The Big Lie is Bush Lied

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Libs continue to lie how Pres Bush lied. Libs want to forget how Democrats like the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Kennedy and others all said they same thing about WMD's and Saddam



Bush Lied is the Big Lie
By Debra Saunders

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson wants to impeach President Bush. In arguing that point, he asked Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, "Have you seen the National Intelligence Estimate that was provided in October of 2002, in which the intelligence agency under the State Department said that Iraq was not building up a nuclear capability, that this whole story about the aluminum tubes (reportedly sought by Saddam Hussein in Niger) was completely off base?"

I decided to re-read the NIE excerpts that the administration released. What does the report say? "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The NIE also reported that Iraq had "expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production," that Baghdad had renewed production of mustard and sarin gases, and that Iraqi missiles could threaten the "U.S. homeland."

Yes, the NIE key judgments reported that some officials in the State Department did not believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing a "comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." But the report also noted that, "Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed -- December 1998."

So let us review the Bush-lied argument that Anderson and other war critics espouse. They say Bush lied about WMD, when, in fact, America's best intelligence presented no doubt about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. And according to the NIE, most intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had been working on nukes for four years.

Here's another point that the Bush-lied misinformation campaign has forgotten. While war critics point to Bush's inclusion of this sentence -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- in his 2003 State of the Union Address as proof that Bush misled the country into war, Bush uttered those words three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Bush Lied is the Big Lie. It takes the controversy over one aspect of U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD -- the nuclear program question -- to argue that the whole WMD argument was bogus. That is, the president's accusers are guilty of the very sort of dishonest selectivity that they accuse Bush of using.

Now the Bush-lied lie is boomeranging on those Democratic presidential hopefuls -- Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards -- who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

By going along with the Bush-lied spin, by refusing to acknowledge that the intelligence community presented strong reasons to vote for war, these Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner. They now have only one rationale for their vote that they can use -- they were duped by the nincompoop Bush -- or one rationale that they cannot use -- they sent U.S. troops to Iraq against their better judgment but out of naked ambition.

And the dishonesty now has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the uncomfortable position of pushing for passage of a bill to continue funding a war into next year that the grassroots believe was based on a lie.

So how does Pelosi plan on getting the House to pass the Iraq spending bill? As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic leadership has larded the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act with pork. After all the (deserved) rhetoric decrying Republican big spending, the Democratic leadership inserted $25 million for spinach growers, $75 million for peanut storage, and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen into the supplemental spending bill.

The idea is to sweeten the pot so that war opponents will agree to fund a war they oppose, while war supporters will vote for the bill, despite provisions the seem to be designed solely to undermine the Bush surge.

Pelosi frequently says that President Bush must heed the message that American voters sent in November 2006. Who knew that message was to fund the war while undermining the war effort and to spend more tax dollars on pork?

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_lied_is_the_big_lie.html
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
It has more to do with how liberals define the word lie. To them a lie is when something is claimed to be, then turns out to not be the case. They seem to forget that the truth must be known before hand in order for one to lie about it. Example, Bush claimed there was evidence that Saddam had WMDs, turns out not so much so. So in liberal's minds, he lied.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
It has more to do with how liberals define the word lie. To them a lie is when something is claimed to be, then turns out to not be the case. They seem to forget that the truth must be known before hand in order for one to lie about it. Example, Bush claimed there was evidence that Saddam had WMDs, turns out not so much so. So in liberal's minds, he lied.
See I'm not so sure about that. I think they essentially define a lie as anything a Republican says that they dont like.
 

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,097
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
Bush's Top 10 Lies, Exaggerations And 'Obsfucations'
About His Military Service
by Nancy Skinner
co-host of "Ski & Skinner" on WLS-AM Chicago

Governor Bush has made credibility the central issue of this campaign, and makes almost daily references to the Vice President’s alleged exaggerations and lack of truthfulness. But on a subject that could not be more important for his presidential candidacy, his own military service, the record shows that George W. Bush has exaggerated and even lied about his service. Governor Bush took a solemn oath during wartime to serve his country in the Texas Air National Guard. He did not honor that oath He walked away. And in this presidential campaign, he has made several misrepresentations about his service. A number of newspaper reports and even more accounts on Internet websites, based on Freedom Of Information Act requests of Bush’s official military record, have concluded that he completely missed at least one year of service, and may not have shown up in person for his last year. While those reports continue to be debated, the following statements by Bush and his aides are directly contradicted by the current record.

