Once Again, Evidence Bush lied please.

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
55,268
17,552
2,260
North Carolina
You Liberals keep repeating the lie that Bush somehow lied us into a war.

You have had 10 years to get some evidence. Please be so kind as to provide it.

What I have is the fact that EVERY Major Country in the World in 2002 BELIEVED Iraq had WMD's, including the leaders of the Democratic party and the previous Democratic party President and his Executive Branch. I have 3 Congressional Investigations, all of which STATE Bush did not lie to get us into a war.

I have statements from the UN before the war that support the believe that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD's. I have captured documents from Iraq that show Saddam was in bed with terrorists and shopping around for someone to attack the US, that he maintained his scientific team for when sanctions were lifted so he could return to a quest for the Bomb and he maintained a stockpile of materials to immediately return to mass production of Chemical and Biological weapons when sanctions were lifted.

You liberals have what?
 
You Liberals keep repeating the lie that Bush somehow lied us into a war.

You have had 10 years to get some evidence. Please be so kind as to provide it.

What I have is the fact that EVERY Major Country in the World in 2002 BELIEVED Iraq had WMD's, including the leaders of the Democratic party and the previous Democratic party President and his Executive Branch. I have 3 Congressional Investigations, all of which STATE Bush did not lie to get us into a war.

I have statements from the UN before the war that support the believe that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD's. I have captured documents from Iraq that show Saddam was in bed with terrorists and shopping around for someone to attack the US, that he maintained his scientific team for when sanctions were lifted so he could return to a quest for the Bomb and he maintained a stockpile of materials to immediately return to mass production of Chemical and Biological weapons when sanctions were lifted.

You liberals have what?

You want an example of a bold-faced Bush lie?

On April 20th, Bush said the following:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
What we didn't know at the time and wouldn't find out for another year and a half is that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2001.

Now, Bush lied. He also broke the law, period. So, it isn't a stretch of the imagination to believe that Bush and members of his administration lied us into the war in Iraq, regardless of their motivations.
 
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was full of lies.

I suppose you could claim that Bush didn't sign off on that, although that would make him look worse than a liar.
 
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - CIA - Salon.com
 
You Liberals keep repeating the lie that Bush somehow lied us into a war.

You have had 10 years to get some evidence. Please be so kind as to provide it.

What I have is the fact that EVERY Major Country in the World in 2002 BELIEVED Iraq had WMD's, including the leaders of the Democratic party and the previous Democratic party President and his Executive Branch. I have 3 Congressional Investigations, all of which STATE Bush did not lie to get us into a war.

I have statements from the UN before the war that support the believe that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD's. I have captured documents from Iraq that show Saddam was in bed with terrorists and shopping around for someone to attack the US, that he maintained his scientific team for when sanctions were lifted so he could return to a quest for the Bomb and he maintained a stockpile of materials to immediately return to mass production of Chemical and Biological weapons when sanctions were lifted.

You liberals have what?

You want an example of a bold-faced Bush lie?

On April 20th, Bush said the following:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
What we didn't know at the time and wouldn't find out for another year and a half is that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2001.

Now, Bush lied. He also broke the law, period. So, it isn't a stretch of the imagination to believe that Bush and members of his administration lied us into the war in Iraq, regardless of their motivations.

He did not lie. Warrantless wire taps have been legal for quite a while before Bush became President, before the Patriot Act was ever even contemplated. Further Any wire tap that was taken with out a warrant was not and still is not admissible in a Court of Law. Any LEGAL action to be taken would r5equire a warrant.

But to the point. Even if it were a lie, it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has nothing to do with the lies told by you and others as if they were facts. Provide evidence or quit telling the lie.
 
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was full of lies.

I suppose you could claim that Bush didn't sign off on that, although that would make him look worse than a liar.

Provide evidence it was full of lies. Explain why 3 DIFFERENT Congressional Investigations all came to the same conclusion, NO LIES were told. I am waiting.
 
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - CIA - Salon.com

And yet this same info was available to all 3 Congressional Investigations and was found not warranting of saying Bush lied.

Lets break it down shall we? You have an unsubstantiated claim with no back up. No evidence it actually happened. Except a single claim. Further even if it were true it was not Bush that failed to disclose this supposed intel but Tenant. Further lets assume for a moment it happened. One source out of hundreds is hardly earth shattering or conclusive. Tenant not Bush wrote the CIA portion of the intel brief. Anything NOT in it would be Tenant's fault not Bush's. Dismissing a single source out of hundreds is hardly a proof of a lie. But then you know that don't you?
 
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - CIA - Salon.com

Then again, neocons wanted war and 9/11 was the perfect excuse to go on a nation building exercise to put the Defense Policy Guidance into practice.

No matter what, Bush apologetics will defend his actions and the war on Iraq - a nation that posed no threat to us.
 
RGR. you can defend Bush's lies all you care to.

At the end of the day, over 4500 of America's sons and daughters are dead because of the statements that all of this nation now understand were lies. Add to that the debt of at least 3 trillion that Bush saddled us with for that idiotic adventure. And while we were engaged there, Bin Laden, the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil, went free. And Bush's terms ended with this nation in an economic freefall.

Fortunately we had a Democratic President to end that freefall, save our auto industry, and end both the Iraq war, and Bin Laden.
 
Things might be different if Bush would have said:

"Well, we thought there were WMD's there. Turns out there wasn't any. We'll do our best to clean up the mess we made".

But no, he just changed the mission.

"It's about Democracy for Iraq!"
 
RGR. you can defend Bush's lies all you care to.

At the end of the day, over 4500 of America's sons and daughters are dead because of the statements that all of this nation now understand were lies. Add to that the debt of at least 3 trillion that Bush saddled us with for that idiotic adventure. And while we were engaged there, Bin Laden, the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil, went free. And Bush's terms ended with this nation in an economic freefall.

