difference.

After over 5 pages of discussion and me refuting it here:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1450487&postcount=180

You just repeated it again.

Here is what you said again on page 15 after I refuted that and without you actually addressing my post where I refuted your claim:

Bush didn't lie, lying is a very serious offense and I see no impeachment or investigation by officials going on. Give it up, lying is just a word you are using to try and make his being mislead look worse.

So you repeated that 3 times now yet you haven't disproven any of the evidance I posted of where Bush lied.

And here is what you said on page 15 again:

When clinton lied to America there was an investigation, how come bush hasn't gone to trial? The "evidence" of him "lying" is false and does not hold up.

I already pointed out to you that Yes, Republicans control government and you didn't address that but you again repeated that in your latest reply.

You are nothing more than a programmed bullshit machine/partisan hack for the Republican party.

 

[Glirk Dient]

What is wrong about each of these:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

What happened to the radioactive waste they had in barrels? Where did they get that, did it fall out of the sky?

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

So the brits believed this and told us they had evidence and we believed them...Bush's fault how?

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

Aside from the nuclear waste

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

Oh, but that terrorist laptop found in Iraq that had documents that proved there is a link never happened, right?

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

Still in Iraq, correct? However, don't mind the whole link thing...it's irrelevant apparently.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

Pack it in a box, bring it to the U.S., fly it over(or upwind) of a large city, release gas and it will travel hundred (maybe thousands) of miles.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

Don't mind the "weather baloon" trucks that were disquised and hidden so well you would have never found where to "fill" up that weather baloon. Or the fact that they have the technology, resources and reason to. Oh and don't forget you can't hide anything in the desert, or a nearby country. On top of that the obsolete countries near Iraq made their own WMD's...right?

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

How do they know when the WMDs were made? If they do know then they are admiting to Iraq being capable of making WMDs and actually making them

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

Seems a pretty accurate position to pull it out of your ass. Oh, don't mind the huge desert where they hid planes...but not WMDs, no hiding WMDs in the desert wouldn't work obviously. Oh, don't mind the other stuff I brought up early

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

These were well hidden indeed, in fact you would have never have guessed to fill up a weather baloon in the truck disguised as a normal truck. Don't mind the chemicals they can use to make WMDs. Sure they could be used to fill baloons, but they can also serve other purposes. Did they include that in the report? Nope, they were asked what the Iraqis used it for, not what they could use it for.

I re said that because when you posted you "refutes" I then refuted your "evidence" and you simply dodged that, making my points still valid. Try to pay attention, and I do believe you have repeated yourself many more times, perhaps if you stop pulling up other peoples work and think for yourself you might be able to figure something out on your own. It's not that hard to think for yourself. That must be why you didn't refute me saying your "evidence" was wrong, no liberal sites covered that.

 

[No Limit]

1) Sounds more like an exageration than a lie, but can't those tubes be used for enriching it if they are set up in a certain way? I was watching a show on TV that explained that, all they need to do it set it up a little different.

Oh please, the Department of Energy, the agency that knows about this, was telling Bush this was not the case. Yet, they continually repeated it.

2) No real evidence that they president knew it was fake, it could have been anywhere along the line.

JOE WILSON, the guy that was sent to investigate this by the CIA, WAS TELLIN THEM IT WAS FAKE. They then outed his wife as a CIA agent (which is illegal) to try and discredit him.

3) What is this? 4 days before the war started? Obviously they built up enough evidence to get the war approved already.

Let me translate what you wrote; I can not dispute this but I'll just come up with some bullshit and maybe No Limit will let it fly.

Sorry, I don't work that way. The CIA reports up until the invasion never said this and there was no basis for that claim.

4) Common spin, no lie though.

You are telling me that the administration spinning intelligence to make it mean something else is not a lie but just common spin? You might want to reread that before you post such stupid ass replies.

) So it could have been used as that, but the Iraqi government may have not been in control of it.

So why did they say it was under Iraq control? You are just making shit up now.

6) Not a lie, just misinterpited. They didn't have to fly them from Iraq

I don't find your smilie amusing and frankly I don't think you should be finding this ammusing. People have died for these lies, you don't seem to give a shit.

7) I could probably find a link, but didn't we find evidence of chemical labs and documents describing how the weapons should be used?

No we didn't.

8) It is an estimate of what they have, and besides the use by date on those usually aren't that big of a deal.

What are you talking about? The CIA was saying if these weapons existed (which they didn't) they wouldn't be able to be used.

