UN inspections were ongoing. No WMD was found. No need to end the inspections. Bush and Co. knew this but invaded Iraq without UN approval anyway.
Bush and Co. claimed to have proof of Iraq's WMD. When asked by the UN inspectors for the proof they refused to provide it, because it didn't exist.
CIA director Tenet told the Bush administration NOT to include claims about uranium purchases in the October speech Bush gave but the Bush administration decided, against Tenet's advice, to include the KNOWN FALSE CLAIM (otherwise known as a lie) in Bush's SOTU speech just three months later.
Do you actually believe, are you gullible enough to believe, that the Bush administratin actually thought Iraq had a fleet of drone aircraft that were capable of spreading chem/bio across the US?
You are simply intentionally ignoring of the facts. What possible benefit can we gain from believing the outrigh lies the Bush administration told us? How can you justify the lives lost, the hundreds of billions spent, the loss of credibility the US suffered? How do you justify the leaking of classified information as a tactic to stop anyone who criticizes Bush?
It's time to stop defending this outrage. You and the people who continue to defend the Bush administration in this are looking more foolish daily.
This is your idea of bringing "honor and dignity" to the White House?
I find it difficult to believe you have a college degree. But there are many colleges in the USA that just about anyone can manage to get through four years of.
You used the example to define your idea of reasoned thinking.
Otherwise why repeat the example?
Corn's post essentially sums up the Bush Regime Misinformation campaign and their less than genuine explanations for their failures. Here's exactly what he posted with the bold reversed:
Our intelligence officials were essentially convinced that the Niger (well actually all African uranium) claims were poo. So instead of quoting our negative impressions the President chose to emphasize British findings. Why would he say that other than an attempt to lead Americans to a particular conclusion? A conclusion that American intelligence found wanting.
In summary, the 3 nearly dogmatic claims of this administration 1) Saddam has substantial ties to Al Qaeda (and likely 9/11), 2) WMD have been found in Iraq, and 3) we have broad international support for our invasion of Iraq have been accepted by a significant cohort of American citizens. Those false impressions were not created in a vacuum. Aside from FOX I don't think any media outlet necessarily went out of its way to misinform. But they all followed the administrations clarion call to war under the auspices of neutralizing the most significant threat to America. North Korea and Iran have more powerful armies and deadlier weapons but it was Saddam Hussein that drew multiple comparisons to Hitler and Stalin.
When you decide on a conclusion and then color the evidence to match your assumptions most would call that at least less than honest. If your IQ is less than 70 then I might cut you some slack . . . you might not know any better. But there's ample evidence from US and UK intelligence that the story that was told started with the ending and then searched high and low for details. Six months later, Powell has gone from saying those were definitely mobile labs to an agnostic with a bias towards a mobile lab. Bush has dropped the claim entirely.
The administration rarely talks about those anodized aluminum tubes (meant for a centrifuge in a country without uranium), the 45-minute WMD capability, the authorization to release chemical weapons, the UAVs designed to disperse WMD, Iraqi-funded reconstruction, the broad coalition rebuilding Iraq (well they don't call it broad anymore), and nobody except deliriously hawkish pundits like Krauthammer gives any credence to African uranium stories. After the initial firestorm, Blair claimed the Brits had more (and different) intelligence substantiating their claims . . . curiously he's failed to present it.
Our intelligence officials were essentially convinced that the Niger (well actually all African uranium) claims were poo. So instead of quoting our negative impressions the President chose to emphasize British findings. Why would he say that other than an attempt to lead Americans to a particular conclusion? A conclusion that American intelligence found wanting.
In summary, the 3 nearly dogmatic claims of this administration 1) Saddam has substantial ties to Al Qaeda (and likely 9/11), 2) WMD have been found in Iraq, and 3) we have broad international support for our invasion of Iraq have been accepted by a significant cohort of American citizens. Those false impressions were not created in a vacuum. Aside from FOX I don't think any media outlet necessarily went out of its way to misinform. But they all followed the administrations clarion call to war under the auspices of neutralizing the most significant threat to America. North Korea and Iran have more powerful armies and deadlier weapons but it was Saddam Hussein that drew multiple comparisons to Hitler and Stalin.
