Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

btw, to address Lemon law's partisan-fueled revisionist history above since FuseTalk won't permit me to quote him directly for some odd reason:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...sh.briefing/index.html

The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.

A little more info from your link:

White House releases bin Laden memo

Presidential briefing was at center of Rice's testimony


Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 12:22 AM EDT (0422 GMT)
.
.
The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.

NOTHING issued by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang regarding their conduct can be taken as truth without multiple independent sources of corroboration. We KNOW they lied about anything and everything relating to their criminality in conducting their illegal war of LIES.

Go ahead. Dispute it. I've got the macro waiting.
Sheesh your such a partisan tool that you don't even engage your brain before running off at the typewriter. If the PDB on Bin Laden, which was in August of 2001 and which has been released to the public, was not requested by the president, then who requested it? Michael Moore?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
2) The deputies were convicted and sentenced. Sheriff Parker plead guilty and got 10 years. Google it.

You said above: "They were charged with extortion and civil rights violations and plead guilty." So I'll accept your amendment without googling if you admit your initial characterization of 4 defendants tried and convicted while one plead guilty does not equal "they".

1) No, I don't think a responsible attorney would have been negligent at all because the case actually has to be relevant to be valid. First, neither the sheriff or deputies were not prosecuted for waterboarding or torture. Additionally, the people who were waterboarded were US citizens, not unlawful combatants.

That's so intellectually dishonest I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to debate it with you. If you told a subordinate that you wanted to waterboard someone and to go do research on waterboarding and how people who've done it have been treated in court, their defenses, etc. and that subordinate didn't come back to you with that Texas case at least FOOTNOTED with why it was different, you'd fucking fire his ass. Or maybe you appreciate incompetent underlings, or ones so loyal they are afraid to tell you the truth. Or maybe, they did mention the case to you, and you said, "don't put that in there, that's bad for us."
Don't debate it then. There was no ruling on waterboarding or torture in this case and there was no legal precedent set, so it would be completely useless to cite the case in the first place. The case was about civil rights and extortion, that's it.

You could go ahead and fire his ass based on your emotions driving your decision-making, and then you could face the state bar for illegal dismissal.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheesh your such a partisan tool that you don't even engage your brain before running off at the typewriter. If the PDB on Bin Laden, which was in August of 2001 and which has been released to the public, was not requested by the president, then who requested it? Michael Moore?

You're an extremely slow learner so I'll say it again...

NOTHING said by ANY of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers at ANY time, to ANY member of Congress, or the press, or to the public, or to anyone else, whatsoever, can be trusted or believed for ANY reason without independent corroboration.

They have a proven track record of issuing continuous and ever changing lies to pimp their criminal agenda. :thumbsdown: :|
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And you guys just live in 'Ifwejustapologizeeveryonewillloveusland'.. Like I said, being a liberal is easy.. you don't have to make any tough decisions. If someone kills a bunch of Americans you just blame the previous administration's policies for creating the hate. Every 8 years or so you get a Republican in office to come in and do the dirty work and cleanup, and then a democrat gets elected again on the 'Can't we all just get along' platform.

Still living under the false assumption that either the red or blue team has all the answers I see. Well that's quite alright, but at least wake up from your day dream fantasizing about ways to legitimize torture. Your assumptions (read whatifland) has no basis in reality, and it takes your imagination to rationalize what is clearly inhumane to the majority of American Citizens.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,886
55,138
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
2) The deputies were convicted and sentenced. Sheriff Parker plead guilty and got 10 years. Google it.

You said above: "They were charged with extortion and civil rights violations and plead guilty." So I'll accept your amendment without googling if you admit your initial characterization of 4 defendants tried and convicted while one plead guilty does not equal "they".

1) No, I don't think a responsible attorney would have been negligent at all because the case actually has to be relevant to be valid. First, neither the sheriff or deputies were not prosecuted for waterboarding or torture. Additionally, the people who were waterboarded were US citizens, not unlawful combatants.

