"War on Terror" Unfunded Options

[Midnight Rambler]

Bush, before:

“I believe it is the job of a President to confront problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.”

Bush, now:

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.





Now the republicans are trying to tell us that Bush isn't a "real" conservative. He's not a Reagan conservative. Give me a break. He was the republican conservative wet dream when he was running the first time. When the second election rolled around everyone could see he was a disaster but the conservatives backed him anyway.


You can say what you want but Reagan never balanced a budget. Never even came close. Bush hasn't even tried. I do remember Clinton doing it. No, the republican congress didn't do it for him. If you do a little research you find that he had to shut down the government to force the republican congress to go along with a balanced budget.

Will your taxes go up with a Democrat in office? Yes. Becuase no matter who is elected the chickens are coming home to roost and you can't pay the bills by cutting your income (taxes).

[Hellfighter]

I bet a study done on Bush contradictions regarding backtracking and about faces would number as many as the lies found in the recent neutral study regarding the con-job to go to War in Iraq.

[Robert]

###Warning###----- ###Warning### -----###Warning###

The following post contains ADULT material

Consider this your final Warning

If you would like to precede, please scroll down



































BTW when I said ADULT material
I wasn't talking about PORN.
Sorry to disappoint you.


I was talking about an ADULT discussion concerning events in the news.





HF, I'm assuming you're talking about the report you mentioned here
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...c=16455&hl=

So lets take a closer look
The main focus is
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."
An the underlying basis for the assertion above
"The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both."

Oh my GOD, 935 false statements.
Look at the number, 935, that is shocking!!!!
Final proof Bush mislead the U.S. to war!!!
Off with his head!!!.

A few questions.
1) Have you ever heard the saying " Hindsight is 20/20"
That's a pretty important fact to keep in mind and why.
All these 935 "lies", only became lies after the fact.
At the time they were based on available information.
This whole report is nothing but the newest smoking gun, that unfortunately isn't really smoking.
Supposedly, Bush was the leader of this huge misinformation campaign to go to war with Iraq.
On what basis does this report make him the leader of the huge misinformation campaign?
Simple, Bush and other members of the executive branch got more face time in front of the cameras, so they naturally had more instances of these "lies"
My 1st question would be what would be the grand total for members of congress?
Would it be more or less than Bush? If more, would the same conclusion then be drawn that congress mislead the U.S. to war?


2) "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations"
Did you wonder who those two INDEPENDENT and NON-PROFIT organization are.
"Center for Public Integrity", heck with a name like that they have to be good, wouldn't you think?
A closer look at funding for the "independent" Center for Public Integrity show the majority of their funding comes from several Left wing groups:
George Soros , one of Bushes most outspoken critics, funnels money to them indirectly via several foundations
Then there are other groups such as:
The Streisand Foundation
The Ford Foundation
The Los Angeles Times Foundation
Gives a whole new meaning to INDEPENDENT and NON-PROFIT

3) So this groundbreaking, leave no stone unturned investigation, found 935 examples of Bush lying.
This is kind of a repeat but it's an important point to make.
For example, If I made the statement that the stock market was going to fall in February based on the current economic information available to me.
One of two things will happen.
I'm right, in February the stock market falls as I said it would
I'm wrong and the stock market doesn't fail.
Well according to the logic used in this story. I'm not simply wrong, I LIED.
Using this same logic it would be just as fair to say if you get a math problem wrong, not only did you get the answer wrong, "You LIED about the answer"
Does that honestly make sense to you?

4) Call me crazy but I'm not sure what about this story makes it news.
According to the NY Times who rushed to make this their headline story admits at the end of the news piece that it's not really news.
From the NYT article it says....
There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.
Wouldn't that make a normal person wonder why their leading story, by their own admission wasn't really news.
Along the same lines why didn't the NYT and AP who 1st ran this story do the littlest bit of research and see who the real financial backers were to this INDEPENDENT and NON-PROFIT organization that put together the story.

