Anybody snort when they heard Bush the dissembling on TV today.

[Moonbeam]

The thousands of tons of WMD and we know where they are suddenly became, we're confident we'll eventually find they had WMD programs.

What happened to have thousands of tons of WMD, real WMD.

Our beacon of truth in the night, Ray Taliaferro, says it's all over for Bush, that he may not yet know it but he's going down. He's had thirty years of political radio experience and he' says stick a fork in him, he's done. Says that it's just like Watergate but the lying didn't cause the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American casualties and a hundred plus deaths with more day by day.

I wonder if he's right.

 

[BDawg]

1AM to 5AM PST? I'll never listen to him...

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The thousands of tons of WMD and we know where they are suddenly became, we're confident we'll eventually find they had WMD programs.

What happened to have thousands of tons of WMD, real WMD.

Our beacon of truth in the night, Ray Taliaferro, says it's all over for Bush, that he may not yet know it but he's going down. He's had thirty years of political radio experience and he' says stick a fork in him, he's done. Says that it's just like Watergate but the lying didn't cause the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American casualties and a hundred plus deaths with more day by day.

I wonder if he's right.

Bush trying to spin this one is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Does he really think the American people are stupid enough to believe this switch from his claim that Iraq had thousands of tons of WMD and were ready to use it to Iraq had a WMD program?

This is an insult to the American electorate. Bush made specific claims about Iraq's WMD, not their program. He should have qualified his statements but he didn't. Now he's trying to lie his way out of his lies. SOP when you're caught, deny, deny, deny. It's too late. It's all on tape. Time to investigate.

 

[BOBDN]

"I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war."

Who's Accountable?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The Bush and Blair administrations are trying to silence critics ? many of them current or former intelligence analysts ? who say that they exaggerated the threat from Iraq. Last week a Blair official accused Britain's intelligence agencies of plotting against the government. (Tony Blair's government has since apologized for January's "dodgy dossier.") In this country, Colin Powell has declared that questions about the justification for war are "outrageous."

Yet dishonest salesmanship has been the hallmark of the Bush administration's approach to domestic policy. And it has become increasingly clear that the selling of the war with Iraq was no different.

For example, look at the way the administration rhetorically linked Saddam to Sept. 11. As The Associated Press put it: "The implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of such a link." Not only was there no good evidence: according to The New York Times, captured leaders of Al Qaeda explicitly told the C.I.A. that they had not been working with Saddam.

Or look at the affair of the infamous "germ warfare" trailers. I don't know whether those trailers were intended to produce bioweapons or merely to inflate balloons, as the Iraqis claim ? a claim supported by a number of outside experts. (According to the newspaper The Observer, Britain sold Iraq a similar system back in 1987.) What is clear is that an initial report concluding that they were weapons labs was, as one analyst told The Times, "a rushed job and looks political." President Bush had no business declaring "we have found the weapons of mass destruction."

We can guess how Mr. Bush came to make that statement. The first teams of analysts told administration officials what they wanted to hear, doubts were brushed aside, and officials then made public pronouncements greatly overstating even what the analysts had said.

A similar process of cherry-picking, of choosing and exaggerating intelligence that suited the administration's preconceptions, unfolded over the issue of W.M.D.'s before the war. Most intelligence professionals believed that Saddam had some biological and chemical weapons, but they did not believe that these posed any imminent threat. According to the newspaper The Independent, a March 2002 report by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee found no evidence that Saddam posed a significantly greater threat than in 1991. But such conclusions weren't acceptable.

Last fall former U.S. intelligence officials began warning that official pronouncements were being based on "cooked intelligence." British intelligence officials were so concerned that, The Independent reports, they kept detailed records of the process. "A smoking gun may well exist over W.M.D., but it may not be to the government's liking," a source said.

But the Bush administration found scraps of intelligence suiting its agenda, and officials began making strong pronouncements. "Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons ? the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have," Mr. Bush said on Feb. 8. On March 16 Dick Cheney declared, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

It's now two months since Baghdad fell ? and according to The A.P., military units searching for W.M.D.'s have run out of places to look.

One last point: the Bush administration's determination to see what it wanted to see led not just to a gross exaggeration of the threat Iraq posed, but to a severe underestimation of the problems of postwar occupation. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period, Paul Wolfowitz said he was "wildly off the mark" ? and the secretary of the Army may have been fired for backing up the general. Now a force of 150,000 is stretched thin, facing increasingly frequent guerrilla attacks, and a senior officer told The Washington Post that it might be two years before an Iraqi government takes over. The Independent reports that British military chiefs are resisting calls to send more forces, fearing being "sucked into a quagmire."