) With the intelligence they had, that is where they could have believed they were.

I don't care if I get a warning for this but, seriously just shut the **** up. This is turning in to stupidity.

10) He could have been refering to something else, but I don't think he was, was it verified to not be a chemical weapons lab when he said that? If he didn't know it was not a lie.

The british government was selling them these. THEY KNEW IT WAS BULLSHIT!

You still haven't refuted anything and please just stop posting, your idiotic remarks are an insult to every person that has died for this war. The fact you used a smilie (meaning you knew you were spewing bullshit) is just sad.

 

[CptStern]

I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' "

 

[No Limit]

I re said that because when you posted you "refutes" I then refuted your "evidence" and you simply dodged that, making my points still valid. Try to pay attention, and I do believe you have repeated yourself many more times, perhaps if you stop pulling up other peoples work and think for yourself you might be able to figure something out on your own. It's not that hard to think for yourself. That must be why you didn't refute me saying your "evidence" was wrong, no liberal sites covered that.

Someone please take this, my head hurts from how he is trying to spin this. Honestly, what kind of an ass do you have to be to to make a mockery out of something so serious. If no one replies I will later, I am simply too outraged right now by the fact you simply don't care.

I love that a programmed republican that has repeated the same thing over and over again accused me of not thinking for myself.

 

[Foxtrot]

Oh please, the Department of Energy, the agency that knows about this, was telling Bush this was not the case. Yet, they continually repeated it.


JOE WILSON, the guy that was sent to investigate this by the CIA, WAS TELLIN THEM IT WAS FAKE. They then outed his wife as a CIA agent (which is illegal) to try and discredit him.


Let me translate what you wrote; I can not dispute this but I'll just come up with some bullshit and maybe No Limit will let it fly.

Sorry, I don't work that way. The CIA reports up until the invasion never said this and there was no basis for that claim.


You are telling me that the administration spinning intelligence to make it mean something else is not a lie but just common spin? You might want to reread that before you post such stupid ass replies.


So why did they say it was under Iraq control? You are just making shit up now.


I don't find your smilie amusing and frankly I don't think you should be finding this ammusing. People have died for these lies, you don't seem to give a shit.


No we didn't.


What are you talking about? The CIA was saying if these weapons existed (which they didn't) they wouldn't be able to be used.


I don't care if I get a warning for this but, seriously just shut the **** up. This is turning in to stupidity.

The british government was selling them these. THEY KNEW IT WAS BULLSHIT!

You still haven't refuted anything and please just stop posting, your idiotic remarks are an insult to every person that has died for this war. The fact you used a smilie (meaning you knew you were spewing bullshit) is just sad.

You cracked, that means I win

 

[No Limit]

You cracked, that means I win

Yeah, you win. :thumbs:

 

[Glirk Dient]

Someone please take this, my head hurts from how he is trying to spin this. Honestly, what kind of an ass do you have to be to to make a mockery out of something so serious. If no one replies I will later, I am simply too outraged right now by the fact you simply don't care.

I love that a programmed republican that has repeated the same thing over and over again accused me of not thinking for myself.

Yeah...it's going to take a while to find this on a liberal site, or at least post on a liberal board for someone to help you think.

 

[Foxtrot]

Yeah...it's going to take a while to find this on a liberal site, or at least post on a liberal board for someone to help you think.

I like how No Limit can't accpet when he is wrong, so he clings on to his website just repeating what it said.

 

[Glirk Dient]

I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' "

Bush has what to do this? If those people actually followed through they should be fired. It is their job to present valid data no matter what. Even if the president tells them, they do not do that.

 

[T.H.C.138]

when it comes right down to it,what is a politicians job? not what you think it is!! their job is to lie and swindle the people they supposedly represent..and not just in America either..for a matter of fact,not just in this decade either..

also everyone is overlooking the attempt by Saddam on Bush Senior's life...between that and the oil..plenty of justification .. and to clear up a popular misconception about me, I support the troops but I haven't supported this nightmare in Iraq since shortly after it began...

 

[CptStern]

Bush has what to do this? If those people actually followed through they should be fired. It is their job to present valid data no matter what. Even if the president tells them, they do not do that.

? wtf?

....you didnt even read that one paragraph did you? ...the directive is coming from the oval office ..it was BUSH and co who were pushing the intelligence to make up something , anything to link saddam with 9/11 ...do me a favour and at least take the time to read the article ..or dont bother responding because it's a waste of time

 

[No Limit]

Bush has what to do this? If those people actually followed through they should be fired. It is their job to present valid data no matter what. Even if the president tells them, they do not do that.

