President Bush and top administration officials issued 935 false statements on Iraq

[Meister]

I'm not STOOPID...your STOOPID



(I WIN two to one )

Eh, yeah, you are stupid, or just willfully stupid, your pick.
If you don't want to be called stupid, try not to post like you are, leftwinger.
There are reasons why bias people such as ourselves don't write history, we leave it to historians years down the road.

I have already established that you are STOOPID by a two to one margin

Your posts have already established your

We judge based on what we know today...thats all we have. To whine that we can't judge Bush for another 100 years is just....whats the word?........STOOPID

I give up, leftwinger, you don't stand a chance with your lack of critical thinking. You hear the bias and that is is what YOU would write history on. Yeah, I get it...it's me.

 

[trobinett]

Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

I'll just leave this here.

Let me get this right, since 2008 you've made over 20,000 fucking post on this site?

You SHOULD leave it the fuck alone, you are without a doubt one fucked up individual, who has NO fucking life.

Just wanted to get that POINT straight.

Now, carry one, and God bless................

 

[Meister]

Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

I'll just leave this here.

Let me get this right, since 2008 you've made over 20,000 fucking post on this site?

You SHOULD leave it the fuck alone, you are without a doubt one fucked up individual, who has NO fucking life.

Just wanted to get that POINT straight.

Now, carry one, and God bless................

That ain't right, Trobinett. Dog does lean left and I rarely agree with him, but I do respect most of his threads. Look at the milage this thread has. He has his place on this board as does anyone who follows the rules.

 

[jillian]

That ain't right, Trobinett. Dog does lean left and I rarely agree with him, but I do respect most of his threads. Look at the milage this thread has. He has his place on this board as does anyone who follows the rules.

you know how some people are, they hate anyone who doesn't think like them.

just the values that people fight for, eh?

 

[elvis]

I did not see Bill Clinton start a war that led to 4000 dead Americans

that's not what I asked.

That is what history has recorded

that bill clinton and bush lied about WMD's? really? history according to whom? Michael Moore?

 

[uscitizen]

You and comprehension are not friends, leftwinger, try reading and responding to the whole post, and not just part of the post. Damn you can be dense.
"WE" are judging Bush, and "WE" are judging Obama, with "OUR" bias opinions. Are you with me so far? Please say "yes I'm with you".
The historians in 75 to 100 years from now when "WE" won't be around with our bias, will be the ones that are writing history for Bush, AND Obama.

Please tell me leftwinger, that now you know what I mean, and that your post was as stupid as it sounded to eveyone else that read it.

WE know what WE know TODAY

Bush LIED and thousands of US Soldiers DIED

History will duly record it.

how do you know bush lied? as opposed to made a mistake?

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

 

[elvis]

WE know what WE know TODAY

Bush LIED and thousands of US Soldiers DIED

History will duly record it.

how do you know bush lied? as opposed to made a mistake?

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

what proof was shown to him?

 

[Meister]

how do you know bush lied? as opposed to made a mistake?

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

what proof was shown to him?

Oh you know, the guy who had a cousin who had a friend that was in the "know" over there.

 

[elvis]

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

what proof was shown to him?

Oh you know, the guy who had a cousin who had a friend that was in the "know" over there.

and then, was there contrary proof shown to the French, Russians, and Germans?

 

[rightwinger]

WE know what WE know TODAY

Bush LIED and thousands of US Soldiers DIED

History will duly record it.

how do you know bush lied? as opposed to made a mistake?

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

"British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." –President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

Bush was specifically told not to include this in his speech. As usual, he did not let the facts get in the way of a good story

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

 

[elvis]

how do you know bush lied? as opposed to made a mistake?

He was shown proof to the contrary and still mentioned it in his state of the union speech.

"British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." –President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

Bush was specifically told not to include this in his speech. As usual, he did not let the facts get in the way of a good story

condi wanted that removed, but she was intimidated by cheney.

 

[American Horse]

It is vitally important for certain factions in this country (and clear thinking people know who they are) to discredit every word spoken by former President Bush. But every instance claiming that he was untruthful, or gave false statements is open to interpretation or to counter claims of his having been truthful.

It is pointless to take the claims one at a time because they have less credibility than Bush’s statements had at the time they were made, and have turned out. It is a well known fact that Saddam Hussein financed terrorist suicide bombers, if only by donating a large sum of money to the families of those who succeed in their suicide bombing attempts against western human targets. The skulls and skeletons of his victims show his willingness to murder many hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, by using poison gas; a mass destruction of human life.

One must ask why is it so important that these blackguards succeed in making Bush out as A liar? In my opinion, it is to discredit and set aside his accomplishments, particularly in national security, and foreign affairs so as create an atmosphere in which any candidate who would follow in hisfootsteps will be discredited and found, a priori. to be ignoble. That is so commonly understood that it makes his attackers less credible because their voices are so shrill, their agenda so obvious.

Going forward these tactics will fail because a preponderance of people who were paying attention during the historical moments as they actually played out know the history and the unanimity of the voices of the policymakers concurrent with the events. People pay closer attention, and are less sheep than our elite chattering classes are willing to accept.

It gets so old to hear these selfsame blackguards, such that responsible writers dedicated to and interested in an accurate historical account will be more persuasive than those who want so badly to destroy the accomplishments of Bush, so as to restore the status quo ante.

 

[CurveLight]

75 to 100 years from now there will be historians that will write the legacy of the Iraq war. They will have the true facts on the reasons and give an honest assessment of the Iraq War.
Until then it will be nothing but bias opinions from each side that claims the other side is rewriting history. But it makes for a good thread, huh?

