Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rokkitsci said:
If you are going to persist in calling Bush a liar, please tell me exactly what the "lie" was.

In this context - to me anyway - a lie involves intentional mistatement of fact with the intent of decieving others about a material fact. If you have a definition of "lie" substantially different from that - please post that definition prior to your response.

Lies do not derive from being mistaken about a fact. They do not derive from making political opponents unhappy - they do not derive from a having a higher strategy that effects the military situation.

In other words, you do NOT have to completely open your intestines for examination by your enemies in order to be immune from being called a liar.

I repeat - the mere POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMDs was sufficient cause for his removal.

The WORST you can say about Bush's actions is that he was mistaken about the WMDs and that he did not FULLY elaborate all the military strategy that was behind the decision to remove Saddam.

In order to show Bush "lied" about Saddam, you would have to show that he KNEW - with certainty - that there were no WMDs with the intent of involving the USA in a war for reasons OTHER than the reasons he stated.

I don't think you can even come close to that.

The BEST you can do is say that you DISAGREE with his analysis of the intelligence data.

And at the bottom of all this is the REAL reason for all the opposition. Bush is GOP and any success he has makes it harder for DEMOCRATs to oppose him. If a DEMOCRAT were president - they would be all aglow with the situation. If you don't believe that - review their attitude toward Bosnia. No attack from Bosnia - no threat of attack - no UN approval - etc etc etc. Yet they still REVERE the "success" Clinton had in Bosnia, while denigrating a much more FANTASTIC success Bush 41 had in Kuwait, and are trying to UNDERMINE the current success in Iraq. pathetic if you ask me.

I am assuming that you would NOT have objected to the war IF there had been WMDs all over the place in Iraq. If you are pacifist to that extent, then I will not bother you further.

So - what level of probability would you consider valid to launch a war to eliminate Saddam. Would you be content to allow a 25% chance that Saddam had WMD?? or 50% or 75% or 99% = or would you just wait until he launched an anthrax attack against our troops before we even CONSIDERED taking care of him.

Much of this opposition to Bush makes the case that he was PREPARING for a war against Saddam BEFORE he had all the facts. GOOD FOR HIM !!!!! That is what RESONSIBLE leader do - plan ahead.

In fact, somewhere in the archives of the Pentagon - I would be willing to bet there are plans to take out London - or Mexico City - or <shudder> PARIS should the circumstances arise.

The fact that Bush IMMEDIATELY started revving up the engines to revise our plans to take out Saddam is a point in his favor as far as I am concerned.

AND - I am GLAD there were no WMD in Iraq - I always secretely hoped that Saddam was bluffing - and am GLAD that he was - less danger to our troops.


Excellent analysis! :sunny: Bush took action. The UN talked & talked & talked, took a bunch of bribes, and saw no evil. :sad2:

If Bush walked on water, the Dems would say the idiot can't swim.
 
Rokkitsci said:
If you are going to persist in calling Bush a liar, please tell me exactly what the "lie" was.

In this context - to me anyway - a lie involves intentional mistatement of fact with the intent of decieving others about a material fact. If you have a definition of "lie" substantially different from that - please post that definition prior to your response.
Your definition of lying is simplistic and wrong. Lets look at a legal definition of lying. Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has a definition of lying that is helpful. General Rules and Regulations promulgated Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading
First, Bush has stated on several occassions that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not made until 2003 and that the reason for this war was WMD. Both of these statements are false and misleading in that the decision was made much earlier and that the real reason was not WMD.

Second, numerous statements were made about WMDs that were false and misleading. Bush and Condi Rice lied repeatedly about WMDs and left out any intelligence that contradicted the plan to go to war. One good example about this are the lies about the tubes that Bush and Condi claimed were for Iraq's nuclear program. The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't
Of all the justifications that President Bush gave for invading Iraq, the most terrifying was that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb that he might use against the United States or give to terrorists. Ever since we learned that this was not true, the question has been whether Mr. Bush gave a good-faith account of the best available intelligence, or knowingly deceived the public. The more we learn about the way Mr. Bush paved the road to war, the more it becomes disturbingly clear that if he was not aware that he was feeding misinformation to the world, he was about the only one in his circle who had not been clued in.

The foundation for the administration's claim that it acted on an honest assessment of intelligence analysis - and the president's frequent claim that Congress had the same information he had - has been steadily eroded by the reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission. A lengthy report in The Times on Sunday removed any lingering doubts.