Fortunately we had a Democratic President to end that freefall, save our auto industry, and end both the Iraq war, and Bin Laden.

You keep telling bald faced lies, all of this Nation does NOT believe Bush lied and you have ZERO evidence.
 
RGR. you can defend Bush's lies all you care to.

At the end of the day, over 4500 of America's sons and daughters are dead because of the statements that all of this nation now understand were lies. Add to that the debt of at least 3 trillion that Bush saddled us with for that idiotic adventure. And while we were engaged there, Bin Laden, the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil, went free. And Bush's terms ended with this nation in an economic freefall.

Fortunately we had a Democratic President to end that freefall, save our auto industry, and end both the Iraq war, and Bin Laden.

You keep telling bald faced lies, all of this Nation does NOT believe Bush lied and you have ZERO evidence.

He didn't lie. He manipulated.
 
Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves.

We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;
* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners. Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely.

Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

2. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests.

We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq. To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Ba'athist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shi'ite groups. The Ba'athist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran.

At the same time, our democratization policy has installed Shi'ite majorities and pro-Iranian groups in power in Baghdad, especially in the ministries of interior and defense. Moreover, our counterinsurgency operations are, as unintended (but easily foreseeable) consequences, first, greater Shi'ite openness to Iranian influence and second, al-Qaeda's entry into Iraq and rooting itself in some elements of Iraqi society.

3. On the international level, the war has effectively paralyzed the United States militarily and strategically, denying it any prospect of revising its strategy toward an attainable goal.

As long as US forces remained engaged in Iraq, not only will the military costs go up, but also the incentives will decline for other states to cooperate with Washington to find a constructive outcome. This includes not only countries contiguous to Iraq but also Russia and key American allies in Europe. In their view, we deserve the pain we are suffering for our arrogance and unilateralism.

4. Overthrowing the Iraqi regime in 2003 insured that the country would fragment into at least three groups; Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. In other words, the invasion made it inevitable that a civil war would be required to create a new central government able to control all of Iraq. Yet a civil war does not insure it. No faction may win the struggle.

A lengthy stalemate, or a permanent breakup of the country is possible. The invasion also insured that outside countries and groups would become involved. Al-Qaeda and Iran are the most conspicuous participants so far, Turkey and Syria less so. If some of the wealthy oil-producing countries on the Arabian Peninsula are not already involved, they are most likely to support with resources any force in Iraq that opposes Iranian influence.

Many critics argue that, had the invasion been done "right," such as sending in much larger forces for reestablishing security and government services, the war would have been a success. This argument is not convincing. Such actions might have delayed a civil war but could not have prevented it. Therefore, any military programs or operations having the aim of trying to reverse this reality, insisting that we can now "do it right," need to be treated with the deepest of suspicion.

That includes the proposal to sponsor the breakup by creating three successor states. To do so would be to preside over the massive ethnic cleansing operations required for the successor states to be reasonably stable. Ethnic cleansing is happening in spite of the US military in Iraq, but I see no political or moral advantage for the United States to become its advocate. We are already being blamed as its facilitator.

Let me now turn to key aspects of the president's revised approach to the war, as well as several other proposals.

In addition to the president, a number of people and groups have supported increased US force levels. As General Colin Powell has said, before we consider sending additional US troops, we must examine what missions they will have. I would add that we ask precisely what those troops must do to reverse any of these four present realities created by the invasion. I cannot conceive of any achievable missions they could be given to cause a reversal.

Just for purposes of analysis, let us suppose we had unlimited numbers of US troops to deploy in Iraq. Would that change my assessment? In principle, if two or three million troops were deployed there with the latitude to annihilate all resistance without much attention to collateral civilian casualties and human rights, order might well be temporarily reestablished under a reign of US terror.

The problem we would then face is that we would be opposed not only by 26 million Iraqis but also by millions of Arabs and Iranians surrounding Iraq, peoples angered by our treatment of Muslims and Arabs. These outsiders are already involved to some degree in the internal war in Iraq, and any increase of US forces is likely to be exceeded by additional outside support for insurgents.

I never cease to be amazed at our military commanders' apparent belief that the "order of battle" of the opposition forces they face are limited to Iraq. I say "apparent" because those commanders may be constrained by the administration's policies from correcting this mistaken view.

Once the invasion began, Muslims in general and Arabs in particular could be expected to take sides against the United States. In other words, we went to war not just against the Iraqi forces and insurgent groups but also against a large part of the Arab world, scores and scores of millions. Most Arab governments, of course, are neutral or somewhat supportive, but their publics in growing numbers are against us.

It is a strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq. Yet this is the implicit assumption on which the president's new strategy is based. We have turned it into two wars that vastly exceed the borders of Iraq. First, there is the war against the US occupation that draws both sympathy and material support from other Arab countries. Second, there is the Shi'ite-Sunni war, a sectarian conflict heretofore sublimated within the Arab world but that now has opened the door to Iranian influence in Iraq. In turn, it foreordains an expanding Iranian-Arab regional conflict.

Any military proposals today that do not account for both larger wars, as well as the Iranian threat to the Arab states on the Persian Gulf, must be judged wholly inadequate if not counterproductive. Let me now turn to some specific proposals, those advocated by independent voices and the Iraq Study Group as well as the administration.

Specific Proposals:

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions - by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.)
 
Bush Admits Lying to Press

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBgGXoNgrQ]Bush Admits Lying to the Press - YouTube[/ame]
 
Today, a Russian told me that there were WMD's in Iraq. But Russia, at the request of George Bush, moved them out of Iraq. The reason is because they had "Made In America" all over them.

But don't worry, I laughed in his face too.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top