#1 Bush never showed up in Alabama Air National Guard when directly ordered to do so, after requesting a transfer to work in Alabama.

“I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time” Bush said during a campaign stop in Tuscaloosa, AL, referring to his claim that he served in the Alabama National Guard. [Dallas Morning News, 6/26/00]

"He specifically recalls pulling duty in Alabama," spokesman Dan Bartlett said of Bush. "He did his drills." Bartlett said the Republican governor showed up "several" times while in Alabama, where he transferred from his Houston Guard unit in 1972 to work for the unsuccessful Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. [Washington Post 6/25/00]

The Truth

Bush left Houston May 15, 1972 and went to work on a political campaign in Alabama. His first request for a transfer on May 24 was denied because the unit was inactive. His second request on September 5 to a different unit was granted. He was issued a direct order to report on specific days to the base, which he completely ignored. The order was issued on September 15 to report to then-Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force base in Montgomery, AL, on the dates of “7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600” His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said: "Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training." [Boston Globe 5/23/00] http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc11.gif

· His Commanding Officer, William Turnipseed, says he did not show up.

"To my knowledge, he never showed up," Turnipseed said last month. [Boston Globe 5/23/00] In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting. ''Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,'' Turnipseed said. ''I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.'' Turnipseed also reports that the then-squadron operations officer of the Alabama Guard also has no recollection of having seen Bush.(The New Republic 10/16/2000)

“Furthermore, a spokesman for the Alabama National Guard estimates there were 600 to 700 members in the unit Bush was supposed to have served with in 1972. But none of these men has ever come forward to say he remembers Bush, and Bush has not named a single one of them.”(The New Republic 10/16/2000)

· There is no official National Guard record for George W. Bush’s service in Alabama.

“His official discharge records do not include any service after May 15 of 1972. Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd (Albert Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995 and was hired by the Bush campaign to make sense of the governor's military records) said, ''there should have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973.'' Said Lloyd, ''It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost interest, since he knew he was getting out.'' [Boston Globe 5/23/00]

· No one in the Alabama National Guard ever saw him.

“A spokesman for the Alabama National Guard estimates there were 600 to 700 members in the unit Bush was supposed to have served with in 1972. But none of these men has ever come forward to say he remembers Bush, and Bush has not named a single one of them.” (The New Republic 10/16/2000)

Even though members of the Alabama Air National Guard have offered $1000 to anyone who can remember serving with Bush, no one has come forward to corroborate his service, with the exception of an old girlfriend who says she remembers him saying he was going, but does not have any other evidence, essentially making it her word against Bush’s commanding officers’ and a lack of official documents as noted above.

· Even the Bush campaign claims that he only showed up on a single day in November and made up missed weekends, not contesting the fact that he defied direct orders to appear on the dates stated above.

“National Guard records provided by the Guard and by the Bush campaign indicate he did serve on Nov. 29, 1972, after the election. These records also show a gap in service from that time to the previous May. Mr. Bush says he made up for the lost time in subsequent months, and guard records show he received credit for having performed all the required service.” [NYT 7/22/00]

The evidence to support Bush’s service on November 29, 1972 is highly suspect for the following reasons:

- The document offered to dispute the claim by his commanding officers in Alabama is a single torn document that does not have Bush’s name on it, is undated and unsigned. The document was “discovered” in 1998 by the man Bush hired to investigate his record, Al Loyd, and added to the official record. This late addition to the official record also raises additional chain of command issues.

- There are two different versions of the document. The one ‘discovered’ by Mr. Loyd and given to George Magazine has handwritten annotations. The other version came from Mr. Bush’s official record through a FOIA request by Martin Heldt. http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc99.gif The FOIA version did not have any annotations.