I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war.

 

[sandorski]

It seems pretty clear that Bush's "knowing" is more like "believing". I hope the American electorate turfs him and the Republican Party for this mess, hell, the Democrats should be turfed as well, the 2 parties are beyond redemption and need to be replaced with some fresh blood.

 

[jjones]

stick a fork in him, he's done.

That's been my thought for a few weeks now. The Dems will ride this all the way to election time and I think the only way they will lose is if their frontrunner is so weak as to be ludicrous, which is quite possible. I don't really care either way. Repub horsesh!t or Dem horsesh!t, it's all the same, just horsesh!t of a different color. Show me one viable candidate who actually wants less government and I'll make the trip back to the States and vote, but I know that's one trip that won't be necessary.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: jjones

stick a fork in him, he's done.

That's been my thought for a few weeks now. The Dems will ride this all the way to election time and I think the only way they will lose is if their frontrunner is so weak as to be ludicrous, which is quite possible. I don't really care either way. Repub horsesh!t or Dem horsesh!t, it's all the same, just horsesh!t of a different color. Show me one viable candidate who actually wants less government and I'll make the trip back to the States and vote, but I know that's one trip that won't be necessary.

Ya' know, when the Republicans were pushing for their investigations into the Clinton's finances and couldn't come up with anything - then ended up with their puritan sex probe (while most of them had their "youthful indiscretions" while in their 40's and 50's) no one made any comment about the accusers. Everyone focused on the Clintons and once the puritans came up with the Lewinsky mess (as recorded by a Republican from the Pentagon, one of many that Clinton made the mistake of leaving in thier position to foster bi-partisanship) the Democrats all started doing mea culpas over it. No one brought up this BS about they all do it, what's the difference?

So let's stay on point here. We're talking about a sitting president who knowingly lied to the American people and started a war! This is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. You can debate party vs. party all you want. But that's another debate. Let's look at the facts pertaining to THIS president and his lies about national security issues that led to a war where US soldiers died, Iraqi civilians died and US taxpayers will be paying the bill for decades to come. A war that has cost the USA credibility around the world and ruined relationships with our allies.

Bush did all that. Not the Democrats or Republicans. The Bush administration. Period.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: jjones

stick a fork in him, he's done.

That's been my thought for a few weeks now. The Dems will ride this all the way to election time and I think the only way they will lose is if their frontrunner is so weak as to be ludicrous, which is quite possible. I don't really care either way. Repub horsesh!t or Dem horsesh!t, it's all the same, just horsesh!t of a different color. Show me one viable candidate who actually wants less government and I'll make the trip back to the States and vote, but I know that's one trip that won't be necessary.

Ya' know, when the Republicans were pushing for their investigations into the Clinton's finances and couldn't come up with anything - then ended up with their puritan sex probe (while most of them had their "youthful indiscretions" while in their 40's and 50's) no one made any comment about the accusers. Everyone focused on the Clintons and once the puritans came up with the Lewinsky mess (as recorded by a Republican from the Pentagon, one of many that Clinton made the mistake of leaving in thier position to foster bi-partisanship) the Democrats all started doing mea culpas over it. No one brought up this BS about they all do it, what's the difference?

So let's stay on point here. We're talking about a sitting president who knowingly lied to the American people and started a war! This is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. You can debate party vs. party all you want. But that's another debate. Let's look at the facts pertaining to THIS president and his lies about national security issues that led to a war where US soldiers died, Iraqi civilians died and US taxpayers will be paying the bill for decades to come. A war that has cost the USA credibility around the world and ruined relationships with our allies.

Bush did all that. Not the Democrats or Republicans. The Bush administration. Period.

Fine, have it your way if you want but your not speaking about political reality. The political reality is that there are party lines and when I quoted that comment I meant it to be in reference to political parties and the upcoming elections in 2004 as you can see from the rest of my post. You can rant about Bush, I really don't care. I quit caring about which bunch of thieves and liars ran the country a long time ago.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: jjones

stick a fork in him, he's done.

That's been my thought for a few weeks now. The Dems will ride this all the way to election time and I think the only way they will lose is if their frontrunner is so weak as to be ludicrous, which is quite possible. I don't really care either way. Repub horsesh!t or Dem horsesh!t, it's all the same, just horsesh!t of a different color. Show me one viable candidate who actually wants less government and I'll make the trip back to the States and vote, but I know that's one trip that won't be necessary.

