Bob Woodward - No Lies found

[fskimospy]

Thanks, I can read just fine. It clearly states that nothing is perfect with intelligence. It clearly states that the intelligence community either overstated or stated information that wasn't supported. It doesn't attribute that to one person, or one thing, either.

That is not what it states.

 

[Jhhnn]

You would also probably want to qualify it with the fact that the WMD that were found bore no resemblance to what was described by the Bush administration and were old, basically useless, and likely the result of accidental oversight by Saddam.

That wasn't the point he was trying to make, so he didn't do that.

 

[HomerJS]

Uh huh...so one person says another person is lying. That's supposed to be proof of something, especially intent to deceive? Any other evidence that Cheney was lying there, other than one man's opinion? People say wrong things all the time, that doesn't mean they are lying.

DD of the CIA?? One mans opinion? If everything lies with the intelligence this is one of the key people. In other words, he would have more information on intel then Cheney and yet you believe Cheney over the DD of the CIA??

Morrell was asked directly was what Cheney said about nuclear weapons true, and he said is wasn't.

 

[xBiffx]

DD of the CIA?? One mans opinion? If everything lies with the intelligence this is one of the key people. In other words, he would have more information on intel then Cheney and yet you believe Cheney over the DD of the CIA??

Morrell was asked directly was what Cheney said about nuclear weapons true, and he said is wasn't.

I'm being told the president is the keeper of all intelligence. Is that not the case?

 

[dank69]

I'm being told the president is the keeper of all intelligence. Is that not the case?

Yes, that is exactly what was said. Obama goes out and collects all intelligence and then gives it to the CIA.

 

[glenn1]

So can you explain why he hasn't been dragged before an international tribunal or US court. Are American presidents shielded from any crime at all? This was the clearest criminal act of any President in my lifetime and yet criminal prosecution is broached by nobody either in the US or abroad. I don't understand it at all.

You disagreeing with a political decision doesn't make it criminal, and using that word repeatedly doesn't cause it to become so. I am rather amused at the amount of energy that the anti-GWB side has invested in this concept however. It's like they have a secret sexual fantasy to live in a Banana Republic where every time the government changes the new regime takes the old leadership out and has them shot for "crimes against the state."

 

[Ban Bot]

Then who was responsible for such bad intelligence?

Probably the same source(s) that gave Gore, Kerry, etc. the same bad information previously (see the infamous youtube clips). It didn't help Iraq's case that they had been in violation with UN sanctions and uncooperative with inspectors for years.

The biggest Iraq blunder occurred under Bush Sr. in 1991. By not finishing the job and pulling back Saddam slaughtered the internal opposition and then over the next decade killed hundreds of thousands more. The world cast a blind eye and then wanted to whine about UN violations, lack of access, no fly zone, etc. other irritants in violation of the cease fire but not singularly significant enough to reignite the motivation to resolve the issue. Looking back at 1991 and the concern for loss of life (American soldiers) in the end more Americans died and more Iraqis died and a much less unified/stable Iraq emerged. 1991 was a huge blunder IMO and the lack of WMDs (believed by both Democrat and Republican administrations) is just another log in the fire.

I know most wont agree with me. But I remember when my mother called me when the second Gulf War started and she was shocked I wasn't all rah-rah for it. My answer was the same then as now: The important thing is human life protected by stable governments (in that order). If we really cared about the Iraqis we would have taken action much sooner. The reason we were going to war in Iraq was money/oil/strategic foothold and also a shot across the bow of other unsavory governments: Don't get any post-9/11 ideas. Saddam crowed over the 9/11 attacks and he was made an example of. We went to war for all the wrong reasons (WMD or no WMD). We should have aided the Iraqis much earlier. And Saddam's growing hubris was an issue ignored for a decade when a much firmer response was required.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm being told the president is the keeper of all intelligence. Is that not the case?

maybe but CIA generates/compiles intel and presents to White House. Cheney was hands on in cherry picking intel before it was presented to Congress and POTUS.

Remember the dozens of visits to CIA HQ in the lead up to the war?

 

[Blackjack200]

The reason we were going to war in Iraq was money/oil/strategic foothold and also a shot across the bow of other unsavory governments: Don't get any post-9/11 ideas. Saddam crowed over the 9/11 attacks and he was made an example of. We went to war for all the wrong reasons (WMD or no WMD). We should have aided the Iraqis much earlier. And Saddam's growing hubris was an issue ignored for a decade when a much firmer response was required.

What governments, and what ideas did we not want them to get?

