Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

[dpm]

Originally posted by: 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.

These are the ones that always get me

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Hafen

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.

Thats what the Clinton administration did most of the time. If there was something they didnt like they solved it through support of an opposing force and bombs. Bush just wanted to make daddy happy.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: 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.

These are the ones that always get me

I know. But yet people still ask for examples/proof. Sometimes I think they just unconsciously block them out.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

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.

Known to be inaccurate? Known to whom? The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact. I know you will say "Well they should have verified the information" but how do you suppose they go about doing that? What higher entity could have double checked the intelligence better than the CIA and FBI? If you cant rely of government agencies to do theyre job adequately than who do you rely on? The gut feeling of Janeane Garofalo?

 

[Gaard]

The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact.

You sure about this? All of it?

 

[Gaard]

INTENT to willfully mislead

KNOWINGLY presented false information

not the same thing

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

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.

Known to be inaccurate? Known to whom? The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact. I know you will say "Well they should have verified the information" but how do you suppose they go about doing that? What higher entity could have double checked the intelligence better than the CIA and FBI? If you cant rely of government agencies to do theyre job adequately than who do you rely on? The gut feeling of Janeane Garofalo?

Known both to the intelligence community and known to the administration.

And, answer the question.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

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.

Known to be inaccurate? Known to whom? The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact. I know you will say "Well they should have verified the information" but how do you suppose they go about doing that? What higher entity could have double checked the intelligence better than the CIA and FBI? If you cant rely of government agencies to do theyre job adequately than who do you rely on? The gut feeling of Janeane Garofalo?

Known both to the intelligence community and known to the administration.

And, answer the question.

Its an irrelevant question. Its like asking me to explain why 5 + 5 = 11 when it clearly isnt correct.

Prove they knew it was inaccurate. Thats right, you cant. Hersay is not proof, especially in politics.

 

[conehead433]

Where's the proof Bush lied.

I have seen him open his mouth more than once. Of course I couldn't always see the
puppet strings, so I couldn't swear it was him lying; but it sure sounded like him.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Where's the proof Bush lied.

I have seen him open his mouth more than once. Of course I couldn't always see the
puppet strings, so I couldn't swear it was him lying; but it sure sounded like him.

So in other words, there is no proof.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conehead433
Where's the proof Bush lied.

I have seen him open his mouth more than once. Of course I couldn't always see the
puppet strings, so I couldn't swear it was him lying; but it sure sounded like him.

So in other words, there is no proof.

It 's obvious now that he lied, but he can always claim he was just passing on the misinformation
of others. And since this is the case what GD difference does it make.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?"

Based on what I saw and heard tonight, he couldn't have lied because he couldn't get a lie out if he wanted to.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conehead433
Where's the proof Bush lied.

I have seen him open his mouth more than once. Of course I couldn't always see the
puppet strings, so I couldn't swear it was him lying; but it sure sounded like him.

So in other words, there is no proof.

It 's obvious now that he lied, but he can always claim he was just passing on the misinformation
of others. And since this is the case what GD difference does it make.

Still waiting for the proof.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified?

Still waiting.

Known to be inaccurate? Known to whom? The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact. I know you will say "Well they should have verified the information" but how do you suppose they go about doing that? What higher entity could have double checked the intelligence better than the CIA and FBI? If you cant rely of government agencies to do theyre job adequately than who do you rely on? The gut feeling of Janeane Garofalo?

Known both to the intelligence community and known to the administration.

And, answer the question.

Its an irrelevant question. Its like asking me to explain why 5 + 5 = 11 when it clearly isnt correct.

Prove they knew it was inaccurate. Thats right, you cant. Hersay is not proof, especially in politics.

Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

As for the proof:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Note: The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified?

Still waiting.