The only physical evidence the administration offered for an Iraqi nuclear program were the 60,000 aluminum tubes that Baghdad set out to buy in early 2001; some of them were seized in Jordan. Even though Iraq had a history of using the same tubes to make small rockets, the president and his closest advisers told the American people that the overwhelming consensus of government experts was that these new tubes were to be used to make nuclear bomb fuel. Now we know there was no such consensus. Mr. Bush's closest advisers say they didn't know that until after they had made the case for war. But in fact, they had plenty of evidence that the claim was baseless; it was a long-discounted theory that had to be resurrected from the intelligence community's wastebasket when the administration needed justification for invading Iraq.

The tubes-for-bombs theory was the creation of a low-level C.I.A. analyst who got his facts, even the size of the tubes, wrong. It was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A week before Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he warned of an Iraqi nuclear menace, international experts in Vienna had dismissed the C.I.A.'s theory about the tubes. The day before, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and rejected the tubes' tale entirely.

It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric.

Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the tubes theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a "dispute" about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb.

Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or "to referee disputes in the intelligence community." But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war.

If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis.
The NYT has a great article that is very detailed on this issue. How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence Now we know that the facts and intelligence was being fixed to justify the war. In this case, bush and Condi lied in failing to disclose the material fact that the top experts in the US had concluded that the tubes were not for Iraq's nuclear program. That is a lie.

The facts and the intelligence were fixed to justify the war. That involved lying to the American people.

You may be happy being lied to. A number of Bush supporters either can accept that Bush lied to them or are actually happy that they were lied to. The rest of us are concerned now that a smoking gun has turned up that proves that Bush is a liar.
 
Rokkitsci said:
If you are going to persist in calling Bush a liar, please tell me exactly what the "lie" was.

In this context - to me anyway - a lie involves intentional mistatement of fact with the intent of decieving others about a material fact. If you have a definition of "lie" substantially different from that - please post that definition prior to your response.

Lies do not derive from being mistaken about a fact. They do not derive from making political opponents unhappy - they do not derive from a having a higher strategy that effects the military situation.

In other words, you do NOT have to completely open your intestines for examination by your enemies in order to be immune from being called a liar.

I repeat - the mere POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMDs was sufficient cause for his removal.

The WORST you can say about Bush's actions is that he was mistaken about the WMDs and that he did not FULLY elaborate all the military strategy that was behind the decision to remove Saddam.

In order to show Bush "lied" about Saddam, you would have to show that he KNEW - with certainty - that there were no WMDs with the intent of involving the USA in a war for reasons OTHER than the reasons he stated.

I don't think you can even come close to that.

The BEST you can do is say that you DISAGREE with his analysis of the intelligence data.

And at the bottom of all this is the REAL reason for all the opposition. Bush is GOP and any success he has makes it harder for DEMOCRATs to oppose him. If a DEMOCRAT were president - they would be all aglow with the situation. If you don't believe that - review their attitude toward Bosnia. No attack from Bosnia - no threat of attack - no UN approval - etc etc etc. Yet they still REVERE the "success" Clinton had in Bosnia, while denigrating a much more FANTASTIC success Bush 41 had in Kuwait, and are trying to UNDERMINE the current success in Iraq. pathetic if you ask me.

I am assuming that you would NOT have objected to the war IF there had been WMDs all over the place in Iraq. If you are pacifist to that extent, then I will not bother you further.

So - what level of probability would you consider valid to launch a war to eliminate Saddam. Would you be content to allow a 25% chance that Saddam had WMD?? or 50% or 75% or 99% = or would you just wait until he launched an anthrax attack against our troops before we even CONSIDERED taking care of him.

Much of this opposition to Bush makes the case that he was PREPARING for a war against Saddam BEFORE he had all the facts. GOOD FOR HIM !!!!! That is what RESONSIBLE leader do - plan ahead.

In fact, somewhere in the archives of the Pentagon - I would be willing to bet there are plans to take out London - or Mexico City - or <shudder> PARIS should the circumstances arise.

The fact that Bush IMMEDIATELY started revving up the engines to revise our plans to take out Saddam is a point in his favor as far as I am concerned.

AND - I am GLAD there were no WMD in Iraq - I always secretely hoped that Saddam was bluffing - and am GLAD that he was - less danger to our troops.

