Study: False statements preceded war

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is a tragedy.

Let's go back to 2002 and fix it.

My wayback machine is broken.. can we use yours? not right now.. it can wait until after the Superbowl, right? and the new American Idol just started up again... DARNITALL!

I rent out my wayback machine and it's already booked years into the future by right-wingers going back before 2000 and listening to Democrats crow about how Saddam and his WMDs are such a dire threat. The Clintons, Pelosi, Kennedy...they revisit them all.

Who knows why they find that so interesting? But it pays the bills.

You do realize that the comments made "before 2000" were also made before a bombing campaign that is though to have eliminated the last remnants of Saddam's weapons program, right? Because you guys sound pretty stupid to continue bringing that up...yet it's pretty widely known.

 

[Atreus21]

According to democrats, if you mistakenly answer a math problem incorrectly, it's because you're a liar.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
According to democrats, if you mistakenly answer a math problem incorrectly, it's because you're a liar.

According to the Republicans if a Dem and Bush "mistakenly" answer a math problem incorrectly.....both are correct.

What kind of idiot thinks that the person holding the teacher's manual with the answers in it is on equal ground with the person that is given a blind equation and told to answer it?

Bush and his administration officials saw ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE and did not give any of the negative reports to Congress. If you think that means that the Dems are complicit to the same degree that the administration is....you are that kind of idiot.

 

[Queasy]

Oh look, another Soros funded front group with a BS study. Just like the Lancet study claiming 600k+ Iraqis had died at US hands which was ludicrously false.

Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Robb-Silberman Commission on the Inteligence Capabilities of the US in regards to WMDs

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

British Butler Report

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

And let's not forget the 'lies' of the previous administration.

Bill Clinton

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqâ??s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Madeline Albright

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

YouTube video

The blog, Lawhawk says it best.

Let?s keep this in mind. The Administration based its statements on CIA information that both parties in the United States relied upon for more than a decade?.how many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect.

That?s not a lie. That?s bad intel, which was only discovered after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is a tragedy.

Let's go back to 2002 and fix it.

My wayback machine is broken.. can we use yours? not right now.. it can wait until after the Superbowl, right? and the new American Idol just started up again... DARNITALL!

I rent out my wayback machine and it's already booked years into the future by right-wingers going back before 2000 and listening to Democrats crow about how Saddam and his WMDs are such a dire threat. The Clintons, Pelosi, Kennedy...they revisit them all.

Who knows why they find that so interesting? But it pays the bills.

I don't give a crap about republicans or democrats. They talk trash and always have. The difference is that Bush went in shooting and didn't even bother to do much more than listen to his and the dems lips flapping as an excuse to go to war. Bush wanted this, he made sure he got it, and we're stuck with it. The best excuse you seem to be able to come up with is that well yeah, maybe Bush started the war, but the Dems talked about it.

Bush ran with it, because the war was his hearts desire, and most importantly, he ACTED on it.

The responsibility for this rests on Bush alone regardless of any Rushite tactics to point the finger elsewhere.

So Bush went into Iraq without any authorization from many of those same Democrats that had also been jabbering about Saddam's WMDs and the terrible threat they were?

I really don't give a crap about Republicans or Democrats either, but at the core this IS a Red/Blue issue and anyone focusing solely on Bush appears to be a blindered partisan hack about it. Far, far more than Bush are culpable for Iraq.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
According to democrats, if you mistakenly answer a math problem incorrectly, it's because you're a liar.

According to the Republicans if a Dem and Bush "mistakenly" answer a math problem incorrectly.....both are correct.

What kind of idiot thinks that the person holding the teacher's manual with the answers in it is on equal ground with the person that is given a blind equation and told to answer it?

Bush and his administration officials saw ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE and did not give any of the negative reports to Congress. If you think that means that the Dems are complicit to the same degree that the administration is....you are that kind of idiot.

We don't know the extent of the intelligence that Bush had. We can only take him at his word. That alone would be a problem, if not for the fact that other countries thought the same thing about the intelligence. Everyone, including the democrats, thought Saddam was doing something terrible.