When you decide on a conclusion and then color the evidence to match your assumptions most would call that at least less than honest. If your IQ is less than 70 then I might cut you some slack . . . you might not know any better. But there's ample evidence from US and UK intelligence that the story that was told started with the ending and then searched high and low for details. Six months later, Powell has gone from saying those were definitely mobile labs to an agnostic with a bias towards a mobile lab. Bush has dropped the claim entirely.
The administration rarely talks about those anodized aluminum tubes (meant for a centrifuge in a country without uranium), the 45-minute WMD capability, the authorization to release chemical weapons, the UAVs designed to disperse WMD, Iraqi-funded reconstruction, the broad coalition rebuilding Iraq (well they don't call it broad anymore), and nobody except deliriously hawkish pundits like Krauthammer gives any credence to African uranium stories. After the initial firestorm, Blair claimed the Brits had more (and different) intelligence substantiating their claims . . . curiously he's failed to present it.
Back to the subject of the thread.
When a journalist of the stature of Walter Cronkite calls the Bush administration's Iraq policy the "worst decision this nation has ever made" people will take notice.
Mr. Cronkite is knowledgable enough to make such a judgement. His motivation cannot be called partisan. He is one of America's most respected journalists.
The Bush policy on Iraq was flawed from the very start. Kept alive by repeated lies. And is failing because it is based on lies as well as the lack of planning by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who refused to listen to the informed, reasoned voices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Powell.
They got their invasion. Now they are begging the world for help in cleaning up the mess they caused.
Worst decision this nation has ever made.
There is no equivocation in that statement. And no way to refute it.
Because it's true.
When a journalist of the stature of Walter Cronkite calls the Bush administration's Iraq policy the "worst decision this nation has ever made" people will take notice.
Mr. Cronkite is knowledgable enough to make such a judgement. His motivation cannot be called partisan. He is one of America's most respected journalists.
The Bush policy on Iraq was flawed from the very start. Kept alive by repeated lies. And is failing because it is based on lies as well as the lack of planning by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who refused to listen to the informed, reasoned voices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Powell.
They got their invasion. Now they are begging the world for help in cleaning up the mess they caused.
Worst decision this nation has ever made.
There is no equivocation in that statement. And no way to refute it.
Because it's true.
The humanitarian crisis in the Balkans is justification in and of itself for intervention. If the Bush War 2003 was waged for humanitarian reasons then why not 2001 or 2002? The brutality of Saddam and his hellspawn did not get worse over the interval. Furthermore, the Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Aceh, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, and North Korea are/were clear humanitarian crises that got little more than soundbites from Bush.
Why do you bring up President Clinton?
This thread is about Walter Cronkite's statement about Bush.
Start a thread about Clinton if you like. His actions are not being discussed here.
But I can see why you'd want to change the subject.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Thank you.
Oops. That is NOT what I said, nor what I implied. It doesn't matter what you do or do not know. What matters is your intention.
The Bush administration presented speculation as fact. They presented innuendo and half-truths as solid, substantiated proof. They actively manipulated intelligence conclusions, cherry-picked the intelligence that fit their agenda, and suppressed anything that did not. They exaggerated the significance of the findings they had and presented extreme positions as the only possible position (e.g., the aluminum tubes only suited for use in a uranium centrifuge, the thousands of liters inflated beyond intelligence estimates of the range of possible production capabilities). They attacked anyone who disagreed with them, declaring Bush's version of the truth to be the only valid point of view.
Bush and his minions willfully misled us to justify conquering Iraq. They made their sales pitch with the intention to deceive Congress and the American public. They knew their story was not the whole truth, that it was open to debate, that it was exaggerated, that it was distorted, that it gave an inaccurate impression of the extent and solidity of their intelligence.