- The document comes from the Texas National Guard Archives according to the numbering in the right hand corner of the document, even though duty reports were localized at the time, meaning his service in Alabama would not have been recorded by the Texas Air National Guard.

#2 Bush didn’t return to Ellington Air Force Base after his temporary transfer as required.

A Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said after talking with the governor that Bush recalls performing some duty in Alabama and ''recalls coming back to Houston and doing [Guard] duty, though he does not recall if it was on a consistent basis.''

Noting that Bush, by that point, was no longer flying, Bartlett added, ''It's possible his presence and role became secondary.'' [Boston Globe 5/23/00]

The Truth

· According to his annual evaluation by his commanding officers, he may have been in Houston but he was not at the base.

“Cleared this base 15 May 1972” According to Lieutenant Colonel William Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian in Bush’s annual evaluation , Ellis Air Force Base, Houston. The report makes clear that Bush had “not been observed ” at his Texas unit “during the period of this report” – May 1972-April 1973.” [Boston Globe 5/23/00]

· Even his commanding officer, whom he called a “friend” did not know where he was.

“Asked about that declaration, campaign spokesman Bartlett said Bush told him that since he was no longer flying, he was doing ''odds and ends'' under different supervisors whose names he could not recall. But retired colonel Martin, the unit's former administrative officer, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that Killian knew where Bush was.” [Boston Globe 5/23/00]

#3 He quit flying in Texas because his plane was replaced.

In his autobiography, Mr. Bush explains that when he applied to Harvard Business School in 1972, “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard, and was no longer flying because the F102 jet I has trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”

The Truth
· “His unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974 [Boston Globe 5/23/00] “If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out” said retired Major Bobby W. Hodges, “But I don’t remember him coming back at all”’.

· “Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972, there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102 in 1973.”[Boston Globe 5/23/00]

· His commitment was through May of 1974. (An exaggeration?)

#4 He wasn’t flying in Alabama because they had different planes.

On June 26th this report appeared in the Dallas Morning News. “Campaigning Friday in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Bush was asked about his 1972 service in that state. "I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends." "I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations."

The Truth
· He was no longer flying because he had been suspended in August of 1972 for failure to “accomplish” a required medical exam. [Boston Globe, 5/23/00] (Suspension document at http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/grounded.gif)

· Bush was suspended from flying on August 1, 1972, prior to his request for the transfer to the187th at Montgomery Alabama, September 5, 1972. Bush did not receive permission until September 15, which was close to six weeks after his suspension from flying.

· Another question is raised by the fact that he cannot remember what he did for the Air National Guard in Alabama, despite the fact that 28 years later he still remembers the specifics of his work there on the campaign of William Blount as cited in a July 22, 2000 New York Times article. “In an interview 28 years later, Mr. Bush remembered the numbers. "We all teamed together and helped Red get about 36 percent of the vote," he said with a short laugh, "in spite of the fact that Nixon had gotten 72 percent of the vote. The ticket-splitting was phenomenal."”

#5 Three different stories on why he was suspended.

Story #1) "Bush's campaign aides have said he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston." [Boston Globe 5/23/00].

The Truth
· In fact as the Boston Globe goes on to state "flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and some were assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living."

Story #2) Then in June, campaign officials told the London Times Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," according to campaign spokesman Don Bartlett.

· Any suggestion that he had simply decided to “give up flying” prior to his suspension, with two years remaining on his commitment and nearly one million dollars (in real terms) invested in his training is not plausible. It is not up to an Air National Guard pilot to decide whether or not he “intends” to fly.

· “If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out” said retired Major Bobby W. Hodges [Boston Glove 5/23/00]

Story #3) In the same article, Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told the newspaper that Bush was aware back then that he would be suspended for missing his medical exam, but had no choice because he had applied for a transfer from Houston to Alabama and his paperwork hadn't caught up with him. "It was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time," Bartlett said. "He knew the suspension would have to take place."

· The exam was required to be completed in the three months preceding his birthday, July 6, 1972. A three month window seems adequate to avoid being suspended from flying.

So which is it: his family physician, he didn’t have to take the exam, or a bureaucratic snafu?

#6 Bush denied strings were pulled to get him in the Texas Air National Guard.

“I can just tell you, from my perspective, I never asked for, I don't believe I received special treatment," Bush told reporters.” [DMN 9/08/99]

The Truth

· “Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed Monday that he recommended Gov. George W. Bush for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, at the request of a Bush family friend. Mr. Barnes' account came in a written statement that was released after he testified in a deposition stemming from a federal lawsuit.’ [DMN 9/28/99]

· “The statement by Mr. Barnes also confirmed that he met a year ago with a top Bush adviser to discuss the Guard matter. As reported in The News, Mr. Bush sent a note thanking Mr. Barnes for his help in rebutting rumors that Mr. Bush's father helped his son find a Guard slot, the statement confirmed.” [DMN 9/08/99]

· "Mr. Barnes was contacted by [Houston businessman] Sid Adger and asked to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot position with the Air National Guard," Mr. Barnes' statement said. "Barnes called Gen. [James] Rose and did so." [DMN 9/28/00]

"No Bush ever asked Sid Adger to help," the governor said.[DMN 9/28/00]

· “A spokeswoman for former President George Bush confirmed the elder Bush's friendship with Mr. Adger but said he was "almost positive" he never talked to Mr. Adger - or anyone else - about getting his son into the Guard. "He said he is fairly certain - I mean he doesn't remember everything that happened in the 1960s - but he said he and Sid Adger never, ever talked about George W. and the Texas Air National Guard," said Jean Becker, a spokeswoman for the former president. "President Bush knew Sid Adger well," Ms. Becker said. "He loved him."’ [DMN 9/08/99]

· “When Bush was admitted into the Guard in 1968, 100,000 other men were on waiting lists around the country, hoping to win admission to similar units. The Guard was popular because those units were rarely sent to Vietnam.” [LAT 7/4/99]

#7 Bush said the Texas Air National Guard was short on pilots.

"They were looking for pilots, and I was honored to serve.", Governor Bush told the Dallas Morning News. [DMN9/08/99]

The Truth

· “But Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, said that records do not show a pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at the time. Hail, who reviewed the unit's personnel records for a special Guard museum display on Gov. Bush's service, said Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he began applying. While that number was two short of its authorized strength, the unit had two other pilots who were in training and another awaiting a transfer. There was no apparent need to fast-track applicants, he said.” [LAT 7/4/99]



· “The Texas Air Guard had about 900 slots for pilots, air and ground crew members, supervisors, technicians and support staff. Sgt. Donald Dean Barnhart, who still serves in the Guard, said that he kept a waiting list of about 150 applicants' names. He said it took up to a year and a half for one name to move to the top of the list. "Quite a few gentlemen were wanting to get in," he recalled. For Bush, there was no wait. He met with commander Staudt in his Houston office and made his application--all before his graduation in June.” [LAT, 7/4/99]



“Beckwith, Bush's spokesman, painted a different picture. He said that the Guard needed pilots at the time and Bush was available. "A lot of people weren't qualified" or willing to fly, he said, so special commissions were offered to those willing to undergo the extra training required.”

[LAT 7/4/99]



· “But Shoemake, who also served as a chief of personnel in the Texas Guard from 1972 to 1980, remembers no pilot shortage. "We had so many people coming in who were super-qualified," he said.” [LAT 7/4/99]



· “Records from his [Bush’s] military file show that in January 1968, after inquiring about Guard admission, Mr. Bush went to an Air Force recruiting office near Yale, where he took and passed the test required by the Air Force for pilot trainees. His score on the pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers.” [7/4/99]

#8 There was no special deal when he received a direct appointment to second lieutenant right after basic training, with no qualifications.
“Officials in Bush's presidential campaign denied last week that he was treated differently from other recruits. "Our information is there was absolutely no special deal," said spokesman David Beckwith.” [LAT 7/4/99]

“He [Commander Staudt] recommended Bush for a direct appointment--a special process that would allow the young recruit to become a second lieutenant right out of basic training without having to go through the rigors of officer candidate school. The process also cleared the way for a slot in pilot training school.” [LAT, 7/4/99]

The Truth
· “But Charles C. Shoemake, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air National Guard, eventually retiring as a full colonel, said that direct appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive credentials. "I went from master sergeant to first lieutenant based on my three years in college and 15 years as a noncommissioned officer. Then I got considered for a direct appointment." Even then, he said, "I didn't know whether I was going to get into pilot training."” [LAT 7/4/99]

· “As for a direct commission for someone of Bush's limited qualifications, Hail said, "I've never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons."” [LAT 7/4/99]

#9 As evidence he wasn't dodging combat, Mr. Bush has pointed to his efforts to try to volunteer for a program that rotated Guard pilots to Vietnam, although he wasn't called. [DMN 7/4/99]

The Truth
· “Mr. Bush's application for the Guard included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or did not volunteer for overseas duty. His includes a check mark in the box not wanting to volunteer for such an assignment.” [DMN 7/4/99]

#10 In Bush’s 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, Mr. Bush says that after completing flight training in June 1970, “I continued flying with my unit for the next several years”.

The Truth
· “But 22 months after finishing his training, and with two years left on his six-year commitment, Bush gave up flying - for good, it would turn out”. [Boston Globe, 5/23/00]

Several Years or 22 months – an exaggeration? Perhaps, the bigger question is why did he quit flying?

* The New York Times reports that Bush has had problems articulating words recently, using "terriers" instead of "tariffs and trade barriers," "obsfucate" in place of "obfuscate," and "post-cold world" rather than "post-Cold War world." [Bruni, New York Times, 1/8/00]
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
If Bush lied, so did Democrats!



"Bush lied!" "Bush misled us!" "The President withheld intelligence!" We have heard these particular statements from Democrat politicians pretty much non-stop in recent months. These Democrats are desirous of leading Americans to believe that they only voted to approve the invasion of Iraq because President Bush duped them.

Naturally, the followers of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are only too willing to buy the lies the Democrats are spreading. Yes, yes, I did say lies. Frankly, the lies being told about the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the vote to approve it, are coming directly from the Democrats, not the White House!

As they have tried to placate their Leftist base, by accusing President Bush of misleading them to support the Iraq invasion, they have stopped supporting our troops, as they deserve to be supported. Yes, that is a harsh charge to level, but it is a just charge as well. The fact is this, for all their bluster about being solidly behind our armed forces, the Democrats and those who are parroting their false claims of being misled are undercutting our troops!

The Democrats cannot at once claim to support the military and blast their mission as one based on lies. The cold fact is this, it is the political left, which is talking of cutting, and running (Rep. Murtha), it is the political left, which has accused our troops of torture and targeting civilians (Dennis Kucinish). It is the left, which has called our troops the problem (Ted Kennedy). Guess what, that AIN'T supporting the troops!

So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.

What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?

How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.

Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?

What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record, October 8, 2002

Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/051128
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,746
Reaction score
17,954
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
What a Big Meanie Party Pooper, dissing the Lefties' favorite Meme.

Now they'll just have to resort to the old standard: Bush is Stoopid.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
What a Big Meanie Party Pooper, dissing the Lefties favorite Meme.

Now they'll just have to resort to the old standard: Bush is Stoopid.
Libs said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's -they were mistaken or Pres Bush fooled them

I have yet to see the liberal media say Dems lied
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Actually, the Dems were working with the sexed-up, cherry-picked, spun and fabricated evidence the Bush administration supplied them. If they were guilty of anything, it was a lack of skepticism.
So let me get this right.........

Pres Bush, a man libs who libs have siad is an idiot, a fool, a morin, a man who cannot string three words togther without stuttering - actually tricked the mentally superior liberals?