Now, 5 years later, everyone is acting like Bush, that sneaky bastard, deluded us. He was just so clever.

Please.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
According to democrats, if you mistakenly answer a math problem incorrectly, it's because you're a liar.

According to the Republicans if a Dem and Bush "mistakenly" answer a math problem incorrectly.....both are correct.

What kind of idiot thinks that the person holding the teacher's manual with the answers in it is on equal ground with the person that is given a blind equation and told to answer it?

Bush and his administration officials saw ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE and did not give any of the negative reports to Congress. If you think that means that the Dems are complicit to the same degree that the administration is....you are that kind of idiot.

We don't know the extent of the intelligence that Bush had. We can only take him at his word. That alone would be a problem, if not for the fact that other countries thought the same thing about the intelligence. Everyone, including the democrats, thought Saddam was doing something terrible.

Now, 5 years later, everyone is acting like Bush, that sneaky bastard, deluded us. He was just so clever.

Please.

Did you intentionally miss all of the reports from agents and officials stating that they had very serious reservations about the certainty of the statements being made by the administration? Did you miss the op-ed by Joe Wilson? Did you miss the UN hearings where over half of the UNSC didn't vote for force based on their own country's intel agency data?

The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[13] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee was frustrated according to the New York Times.[14] The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.[15] However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are Democratic Presidential candidates John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.[16]

The assertion such weapons posed a threat towards the U.S. was not supported by the available evidence at the time, according to subsequent reports.[17] The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.[18] Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S. led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out while ignoring their requests for more time.[19]

Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[20][21] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[22] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[23]

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
According to democrats, if you mistakenly answer a math problem incorrectly, it's because you're a liar.

According to the Republicans if a Dem and Bush "mistakenly" answer a math problem incorrectly.....both are correct.

What kind of idiot thinks that the person holding the teacher's manual with the answers in it is on equal ground with the person that is given a blind equation and told to answer it?

Bush and his administration officials saw ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE and did not give any of the negative reports to Congress. If you think that means that the Dems are complicit to the same degree that the administration is....you are that kind of idiot.

We don't know the extent of the intelligence that Bush had. We can only take him at his word. That alone would be a problem, if not for the fact that other countries thought the same thing about the intelligence. Everyone, including the democrats, thought Saddam was doing something terrible.

Now, 5 years later, everyone is acting like Bush, that sneaky bastard, deluded us. He was just so clever.

Please.

Did you intentionally miss all of the reports from agents and officials stating that they had very serious reservations about the certainty of the statements being made by the administration? Did you miss the op-ed by Joe Wilson? Did you miss the UN hearings where over half of the UNSC didn't vote for force based on their own country's intel agency data?

Joe Wilson is a discredited partisan hack. His own report to the CIA and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that Niger's own Prime Minister had said that Iraq was seeking to trade for uranium in 1999. His NY Times op-ed actually ran counter to what he originally reported to the CIA on his trip to Niger where his deep investigation involved sipping tee.

Half of the UNSC was also involved heavily in the Oil-For-Food scandal where Saddam was siphoning off millions to build huge palaces instead of feeding his people.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

Are you so deadheaded as to try and argue that Bush rushing us to war was OK because he never violated a criminal statute? We as a nation placed our trust in Bush after 9/11 and the dumb bastard couldn't even get his his facts straight. Some fucking leader!!!!

Why didn't Bush wait for the UN inspections? They were making progress, but according to Bush (and his NeoCon supporters) the threat was so grave we couldn't wait that long. OK, show me the WMD's then.

And dumb fucks like you are still defending him???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your are a sorry ass excuse for a human being.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Oh look, another Soros funded front group with a BS study. Just like the Lancet study claiming 600k+ Iraqis had died at US hands which was ludicrously false.

Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Robb-Silberman Commission on the Inteligence Capabilities of the US in regards to WMDs

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

British Butler Report

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

And let's not forget the 'lies' of the previous administration.

Bill Clinton

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqâ??s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Madeline Albright

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

YouTube video

The blog, Lawhawk says it best.

Let?s keep this in mind. The Administration based its statements on CIA information that both parties in the United States relied upon for more than a decade?.how many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect.

That?s not a lie. That?s bad intel, which was only discovered after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

so where does the buck stop? everyone else EXCEPT for the people in charge? I guess everyone out there had bad intel but this administration was stupid enough to act on it. go figure...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: OrByte
so where does the buck stop? everyone else EXCEPT for the people in charge? I guess everyone out there had bad intel but this administration was stupid enough to act on it. go figure...

That's a different argument. The argument in the article in the OP from the George Soros funded front-group is that the Bush Administration lied to get us into a war with Iraq. That is demonstratively false.

Let us also not forget that there were other legitimate concerns that led to the ousting of Saddam. Including his gaming of the UNSC with the Oil-For-Food money to have sanctions ended. In documents recovered from Iraq, it was said that Saddam planned to restart his weapons programs just as soon as sanctions were lifted. Then there were the constant violations of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. The constant stringing along of the UN and other inspectors. Etc etc etc etc etc.

Were only what, almost 5 years since we went into Iraq? We've only translated a small fraction of the documents from Saddam's regime and some of those have already come back with disturbing information.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

Are you so deadheaded as to try and argue that Bush rushing us to war was OK because he never violated a criminal statute? We as a nation placed our trust in Bush after 9/11 and the dumb bastard couldn't even get his his facts straight. Some fucking leader!!!!

Why didn't Bush wait for the UN inspections? They were making progress, but according to Bush (and his NeoCon supporters) the threat was so grave we couldn't wait that long. OK, show me the WMD's then.

And dumb fucks like you are still defending him???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your are a sorry ass excuse for a human being.

You never can debate with me without getting personal can you, you sorry little wise and beautiful woman.

 

[piasabird]

Werent some of these same statements used by Clinton to justify Bombing Iraq?

So if Bush is guilty, then the Idiots that believed him are guilty and Clinton is also guilty.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Werent some of these same statements used by Clinton to justify Bombing Iraq?

So if Bush is guilty, then the Idiots that believed him are guilty and Clinton is also guilty.

Check me on this one, who was president when the US invaded Iraq in 2003? IIRC, it was George W Bush not Mr Clinton.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: OrByte
so where does the buck stop? everyone else EXCEPT for the people in charge? I guess everyone out there had bad intel but this administration was stupid enough to act on it. go figure...

That's a different argument. The argument in the article in the OP from the George Soros funded front-group is that the Bush Administration lied to get us into a war with Iraq. That is demonstratively false.

Let us also not forget that there were other legitimate concerns that led to the ousting of Saddam. Including his gaming of the UNSC with the Oil-For-Food money to have sanctions ended. In documents recovered from Iraq, it was said that Saddam planned to restart his weapons programs just as soon as sanctions were lifted. Then there were the constant violations of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. The constant stringing along of the UN and other inspectors. Etc etc etc etc etc.

Were only what, almost 5 years since we went into Iraq? We've only translated a small fraction of the documents from Saddam's regime and some of those have already come back with disturbing information.

First, how can you claim that Bush lying in "demonstrably false" when all evidence points to the exact opposite?

Secondly, the Oil for Food scandal had absolutely zero to do with the US going to war with Iraq and was never even mentioned as a determining factor in the decision to go to war.

Thirdly, documents recovered after the fact that Saddam planned to restart his program (you know...the one that the admin stated was in full blown production and had already produced results that they knew exactly where they were being stored) may very well have been found PRIOR TO WAR if Bush would have taken his hard on out of his hand and let the blood flow back to his brain long enough to let the inspections run their course.

Fourthly, the violations of the cease-fire were not a factor nor sold as a major reason for going to war with Iraq. The only reason was the "imminent threat posed by Saddam's WMD programs". Period. End of bullshit excuses trying to change the terms/reasons/justifications after the fact.

Fifthly....Do you have to be reminded that the inspectors were in Iraq with access to everything that they needed? Do you know of the name Hans Blix and the little report that he prepared?

Lastly, can you link to these translated documents and the "disturbing information" that they have provided?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Tip: Fire/remove/do not elect anyone who buys into nation building and expanding democracy to Sharia loving people.

Tip: Iraq was fairly progressive as a country until we caused chaos and created conditions where only religious militias could enforce any semblance of order.

Tip2: I agree about Fire/remove/do not elect anyone who buys into nation building

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

Are you so deadheaded as to try and argue that Bush rushing us to war was OK because he never violated a criminal statute? We as a nation placed our trust in Bush after 9/11 and the dumb bastard couldn't even get his his facts straight. Some fucking leader!!!!

Why didn't Bush wait for the UN inspections? They were making progress, but according to Bush (and his NeoCon supporters) the threat was so grave we couldn't wait that long. OK, show me the WMD's then.

And dumb fucks like you are still defending him???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your are a sorry ass excuse for a human being.

You never can debate with me without getting personal can you, you sorry little wise and beautiful woman.

LOL, I wonder why?? You think your sending me nasty little PM's has something to do with that? You made your bed, now you can lie in it, "you sorry little wise and beautiful woman".

Bush was given a chance to be mentioned in the same breath along with the best Presidents we ever had, and just like everything else he mucked it up. Now he can go down as arguably the worst we ever had.

But, but, but, I didn't break any criminal statutes that can be proven? I hope that's what they chisel for an epitah on his headstone.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Tip: Fire/remove/do not elect anyone who buys into nation building and expanding democracy to Sharia loving people.

Tip: Iraq was fairly progressive as a country until we caused chaos and created conditions where only religious militias could enforce any semblance of order.

Tip2: I agree about Fire/remove/do not elect anyone who buys into nation building

Yes, fairly progressive as far as maniacal dictatorships go with rape rooms, children in prison, the killing of sports players for 'underperforming', killing dissenters.

Hey, they didn't vote 100% for Hussein for nothing!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

Are you so deadheaded as to try and argue that Bush rushing us to war was OK because he never violated a criminal statute? We as a nation placed our trust in Bush after 9/11 and the dumb bastard couldn't even get his his facts straight. Some fucking leader!!!!

Why didn't Bush wait for the UN inspections? They were making progress, but according to Bush (and his NeoCon supporters) the threat was so grave we couldn't wait that long. OK, show me the WMD's then.

And dumb fucks like you are still defending him???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your are a sorry ass excuse for a human being.

You never can debate with me without getting personal can you, you sorry little wise and beautiful woman.

LOL, I wonder why?? You think your sending me nasty little PM's has something to do with that? You made your bed, now you can lie in it, "you sorry little wise and beautiful woman".

Bush was given a chance to be mentioned in the same breath along with the best Presidents we ever had, and just like everything else he mucked it up. Now he can go down as arguably the worst we ever had.

But, but, but, I didn't break any criminal statutes that can be proven? I hope that's what they chisel for an epitah on his headstone.

Boy you are grudgeful, thin-skinned little wise and beautiful woman aren't you? I'm just laughing at your complete inability to even see my posts without your blood pressure rising. Literally every thread you respond to me now you bring this up. What a pussy!

Speaking of headstones, stay healthy now, would hate for anything bad to happen to such a nice guy! :thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

file this under 'no shit'.

Do the math :

Reps+Dems = Corporate/Special Interest controlled.
Corporate interest = War is good.
Result = Sell a war, keep the war going as long/far as possible.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hmm, I believe they missed a few statements by some other politicians....surely a mistake by this completely non-biased study

/cue Pabster's list.

The great dems, they can't admit they were complicit in this trainwreck, so they have to say they were stupid.

But we all know who the engineer was.... and he wasn't a Dem. Now instead of trying to deflect responsibility, try taking it and demand justice. Or are you just one more partisian hack?

Justice? :roll: Whatever.

Bush acted within the law as commander in chief and with the approval of congress and no jury (except one of rabid P&N'ers) would convict based on left wing screechings "he lied!". 1 )Because of precedent. Presidents since the US has started have engaged in wars, wars the engages in US are always a political exercise (with one notable exception). 2) Because in order to prove deception, you have to prove knowledge, and nobody can prove that Bush "knew" there weren't WMD's.

So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your assertion that I'm a partisan hack because I'm not demanding "justice".

I don't have to excuse anything.

Your just another hack if you think you can lay the blame for Iraq on the Dems. Continue fooling yourself and your other political hack ass-sociates all you want. This country knows who the "decider" was in the RUSH to war, even if your too bull headed to see it.

I've never asserted that the Dems are to *blame* on Iraq. I said they were complicit, which clearly they were, and only a partisan hack would say they weren't.

Tell me, what would Iraq look like right now if Congress hadn't approved the use of force? Are you intellectually honest enough to answer that question?

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

Are you so deadheaded as to try and argue that Bush rushing us to war was OK because he never violated a criminal statute? We as a nation placed our trust in Bush after 9/11 and the dumb bastard couldn't even get his his facts straight. Some fucking leader!!!!

Why didn't Bush wait for the UN inspections? They were making progress, but according to Bush (and his NeoCon supporters) the threat was so grave we couldn't wait that long. OK, show me the WMD's then.

And dumb fucks like you are still defending him???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your are a sorry ass excuse for a human being.

You never can debate with me without getting personal can you, you sorry little wise and beautiful woman.

LOL, I wonder why?? You think your sending me nasty little PM's has something to do with that? You made your bed, now you can lie in it, "you sorry little wise and beautiful woman".

Bush was given a chance to be mentioned in the same breath along with the best Presidents we ever had, and just like everything else he mucked it up. Now he can go down as arguably the worst we ever had.

But, but, but, I didn't break any criminal statutes that can be proven? I hope that's what they chisel for an epitah on his headstone.

Boy you are grudgeful, thin-skinned little wise and beautiful woman aren't you? I'm just laughing at your complete inability to even see my posts without your blood pressure rising. Literally every thread you respond to me now you bring this up. What a pussy!

Speaking of headstones, stay healthy now, would hate for anything bad to happen to such a nice guy! :thumbsup:

WHy don't you unblock me from your PM's? Maybe because your TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY? LMAO@U pussy. Give me a big MEEEEOOOWW.

:laugh:

:lips:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is a tragedy.

Let's go back to 2002 and fix it.

Thanks for yet another of your typical, worthless attempts to divert attention from the heinous crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief and his gang of murderers, traitors and torturers, instead of addressing the question.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The only thing that really matters is were these ?false? statements knowingly ?false? when they were made?

There people all over the political spectrum make the same types of statements going way back into Clinton?s term and his own justification for bombing Iraq.

Someone find me a statement by Bush that we know was 100% false and he knew it to be false when he made it. (good luck)

No luck required. The OP's article states unequivocally:

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

But they didn't stop once they got their war of lies going. They continued to pimp their war to Congress and the American people with lie after lie after lie to support and cover up their previous lies and their horrendous crimes. Oct. 5, 2007

Bush says U.S. 'does not torture people'

President responds to report that 2005 memo relaxed interrogation rules
.
.
"This government does not torture people," the president said.

His understanding of "torture" conflicts directly with the definitions of the word under U.S. and international law and multiple treaties to which the United States is bound, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), both of which the United States has ratified, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) and federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Going to war on false pretenses = treason?

Note -- this one's long because it's technical. There are other good grounds to charge the Bush administration with treason, but lying to promote starting the war in Iraq more directly supports charging them with murder under two theories:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

How many people have been maimed and killed because of these "false statements"?

As of 01/22/08 6:53 pm EDT, the official toll of American troops killed in Iraq stands at 3,931, tens of thousands more Americans wounded, scarred and disabled for life in the administration's war of lies in Iraq.

That is the "official" count of Americans killed and wounded in combat. There are more not included in this count, and it doesn't include American civilians, any other "coalition" troops or Iraqis killed, wounded or displaced.

Originally posted by: alchemize

PS: "Rushing" to war - show me what criminal statute that violates? What is the appropriate pace to go to war?

In the case of the Bushwhackos' war of lies, not at all.