That's so intellectually dishonest I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to debate it with you. If you told a subordinate that you wanted to waterboard someone and to go do research on waterboarding and how people who've done it have been treated in court, their defenses, etc. and that subordinate didn't come back to you with that Texas case at least FOOTNOTED with why it was different, you'd fucking fire his ass. Or maybe you appreciate incompetent underlings, or ones so loyal they are afraid to tell you the truth. Or maybe, they did mention the case to you, and you said, "don't put that in there, that's bad for us."
Don't debate it then. There was no ruling on waterboarding or torture in this case and there was no legal precedent set, so it would be completely useless to cite the case in the first place. The case was about civil rights and extortion, that's it.

You could go ahead and fire his ass based on your emotions driving your decision-making, and then you could face the state bar for illegal dismissal.

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheesh your such a partisan tool that you don't even engage your brain before running off at the typewriter. If the PDB on Bin Laden, which was in August of 2001 and which has been released to the public, was not requested by the president, then who requested it? Michael Moore?

You're an extremely slow learner so I'll say it again...

NOTHING said by ANY of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers at ANY time, to ANY member of Congress, or the press, or to the public, or to anyone else, whatsoever, can be trusted or believed for ANY reason without independent corroboration.

They have a proven track record of issuing continuous and ever changing lies to pimp their criminal agenda. :thumbsdown: :|

Why are you so afraid to face facts that disagree with your own biases? Bush failed miserably in so many areas, but your blanket statements are not only absurd but border on the psycotic.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
2) The deputies were convicted and sentenced. Sheriff Parker plead guilty and got 10 years. Google it.

You said above: "They were charged with extortion and civil rights violations and plead guilty." So I'll accept your amendment without googling if you admit your initial characterization of 4 defendants tried and convicted while one plead guilty does not equal "they".

1) No, I don't think a responsible attorney would have been negligent at all because the case actually has to be relevant to be valid. First, neither the sheriff or deputies were not prosecuted for waterboarding or torture. Additionally, the people who were waterboarded were US citizens, not unlawful combatants.

That's so intellectually dishonest I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to debate it with you. If you told a subordinate that you wanted to waterboard someone and to go do research on waterboarding and how people who've done it have been treated in court, their defenses, etc. and that subordinate didn't come back to you with that Texas case at least FOOTNOTED with why it was different, you'd fucking fire his ass. Or maybe you appreciate incompetent underlings, or ones so loyal they are afraid to tell you the truth. Or maybe, they did mention the case to you, and you said, "don't put that in there, that's bad for us."
Don't debate it then. There was no ruling on waterboarding or torture in this case and there was no legal precedent set, so it would be completely useless to cite the case in the first place. The case was about civil rights and extortion, that's it.

You could go ahead and fire his ass based on your emotions driving your decision-making, and then you could face the state bar for illegal dismissal.

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
TLC claims to have rebutted me when I said, "The GWB administration did exactly nothing about even looking at Bin Laden until 911."

And then posted a link that even if GWB was very briefly briefed, the GWB administration did not treat it as anything remotely resembling and urgent threat. And armed with that briefing, did not even bother to inform the general public. Actually thanks TLC, for the link that further proves my point.
The revelent line in your link is, "Some commission members said the administration was given enough information about bin Laden's intentions and capabilities to have warned the public that an attack was possible." In other words, what I said was correct, GWB did nothing real about Bin Laden until after 911, but was amply warned before by many other sources.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...sh.briefing/index.html

As for the TLC cop out argument that the home land security department and not GWB&co was responsible for hardening home land infrastructure, its simply bogus, GWB&co simply used home land security for a sham show and never allocated the priority or budget to allow those needed things to be done. Instead GWB opted not to fund needed defense and instead opted for a all offense and no defense strategy that spawned two bungled wars that ended up being black holes in terms of lives and money.

And when an act of God like hurricane Katrina struck, homeland security was so inept it could not even get to the scene while television networks got there far ahead of them.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Harvey
[
NOTHING said by ANY of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers at ANY time, to ANY member of Congress, or the press, or to the public, or to anyone else, whatsoever, can be trusted or believed for ANY reason without independent corroboration.

They have a proven track record of issuing continuous and ever changing lies to pimp their criminal agenda. :thumbsdown: :|

Why are you so afraid to face facts that disagree with your own biases? Bush failed miserably in so many areas, but your blanket statements are not only absurd but border on the psycotic.