Bottom line, they lied. They may not have known how greatly they were lying, but they knew they were lying.
Cronkite's point has nothing to do with lies or miscalculations of the WMD threat. His point is about the idiocy of a policy of pre-emption. On that point, I agree with him 100%. Just like we have the "Monroe doctrine", we now have a "Policy Retard (aka Bush)" doctrine. While I'm not as pessimistic about the long term effects of this mistake as Cronkite is, our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was a huge step down the slippery slope of international chaos.
You said it. For 50 years or more the United States worked to bring the concept of respect for International Law to the through the UN and international organizations. That swine Bush, with hideous approval ratings and an Admin. filled with a bunch of religious psychopaths called Neocons threw those 50 years in the toilet and started an illegal and disgusting war based on the notion of preemption when in fact it was a war of religious conquest, a PNAC New American Century dream.
"During his time the news was about telling people what they needed to hear. Not what they wanted to hear. "
I grew up watching Cronkite. You can still find out what you need to know on the Lehrer news hour.
I grew up watching Cronkite. You can still find out what you need to know on the Lehrer news hour.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Keep up the good work George. You keep telling a lie long enough people WILL begin to believe. Especially with the White House stenographers working in the Press Core. Condi Herself won't relent you better not either if you want to "win". PS. I love the troop form letter campain to local papers to lap it up. Taken right from the Eastern Front in WWII. And everyone says you're ignorant about history.
And everyone says you're ignorant about history.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
According to Dictionary.com, a lie is:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Now, I could say that you LIED about the definition of a lie (according to your definition). But you didn't lie because you didn't deliberatly deceive us.
Do some research before making foolish statements like that.
Bush claimed that he KNEW for a fact that Iraq had WMDs. He didn't know that for a fact, he just thought that Iraq might have a chance of having them according to some circumstantial and incomplete evidence which his underlings interpreted as being inconclusive. Therefore, he lied to us.
If I say that I know that Bush is a liar when, in fact, I don't have any evidence to support that "fact", I would be a liar myself.
If I say that I know that Bush is a liar when, in fact, I don't have any evidence to support that "fact", I would be a liar myself.
You can play all the semantic word games you like. The fact is Bush deceived the American people with his false statements about the imminent threat Iraq posed, their possession of WMD, their connection with 9/11, etc.
All false. All lies.
You can't change history. Bush can't go back and change the statements he made. You can't change the fact that NONE of the charges Bush made in order to convince the world (which didn't work) or the American people (which worked on those who were already convinced) were true.
They were lies. Plain and simple. Untruths. Falsehoods. Fabrications. Deceptions. Whatever you want to call them or whatever Dictionary.com calls them they were lies.
Plain and simple. Lies.
Go look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's.
I wonder what the hell you people are going to come up with while Rush is out of the loop. Will you rely on re-runs?
Rush's tactics don't work here. People know a lie when they hear one. They know even better when after months of trying the liars in the Bush administration can't come up with one single piece of evidence to support the lies they told us.
Meanwhile we're saddled with the loss of life and the hundreds of billions of dollars their lies cost us.
Nice work. You should be commended for your continued support.
The worst lies are the lies you tell yourself.
ROFL! All the people that were crying about the "definition of is" thing with Clinton are playing the same game now...ROFL!
All the people that were crying about the "definition of is" thing with Clinton are playing the same game now...ROFL! 
If Iraq had WMDs, Saddam definitely didn't know about them, because he would have used them otherwise. Either the US knew more than Saddam about the country which the US can't manage but Saddam could, or Bush played a dangerous "bluff". And Bush still isn't showing his cards, even after the hand (war) has been played.
Originally posted by: Insane3D
ROFL!
Exactly
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF are YOU talking about?
Pretending to himself the war was justified and should have been presented in that different justified way. Of course that way is a lie too. The UN had to vote, and they would not vote for war, just serious consequences. Bush unilarally, maybe with pango pango, went to war.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter