BUSH LIED! THOUSANDS DIED!

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
JD50 - Did my 06/08/2008 06:58 AM post give you something to think about?

Yes, I wondered what the hell you were talking about.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I think the sub title for this thread should be:
Congress Reports, Harvey Distorts.

It says right in the report that everything the President said was backed up by the intelligence that we had at the time. No one is congress is accusing the President of lying. All they seem to claim is that he didn't provide both sides of the story because he never spoke of the doubts or conflicts that may have existed in the intelligence.

Think of it this way.
Let's say it turns out that GW is not happening and that temperatures start to go back down.
Does that mean that every scientist out there supporting GW is lying?
Or does that mean that they are making statements based on faulty science?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the sub title for this thread should be:
Congress Reports, Harvey Distorts.

I think the subtitle for this thread could have been:

Waiting for PJ to pimp more of his usual lies, distortions, diversions and distractions from the truth, which is that George W. Bush and his entire administration are traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers, liars and all around scumbags, and even Congress says so, now.

I thought about it, but it wouldn't fit. :laugh:

Think of it this way.

Let's say it turns out that GWB and his criminal cabal started a war based on lies, and as of today, 4,094 American troops had died, tens of thousands more were wounded, scarred and disabled for life, and trillions of dollars of American taxpayers' money had been squandered for those lies.

Are you suggesting that if any one of the administrations multiple lies and crimes turns out not to be quite as serious as the rest of them, that those lost and damaged lives and all of that money will be restored to their pre-war status?

Or does it mean that it doesn't matter because what has been shown conclusively, not only by the Senate Intelligence Committee report, but in report after report from multiple sources is more than enough to damn all of them beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Ok, here are the "lies" according the article in the OP. (Note, only Harvey calls them lies.)

1. They wrongly linked Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida;
2. They claimed Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,
3. They said Iraq was developing drone aircraft to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.

Now here are the basis of the 'lies'
1. In September of 2002 Cheney said he did not know if AQ and Iraq cooperated on 9-11.
It seems like a stretch to go from "did not know" to "linking"

2. Intelligence agencies did not think Saddam would give terrorists the nasty stuff. But Bush thought that the risk was too big to take. Again, seems like a stretch to call this a 'lie' seems more like a difference in opinions.

3. Don't know anything about this claim :)

Now here is some great information contained in the report.
From a Jan 31, 2003 memo written by Carl Ford "assistant state secretary for intelligence and research"
"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

He also wrote that Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."

What is interesting about this memo is that it shows us exactly what Bush and company were being told during the run up to the war, as opposed to post war analysis.

If we wanted to do an honest appraisal on the lead up to the war, which of course no one on the left wants to do, we would only concern ourselves with what we knew PRIOR to the invasion.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, here are the "lies" according the article in the OP. (Note, only Harvey calls them lies.)

1. They wrongly linked Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida;
2. They claimed Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,
3. They said Iraq was developing drone aircraft to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.

Now here are the basis of the 'lies'
1. In September of 2002 Cheney said he did not know if AQ and Iraq cooperated on 9-11.
It seems like a stretch to go from "did not know" to "linking"

2. Intelligence agencies did not think Saddam would give terrorists the nasty stuff. But Bush thought that the risk was too big to take. Again, seems like a stretch to call this a 'lie' seems more like a difference in opinions.

3. Don't know anything about this claim :)

Now here is some great information contained in the report.
From a Jan 31, 2003 memo written by Carl Ford "assistant state secretary for intelligence and research"
"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

He also wrote that Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."

What is interesting about this memo is that it shows us exactly what Bush and company were being told during the run up to the war, as opposed to post war analysis.

If we wanted to do an honest appraisal on the lead up to the war, which of course no one on the left wants to do, we would only concern ourselves with what we knew PRIOR to the invasion.

even if you are trying to be honest now no one really cares...

Thats funny, because the current administration suffers from the same plight.

Imagine if Iran REALLY IS A THREAT. Public sentiment is such that GWB and his goons can cry piss and moan that Iran is going to drop a bomb on Israel or us and we don't give a sh!t and we wont support military action against Iran.