Known to be inaccurate? Known to whom? The information regarding Iraq presented to the administration by the intelligence community was presented as fact. I know you will say "Well they should have verified the information" but how do you suppose they go about doing that? What higher entity could have double checked the intelligence better than the CIA and FBI? If you cant rely of government agencies to do theyre job adequately than who do you rely on? The gut feeling of Janeane Garofalo?

Known both to the intelligence community and known to the administration.

And, answer the question.

Its an irrelevant question. Its like asking me to explain why 5 + 5 = 11 when it clearly isnt correct.

Prove they knew it was inaccurate. Thats right, you cant. Hersay is not proof, especially in politics.

Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

As for the proof:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Note: The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous.

Wow - is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

As for the proof:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Note: The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous.

Wow - is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?

CkG

Prove it was taken out of context. Otherwise, stop apologizing for your Bush-God.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

As for the proof:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Note: The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous.

Wow - is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?

CkG

Prove it was taken out of context. Otherwise, stop apologizing for your Bush-God.

What exactly are you talking about? (Notice - my post only contained a question - oh and this one has a question in it too)

CkG

 

[conjur]

You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

Please answer my question. I can't answer your question until I know for sure what part of his speech you are talking about. Notice again - there were two questions posed by me and you have yet to provide the answer. The answer you are seeking depends on you answering mine(try the second one if you don't understand the first one).

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

Please answer my question. I can't answer your question until I know for sure what part of his speech you are talking about. Notice again - there were two questions posed by me and you have yet to provide the answer. The answer you are seeking depends on you answering mine(try the second one if you don't understand the first one).

CkG

I did answer your first question. You are trying to claim "the left" took Bush's comments about WMDs and other "justifications" for the war on Iraq out of context. I'm asking you to prove those were taken out of context.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

Please answer my question. I can't answer your question until I know for sure what part of his speech you are talking about. Notice again - there were two questions posed by me and you have yet to provide the answer. The answer you are seeking depends on you answering mine(try the second one if you don't understand the first one).

CkG

I did answer your first question. You are trying to claim "the left" took Bush's comments about WMDs and other "justifications" for the war on Iraq out of context. I'm asking you to prove those were taken out of context.

No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

Please answer my question. I can't answer your question until I know for sure what part of his speech you are talking about. Notice again - there were two questions posed by me and you have yet to provide the answer. The answer you are seeking depends on you answering mine(try the second one if you don't understand the first one).

CkG

I did answer your first question. You are trying to claim "the left" took Bush's comments about WMDs and other "justifications" for the war on Iraq out of context. I'm asking you to prove those were taken out of context.

No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

Your questions are answered in the report.

Read it and learn.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
You know what it's talking about.

Go ahead, CkG, prove the quotes in that database were taken out of context.

I won't be holding my breath.

Please answer my question. I can't answer your question until I know for sure what part of his speech you are talking about. Notice again - there were two questions posed by me and you have yet to provide the answer. The answer you are seeking depends on you answering mine(try the second one if you don't understand the first one).

CkG

I did answer your first question. You are trying to claim "the left" took Bush's comments about WMDs and other "justifications" for the war on Iraq out of context. I'm asking you to prove those were taken out of context.

No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

Your questions are answered in the report.

Read it and learn.

Ah, so you won't answer it. Figured as much.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

Your questions are answered in the report.

Read it and learn.

Ah, so you won't answer it. Figured as much.

CkG

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

Your questions are answered in the report.

Read it and learn.

Ah, so you won't answer it. Figured as much.

CkG

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

I never claimed the crap in your little database was out of context. What I ASKED was : "is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?"(notice how much was quoted when I asked that question) So one would be able to figure out by that question that I was asking if they were talking about something from Bush's speech.(notice the second unanswered question was asking "What exactly are you talking about")
If you would have answered the question, I would have been fine with that but you chose not to. Also - NOW I'm specifically asking what you are saying was "innacurate". I don't care what some site says - I was asking specifically what part of his speech you are yapping about.
But whatever - keep punching your strawman and keep ignoring the question..I didn't expect anything less from you.

CkG