Wrong again Rok



And at the bottom of all this is the REAL reason for all the opposition. Bush is GOP and any success he has makes it harder for DEMOCRATs to oppose him. If a DEMOCRAT were president - they would be all aglow with the situation.

I wouldn't give you 2 flips for Blair and he is miles away from the Conservatives. Zell is a Dem, but pimps for the neo-cons.

The bottom line to the opposition of Bu$h isn't the fact that he is a republican, it's that he's a lying sack of manure, he has befouled my country, killed my brothers and sisters in the armed services and is responsible for dividing his citizens. He is a traitor and a war criminal, regardless of political affiliation and should be tried, convicted and sentenced for his crimes against humanity. And what makes this even sicker is that he believes that God chose him to cause all this misery.
 
I enjoy debate and especially when it is (mostly) such an intelligent one.

I am but a mere housewife and not on a par with anyone else here so please bear with me.

We went to war in Iraq so that their people would be free and be able to disagree with the government. We should back our government, no matter what, or we are unpatriotic.

There is a man, down the street, that looks dangerous (trust me) and I am going down there tonight and get rid of him, for the sake of the rest of the town. I am sure that there will others to be dealt with next week but I will search my conscience as to how to handle that. I am certain that I am always right.

I am a Republican but do not believe that everyone who runs for office under either label is necessarily deserving of the title. There are so many shades of grey in the world and I am glad that I am not in charge of a darned thing except myself as I have enough trouble doing that.

Just my opinions. I debate myself often and seldom win. History will be the judge, eventually. Will be way after my time though.

Slightly Goofy
 

Why do I suddenly feel the need to call the authorites???
 
SlightlyGoofy said:
I enjoy debate and especially when it is (mostly) such an intelligent one.

I am but a mere housewife and not on a par with anyone else here so please bear with me.

We went to war in Iraq so that their people would be free and be able to disagree with the government. We should back our government, no matter what, or we are unpatriotic.

There is a man, down the street, that looks dangerous (trust me) and I am going down there tonight and get rid of him, for the sake of the rest of the town. I am sure that there will others to be dealt with next week but I will search my conscience as to how to handle that. I am certain that I am always right.

I am a Republican but do not believe that everyone who runs for office under either label is necessarily deserving of the title. There are so many shades of grey in the world and I am glad that I am not in charge of a darned thing except myself as I have enough trouble doing that.

Just my opinions. I debate myself often and seldom win. History will be the judge, eventually. Will be way after my time though.

Slightly Goofy

Good post, I agree.
 
/
LOL, people. How could I ever harm a fellow DISer? I do not hurt em but have been known to have them over for lunch. Not as an entree but guest and as far as I know they are still alive and kicking. :flower:

Lebjwb, thank you for your kind words and for knowing that I were kidding, mostly. I will file your comments away to re read when someone rakes me over the coals. :goodvibes

Slightly Goofy
 
Lebjwb said:
Wrong again Rok





I wouldn't give you 2 flips for Blair and he is miles away from the Conservatives. Zell is a Dem, but pimps for the neo-cons.

The bottom line to the opposition of Bu$h isn't the fact that he is a republican, it's that he's a lying sack of manure, he has befouled my country, killed my brothers and sisters in the armed services and is responsible for dividing his citizens. He is a traitor and a war criminal, regardless of political affiliation and should be tried, convicted and sentenced for his crimes against humanity. And what makes this even sicker is that he believes that God chose him to cause all this misery.

They should take the Nobel Peace Prizes away from Carter and Arafat and give them to GW Bush and Tony Blair. They eliminated Sadam (a brutal dictator, terrorist and terrorist supporter) and liberated 25 million Iraqi's (after the 25 million in Afghanistan).

Thank you GW and Tony. :goodvibes You're men of action spreading freedom throughout the world, unlike the bribe-taking, see-no-evil UN.
 
Teejay32 said:
Mine wasn't tricky either. If we give in to the terrorists and they stop attacking, is it a success? I say No, how about you?

So how do you measure whether or not the war on terror is a success?
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
They should take the Nobel Peace Prizes away from Carter and Arafat and give them to GW Bush and Tony Blair. They eliminated Sadam (a brutal dictator, terrorist and terrorist supporter) and liberated 25 million Iraqi's (after the 25 million in Afghanistan).

Thank you GW and Tony. :goodvibes You're men of action spreading freedom throughout the world, unlike the bribe-taking, see-no-evil UN.