That is the true mark of a failed policy and failed policy makers.

you only have yourselves (and your faux King) to blame.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
OrByte, you bring up a good point.

There is an old saying that I can't find, but it goes something like this.

Errors in judgement are often two fold.
First you error by being to cautious.
Second you error by being too hasty.

It is really fitting to look at that saying and apply it to our policy on fighting terrorism.
Clinton was to cautious. Then in an attempt to not repeat that mistakes Bush may have been too hasty in invading Iraq.

Now we could be back to being to cautious when it comes to taking action against Iran.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
At the end of the day, people who have to make the hard decisions have to make the hard decisions. Intelligence is rarely perfect. There are always dissenting views. You can make an argument for almost any side you want, because each scenario is plausible in its own right - some more plausible than others, but all still plausible the same.

Bush operating in a fresh post-9/11 era, where our multi-multi-multi $B intelligence failed so badly, having to make a decision to either let a dictator (who based on past actions cannot be trusted) keep F'ing around with the UN (as he'd done laughably so many times in the past)...which basically sends a message to the rest of the sh1tpot governments around the world, "Yes, the US is still not really serious when it says something...", is not really all that surprising. Saddam thought he was going to play the UN/US again like he'd done on all the past ignored UN resolutions, and this time someone called him on his BS.

In the end was Saddam cleared of WMD? It seems so Yes, however to be sure? No, one can never be sure. Does that matter at this point? No, not really.

People forget the people at the top aren't the analysts, they aren't the field operators, they don't have magic crystal balls that let them see into the future so they can always make the right decisions.

Bush in the end - long term - made the right call.

His failures in allowing the DoD to short Afghanistan of resources (instead of bolstering that effort), in addition to not having one huge F'ing whopping big aid package for the Iraqi's to be implemented ASAP after major hostilities, are what people should be holding him to the fire for.

Chuck
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, here are the "lies" according the article in the OP. (Note, only Harvey calls them lies.).
.
.
Blah, blah, BULLSHIT!

I don't know if you've read through all 57 pages of the report, itself, or the 172 pages of official public statements about report by various committee members. I haven't had time to do more than scan them.

Go here, and read them, if you care to. You'll find what I posted, an official report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the conclusions of which are damning of the Bushwhacko adminstration.

The consequenses of their horrific crimes include the deaths of thousands of American troops and possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. All of their blood is on their hands.

They have committed horrible crimes against humanity -- the same kinds of crimes for which Japanese and German military personnel were executed after WW II.

And as I posted, earlier, they committed these crimes in our name, claiming to represent each and every citizen of this once great nation, and they have shamed us before the world with their crimes and their lies and their utter lack of humanity.

Go read the report. The opinions individual Senators, politicians, professionals who are far better at bullshitting than you if that's what they choose to do. Go ahead and drag the snippets that support whatever trivial item you're trying to twist into some pretzel logic proof of your point.

It doesn't matter. Those American troops are just as dead and wounded. The trillions are already squandered. Those numbers will not go down. They will not will not remain level.

I don't really give a rat's ass how you want to attempt to polish that turd; it still stinks, and they did it. And now that so much of what they've done is public information, as long as you continue to pimp the party line, each new death, and each and every thing that our nation fails to accomplish in our future, is on you and the rest of the Bushie sycophants as accomplices to their crimes after the fact.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
You mean this part of the report?
?It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee?s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,? said Bond.
or maybe this part?
The minority was entirely cut out of the process and that the report was written solely by Democratic staffers ? For example, Republican amendments, including those of the Vice Chairman, were not even given a vote;

The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers? statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;

The report does not review any statements of Democrats, only Republican administration officials;

The Democratic staff did not seek to interview those whom they accuse;

The Rome report violates the Democrats? own criteria for the Phase II report and should have been excluded.
Bond stressed that this type of partisan gamesmanship is beneath the Senate Intelligence Committee and takes away from the important national security issues the Committee should be focused on. Congress has failed to pass a terrorist surveillance bill, or intelligence authorization act, both of which are critical to improving the intelligence community. These failures are a result of injecting partisan politics into the Committee?s oversight responsibilities, emphasized Bond. With this final Phase II report now complete, Bond concluded that it is critical the Senate Intelligence attempts to move forward in a nonpartisan manner.
What a hack job.

