Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[Alpha1]

Cheney speaks for Bush. He's not some rogue, independent politician.

Thats like claiming when Cheney takes a crap, Bush gets a dirty ass....

Sorry, it just ain't so.....

Cool off and reconsider that....you know you're wrong....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

COLIN POWELL, February 2002: there is no doubt that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

COLIN POWELL, September 2002: there's no question that he has these (WMD) weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.

DICK CHENEY, August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx


These are all BEFORE the NIE was even put together. And they're lies.

NO they are not. The NIE did not just pop up on the date it was released. And intel work is YEAR round. These men were briefed BY the agencies that created the NIE. Unless it is your contention that ONLY on the date of the NIE did all those agency slap themselves on the forehead and go "damn" Saddam has WMD's would you even remotely be right.

 

[DeadCanDance]

NO they are not. The NIE did not just pop up on the date it was released. And intel work is YEAR round. These men were briefed BY the agencies that created the NIE. Unless it is your contention that ONLY on the date of the NIE did all those agency slap themselves on the forehead and go "damn" Saddam has WMD's would you even remotely be right.

The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October. Highly irregular. NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete.

They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies. Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information. The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence.

Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities had even been pooled together

 

[Alpha1]

COLIN POWELL, February 2002: there is no doubt that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

COLIN POWELL, September 2002: there's no question that he has these (WMD) weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.

DICK CHENEY, August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx


These are all BEFORE the NIE was even put together. And they're lies.

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

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Do you have a point to make, beside the fact that so many were WRONG.???

 

[DeadCanDance]

Thats like claiming when Cheney takes a crap, Bush gets a dirty ass....

Sorry, it just ain't so.....

Cool off and reconsider that....you know you're wrong....

translation: must...defend...bush...at all....costs


Cheney and Powell don't give speeches that haven't been cleared by the white house. They're speaking FOR the white house, and WITH their blessing. If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be participating on political message boards.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October. Highly irregular. NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete.

They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies. Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information. The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence.

Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities had even been pooled together

WRONG again, they havd for YEARS said the Saddam Had WMD's, your twisting and lying not withstanding.

Those agencies did not just wake up in late September and go " we need to decide if Saddam has weapons". And they ALL had intel since for ever. Or I guess in 98 when Clinton and his ENTIRE admin announced Saddam Had weapons they just made it up?

 

[Alpha1]

The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October. Highly irregular. NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete.

They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies. Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information. The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence.

Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities had even been pooled together

Don't be silly....NIE reports came to relatively the same conclusions about Saddam since the early 1990's......Almost everyone, Democrat or Republican, were convinced Iraq had a stockpile of WMD.....
Lets not get into rewriting history to feed your irrational Bush hate....

 

[Alpha1]

translation: must...defend...bush...at all....costs


Cheney and Powell don't give speeches that haven't been cleared by the white house. They're speaking FOR the white house, and WITH their blessing. If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be participating on political message boards.

Thats the lefties problem....

Read and understand EXACTLY what I write...not what you IMAGINE I write...

Thats what caused MM to mis characterize EXACTLY what Bush said....
He thinks it says what he wants it to say instead of what it actually says....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Well...if the debate was about Cheney, it would be a different ball game....but alas....its not about Cheney...its about the unproveable claim that BUSH LIED...
and reading the Bush quote should make that plain.....

Good, we appear to be 90% of the way towards agreement. the BUsh adminstration exaggerated and misled. i.e., lied.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush adminstration lying us into war. I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones.

It was his underlings that were sent out to lie. And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling. So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally

 

[Alpha1]

Good, we appear to be 90% of the way towards agreement. the BUsh adminstration exaggerated and misled. i.e., lied.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush adminstration lying us into war. I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones.

It was his underlings that were sent out to lie. And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling. So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally

I didn't get into this to defend the Bush Administration.....
I just tryed to clear up what Bush actually said, and what others perceived he said.....
I wouldn't blame Clinton for something M. Albright or Al Gore says.....nor will I condone blaming Bush for something Condi Rice or Cheney says.....

The only underlings I've ever seen actually sent out to lie about something was the gathering of Democrats, nicely posed in DC..about 15 or so in all......telling the press that Clinton didn't have sexual contact with 'that women'......the fuckin' joke of thedecade......

 

[Alpha1]

Good, we appear to be 90% of the way towards agreement. the BUsh adminstration exaggerated and misled. i.e., lied.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush adminstration lying us into war. I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones.

It was his underlings that were sent out to lie. And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling. So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally

I can understand the "shorthand"....we all do that to a degree....and no one really complains about it, except the parcing nazi Maineman, when it suits his purpose.....to make some usually dumb and insignificant point....

You remember Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell and others while you conveniently ignore Gore, Rockefeller, Hillary, Byrd, Graham, and others that have said EXACTLY.....EXACTLY the same things about Iraq.....

ironic isn't it......and if by chance some of you do not ignore these guys....you all come to the conclusion...the Dems were mislead, Repubs. lied.....thats pretty convenient too, isn't it.....

 

[maineman]

Yes you have, we HAVE the NIE, the very document that briefs the President on JUST this and what does it say? Provide that doubt you keep claiming. THERE IS NONE IN THAT REPORT. Further he did not say every Government agreed with him, he just said that other givernments agreed, no statement of all or even a majority.