I don't know if I should laugh or I should cry.

You simply will not accept any fact. You haven't refuted a single lie that was posted, you said Bush dwas a ****ing idiot and didn't know he was lying. Lets try again:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

You said he mispoke, not he lied. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WAS TELLING THEM THIS WAS A LIE BUT THE REPEATED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

This was your second bullshit reply to the above:

What happened to the radioactive waste they had in barrels? Where did they get that, did it fall out of the sky?

This has nothing to do with the lie.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

this was your reply:

So the brits believed this and told us they had evidence and we believed them...Bush's fault how?

Hey smart one, this had nothing to do with the Birtish; you are just pulling things out of the air now. Joe Wilson, an American, was sent by the Bush administration to investiage that claim. He said this claim was a lie. Bush repeated that claim and then outed Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative (highly illegal).

I can go down the list but lets stay on these 2 for now. I think the problem is your attention span isn't big enough so you just start spewing bullshit and then say you win when too many points are brought up at once.

 

[No Limit]

? wtf?

Don't ask. I honestly don't know why we are wasting our time. This thread has been turned in to stupidity by these 2 idiots (yes, I made a personal attack; MODERATOR). I don't think they even know what they are saying anymore.

 

[CptStern]

I dont know about you but I'm getting a headache from constantly slamming my head against a wall

 

[No Limit]

Interesting read. And this isn't for the 2 asshats ruining this thread (you know who you are and please just don't reply). This is for the people that take life seriously and actually question objectively why we went to war and why those people in Iraq have died:

On Oct 9, 2002, Senator Joe Biden gave a floor speech preceding the IWR vote and reflected on the words of an old law professor who admonished his juries to avoid sensationalist characterizations and “keep your eye on the ball”. All these days later, those words were never more important than they are in dealing with the Downing Street Memo.

From Senator Biden’s Remarks:

“The President said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that we not go to war. It is his hope it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, in my judgment, the President of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war--to go to war--before the President has made up his mind. He has not made up his mind.

Keep your eye on the ball. Follow the bouncing ball like in the old Lawrence Welk days. A, the President has not decided whether or not to go to war; B, the President says give me the authority to go to war; C, we say on what basis do you want to go to war, Mr. President?

The details matter. If, for example, we leave here, setting a precedent, suggesting the reason we might go to war is because of this new doctrine of preemption, which no one has explained--no one has explained it.”

That is the question the Downing Street Memo answers. When George Bush was telling Congress he had not made a decision to go to war, that he hoped to avoid it, that he only sought to disarm Saddam Hussein, he was not telling the truth. Rather, he was implementing the Bush Doctrine, the first step being a Preemptive War intended to so intimidate the world with our military might that all nations would succumb. Shock and Awe was not aimed at Saddam or the Iraqi National Guard, the “psychological destruction of the enemy’s will to fight” was aimed at the entire world.

As Senator Biden also said that day “So, for Lord's sake, anybody who decides to vote for this resolution, please do not rest it on this cockamamie notion of preemption. You will rue the day. If that is the precedent we establish for our own safety's sake, you will rue the day.”

It is this doctrine of preemption that is the question. As I laid out in “Iraq Road to Hell”, the Bush Administration will continue to roll out their charade of excuses and covers. They have done it again in claiming HR 4655 gave the President authority to launch a war. It did nothing of the sort, as Right LEFT Story clearly lays out. Nowhere in HR 4655 is war authorized.

Congress, in 2002, did not authorize war to implement the Bush Doctrine of Preemption either. Bush was required to declare all peaceful and diplomatic means had been exhausted, and that Iraq posed a grave threat to the US. He made that declaration 2 days after he deployed troops, in March 2003. He knew it wasn’t true because he planned to “fix the intelligence to the policy” all along. As John Bonifaz wrote when requesting a Resolution of Inquiry, this declaration to Congress is in violation of the “False Statements Accountability Act of 1996”.

The Downing Street Memo is simple. It validates the words of numerous officials, analysts, aides, and more. George Bush intended to launch a war on Iraq since the first days of his Presidency. We have unwittingly implemented the Bush Doctrine’s “cockamamie notion of preemption” and American supremacy. That is not what Congress or the American people supported.

I think I'm going to make a new thread rehashing the important points of this thread as I think its been lost among the stupidity.