 

[fskimospy]

That wasn't the point he was trying to make, so he didn't do that.

It was funny to watch him do the "who me???" business like he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He's really committed to the concern troll business recently.

 

[bshole]

You disagreeing with a political decision doesn't make it criminal, and using that word repeatedly doesn't cause it to become so. I am rather amused at the amount of energy that the anti-GWB side has invested in this concept however. It's like they have a secret sexual fantasy to live in a Banana Republic where every time the government changes the new regime takes the old leadership out and has them shot for "crimes against the state."

I believe fabricating evidence in order to justify a war is a CRIMINAL act. I could be wrong, I don't know. Are there laws on the books that make it illegal to lie America into war?

Hundreds of thousands of people died due to Bush's lie and that is just a down payment on the decades more death, destruction and anarchy ahead of us.

 

[sm625]

It is easy to deny the lies when you simply ignore the existence of certain people and facts. Susan Lindauer? Dont know who that is. Dont know, dont care. Sibel Edmonds? Who is that? Dont know, dont care. There are literally dozens of names I could drop that totally eviscerate the line of bull that most people believe about our foreign policy. But people dont give two f@#$% about any of them. Because the media that controls their tiny little brains simply pretends these people dont exist. So you have millions of totally uninformed idiots out there offering their stupefied opinions on foreign policy without ever having the slightest clue. All they know is Iraq had WMD and .... vote for Hillary or Jeb. That's it. Nothing deeper than that. No independent thinking at all. Just a bunch of drones working for the system, raping themselves in the process, and popping a bunch of antidepressants because their brains are so screwed up from living in a total propaganda matrix.

 

[Attic]

So Bush didn't lie... that's not really the point. Trying to pin it on a lie is more of the same obfuscation and conflation that was done to drag the country into Iraq.

It's a similar defense when Obama's admin clearly was being deceptive about Benghazi. Did they lie?, no. So what do you win for standing behind they didn't lie in either of these cases as some sign of everythings cherry for your side's morals and ethics?, besides being a dum dum drone of the left or the right that is dragging the country into the shitter with corruption of language and politics?

Here it is:

Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.

These are our politicians of the day, on both the left and the right. Granted a few of them are not like this, but most of them are. Now this same type of deception is being culled by more and more of the pom pom crowd cheering on their respective side. Not going to lead to good places.

Over the past few decades, the very idea of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is dredged up only as a final resort when the alternative options of deception, threat and bribery have all been exhausted. Increasingly not even as a final resort.

 

[ivwshane]

Good god! When you righties have your back up against the wall you pull out the old, all sides are bad tripe.

Equating the push for war with Iraq with the confusion in benghazi at the time was a nice touch though.

So Bush didn't lie... that's not really the point. Trying to pin it on a lie is more of the same obfuscation and conflation that was done to drag the country into Iraq.

It's a similar defense when Obama's admin clearly was being deceptive about Benghazi. Did they lie?, no. So what do you win for standing behind they didn't lie in either of these cases as some sign of everythings cherry for your side's morals and ethics?, besides being a dum dum drone of the left or the right that is dragging the country into the shitter with corruption of language and politics?

Here it is:



These are our politicians of the day, on both the left and the right. Granted a few of them are not like this, but most of them are. Now this same type of deception is being culled by more and more of the pom pom crowd cheering on their respective side. Not going to lead to good places.

In the last few years, the very idea of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is dredged up only as a final resort when the alternative options of deception, threat and bribery have all been exhausted.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror

 

[Attic]

Good god! When you righties have your back up against the wall you pull out the old, all sides are bad tripe.

Equating the push for war with Iraq with the confusion in benghazi at the time was a nice touch though.



Perhaps you should look in the mirror

Nice twist of words, standard fare, though your stupidity is exhausting. Honestly, you've made your point on these boards. You can drop in much less frequently if you have a need to remind folks.

The magnitude of the result of these two deceptions are different, so self evident as to not require brining specific attention to that matter.

It's the defense of the deceptions that leads us to bad places. Both parties are guilty of this, so it's something to consider going forward for the left and right idiots who are currently preventing real change for the country (your ilk and many others).


Cliffs: Deception, tolerated by both parties depending on whose doing the deceptions, is getting the country into bad places and leading us to other bad places. See TPP for the most recent use of Deceptions by Obummer.

 

[ivwshane]

Nice twist of words, standard fare, though your stupidity is exhausting. Honestly, you've made your point on these boards. You can drop in much less frequently if you have a need to remind folks.

