Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
The proof bush lied is the complete lack of WMD in Iraq and the lack of evidence presented to the american public that would demostarte to a responoble person that Iraq had WMD and back up bush's other tall tales.

That is not proof in it of itself. You WANT to believe that he lied, when all the intelligence presented to him was fundimentally flawd and inaccurate leading to false conclusions. For something to be a lie, there has to be purposefull intent to decieve(Which there is no proof of other than hersay). If you cant prove intent, than you cant prove its a lie, you can only make a guess with the information presented to you. If you cant make the distictions then you have proven your political bias on the issue.

Just to be clear on where I stand on all of this. I have no proof that president bush purposefully and intentionally mislead the american public, so it would be useless to speculate on the validity of this claim until there is information(other than hersay)proving one way or the other. What I am beginning to believe is that the White House, and the entire Intelligence Community, was woefully negligent with the handling of the intelligence information presented to them, and heads should roll for that.

 

[dahunan]

He was told numerous times that the "aluminum tubes" were ONLY for missile improvement and not useable for anything nuclear whatsoever. the experts who told them this basically said that to say the aluminum was for nuclear potential would be a lie.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's what Pres. Clinton had to say about Iraq and WMDs:

So What's New, Bill Clinton Said Iraq Had WMD

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

So, do you Dems think that Clinton lied too?

Yeah...way to compare apples vs. oranges. You're REALLY stretching it.

Although, your implication that Bush's administration is so incompetent that it would rely upon 5 year-old data is actually a rather accurate one.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: Spencer278
The proof bush lied is the complete lack of WMD in Iraq and the lack of evidence presented to the american public that would demostarte to a responoble person that Iraq had WMD and back up bush's other tall tales.

That is not proof in it of itself. You WANT to believe that he lied, when all the intelligence presented to him was fundimentally flawd and inaccurate leading to false conclusions. For something to be a lie, there has to be purposefull intent to decieve(Which there is no proof of other than hersay). If you cant prove intent, than you cant prove its a lie, you can only make a guess with the information presented to you. If you cant make the distictions then you have proven your political bias on the issue.

Just to be clear on where I stand on all of this. I have no proof that president bush purposefully and intentionally mislead the american public, so it would be useless to speculate on the validity of this claim until there is information(other than hersay)proving one way or the other. What I am beginning to believe is that the White House, and the entire Intelligence Community, was woefully negligent with the handling of the intelligence information presented to them, and heads should roll for that.

The refusel to present all, he presented almost zero, the intelligence presented to him to the public is enough proof for me. If you want to make up some impossible standard fine.

 

[stnicralisk]

People People it has already been brought out to light numerous times that Bush is an idiot. Why debate that he lied? So what if he was told in advance that the Alum tubing couldnt be used for nuclear capabilites? So what if the CIA told him that the Brits were wrong about the Niger Uranium? So what if his cabinet recieved a memo entitled "Bin Laden plans to attack inside the United States" but say they thought it was referring to threats overseas?

Were talking about the president who makes up words in his speeches - uses 'devaluing' instead of 'inflating', is not 'misunderestimatable', tells the Iraqi people to 'bring it.' I have a better SAT score than him by far. Dont expect him to UNDERSTAND whats going on.

He didnt lie - he is a blundering IDIOT.

 

[arsbanned]

Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

There are no WMDs.


Next!

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
Statement by thePpresident
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers...yada yada...

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the
Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in
check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of
the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition
groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a
popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8
million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, ...the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. ...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,
discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to
further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other
important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of
U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's
prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that
continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to
international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi
opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives
as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can
effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those
observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998

and so on and so forth...

Text

This is the famed " Clinton Iraqi Liberation Policy" that the Admin has suddenly started quoting as justification (first time they've ever publically supported any Clinton decisions I think ) saying this was just a continuation of current US policy. However, no where in there did I read "unilateral invasion w/o the support of Security Council." The idea was to support Iraqi groups to overthrow their government themselves. Also, Bush rushed this war to fit in with political timetables, which was the single biggest mistake IMO. He had no interest in truely pursuing UN inspections. He should have kept the pressure on, forced Saddam's hand (which was starting to happen) and we probably revealed the whole house of cards. It sounds like Saddam's government was beginning to crumble around him. We could have kept the pressure on and helped facilitate its collapse. (Remember we helped collapse the Soviets w/o fighting a war.) It would have been less of a challenge to do that there, saving us a lot of money, reputation and blood.

But's that's not at all how it happened. It hard to imagine how Bush could have F'ed it up more badly. He is unfit to lead the nation or war on terror.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

There are no WMDs.


Next!

prove it

 

[Riprorin]

We could have kept the pressure on and helped facilitate its collapse. (Remember we helped collapse the Soviets w/o fighting a war.) It would have been less of a challenge to do that there, saving us a lot of money, reputation and blood.

But's that's not at all how it happened. It hard to imagine how Bush could have F'ed it up more badly. He is unfit to lead the nation or war on terror.

Haha, 17 U.N. Resolutions and international sanctions weren't enough for you!