 

[CptStern]

"He said it is his hope that we not go to war. It is his hope it can be avoided"


LOL!!! what a joke

 

[Glirk Dient]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407

Not to mention the downing street memo still doesn't prove anything when it is questioned itself. It also has a completely different meaning depending on the definition of fix you use. Besides, Intelligence Agencies don't make it a habit to throw classified documents around for everyone to see, so who gave it to the press?

Clintons lie was investigated...why no investigation here? Becuase there's no real proof that what the memo says is true, considering the media's batting average with those in recent months. Don't forget that it was your poster boy Clinton that set our national policy on Iraq, through executive order mind you, to liberation of the country. Now all of a sudden you're pissed off that Bush followed through after Clinton was politically castrated? Also, why would syria have 3 scud missles to test? Where did they get those?

You want to know why Bush is so silent on this "issue?" It's because after your recent stint of media bullshit he knows you're all a bunch of hacks who couldn't find shit in a shitstorm. Even if something shady was going on in his office there's more probability of dumb luck Joe Bob bringing it to light than any media agency or "secret informant."

 

[CptStern]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407

who's fault is that? should have been guarding that instead of this

 

[Solaris]

Why no investigation? Who would investigate him, anyone who can supports him, we need a mordern day deep throat.

>Also, why would syria have 3 scud missles to test? Where did they get those?
The missles were manufactured in North Korean.

 

[No Limit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407

Not to mention the downing street memo still doesn't prove anything when it is questioned itself. It also has a completely different meaning depending on the definition of fix you use.

No, there IS NOT DIFFERENT MEANING. Bush and Blair themselves said at the press conference when asked if the memo which said intelligance was being fixed was accurate. They both said it was not being fixed meaning they knew which meaning the memo was talking about. Stop it with the bullshit.

Besides, Intelligence Agencies don't make it a habit to throw classified documents around for everyone to see, so who gave it to the press?

A hero did. Who gave the press information about Watergate?

Clintons lie was investigated...why no investigation here? Becuase there's no real proof that what the memo says is true, considering the media's batting average with those in recent months.

Republicans again were in power when Clinton was investigated. You didn't know that? If you reply Clinton had power I am done with you, it tells me you know nothing about how our government works.

Don't forget that it was your poster boy Clinton that set our national policy on Iraq, through executive order mind you, to liberation of the country.

Again, you are repeating a lie I already refuted. Yes, Clinton had a policy; but that policy was to offer financial aid to opposing political parties; regime change by war was not policy until Bush made it that policy.

Now all of a sudden you're pissed off that Bush followed through after Clinton was politically castrated?

Clinton did follow through, but not by invasion. And again, I will not argue about Clinton; this has nothing to do with Clinton; make a new thread for that.

Also, why would syria have 3 scud missles to test? Where did they get those?

You are grasping at straws; this has nothing to do with the question I asked; did Bush lie?

You want to know why Bush is so silent on this "issue?" It's because after your recent stint of media bullshit he knows you're all a bunch of hacks who couldn't find shit in a shitstorm. Even if something shady was going on in his office there's more probability of dumb luck Joe Bob bringing it to light than any media agency or "secret informant."

So you are saying something shady that is being done by Bush should not be known to the public? Thanks, that's all I needed from you.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you are still wrong.

How am I wrong? Are you going to refute it, or stare at it?

 

[No Limit]

How am I wrong? Are you going to refute it, or stare at it?

Oh please, you didn't read a single post I made. I have evidance up there for you to refute; you simply ignored it.

 

[No Limit]

How am I wrong? Are you going to refute it, or stare at it?

So, are you going to refute it, or stare at it?

Oh please, you didn't read a single post I made. I have evidance up there for you to refute; you simply ignored it.

 

[SFLUFAN]

No, the title of worst president ever belongs to Chester A. Arthur.

Damn, I still hate that son of a bitch!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh please, you didn't read a single post I made. I have evidance up there for you to refute; you simply ignored it.

Took you long enough for your extremist commentary -- I was beginning to assume I actually shut you up. However, I'am discussing the means from which that intelligence was gathered and assumed perfect; for the means of justifying a, "WMD Invasion" I believe the records were manipulated and not complete.

If two Presidents react the same way to one country using the same evidentary presentation, then something is wrong with whats been provided our security officials and President.

I have nothing against your evidence, its just I have other beliefs and associations. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

So, are you going to refute it, or stare at it?