The magnitude of the result of these two deceptions are different, so self evident as to not require brining specific attention to that matter.

It's the defense of the deceptions that leads us to bad places. Both parties are guilty of this, so it's something to consider going forward for the left and right idiots who are currently preventing real change for the country (your ilk and many others).


Cliffs: Deception, tolerated by both parties depending on whose doing the deceptions, is getting the country into bad places and leading us to other bad places. See TPP for the most recent use of Deceptions by Obummer.

Lol! What's funny is that in your last example, TPP, guess who's calling out the president? The left.

Thanks, btw, for repeating what you wrote earlier and revalidating my point. You are just too stupid to get it so I'll repeat it for you.

You and your ilks constant retreating to "both sides are the same" shit is getting old. Of course, idiots like yourself, hate it when others call you out on your bullshit position, that won't stop you though, will it?

 

[Blackjack200]

Nice twist of words, standard fare, though your stupidity is exhausting. Honestly, you've made your point on these boards. You can drop in much less frequently if you have a need to remind folks.

The magnitude of the result of these two deceptions are different, so self evident as to not require brining specific attention to that matter.

It's the defense of the deceptions that leads us to bad places. Both parties are guilty of this, so it's something to consider going forward for the left and right idiots who are currently preventing real change for the country (your ilk and many others).


Cliffs: Deception, tolerated by both parties depending on whose doing the deceptions, is getting the country into bad places and leading us to other bad places. See TPP for the most recent use of Deceptions by Obummer.

What? No. Comparing Benghazi to Iraq is just terrible. There is absolutely a distinction to be made. It's like in 2003 when Bush Administration apologists were saying 'yeah, but Bill Clinton lied about his blowjob.'

Are you fucking kidding me? Apparently not.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Are you fucking kidding me? Apparently not.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that lying about a BJ is exactly the same as getting us into a war that's killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized a region that's now being taken over by terrorists -- exactly the same thing.


Brian

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that lying about a BJ is exactly the same as getting us into a war that's killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized a region that's now being taken over by terrorists -- exactly the same thing.


Brian

How about lying about imminent genocide to justify getting us into an illegal war that's killed tens of thousands and destabilized a region that's now being taken over by terrorists? Does that count?

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol! What's funny is that in your last example, TPP, guess who's calling out the president? The left.

Thanks, btw, for repeating what you wrote earlier and revalidating my point. You are just too stupid to get it so I'll repeat it for you.

You and your ilks constant retreating to "both sides are the same" shit is getting old. Of course, idiots like yourself, hate it when others call you out on your bullshit position, that won't stop you though, will it?

He can't stop while maintaining his belief system. If he can't believe that "they're just as bad" he'll have to re-evaluate because he already knows that the leadership he follows *is* bad.

When the conduct of his own team (like the invasion of Iraq) is truly reprehensible, he has to divert into a whole different issue to devalue the opposition & establish false equivalency. That devaluation has been basic Repub strategy since the 2008 election, given that they sure as Hell don't want to talk about their accomplishments while in power.

The Roman emperors used bread & circuses, but modern Repubs use red meat & circuses.

 

[fskimospy]

How about lying about imminent genocide to justify getting us into an illegal war that's killed tens of thousands and destabilized a region that's now being taken over by terrorists? Does that count?

We are still waiting on literally any evidence that Hillary lied about it as opposed to simply being wrong. The fact that you keep repeating this as a fact is extremely dishonest.

Additionally, saying US action destabilized the region is again, a dubious statement. The region was already in the middle of a civil war, and therefore destabilized.

I have to say again that it's remarkable just how much you hate Hillary. You are going to be so so mad in the likely event that she becomes president. I can't imagine how much you will step up the concern trolling then.

 

[Jhhnn]

How about lying about imminent genocide to justify getting us into an illegal war that's killed tens of thousands and destabilized a region that's now being taken over by terrorists? Does that count?

It seems unlikely that Gaddafi would have been merciful had he won, and it's not like we started their civil war, either.

Other minor matters played into it, I'm sure, like Pan Am 103, the Berlin discotheque bombing & Reagan's retaliatory bombing, probably lots of under the surface stuff, as well, I'm sure.

Even though he gave the Bushistas a propaganda coup in abandoning his so-called nuclear weapons program, Western Europe & our own govt have been gunning for him for decades.

It was a shrewd move on his part, keeping him out of Neocon crosshairs.

It seems highly unlikely that any President would have passed on the opportunity presented by the Libyan civil war, regardless of your pious bullshit.