Ya' know, when the Republicans were pushing for their investigations into the Clinton's finances and couldn't come up with anything - then ended up with their puritan sex probe (while most of them had their "youthful indiscretions" while in their 40's and 50's) no one made any comment about the accusers. Everyone focused on the Clintons and once the puritans came up with the Lewinsky mess (as recorded by a Republican from the Pentagon, one of many that Clinton made the mistake of leaving in thier position to foster bi-partisanship) the Democrats all started doing mea culpas over it. No one brought up this BS about they all do it, what's the difference?

So let's stay on point here. We're talking about a sitting president who knowingly lied to the American people and started a war! This is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. You can debate party vs. party all you want. But that's another debate. Let's look at the facts pertaining to THIS president and his lies about national security issues that led to a war where US soldiers died, Iraqi civilians died and US taxpayers will be paying the bill for decades to come. A war that has cost the USA credibility around the world and ruined relationships with our allies.

Bush did all that. Not the Democrats or Republicans. The Bush administration. Period.

Fine, have it your way if you want but your not speaking about political reality. The political reality is that there are party lines and when I quoted that comment I meant it to be in reference to political parties and the upcoming elections in 2004 as you can see from the rest of my post. You can rant about Bush, I really don't care. I quit caring about which bunch of thieves and liars ran the country a long time ago.

With Bush I think we went from a thief to something worse.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, jj, I don't want less government or more government but real government, government that's honest and does what is best for the country. I don't know if that's less or more or what. I think government is about people lots and lots of people participating and adding to a gigantic amoeboid being that sloshes over onto things that need to be fixed because it's what caring people what to happen. What we don't have in government is people who care about people. What we have are people who have been bought by corporations, who can't take a sh!t without sticking their fingers up the corporate American ass hole and seeing which way the sh!t is blowing. The government is full of fools and small minded bigots and morons who care about power and the manipulation of the population for votes. What we need is a country of people who are conservative, old fashioned in their simple honesty and decency and concern and modern in their vision and willingness to explore. People who have natural humility and love. What we need in a media that's wiped off the air and replaced with quality, corporate sponsor free in depth, exploratory solution driven reporting about real, not salacious, prurient stories that deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Our country is dying from greed, from selfish self-serving swine who are interested only in a buck.

When you say you don't care, jj, don't you mean that caring causes pain?

BOBDN, hehe, the reason I posted the link is because of the extraordinary claim that Taliaferro makes that Bush is finished, it's just a matter now of time. The die is cast, so to speak. From where I stand everything looks to me like nobody cares, just as you say. Ray's been observing and commenting for 30 years and, in my opinion, makes remarkably shrewd predictions about the future.

 

[shiner]

You people are just kidding yourself if you think this is going to destroy the Bush Presidency. The issue is really a non starter for the American public. It is well known that Iraq had WMD and had used them in the past, that's all the American public cares about. So they haven't found any YET.....but you know what....Iraq is a big country and even when the additional 1400 weapons inspectors get there it will still leave approx 308 square kilometers each to search for WMD. Think you could find a few thousand gallons of bio/chem if you had that much ground to cover?

It's ok though....if coming in here and bashing the Bush Administration makes you happy then so be it.....just continue your little circle jerk for as long as you want.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You people are just kidding yourself if you think this is going to destroy the Bush Presidency. The issue is really a non starter for the American public. It is well known that Iraq had WMD and had used them in the past, that's all the American public cares about. So they haven't found any YET.....but you know what....Iraq is a big country and even when the additional 1400 weapons inspectors get there it will still leave approx 308 square kilometers each to search for WMD. Think you could find a few thousand gallons of bio/chem if you had that much ground to cover?

That's going to be the Bush fanboy's excuse for years, but you miss the point. Looks like ShrubCo knowingingly cooked the intelligence reports to garner support for a bogus war.

Even if they find some scraps of WMD down the road it's obvious that Iraq was not the imminent threat we were all told they were. There was no just reason to rush our country into an invasion, kill thousands of people, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars while the economy is in the toilet and the deficit is setting records.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You people are just kidding yourself if you think this is going to destroy the Bush Presidency. The issue is really a non starter for the American public. It is well known that Iraq had WMD and had used them in the past, that's all the American public cares about. So they haven't found any YET.....but you know what....Iraq is a big country and even when the additional 1400 weapons inspectors get there it will still leave approx 308 square kilometers each to search for WMD. Think you could find a few thousand gallons of bio/chem if you had that much ground to cover?

It's ok though....if coming in here and bashing the Bush Administration makes you happy then so be it.....just continue your little circle jerk for as long as you want.

it makes me incredibly happy.
break out the lube cuz im gonna be circle jerkin like crazy.
its blantantly obvious this war had nothing to do with WMD
it never did, it was about oil, you can claim "thats the tired dem response blah blah blah" but thats what the first war was about, thats what this one was about, yeah halliburton didnt *explicitly* get the lucrative open ended contracts....oh wait they did.
KBR was set up for this reason and this reason only. to profiteer from this so called war.
why else do you think that cheney wants what his little "energy conference" a few years back kept secret, because part of the "energy policy" was an invasion of iraq.
end of story.
this isnt hard to figure out.
oh yeah a war and strife @ home got rid of bush I what makes you so certain that it wont with bush II

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You people are just kidding yourself if you think this is going to destroy the Bush Presidency. The issue is really a non starter for the American public. It is well known that Iraq had WMD and had used them in the past, that's all the American public cares about. So they haven't found any YET.....but you know what....Iraq is a big country and even when the additional 1400 weapons inspectors get there it will still leave approx 308 square kilometers each to search for WMD. Think you could find a few thousand gallons of bio/chem if you had that much ground to cover?

It's ok though....if coming in here and bashing the Bush Administration makes you happy then so be it.....just continue your little circle jerk for as long as you want.

You may just be right. Like many here, the public may not care if they were lied to, and that soldiers died for that lie. They may be as despicable as you make them out to be. If weapons show up or not, it is becoming clearer by the day that either we were lied to intentionally, or the bloodlust in the administration was such that they did not care what was right or wrong. Maybe we really are that bad. Thanks for pointing that out in such a positive way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Who Said What When
CounterPunch Wire

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

why else do you think that cheney wants what his little "energy conference" a few years back kept secret, because part of the "energy policy" was an invasion of iraq.
end of story.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to think that's exactly the case.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

why else do you think that cheney wants what his little "energy conference" a few years back kept secret, because part of the "energy policy" was an invasion of iraq.
end of story.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to think that's exactly the case.

Dude, I am skeptical about the "Energy Policy", I'm skeptical about attacking Iraq, but don't you thing it is quite a stretch to claim that the "energy policy" was an invasion of Iraq?

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

why else do you think that cheney wants what his little "energy conference" a few years back kept secret, because part of the "energy policy" was an invasion of iraq.
end of story.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to think that's exactly the case.

Dude, I am skeptical about the "Energy Policy", I'm skeptical about attacking Iraq, but don't you thing it is quite a stretch to claim that the "energy policy" was an invasion of Iraq?

i never said it was the SOLE purpose of that conference, im sure it included drilling ANWR too.
that being said, there HAS to be a reason that they wanted the contents of that meeting kept secret.
and all the while kept secret despite being sued by the GAO (general accounting office) and numerous inquiries about it in congress.
yet we hear nothing. to me it makes perfect sense.
there is NO doubt in my mind that an iraq invasion was in the works back then.

 

[CaptnKirk]

You know - that's not a bad conspiracy theory there.
Why else would an energy policy meeting reach the level of National Security
if there was not some clandestine content that was conceived with intent to
divide up the spoils of a projected event.
(Hell the Re-Pubs did it with Clinton)

 

[MonkeyK]

Sorry, I don't buy it. While the invasion may have been "in the works", Cheney is way too smart to discuss it in the scope of energy policy.

I'd like to hear what went on in that meeting anyway.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
You know - that's not a bad conspiracy theory there.
Why else would an energy policy meeting reach the level of National Security
if there was not some clandestine content that was conceived with intent to
divide up the spoils of a projected event.
(Hell the Re-Pubs did it with Clinton)

He did in fact use national security for his reason about not coming clean about this didn't he? Damn...

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Sorry, I don't buy it. While the invasion may have been "in the works", Cheney is way too smart to discuss it in the scope of energy policy.

I'd like to hear what went on in that meeting anyway.

I have no doubt Cheney is smart, but he's also arrogant. He probably felt he could discuss anything he wanted to and would be able to keep a lid on it. And he has so far.

 

[gistech1978]

I'd like to hear what went on in that meeting anyway.

now there is something we can agree on.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

The revolution is here! ::crickets chirping:: I thought the Bush-as-reincarnated-nazi theory was better. You guys might be right. I hope not, but you might be. If this theory isn't it, you'll get one eventually.

 

[UltraQuiet]

He did in fact use national security for his reason about not coming clean about this didn't he? Damn...

He did? When? I remember him invoking executive privledge but I don't ever remember him saying that it was a national security issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't remember that either, UQ. As I reall it was executive privilage on the basis of the notion that he needed to get the candid opinions of Big Shots without them fearing their opinions and 'truthful' pronouncements would be used against them in any way.