How many "facts" would you like? As I said, I have at least one macro full of years of Bushwhacko lies, one after the other, proving that they lied continuously. Do I have to repost the list yet again to make that point?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheesh your such a partisan tool that you don't even engage your brain before running off at the typewriter. If the PDB on Bin Laden, which was in August of 2001 and which has been released to the public, was not requested by the president, then who requested it? Michael Moore?

You're an extremely slow learner so I'll say it again...

NOTHING said by ANY of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers at ANY time, to ANY member of Congress, or the press, or to the public, or to anyone else, whatsoever, can be trusted or believed for ANY reason without independent corroboration.

They have a proven track record of issuing continuous and ever changing lies to pimp their criminal agenda. :thumbsdown: :|
You're a fool if you think anyone but your partisan pals care what comes out of your hyperbolic partisan pie-hole. Asking you anything about Bush is like asking a hard-core Red Sox douche what he thinks about the Yankees.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,886
55,138
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.

Wrong.

Without having read this particular case myself, within any court decision there are numerous findings of fact and rulings of law that can be and are applicable to a wide range of cases, even ones not directly dealing with the same laws or similar defendants.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Harvey
[
NOTHING said by ANY of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers at ANY time, to ANY member of Congress, or the press, or to the public, or to anyone else, whatsoever, can be trusted or believed for ANY reason without independent corroboration.

They have a proven track record of issuing continuous and ever changing lies to pimp their criminal agenda. :thumbsdown: :|

Why are you so afraid to face facts that disagree with your own biases? Bush failed miserably in so many areas, but your blanket statements are not only absurd but border on the psycotic.

How many "facts" would you like? As I said, I have at least one macro full of years of Bushwhacko lies, one after the other, proving that they lied continuously. Do I have to repost the list yet again to make that point?

Policy you disagree with does not make a lie. I've read and dismissed your so called macro.

I'll focus on what actually occurred, when and under what legal constraints/policies/law was in place at the time of the decisions. Not what I think I want to believe, but what is at the time legal or not.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
2) The deputies were convicted and sentenced. Sheriff Parker plead guilty and got 10 years. Google it.

You said above: "They were charged with extortion and civil rights violations and plead guilty." So I'll accept your amendment without googling if you admit your initial characterization of 4 defendants tried and convicted while one plead guilty does not equal "they".

1) No, I don't think a responsible attorney would have been negligent at all because the case actually has to be relevant to be valid. First, neither the sheriff or deputies were not prosecuted for waterboarding or torture. Additionally, the people who were waterboarded were US citizens, not unlawful combatants.

That's so intellectually dishonest I don't know where to start, and I'm not going to debate it with you. If you told a subordinate that you wanted to waterboard someone and to go do research on waterboarding and how people who've done it have been treated in court, their defenses, etc. and that subordinate didn't come back to you with that Texas case at least FOOTNOTED with why it was different, you'd fucking fire his ass. Or maybe you appreciate incompetent underlings, or ones so loyal they are afraid to tell you the truth. Or maybe, they did mention the case to you, and you said, "don't put that in there, that's bad for us."
Don't debate it then. There was no ruling on waterboarding or torture in this case and there was no legal precedent set, so it would be completely useless to cite the case in the first place. The case was about civil rights and extortion, that's it.

You could go ahead and fire his ass based on your emotions driving your decision-making, and then you could face the state bar for illegal dismissal.

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.

You could try that argument when you're being fired for incompetence and malpractice. It's not like legal memoranda are supposed to consider and raise arguments an opponent might cite to rebut your position and then differentiate them from the current circumstance, especially when only a handful of cases in american jurisprudence even have the term waterboarding in it. Let's omit that entirely. :thumbsup: Bush DOJ!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: dphantom

Policy you disagree with does not make a lie.

I said LIES, not policies. If you don't know the difference, there's no point in listing them.

They lied to Congress, the American people and the world about their "reasons" for invading Iraq. They have lied continuously to "justify" their illegal acts, including the subject of this thread, the most base, inhuman acts of TORTURE committed against other human beings.

Calling their acts "policy" doesn't make them anymore legal, ethical or moral.

Nothing they said before, during or since their crimes makes them any more legal, ethical or moral.

No weasel words attempting to distinguish between one form of TORTURE or another makes it any less TORTURE or any more legal, ethical or moral.

The saddest part is, they did it in our names and the name of our once great, once respected nation.