They could have just asked you to write them a report...
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You mean this part of the report?
?It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee?s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,? said Bond.
or maybe this part?
The minority was entirely cut out of the process and that the report was written solely by Democratic staffers ? For example, Republican amendments, including those of the Vice Chairman, were not even given a vote;

The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers? statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;

The report does not review any statements of Democrats, only Republican administration officials;

The Democratic staff did not seek to interview those whom they accuse;

The Rome report violates the Democrats? own criteria for the Phase II report and should have been excluded.
Bond stressed that this type of partisan gamesmanship is beneath the Senate Intelligence Committee and takes away from the important national security issues the Committee should be focused on. Congress has failed to pass a terrorist surveillance bill, or intelligence authorization act, both of which are critical to improving the intelligence community. These failures are a result of injecting partisan politics into the Committee?s oversight responsibilities, emphasized Bond. With this final Phase II report now complete, Bond concluded that it is critical the Senate Intelligence attempts to move forward in a nonpartisan manner.
What a hack job.

They could have just asked you to write them a report...

Ahh... PJ -- You're so predictable. I just posted that you'd grab snippets of bullshit, and back you come with snippets of bullshit.

Did any of those quotes reduce the number of Americans who have died for the Bushwhackos' lies?

How many? None, you say?
rose.gif


Did any of those quotes reduce the number of Americans who wounded for those lies?

How many? None, you say? :brokenheart:

How many of innocent people who were tortured have suddenly become untortured?

How many? None, you say? :shocked:

That's why I already told you, it doesn't matter. Even the majority of those who supported the Bushwhackos now understand what they have done and regret having voted for them.

The only ones left are those who are too stupid to understand and the criminal liars, themselves. None of the party lies can undo the damage they've done, and as long as you pimp their line, all the blood that has been spilled, and all the blood yet to be spilled, and all of those wounded and yet to be wounded, and all that torture, and all of the lives they've ruined, and the stench of the embarrassment they have foisted upon our nation in the eyes of the world are all on YOU. :thumbsdown: :|
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,899
7,428
136
parts of this thread is like the twilight zone, manchurian candidate, i-robot and the wizard of oz all rolled into one, compliments of karl christian rove and his minions of brain-washed-and-dry-cleaned 'droids. amazing...simply amazing.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
ProfJohn

It says right in the report that everything the President said was backed up by the intelligence that we had at the time.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on who the magician was that made all of the accurate intel analysis disappear, leaving only the bullshit intel.

It does seem almost mystical that nothing that was correct ever came to be considered. Somehow, Bush & Co. always seemed to only have the junk left to form their rationale. Do you honestly believe this was just serendipity for Bush's preconceived intent to invade Iraq?

IMHO, anybody that believes it was an unfortunate accident that all of the correct information came to be disregarded is a fool.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Gaard
JD50 - Did my 06/08/2008 06:58 AM post give you something to think about?

Yes, I wondered what the hell you were talking about.
Byrd said it in his speech. Maybe I'm reading it differently than you, but it sounds like they are giving him the authority, not declaring war.

<shrug> You were asking for a reply in your 06/08/2008 05:30 AM post.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Harvey, nice to see you try and refute my post...

In 2004 the same committee unanimously agreed that the intel was to blame.

Now the Democrats on that committee want to dissect every speech given by a member of the White House in order to show how they 'lied' but at the same time they ignore all the speeches given by their own members.

Of course you find this acceptable because the outcome fits your preconceived notion of the truth.

BTW I have yet to see anyone make a good case that the administration 'lied.'
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, nice to see you try and refute my post...

There's nothing to refute that I didn't predict you'd post. You cut and pasted a few of the remarks at variance or descenting from the official conclusions of the official report. As I said, they're better at bullshitting than you'll ever be. They do it for a living.

BTW I have yet to see anyone make a good case that the administration 'lied.'

You should have listened when your mother warned you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind! :shocked: :laugh:

 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW I have yet to see anyone make a good case that the administration 'lied.'
Wow, you actually made that statement in a non-joking manner. Folks, we have a new Alice in Wonderland award winner! :cookie:

 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
This report is a total hack job. They conveniently left off the democrats that agreed with the war in the first place so it loses credibility there. Heck even Ted Kennedy who was against the war from the beginning, was against it because he was worried that our soldiers would have nerve gas used on them. Oh how soon we forget...

Also, if GWB lied, then Tony Blair lied, Bill Clinton lied and the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe lied. There will never be any proof that he lied about going to war, just blind vitriol for GWB.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Also, if GWB lied, then Tony Blair lied, Bill Clinton lied and the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe lied. There will never be any proof that he lied about going to war, just blind vitriol for GWB.

No only Bush lied DUHHHHHH!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Also, if GWB lied, then Tony Blair lied, Bill Clinton lied and the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe lied. There will never be any proof that he lied about going to war, just blind vitriol for GWB.

No only Bush lied DUHHHHHH!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe Corbett has a point, GWB was too dumb to be a good liar, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfawitz, Hadley, and that crowd proved to be very good liars. Face the facts, Blair knew these were lies, but he still figured why not jump on the bandwagon and share in the spoils of war. And Blair was happy until he learned the GWB administration was a bunch of incompetents that could not even manage a Walmart parking lot. And now Blair is not British PM anymore as he paid for his folly.

But look at this logically, we have the Corbett premise that Saddam was this brilliant and tough dictator that had WMD to augment his arsenal of offensive and defensive military punch. And that Rumsfeld as secretary of defense was also fooled by the Saddam military machine with the rest of the GWB administration.

That after all is the Corbett case he is making by this above thread in a nutshell.

And if that is the Corbett premise, it fails immediately, because if GWB&co honestly thought
Saddam was a real threat, they would not have a allowed Rumsfeld to try and take out Saddam with a very tiny undersized army as Shinseki pointed out.

But on the other hand, if GWB&co. knew the real truth about Saddam, and that Saddam was simply a paper tiger, it makes almost prefect sense to topple him with an undersized army.
But edit that, perfect sense to overoptimistic fools, they were right about Saddam being a paper tiger easy to topple with a nudge, but see the fact that they could not manage a Walmart parking lot part. And we are left with a bunch of incompetent liars. Some 70% of those who supported this optional war have learned better, leaving only a few learning disabled types like Corbett unwilling to apply logical tests to their premises.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Also, if GWB lied, then Tony Blair lied, Bill Clinton lied and the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe lied.

Bush did lie, and so did Blair. Clinton had nothing to do with pulling the trigger on their war of lies, and when it comes to your shit about "the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe," you should consider putting down the crack pipe.

In his State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003, George W. Bush said:
  • "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.?

    Fact: No usable chemical weapons found anywhere in Iraq.
  • ?U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

    Fact:

    Aside from a few buried, degraded shells from the war with Iran, not chemical weapons munition has been found anywhere in Iraq.
  • ?We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

    Fact:

    No aerial vehicles capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons have been found anywhere in Iraq
  • "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."

    Fact: Prior to the U.S. invasion, no evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations has been revealed. All evidence indicates Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and even the name, Al Qaida, only came to prominence with the formation of "Al Qaida in Iraq" under Zarkawi.
  • "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    Fact: The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible. This was confirmed by intelligence agencies from several nations.

    Ask Joseph Wilson what he found in Niger. Ask Scooter Libby why he's on trial for lying to the Grand Jury about his involvement in Whitehouse attempts to smear Joseph Wilson by outing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA operative.

    Before you answer, you'd better check the testimony and evidence from Libby's trial about, especially the evidence of Cheney's hands on participation.
In a speech to the nation, October 7, 2002, George W. Bush said:
  • "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

    Fact: Months before the war, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and dozens of leading scientists declared those tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production.
  • "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

    Fact: The IAEA reported to the UN Security Council on 1/27/2003 that two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities.
On ?Meet the Press,? March 16, 2003, VP Dick Cheney said
  • We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

    Fact:

    The IAEA reported to the UN Security Council on 3/7/2003 that it had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

There will never be any proof that he lied about going to war, just blind vitriol for GWB.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to disprove the above. If you can't, or if you decline to do so, your mission is to STFU, and go home and practice, little boy. :p
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Apparently Harvey still hasn't learned that the ACCUSER is the one that has the burden of proof.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Ohh he will get his day in court. As for all you neocon supporters of bush you should all pay as well.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Also, if GWB lied, then Tony Blair lied, Bill Clinton lied and the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe lied.

Bush did lie, and so did Blair. Clinton had nothing to do with pulling the trigger on their war of lies, and when it comes to your shit about "the rest of the intelligence offices across the globe," you should consider putting down the crack pipe.

In his State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003, George W. Bush said:
  • "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.?

    Fact: No usable chemical weapons found anywhere in Iraq.
  • ?U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

    Fact:

    Aside from a few buried, degraded shells from the war with Iran, not chemical weapons munition has been found anywhere in Iraq.
  • ?We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

    Fact:

    No aerial vehicles capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons have been found anywhere in Iraq
  • "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."

    Fact: Prior to the U.S. invasion, no evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations has been revealed. All evidence indicates Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and even the name, Al Qaida, only came to prominence with the formation of "Al Qaida in Iraq" under Zarkawi.
  • "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    Fact: The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible. This was confirmed by intelligence agencies from several nations.

    Ask Joseph Wilson what he found in Niger. Ask Scooter Libby why he's on trial for lying to the Grand Jury about his involvement in Whitehouse attempts to smear Joseph Wilson by outing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA operative.

    Before you answer, you'd better check the testimony and evidence from Libby's trial about, especially the evidence of Cheney's hands on participation.
In a speech to the nation, October 7, 2002, George W. Bush said:
  • "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

    Fact: Months before the war, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and dozens of leading scientists declared those tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production.
  • "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

    Fact: The IAEA reported to the UN Security Council on 1/27/2003 that two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities.
On ?Meet the Press,? March 16, 2003, VP Dick Cheney said
  • We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

    Fact:

    The IAEA reported to the UN Security Council on 3/7/2003 that it had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

There will never be any proof that he lied about going to war, just blind vitriol for GWB.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to disprove the above. If you can't, or if you decline to do so, your mission is to STFU, and go home and practice, little boy. :p

That's all great Harvey, but the problem is there's a difference between the assessments delivered to the POTUS, which he bases his/her decisions on (along with a wealth of other inputs), and what's actually found in Iraq and what other org's say (who may or may not have intelligence we allow them to have).

The position you need to put yourself in is the POTUS sitting in the Oval Office or Sit Room, in a fresh post-9/11 world, with Pakistan dragging their heals on helping us track down AQ Leadership in their country (or at least be willing to look the other way), and now F'ing Saddam is yet, once again (for the 14th time now...when it should be 0 times) showing the rest of the worlds Leadership how the US/UN is once again able to be ignored.

Status quo is fine until the status quo is not fine...then something has to change. You think so micro scale, when these decisions are made at the national/world level, it's just asinine.

Chuck
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: JD50
Apparently Harvey still hasn't learned that the ACCUSER is the one that has the burden of proof.

Apparently, JD50 is reading and/or mouse challenged. That actually was one of my cut and paste macros. Do you think I'd have saved it if they weren't documented facts? :roll:

I save them because you neocon liars keep repeating the same bullshit, and complete replies like that take a lot of time to write. As long as you're going to repeat the lies, the same replies disproving your bullshit are just as true as they were when I first wrote them.

I listed names, dates, facts and quotes. If you want to challenge them, go ahead. Google works, even if your own brain doesn't. :p