Every Agency works together to produce the report we have that STATES Iraq has WMD's, NO DOUBT, NO Caveats. NONE.

and you continue to assert that the NIE was the ONLY piece of intelligence that Bush had ever seen about Saddam's WMD's or that it completely and totally superceded any and all of those previous reports. And, being an ESTIMATE, it did not contain all of the supporting justifications for its assessments.

 

[mattskramer]

Thanks for the good advice...I tell you what: I won't make a special trip to find his final resting place...but if I ever happen to be in the area, and have a full bladder, I know where I'm heading. fair enough?

Yeah...I guess so.

 

[Shogun]

Again, today is primaries. Put your "Bush didn't lie" lie on a tackboard and wave it around an intersection or something. Go cry on the shoulder of an exit poller. wear the t shirt and let everyone know who you are voting for THIS time around.


your opinions are just like gold this side of the run-up to invading iraq.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I can understand the "shorthand"....we all do that to a degree....and no one really complains about it, except the parcing nazi Maineman, when it suits his purpose.....to make some usually dumb and insignificant point....

You remember Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell and others while you conveniently ignore Gore, Rockefeller, Hillary, Byrd, Graham, and others that have said EXACTLY.....EXACTLY the same things about Iraq.....

ironic isn't it......and if by chance some of you do not ignore these guys....you all come to the conclusion...the Dems were mislead, Repubs. lied.....thats pretty convenient too, isn't it.....

Don't make assumptions. I've never denied that there were Democratic enablers to BushCo.'s lies and half-truths about Iraq. That why, whenever I have a opportunity I vote for a Democrat who was against the war in the beginning (or, has at least apologized and recoginzed it for the mistake it was), I vote for them. I've also never denied that Bill Clinton's iraq policy in the 1990s, was to a degree, built on lies and immorality. The threat from iraq was ALWAYS over rated, to help achieve other strategic objectives.

That said, I give BushCo. the vast, lions share of the responsiblity for lying us into a war. Lies in the 1990s may have been immoral, but they weren't designed to lead us into a war. Bush holds the tragic position that LBJ did. LBJ is held mostly resonsible for the lies that got us into the vietnam war. No one can even barely name the 98 senators that voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving LBJ a free hand to wage a costly and unneccessary war.

Likewise, it was BushCo. who were out there, selling this war with gusto and enthusiasm. They were criss crossing the country selling the war with a public relations campaign. It's their war, they wanted it, and they're the ones who pulled the trigger. The fact that they had enablers along the way is tragic. But, the vast lion's share of the blame for misleading america into a tragic, mistaken war, rests with BushCo.

 

[maineman]

well said, as always, DCD!

 

[JimH52]

Again, today is primaries. Put your "Bush didn't lie" lie on a tackboard and wave it around an intersection or something. Go cry on the shoulder of an exit poller. wear the t shirt and let everyone know who you are voting for THIS time around.


your opinions are just like gold this side of the run-up to invading iraq.

Good Idea! Ideas for a T-Shirt

-Bush Didn't Lie
-Bush is not as dumb as He Looks
-Bush is Waterboaded by Laura Daily
-Bush's IQ is greater than One Digit

 

[Zoomie1980]

Don't make assumptions. I've never denied that there were Democratic enablers to BushCo.'s lies and half-truths about Iraq. That why, whenever I have a opportunity I vote for a Democrat who was against the war in the beginning (or, has at least apologized and recoginzed it for the mistake it was), I vote for them. I've also never denied that Bill Clinton's iraq policy in the 1990s, was to a degree, built on lies and immorality. The threat from iraq was ALWAYS over rated, to help achieve other strategic objectives.

That said, I give BushCo. the vast, lions share of the responsiblity for lying us into a war. Lies in the 1990s may have been immoral, but they weren't designed to lead us into a war. Bush holds the tragic position that LBJ did. LBJ is held mostly resonsible for the lies that got us into the vietnam war. No one can even barely name the 98 senators that voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving LBJ a free hand to wage a costly and unneccessary war.

Likewise, it was BushCo. who were out there, selling this war with gusto and enthusiasm. They were criss crossing the country selling the war with a public relations campaign. It's their war, they wanted it, and they're the ones who pulled the trigger. The fact that they had enablers along the way is tragic. But, the vast lion's share of the blame for misleading america into a tragic, mistaken war, rests with BushCo.

I have yet to figure out what is so "tragic" about Iraq? We rid the world of a genocidal madman and acquired some very strategic military bases to make containing, and if needed attacking Iran very easy now! We have the mullahs surrounded on THREE SIDES now!! Nothing tragic at all about that. And we've lost less soldiers than we lost in 12 HOURS on Normandy or Iwo Jima.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have yet to figure out what is so "tragic" about Iraq? We rid the world of a genocidal madman and acquired some very strategic military bases to make containing, and if needed attacking Iran very easy now! We have the mullahs surrounded on THREE SIDES now!! Nothing tragic at all about that. And we've lost less soldiers than we lost in 12 HOURS on Normandy or Iwo Jima.

And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..

 

[Alpha1]

And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..

Its your reasoning that is unacceptable and quite childish....
Like saying if I find if reasonable to catch robbers and murderers, it is only reasonable that I personally be expected to join the police force....

Or if I find it reasonable to support the fireman that put out my neighbors burning house, I need to become a fireman....

Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....

And you may ignore the facts of history, in that; the entire UN believed, just about the entire civilized world believed that Saddam had WMD and was a danger to almost everyone....Those are the beliefs that led to the events that followed....
So don't give us crap about 'immediate threat'.....
There was no threat to us in Yugoslavia and only an erroneous belief in a threat from Iraq... a mistake on that one point...