(Despite the fact the ranking Dems had the SAME intel as Pres Bush)
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
someone here needs to invest in spell check....:eusa_think:
what is a morin?
siad?
Someone needs to answer the qeustion - how could Pres Bush fool mentally superior liberals?
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Someone needs to answer the qeustion - how could Pres Bush fool mentally superior liberals?
How you framed your question doesn't make sense.

If you told someone that Joe has a gun. It's up to the listener whether to belive you or not. IQ doesn't play into it.

Bush claimed to have had knowlegde that no one can possess; knowlegde from intel that is top secret. All we can do is trust him. Like a con artist; con is short for confidence hence like a confidence artist he gets by with the lie and the bullshit based on his demand that we trust him.

There were plenty of skeptics but Bush put out the attack dogs and the smear machines against those whom wanted more out of him than just his word.

Bush has no credibility

He fixed the facts to fit the policy for war

He fixed the facts to fit the policy for his energy plan

He has currently been caught trying to fix the DOJ to fit his politicizing the DOJ

Bush is a both liar and bullshitter.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Leading Dems had the same intel - and they kow it

However, both Democrats and anti-war critics continue to accuse Bush of manipulating evidence and lying to the American people. Bush responded to this claim saying, "these critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein." Even the United Nations passed resolutions citing Hussein's possessions of weapons of mass destruction. This makes the United Nations also responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, some of Bush's most vociferous critics were once in full support of military operations in Iraq. John Kerry, who adamantly spoke in opposition while campaigning for the 2004 elections, voted to go to war, saying Hussein had "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hand" and was "a threat and a grave threat to our security." Seeing support fading from the American people, these same politicians turned their back on the president, claiming the war to be a grave mistake in order to bolster their own popularity.
http://media.barometer.orst.edu/med.../Place.Blame.Where.Blame.Is.Due-2292928.shtml

as far as the current non scandal over the lawyers - they were fired for not enforcing the law
 
S

Shattered

Guest
Leading Dems had the same intel - and they kow it

However, both Democrats and anti-war critics continue to accuse Bush of manipulating evidence and lying to the American people. Bush responded to this claim saying, "these critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein." Even the United Nations passed resolutions citing Hussein's possessions of weapons of mass destruction. This makes the United Nations also responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, some of Bush's most vociferous critics were once in full support of military operations in Iraq. John Kerry, who adamantly spoke in opposition while campaigning for the 2004 elections, voted to go to war, saying Hussein had "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hand" and was "a threat and a grave threat to our security." Seeing support fading from the American people, these same politicians turned their back on the president, claiming the war to be a grave mistake in order to bolster their own popularity.


as far as the current non scandal over the lawyers - they were fired for not enforcing the law

If you're going to quote it, you should link it. Those aren't your words...
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Leading Dems had the same intel - and they kow it
Then how do you explain this

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19991

Reporters Without Borders hailed a Copenhagen court’s decision today to acquit three Berlingske Tidende journalists who were being prosecuted for publishing the details of classified intelligence reports in 2004 about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The trial began back in 2004. The secrets handed to the Danish government stated Iraq had no WMD's. But that is not the story the people of Denmark was told by their leaders. The people of Denmark were fed the same baloney the American people were fed, Just as the Brits were fed the same cow confetti. This whole WMD's rhetoric is all horse crap or cow crap or however you want to put it the fact is the whole rhetoric had a smell to it that stank to the high heavens. Even Powells lame showing made him the butt of historical jokes.

There were no WMD's.

as far as the current non scandal over the lawyers - they were fired for not enforcing the law
They were fired for not lowering themselves down to the level of slime. Bush was trying to turn the DOJ into a private tool of the Republican Party. That my friend should call for Bush'es impeachment on the grounds of attempting to steal the People's dime for personal purposes.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
It has more to do with how liberals define the word lie. To them a lie is when something is claimed to be, then turns out to not be the case. They seem to forget that the truth must be known before hand in order for one to lie about it. Example, Bush claimed there was evidence that Saddam had WMDs, turns out not so much so. So in liberal's minds, he lied.
the LIE was the assertions of certainty.