LOL

The same old "You can't judge Bush for another 100 years....but we can judge Obama after 1 year"

You and comprehension are not friends, leftwinger, try reading and responding to the whole post, and not just part of the post. Damn you can be dense.
"WE" are judging Bush, and "WE" are judging Obama, with "OUR" bias opinions. Are you with me so far? Please say "yes I'm with you".
The historians in 75 to 100 years from now when "WE" won't be around with our bias, will be the ones that are writing history for Bush, AND Obama.

Please tell me leftwinger, that now you know what I mean, and that your post was as stupid as it sounded to eveyone else that read it.

The idiocy of your post was claiming there will not be any bias by historians 100 years from now.

 

[elvis]

LOL

The same old "You can't judge Bush for another 100 years....but we can judge Obama after 1 year"

You and comprehension are not friends, leftwinger, try reading and responding to the whole post, and not just part of the post. Damn you can be dense.
"WE" are judging Bush, and "WE" are judging Obama, with "OUR" bias opinions. Are you with me so far? Please say "yes I'm with you".
The historians in 75 to 100 years from now when "WE" won't be around with our bias, will be the ones that are writing history for Bush, AND Obama.

Please tell me leftwinger, that now you know what I mean, and that your post was as stupid as it sounded to eveyone else that read it.

The idiocy of your post was claiming there will not be any bias by historians 100 years from now.

Yeah, they will all say that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers.

 

[CurveLight]

It is vitally important for certain factions in this country (and clear thinking people know who they are) to discredit every word spoken by former President Bush. But every instance claiming that he was untruthful, or gave false statements is open to interpretation or to counter claims of his having been truthful.

It is pointless to take the claims one at a time because they have less credibility than Bush’s statements had at the time they were made, and have turned out. It is a well known fact that Saddam Hussein financed terrorist suicide bombers, if only by donating a large sum of money to the families of those who succeed in their suicide bombing attempts against western human targets. The skulls and skeletons of his victims show his willingness to murder many hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, by using poison gas; a mass destruction of human life.

One must ask why is it so important that these blackguards succeed in making Bush out as A liar? In my opinion, it is to discredit and set aside his accomplishments, particularly in national security, and foreign affairs so as create an atmosphere in which any candidate who would follow in hisfootsteps will be discredited and found, a priori. to be ignoble. That is so commonly understood that it makes his attackers less credible because their voices are so shrill, their agenda so obvious.

Going forward these tactics will fail because a preponderance of people who were paying attention during the historical moments as they actually played out know the history and the unanimity of the voices of the policymakers concurrent with the events. People pay closer attention, and are less sheep than our elite chattering classes are willing to accept.

It gets so old to hear these selfsame blackguards, such that responsible writers dedicated to and interested in an accurate historical account will be more persuasive than those who want so badly to destroy the accomplishments of Bush, so as to restore the status quo ante.

You can almost hear brain cells hitting supernova. Only a fucking backwoods wannabe fox commentator could actually try to argue people are so pissed at bush for his accomplishments that they seek to make him appear to be a liar to hide his accomplishments.

Listen up you fuxxing rice burning reject: the bush admin did not make us a more secure nation. They accomlished exactly the opposite but you're so fucking clueless about geo-politics 101 you actually think we are more safe due to policies by the bush admin.

 

[CurveLight]

You and comprehension are not friends, leftwinger, try reading and responding to the whole post, and not just part of the post. Damn you can be dense.
"WE" are judging Bush, and "WE" are judging Obama, with "OUR" bias opinions. Are you with me so far? Please say "yes I'm with you".
The historians in 75 to 100 years from now when "WE" won't be around with our bias, will be the ones that are writing history for Bush, AND Obama.

Please tell me leftwinger, that now you know what I mean, and that your post was as stupid as it sounded to eveyone else that read it.

The idiocy of your post was claiming there will not be any bias by historians 100 years from now.

Yeah, they will all say that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers.

If unknown facts revealed that you would still deny it because your identity is so wrapped up in the government of your choosing it is nearly impossible for you to be honest when faced with the dilemma of rushed independence versus the safety zone of your illusions that the politicians you support are mostly honest and actually care about you.

 

[elvis]

The idiocy of your post was claiming there will not be any bias by historians 100 years from now.

Yeah, they will all say that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers.

If unknown facts revealed that you would still deny it because your identity is so wrapped up in the government of your choosing it is nearly impossible for you to be honest when faced with the dilemma of rushed independence versus the safety zone of your illusions that the politicians you support are mostly honest and actually care about you.

yeah yeah yeah yeah......

dumbfuck truther.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003

RW ....are you sure you havent left any quotes out?.....how come i dont see quotes from Democrats,leaders from Europe and the UN....who have made the same claims?....

He also fails to note the captured documents that CLEARLY show Saddam WAS determined to get Nuclear weapons. He maintained his scientific teams, he maintained critical test and research equipment. He is quoted in the documents as stating he would return to mass production of biological and chemical warfare materials as soon as the UN restrictions were removed. That he would return to research on Nuclear weapons at the same time.

He was paying China, Russia and France to lift those sanctions.

of that i have no doubt....

 

[Darkwind]

Well, so far, I haven't seen a false statement made. But then, reading comprehension hasn't been a big requirement from those on this forum that lean to the left.

 

[Harry Dresden]

75 to 100 years from now there will be historians that will write the legacy of the Iraq war. They will have the true facts on the reasons and give an honest assessment of the Iraq War.
Until then it will be nothing but bias opinions from each side that claims the other side is rewriting history. But it makes for a good thread, huh?

LOL

The same old "You can't judge Bush for another 100 years....but we can judge Obama after 1 year"

Rw....i seem to recall Bush getting judged on every move he made..... Obama's the President...he wanted the job....welcome to the club....