No WOMD found in Iraq even still....

[heartsurgeon]

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

you do an excellent imitation of Al Franken..and this is about as funny as Al is sounding these days....

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Gaard
Who cares? Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Saddam has been a brutal dictator for decades. The reason our government gave us for attacking now was WMD. If your argument holds water, then why aren't we going after the rest of the brutal dictators and governments still in existance? No oil?

Since you seem to be new to this section of the AnandTech forum, I would advice you to adjust your sarcams detector. If you don't, you'll become mighty confused later on. Take the time to read some of the older posts and you might start to get a clearer picture of what people here actuly mean.

Except I know too many people who actually believe Gaard's argument and I don't know who Gaard is, forgive me.

 

[Gaard]

I'm Batman.

 

[tallest1]

Lets say my intelligence tells me Gaard is Batman.

Whether I'm right or wrong, you folks are saying I can argue that I didn't lie?

okay then - my intelligence tells me I'm Abe Lincoln. My intelligence tells me the sky is green. My intelligence tells me the moon is made of cheese..... am I lying? I guess not.

Edit: holy $hit Gaard, that last quote in your sig is scary

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Lets say my intelligence tells me Gaard is Batman.

Whether I'm right or wrong, you folks are saying I can argue that I didn't lie?

okay then - my intelligence tells me I'm Abe Lincoln. My intelligence tells me the sky is green. My intelligence tells me the moon is made of cheese..... am I lying? I guess not.

Edit: holy $hit Gaard, that last quote in your sig is scary

What if you said "Without a doubt the moon is made of cheese"?

Yes, I like that quote. Well, I don't like it like it...you know what I mean.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

re: gaard's sig

Anti-Bush motto - "Everything they did to Clinton was horrid, unless we can do it too, then it's all good."

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
re: gaard's sig

Anti-Bush motto - "Everything they did to Clinton was horrid, unless we can do it too, then it's all good."

CkG

touche


except I can't think of any examples

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
except I can't think of any examples

Of yours? Why would you put it in your sig then?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mill
You have zero proof that Bush lied to anyone about anything regarding Iraq. All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence that turned out to be less than accurate. How else do you go into war though? Was he supposed to say we think or we know? Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof that the intel agencies gave him. Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him, but you cannot post a single shred of evidence that proves he lied which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy, it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie and making a statement based on good-faith evidence.

This has been hashed to death here already. However, here is the latest entry I found demonstrating the dishonesty of Bush and his minions. No matter how much you may try to rationalize individual claims or articles, in my opinion, when you put it all together, the evidence of Bush's lies is overwhelming.

From the Miami Herald: Will speech lack hyperbole that 'justified' war?
STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE
BY RAY McGOVERN

Iraqi chickens are coming to roost as President Bush's advisors attempt to draft a State of the Union Message without the embarrassing flaws of their last try. With last year's hyperbole -- replete with the knee-slapper about Baghdad's seeking uranium in Africa -- forming part of the backdrop, they have their work cut out for them.

And the facts are not cooperating. Administration claims originally adduced to justify war could not withstand close scrutiny, and even the likes of columnist George Will have disdainfully rejected ''retroactive'' justifications. The gap between earlier claims about the Iraqi threat and last year's experience on the ground has become a chasm too wide to be bridged by rhetorical finesse.


Damaging information

Consider these events and revelations earlier this month:

? The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released an exhaustive study, which concluded: ``Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.''

? On the same day, State Secretary Colin Powell finally conceded that there never had been any ''concrete evidence'' of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, contradicting himself on the ''sinister nexus'' that he conjured up for the U.N. Security Council last February.

? Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has said that during his two years in the president's cabinet, ``I never saw anything I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.''

? But the most damaging revelation came from an internal Iraqi document -- this time, happily, not a forged one -- confirming that a high-level order to destroy all chemical and biological weapons was carried out in the summer of 1991 (there were no nuclear weapons). U.S. officials learned of this in mid-1995 from what intelligence officers would call ''a reliable source with excellent access.'' Everything else he told us has checked out.


Defector par excellence

That source was none other than the person in charge of Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs: Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel -- the one who gave the order to destroy those weapons. Kamel defected in August 1995.

Documentary corroboration that Kamel's order was carried out surfaced this month in a handwritten letter obtained by Barton Gelman of The Washington Post. The letter was written by Hossam Amin, director of the Iraqi office overseeing U.N. inspectors, five days after Kamel's defection. It confirms that Iraq had in fact destroyed its entire inventory of biological weapons during the summer of 1991, before U.N. inspectors even knew of their existence.