Well fortunately wiser men then yourself have designated Nobel prizes to those who are deserving. Blair and Bush will never receive Nobel recognition. I highly doubt that instigating a war based upon lies and incompetance is one of the criteria for a peace prize.
 
Bill_Sykes said:
First, Bush has stated on several occassions that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not made until 2003 and that the reason for this war was WMD.
Yet people seem to ignore this over and over and over. I see so much made up excuses, it's just sad.

It's sad that since that was the reason used to get other countries on board (and they didn't because of a lack of true evidence). If they had taken the humanitarian tactic, there would probably have been more countries on board and less deaths. Or possibly other ways to get things done. We'll never know because they did this based on false information.

There is so much misinformation coming out of some of the folks defending things, that I just cannot fathom how that happened.
 
After some added consideration, as a newly re-registered user, I've made the following observations:

1) JoeEpcotRocks is probably a tongue-in-cheek joke account.
2) It seems that most of the liberals around here like to make long entries with referenced information that is usually countered by equally long entries from conservatives consisting mostly of spewed, rehashed rhetoric and insistence on long disproven information.
 
A little perspective. Apparently Bush lied about some things. This is a surprise? All Presidents have lied to the American people. Obviously some worse than others, but they all did it. Johnson (Dem) did it during wartime, and so did Nixon (Rep). It only seems worse in this case because he is the current President.

If Kerry had been elected he would be lying to us, and so would Gore if he had been elected. Doesn't anyone realize this? Politicians lie. Republicans sit and point an accusing finger at Democrats. Democrats point an accusing finger at Republicans. It's like little kids blaming each other for everything. Don't you see how ridiculous you all are?

No I guess you don't. Anyone who spends all their time arguing politics obviously is incapable of seeing the big picture.
 
Disney Gator said:
A little perspective. Apparently Bush lied about some things. This is a surprise? All Presidents have lied to the American people. Obviously some worse than others, but they all did it. Johnson (Dem) did it during wartime, and so did Nixon (Rep). It only seems worse in this case because he is the current President.

If Kerry had been elected he would be lying to us, and so would Gore if he had been elected. Doesn't anyone realize this? Politicians lie. Republicans sit and point an accusing finger at Democrats. Democrats point an accusing finger at Republicans. It's like little kids blaming each other for everything. Don't you see how ridiculous you all are?

No I guess you don't. Anyone who spends all their time arguing politics obviously is incapable of seeing the big picture.





Thank you for saying that!!! I looked at the signatures of the reps and senators and guess what??? Many of them saw the same information Bush did and voted for the war. Kerry was a huge supporter of the war too. Does that not make them all liars???
 
Setianarchist said:
After some added consideration, as a newly re-registered user, I've made the following observations:

1) JoeEpcotRocks is probably a tongue-in-cheek joke account.
2) It seems that most of the liberals around here like to make long entries with referenced information that is usually countered by equally long entries from conservatives consisting mostly of spewed, rehashed rhetoric and insistence on long disproven information.

Yep...wildly amusing isn't he?

The "spewed, rehashed rhetoric" is usually the talking points du jour of Oberfuhrer Rush, Faux News or the Freepers.

Welcome back.
 
Disney Gator said:
A little perspective. Apparently Bush lied about some things. This is a surprise? All Presidents have lied to the American people. Obviously some worse than others, but they all did it. Johnson (Dem) did it during wartime, and so did Nixon (Rep). It only seems worse in this case because he is the current President.

If Kerry had been elected he would be lying to us, and so would Gore if he had been elected. Doesn't anyone realize this? Politicians lie. Republicans sit and point an accusing finger at Democrats. Democrats point an accusing finger at Republicans. It's like little kids blaming each other for everything. Don't you see how ridiculous you all are?

No I guess you don't. Anyone who spends all their time arguing politics obviously is incapable of seeing the big picture.

:rotfl2:

Amen!
 
Lebjwb said:
"Irregardless" is not a word.


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead

Looks like it is a word.
 
superbird said:
Thank you for saying that!!! I looked at the signatures of the reps and senators and guess what??? Many of them saw the same information Bush did and voted for the war. Kerry was a huge supporter of the war too. Does that not make them all liars???

Did you read nothing?

They saw the same information Bush did, except Bush is one that ordered the information fabricated in the first place!
 
birdiesunshine said:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead

Looks like it is a word.

Sure it is, if you're Tony Soprano.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top