Team Bush repeatedly said that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. In fact, every bit of intelligence on the subject was couched in caveats and qualifiers which repeatedly attested to the lack of certainty that the administration nonetheless asserted.

That is the lie.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,746
Reaction score
17,954
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I suggest you read the text from the 2003 State of the Union Address. You are woefully misstating the reasons for the war. WMDs were only part of the justification (and largely one of pre-emption regarding nukes). The aspect of liberating the Iraqi people is one that one would think Liberals would embrace - if they had stayed true to classic Liberal values.

Here is the passage on Iraq.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government 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.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
So let me get this right.........

Pres Bush, a man libs who libs have siad is an idiot, a fool, a morin, a man who cannot string three words togther without stuttering - actually tricked the mentally superior liberals?

(Despite the fact the ranking Dems had the SAME intel as Pres Bush)
This is a very old Conservative talking point.

"Bush couldn't be a liar if he's stupid."

I don't know if he's a "liar" per say or if he's stupid. Frankly I don't think either one of those points is the issue.

The only thing that can be said for certain is that he has shown gross incompetence in the execution of this war, particularly in regards to the so called "bogus" intelligence that he and his administration used as the primary justification for the invasion. Forget impeachment on the grounds of "lying" to Congress. He should be impeached for incompetence alone.

Nobody has been held accountable for this collossal screw up. A real leader would have demanded heads on a platter for this kind of fiasco. Instead Bush sent the guy who was supposedly primarily responsible for the "faulty" intelligence off into retirement with a medal. He sure got rid of George Tenet mighty fast didn't he? Out of sight out of mind I guess.

There was absolutely no chance while the majority of Congress was staffed with loyal, partisan hack, Republican, lapdogs, of any legitimate investigation into the "flawed" intelligence. Now that voters have weakened the Conservative mafia however there may be a revisit of this issue. I'd like to see George Tenet under oath testifying that the "evidence" this administration presented to Congress was in fact the exact same information that the C.I.A. gave the White House. When faced with a choice of telling the truth or perjuring himself and spending the rest of his retirement in federal prison there's a good chance that Tenet could shed some light on what probably happened to the official intelligence estimates between the time they left his desk and when Bush presented them to Congress. He might have some very enlightening information into those shady, unprecedented, personal visits Dick Cheney made to C.I.A. headquarters and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans. Of course we'll never know the whole truth until Tenet is subpoened out of retirement to testify.

The saddest irony of it all is that even if Bush did "lie" about his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq half of the voting public doesn't even care. Everybody bought the Conservative spin about the "other" justifications for the invasion. It was a bait and switch.....a cheap, con, shell game. Bush didn't sell his war to Congress primarily on the grounds of "liberating" Iraq or spreading democracy. He hyped a threat that didn't exist. If he had gone to Congress with the other justifications alone they would have told him "not no..... but HELL NO!" He (or somebody else) must have known this and that's probably why they spent so much time hyping the WMD threat.

If a Democrat had pulled the same thing Conservatives would be thinking it was at least kind of like a "lie" wouldn't they?
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
boedicca...are you suggesting that the administration did NOT express certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?

and I fully understand that the administration made a long laundry list of reasons why we should invade Iraq, but if you would be honest with yourself, you would admit that the entire case hung on WMD's. Without the real and immediate threat of mushroom clouds over American cities, the American people would not have supported this war. Bush needed to make Saddam dangerous...and he needed to imply that he had something to do with 9/11. He needed to develop the combination of fear and revenge in the American public to go along with his political posturing that democrats who did not support the use of force resolution were soft on terrorists and traitors. It was a brilliant piece of Rovian politics.... and if the war would have gone as planned, if there would not have been this nagging sunni/shiite range war, if multicultural Jeffersonian democracy would have quickly blossomed on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, if Iraq had quickly become a strong ally of America's selling us all their oil on the cheap, then Team Bush was counting on America forgetting that they hadn't found the WMD's yet because we were so distracted by all that other great news.

Alas.... it didn't quite work out that way.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top