Does this mean that Kamel's testimony had been known in Washington and London more than seven years before Bush's address last January, and that during that entire period no evidence had come to light poking holes in the information he provided? Yes.

Well, maybe they didn't tell the president. If that is true, ''they'' should be fired.

There is, I suppose, a chance that Bush's advisors missed the information from Kamel's debriefing -- or forgot it. But Newsweek on Feb. 24, 2003, reported Kamel's assertion that the weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed. That was more than three weeks before our troops were sent into Iraq, ostensibly to ''disarm'' Iraq of those same weapons.

Both Bush and Vice President Cheney have accorded Kamel fulsome praise as defector par excellence, emphasizing his revelations about the Iraqi biological and chemical weapons but not mentioning that Kamel also said that those same weapons were destroyed at his order in 1991. This brings the practice of ''cherry-picking'' intelligence information to new heights -- or lows.

To his credit, Bush did ask the head of his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, to investigate how the canard about Iraq's seeking uranium in Africa got into last year's speech. According to press reports, Scowcroft has concluded that it was the work of overzealous functionaries eager to ''find something affirmative'' to support claims like those of Cheney that Saddam Hussein had ''reconstituted'' Iraq's nuclear program.

Why not ask Scowcroft to lead an inquiry into which government officials and members of Congress were briefed on the full story provided by Kamel, and when? With 500 of our sons and daughters already killed in Iraq, we are due no less.

==============================================
Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran CIA analyst, is on the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity's Steering Group.

McGovern is also one of the first to come forward to reveal the Bush administration's willful manipulation of intelligence data to support attacking Iraq.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied (BAA) to anyone(BAA) about anything (BAA) regarding Iraq (BAA). All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence (BAA) that turned out to be less than accurate (BAA). How else do you go into war though? (BAA) (BAA) (BAA) Was he supposed to say we think or we know? (BAA) Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof (BAA) that the intel agencies gave him (BAA) (BAA) (BAA). Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him (BAA), but you cannot post a single shred of evidence (BAA) that proves he lied (BAA) which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy (BAA), it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie (BAA) and making a statement based on good-faith evidence (BAA) (BAA) (BAA).

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

Ldir must be desperate for attention again. Funny how Clintion thinks there are WMD's in Iraq too, so your boy Clinton is equally guilty as well. Maybe you can apolgize for his lies so we can come here and taunt you over something that isn't an apology.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy


Funny how Clintion thinks there are WMD's in Iraq too, so your boy Clinton is equally guilty as well. Maybe you can apolgize for his lies so we can come here and taunt you over something that isn't an apology.

It must really gall you to have to compare Bush to Clinton because of Bushes lies

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dirtboy


Funny how Clintion thinks there are WMD's in Iraq too, so your boy Clinton is equally guilty as well. Maybe you can apolgize for his lies so we can come here and taunt you over something that isn't an apology.

It must really gall you to have to compare Bush to Clinton because of Bushes lies

You must fell real intelligent being of your age at not knowing what the meaning of the word "lie" is and using it out of context to support your weak arguements.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dirtboy


Funny how Clintion thinks there are WMD's in Iraq too, so your boy Clinton is equally guilty as well. Maybe you can apolgize for his lies so we can come here and taunt you over something that isn't an apology.

It must really gall you to have to compare Bush to Clinton because of Bushes lies

You must fell real intelligent being of your age at not knowing what the meaning of the word "lie" is and using it out of context to support your weak arguements.

Well I "fell" more intelligent than you

 

[r0tt3n1]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied (BAA) to anyone(BAA) about anything (BAA) regarding Iraq (BAA). All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence (BAA) that turned out to be less than accurate (BAA). How else do you go into war though? (BAA) (BAA) (BAA) Was he supposed to say we think or we know? (BAA) Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof (BAA) that the intel agencies gave him (BAA) (BAA) (BAA). Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him (BAA), but you cannot post a single shred of evidence (BAA) that proves he lied (BAA) which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy (BAA), it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie (BAA) and making a statement based on good-faith evidence (BAA) (BAA) (BAA).

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

Ldir must be desperate for attention again. Funny how Clintion thinks there are WMD's in Iraq too, so your boy Clinton is equally guilty as well. Maybe you can apolgize for his lies so we can come here and taunt you over something that isn't an apology.

Clinton didn't start an illegal war and kill thousands of innocent people with the full knowledge that they would die because he thought something up in his head. There is a great difference between thinking something and commiting mass murderer without absolute certainty, ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that your own country is in immediate danger. We all know that Bush wanted war with Iraq and WMD was determined to be the argument they could sell. Nice having a deranged psychopath for President.