 

[YellowRose]

If his lips are moving and sound is coming from his mouth then he is lying

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

There are no WMDs.


Next!

the sky is blue!

your point?

 

[chess9]

YellowRose:

LOL! How true.

Anyway, Bush isn't smart enough to tell a big lie, but he is dumb enough to tell a lot of little lies.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

There are no WMDs.


Next!

the sky is blue!

your point?

Bush said the sky is green. That's the point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
YellowRose:

LOL! How true.

Anyway, Bush isn't smart enough to tell a big lie, but he is dumb enough to tell a lot of little lies.

-Robert

.. and he hires people who are smart enough to tell the big lies.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's what Pres. Clinton had to say about Iraq and WMDs:

So What's New, Bill Clinton Said Iraq Had WMD

So, do you Dems think that Clinton lied too?

Hehe, at least Clinton can say ops, my bad, bad info and no harm done. He didn't invade a country, kill tens of thousands people in that country, cause over 600 American death and over thusands seriously injured, and have our troop stuck in a $hit hole.

didn't the wmd that clinton said were there have something to do with the continued embargo which was killing hundreds of thousands of children?

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: Spencer278
The proof bush lied is the complete lack of WMD in Iraq and the lack of evidence presented to the american public that would demostarte to a responoble person that Iraq had WMD and back up bush's other tall tales.

That is not proof in it of itself. You WANT to believe that he lied, when all the intelligence presented to him was fundimentally flawd and inaccurate leading to false conclusions. For something to be a lie, there has to be purposefull intent to decieve(Which there is no proof of other than hersay). If you cant prove intent, than you cant prove its a lie, you can only make a guess with the information presented to you. If you cant make the distictions then you have proven your political bias on the issue.

Just to be clear on where I stand on all of this. I have no proof that president bush purposefully and intentionally mislead the american public, so it would be useless to speculate on the validity of this claim until there is information(other than hersay)proving one way or the other. What I am beginning to believe is that the White House, and the entire Intelligence Community, was woefully negligent with the handling of the intelligence information presented to them, and heads should roll for that.

The refusel to present all, he presented almost zero, the intelligence presented to him to the public is enough proof for me. If you want to make up some impossible standard fine.

Lie:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.


Dictionary.com

Ok, ill keep making up impossible standards.

 

[sMiLeYz]

In your own dictionary.com reference...

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Which is exactly what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld did with the "imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida links" speeches.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
In your own dictionary.com reference...

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Which is exactly what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld did with the "imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida links" speeches.

Ill say it again, there is no proof of INTENT to willfully mislead. I am not arguing that the information was presnted was factual, im saying you cannot prove that the Administration KNOWINGLY presented false information.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
In your own dictionary.com reference...

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Which is exactly what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld did with the "imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida links" speeches.

Ill say it again, there is no proof of INTENT to willfully mislead. I am not arguing that the information was presnted was factual, im saying you cannot prove that the Administration KNOWINGLY presented false information.

Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified?

 

[Gaard]

"these are not ASSERTIONS, they are FACTS"

"We know for a FACT that Iraq possesses WMD"

"There is NO DOUBT"




And you might want to ask maluckey what a lie of omission is.

 

[Spamela]

lately i think every word he says is a lie, including "the" and "and."

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since when does reporting the conclusions of major intelligence services constitute lying?

When those intelligence services have information that runs counter to what is claimed?

Where's the proof that Pres. Bush reported anything other than the conclusions of major intelligence services?

So, are you a paid Kerry staffer or just a volunteer?

I am neither, but I can tell you that State and senior analysts from the CIA were telling Tenet and his superiors that they were presenting information in a way that was not reflective if the way they saw it. That perspective was disregarded. It was not a small voice. BTW it was reported in the press before the war. Was it a lie, or just a bad judgement? I can't PROVE it either way, however to say that intel was not provided accurately projecting the current situation is disingenuous.

And I'm not a Republican.

If it can be proved that Pres. Bush lied, let the impreachment proceedings begin. If not, let's just stop the propoganda.

You fail to understand that what keeps Shrub in office is that Noone sane, including Dems, wants the president impeached. The threat of President Cheney is too great. Noone wants too see Asscroft get bumped up in the ranks either

 

[Spencer278]

I think it would be better for bush to say he lied at least then their would be evidence that he can read and interpert intelligence reports as opposed to the other option being bush is lazy and being handled by cheney and co.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
In your own dictionary.com reference...

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Which is exactly what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld did with the "imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida links" speeches.

Ill say it again, there is no proof of INTENT to willfully mislead. I am not arguing that the information was presnted was factual, im saying you cannot prove that the Administration KNOWINGLY presented false information.

Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified?

Still waiting.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
In your own dictionary.com reference...

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Which is exactly what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld did with the "imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida links" speeches.

Ill say it again, there is no proof of INTENT to willfully mislead. I am not arguing that the information was presnted was factual, im saying you cannot prove that the Administration KNOWINGLY presented false information.

Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified?

Still waiting.

Exactly WTF are you trying to yap about here conjur? So it's YOUR opinion that intel was misused....I'm sure the FBI and CIA eagerly await your resume.

CkG