In so doing they shit on the very essence of what he have held ourselves out to be in the civilized world, and they shit on the sacrifice of every American life lost in every battle against the forces of evil.
rose.gif


In so doing, they made US the very evil we claimed we sought to defeat. :(

There is no excuse for it. There is only atonement and the hope that the world can forgive us and that we can forgive ourselves. That can only be accomplished by admitting the wrongs committed in our name and trying, convicting and punishing the evil that walked among us and led us to commit those tragic, horrific crimes.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: dphantom

Policy you disagree with does not make a lie.

I said LIES, not policies. If you don't know the difference, there's no point in listing them.

They lied to Congress, the American people and the world about their "reasons" for invading Iraq. They have lied continuously to "justify" their illegal acts, including the subject of this thread, the most base, inhuman acts of TORTURE committed against other human beings.

Calling their acts "policy" doesn't make them anymore legal, ethical or moral.

Nothing they said before, during or since their crimes makes them any more legal, ethical or moral.

No weasel words attempting to distinguish between one form of TORTURE or another makes it any less TORTURE or any more legal, ethical or moral.

The saddest part is, they did it in our names and the name of our once great, once respected nation.

In so doing they shit on the very essence of what he have held ourselves out to be in the civilized world, and they shit on the sacrifice of every American life lost in every battle against the forces of evil.
rose.gif


In so doing, they made US the very evil we claimed we sought to defeat. :(

There is no excuse for it. There is only atonement and the hope that the world can forgive us and that we can forgive ourselves. That can only be accomplished by admitting the wrongs committed in our name and trying, convicting and punishing the evil that walked among us and led us to commit those tragic, horrific crimes.

Still not seeing any.....
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jonks
You could try that argument when you're being fired for incompetence and malpractice. It's not like legal memoranda are supposed to consider and raise arguments an opponent might cite to rebut your position and then differentiate them from the current circumstance, especially when only a handful of cases in american jurisprudence even have the term waterboarding in it. Let's omit that entirely. :thumbsup: Bush DOJ!
Right. I mean, why would a legal document be restricted to citing legally relevant facts?

:confused:

Case law citations have to provide a legal basis for being used in the first place. Since no legal determination was made concerning waterboarding or torture in that case, it's completely useless as a citation.

Sorry to destroy a talking point about the alleged grievous ommissions by Bybee in the memo but it's not my fault some people jumped the gun just because waterboarding was involved in that case and made incorrect assumptions of its relevance.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: dphantom

Policy you disagree with does not make a lie.

I said LIES, not policies. If you don't know the difference, there's no point in listing them.

They lied to Congress, the American people and the world about their "reasons" for invading Iraq. They have lied continuously to "justify" their illegal acts, including the subject of this thread, the most base, inhuman acts of TORTURE committed against other human beings.

Calling their acts "policy" doesn't make them anymore legal, ethical or moral.

Nothing they said before, during or since their crimes makes them any more legal, ethical or moral.

No weasel words attempting to distinguish between one form of TORTURE or another makes it any less TORTURE or any more legal, ethical or moral.

The saddest part is, they did it in our names and the name of our once great, once respected nation.

In so doing they shit on the very essence of what he have held ourselves out to be in the civilized world, and they shit on the sacrifice of every American life lost in every battle against the forces of evil.
rose.gif


In so doing, they made US the very evil we claimed we sought to defeat. :(

There is no excuse for it. There is only atonement and the hope that the world can forgive us and that we can forgive ourselves. That can only be accomplished by admitting the wrongs committed in our name and trying, convicting and punishing the evil that walked among us and led us to commit those tragic, horrific crimes.

Not sure what the lie about Iraq was.

A bug (caterpillar) is certainly scary to a terrorist or a psychotic leftist.

Bottom line. One can be wrong and not be lying. You cannot see the difference. Hopefully, your president is never wrong because by your definition he then becomes a liar.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: dphantom

Not sure what the lie about Iraq was.

That's lieS (plural), and if you're not sure, you simply have not been paying attention. The following list of public lies are the same ones the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES. It took just a few minutes to find lots of threads, including some like this one going back to 2004. The "macros" weren't as long, then, but either was the string of known lies. :shocked: (All times are Pacific time zone):

10/14/2007 01:34 PM

Originally posted by: Harvey

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.
  • "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
    Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  • "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  • "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  • "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
    George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  • "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
    George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  • "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
    George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
    George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  • "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
    George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  • "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
    George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  • "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  • "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
    George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  • "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
    George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
    George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  • "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  • "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  • "Well, of course he is.?
    White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  • "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
    George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  • "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  • Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
    Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  • "This is about imminent threat."
    White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  • "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
    George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  • "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
    Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  • "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
    George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  • "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
    Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  • "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  • "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
    George W. Bush 4/24/03
  • "Absolutely."
    White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  • "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
    George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  • Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
    White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  • "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
    George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  • "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
    White House spokeswoman Claire Buchanan, 8/26/03
  • We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
    Dick Cheney, 9/14/03 on ?Meet the Press?
  • We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
    Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"
You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 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?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 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 W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 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 W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 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, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, 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 W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 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, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, 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, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

---

With all the evidence against the Bushwhackos that is public information, anyone who continues to deny their crimes is either in complete self denial or one of the lying murderers and traitors, or both. :|

Which are you? :roll:

Bottom line. One can be wrong and not be lying. You cannot see the difference. Hopefully, your president is never wrong because by your definition he then becomes a liar.

Bottom line - I didn't say WRONG; I said LIES. :|

I have no expectation that Obama, or any other human being will never be wrong. I have every expectation that he will continue to tell the truth and that he will continue to admit when he makes mistakes. So far, he hasn't let us down.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.

Wrong.

Without having read this particular case myself, within any court decision there are numerous findings of fact and rulings of law that can be and are applicable to a wide range of cases, even ones not directly dealing with the same laws or similar defendants.
Right. Except there were no rulings in this case concerning waterboarding OR torture. Maybe you SHOULD actually read it first because, if not, it puts you at a distinct disadvantage discussing this.

btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Harvey

I have no expectation that Obama, or any other human being will never be wrong. I have every expectation that he will continue to tell the truth and that he will continue to admit when he makes mistakes. So far, he hasn't let us down.

Well, you can cherry pick with the best of them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,886
55,138
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.

Wrong.

Without having read this particular case myself, within any court decision there are numerous findings of fact and rulings of law that can be and are applicable to a wide range of cases, even ones not directly dealing with the same laws or similar defendants.
Right. Except there were no rulings in this case concerning waterboarding OR torture. Maybe you SHOULD actually read it first because, if not, it puts you at a distinct disadvantage discussing this.

btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

I searched for a link to the ruling but was unable to find one. Since you claim to have read the case, please provide me with one.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

You are clueless if you think that prior cases involving waterboarding don't have relevance to current decisions on waterboarding even if they don't invoke the same laws. This is particularly true if the laws in question did not exist at the time of the prior conviction.
You're clueless if you think a case where the charges were civil rights violations and extortion, which provided no legal opinion on waterboarding, and involved a group of public servants mistreating innocent Americans, is relevant.

Wrong.

Without having read this particular case myself, within any court decision there are numerous findings of fact and rulings of law that can be and are applicable to a wide range of cases, even ones not directly dealing with the same laws or similar defendants.
Right. Except there were no rulings in this case concerning waterboarding OR torture. Maybe you SHOULD actually read it first because, if not, it puts you at a distinct disadvantage discussing this.

btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

I searched for a link to the ruling but was unable to find one. Since you claim to have read the case, please provide me with one.
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Harvey

I have no expectation that Obama, or any other human being will never be wrong. I have every expectation that he will continue to tell the truth and that he will continue to admit when he makes mistakes. So far, he hasn't let us down.

Well, you can cherry pick with the best of them.

If you're talking about my list of Bushwhacko lies, how many do we have to pick before you figure out that the whole fucking orchard is contaminated?

When think you can post up a list of lies from the Obama adminstration as long and as egregious and having consequenses as grave as the Bushwhackos' war of LIES in Iraq, go ahead and do it. Remember to include names, dates, quotes and verifiable links as I did.

Until then, all of your denials and a dollar aren't worth the price of a single item in a 99 Cents Store.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,886
55,138
136
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial

Well I was thinking of the judgment in the case. Color me shocked that TLC claims to know what was in it and yet can't produce it. Interestingly enough, his 'trust me' theory of evidence neatly coincides with the OLC's standard for evidence in their legal arguments. I think this explains a lot.