Spare me the pissing contest -- you know I came up with that first! :thumbs:

 

[No Limit]

Took you long enough for your extremist commentary -- I was beginning to assume I actually shut you up. However, I'am discussing the means from which that intelligence was gathered and assumed perfect; for the means of justifying a, "WMD Invasion" I believe the records were manipulated and not complete.

If two Presidents react the same way to one country using the same evidentary presentation, then something is wrong with whats been provided our security officials and President.

I have nothing against your evidence, its just I have other beliefs and associations. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

My extremist commentary??? And if you think you shut me up you really underestimate me.

Your post is 100% irrelevant to my question; did Bush lie. My evidance of this is up there for you to refute if you disagree. That is all that matters.

Took you long enough

You posted Saturday night I posted Sunday morning; not sure if that's considered very long. As much as I would love to argue politics on a Saturday night I do have other things to take care of.

 

[No Limit]

Memos have just be verified by NBC news:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.

Just last week, President Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.

“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

But let me guess, the 2 Bush supporters on here are better than NBC news and can still dispute their authenticity. There is no way to help any idiot that disputes the authenticity of the memos after this article.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

My extremist commentary??? And if you think you shut me up you really underestimate me.

Extremist and underestimate dont belong in the same sentence for people like you.

Your post is 100% irrelevant to my question; did Bush lie

Your question is also 100% irrelevant to my post; we know our Government has lied. Duh!

 

[No Limit]

Extremist and underestimate dont belong in the same sentence for people like you.

I love it when you people make these wild accusations without back up. If you think the truth is extremist then sure.

Your question is also 100% irrelevant to my post; we know our Government has lied. Duh!

Typical bullshit. No, I am not asking about government lying. I am asking about Bush lying. This is what the topic became and now I have no idea which page you are on. My point is simple, Bush comitted an impeachable offense by lying to congress in the state of the union address when he said he would do everything he could to avoid war. Simple as that; whatever you are trying to shift the discussion to doesn't concern me.

 

[Hiji]

If the shoe fits... Nobody is claiming that somebody like Carter isnt a good person, but that doesnt necessarliy make them a good President.

Carter was a very nice man, he was just a little bit dumb.

 

[X-FacToR]

"authorize torture of prisoners"

got proof?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Typical bullshit.

So, then our government is being truthfull about its choices and operations inside Iraq? I don't even have to shoot at your feet to make you dance. :hmph:

If you think the truth is extremist then sure.

Thats very self-centered of you to believe your the truth. Who taught you these lies?

 

[No Limit]

So, then our government is being truthfull about its choices and operations inside Iraq? I don't even have to shoot at your feet to make you dance. :hmph:

Do you even understand what I am asking? Its a very simple question. Did Bush, not our government, lie to get us in to Iraq? What part of that question do you not understand? Are my facts are up there; you haven't refuted a single one.

Thats very self-centered of you to believe your the truth. Who taught you these lies?

Facts tell me what I speak is the truth. Unless you have anything to dispute my facts I am telling the full truth; which is not extreme as you would like to claim.

You keep attacking me and trying to shift the topic to me. Can you just please address my question and my points please. Let me help you out, your next reply should look like this:

Yes, Bush lied to get us in to war which is an impeachable offense.

or

No Bush didn't lie. Here is what is wrong with the evidance you provided:

Get it?

 

[Icarusintel]

he stood at attention for me and my fellow cadets as we marched by, so, well, he's gotta be a good guy, i'd invite him over for BBQ

 

[Top Secret]

I woulda voted for Kerry, if I could have.

I only have one main beef with Bush.

It's not that he did or did not lie to get us into Iraq.

It's not that he did or did not authorize the torture of prisoners.

Etc etc.

I want Osama Bin Laden. I want that mother****ers head on a ****ing pike, and I want it on my front door. I want it so bad. I can't describe how bad I want it. I want to use a razor, and peel back the flesh on his scalp. I want to saw his chin off with a hacksaw. I want it so bad...

 

[Solaris]

I woulda voted for Kerry, if I could have.
I want Osama Bin Laden. I want that mother****ers head on a ****ing pike, and I want it on my front door. I want it so bad. I can't describe how bad I want it. I want to use a razor, and peel back the flesh on his scalp. I want to saw his chin off with a hacksaw. I want it so bad...

Looks like the Media Brainwashing has worked yet again, good job fox.

 

[Icarusintel]

Looks like the Media Brainwashing has worked yet again, good job fox.

what are you talking about? i want the bastard dead as well, I'd like to see HIS execution video shown all over the internet, screw the justice system, I'd rather have some merc or vigilante do it