5) So when Bush says something it's a lie.
When everyone else says the same thing, it's a mistake
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=...4Q&border=1
Or there is the 26 senators ( Primarily Democrat ) who wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998
Pushing for Clinton to take military action over Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Let...in-10-9-98.html

What a difference 4 years can make for people like:
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Bob Kerrey, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski
Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, John F. Kerry
1998 - Urges Clinton to take military action to force Saddam to end his WMD programs.
2002 - We only voted to invade Iraq because Bush LIED to us about WMD's
Am I the only one who thinks that fails the smell test.
If not then your saying in 1998 those 26 senators where "Mistaken"
While in 2002 they were purposefully "LIED" to by Bush who wanted to go to war even though he apparently was the only leader in the world who actually knew their wasn't WMD's in Iraq
Oh yea, stick to that story, it's a good one.


6) 935 false statements, almost 1000 times over a 2 year period.
Out of a huge number like that I'm sure they can point to 100's of times Bush knowingly lied.
After all, this ground breaking study done by the two nonprofit journalism organizations has to be more than a simple exercise in arithmetic, counting every time Bush said Iraq and WMD's in the same sentence.
So the obvious question would be, how many out of these 935 false statements can they show Bush KNOWINGLY lied at the time he made the statement?
100's?
Surely over 50.
Then a bare minimum, dozens.
Okay... Okay.... How about 10?
5, can you at least show 5, that would be less than 1% of the time. We're only asking for 1 little percent.
Fine! have it your way. One example out of the possible 935 will be enough to please the "Bush Lied and people Dies" crowd.
So what is the final number of times where this report show Bush KNOWINGLY lied, or mislead the U.S. at the time the statement was made?
The final count would be a big fat ZERO.
So it really is true, hindsight is 20/20
Excuse, I'm lost, why was this a leading news story again?



7) In the weeks leading up to the expected vote on military force in Iraq.
Four democratic senate leaders requested a NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate ) report
This was done to see if the most current intelligence information available would either affirm or conflict with the information put out by the Bush administration.
What did the NIE report say?
From the summary.
[b]With High Confidence:
* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
*Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
" Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material."
and
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war."

If anyone is interested, you can find the unclassified portion of the NIE report here.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...t%20release.pdf
I think it's worth mentioning, if you actually read the independent intelligence report put together for the senate at their request. Then you did better than 72 percent of the senators.
In fact out of all the Republican and Democratic 2008 presidential wannabes, only Sen. Biden took the time to read the full report.
Sen. Edwards initially said he also read the full report but then changed his mind when he was made aware there was a list of who read it due to the fact you had to sign for it.


How pathetic is it that this report was put together at their request, yet 72 percent of the senators didn't even bother to read it before making what was probably one of the most important votes in their lives? If the U.S. would go to war and invade Iraq.
I guess they were to busy giving themselves a pay raise an holding critical votes about renaming several Post Offices.
BTW it's not as though it would really matter because it basically said the exact same thing as the Bush Administration was claiming.
Why is that? Well it's not because he was lying or purposefully misleading the congress or public at large.
It's because he got the same faulty intelligence information , just like the congress when the request their own individual report.



8) So we now come to the final hold card for the Bush lied fan boys.
The story goes, the Bush Administration bullied the intelligence community to falsify or otherwise
draw the conclusions Bush wanted. As Bush had already decide to invade Iraq an pressured the whole intelligence community into going along with his plans.
Actually that question was dealt with in 2004
When a Bi-partisan Senate Select Committee was formed to review Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.
What did they conclude concerning the complaint the administration had pressured intelligence analyst?
From the report:
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.
and
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.


What did they find as the cause of the intelligence failure?
the NIE relied more on an assumption that Iraq had WMD than on an objective evaluation of the information they were reviewing. This "group think" dynamic, led analysts, intelligence collectors, and managers to "interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program" and led them to "ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have an active and expanding program." This problem was compounded by a lack of reliable information from inside Iraq. After U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, the U.S. intelligence community did not have any human intelligence sources in Iraq collecting information about WMD. In addition, the NIE failed to adequately and accurately explain uncertainties about the reliability of some key sources and its final conclusions. As a result, the estimate implied that the WMD evidence was more solid than it really was, the Senate report said.

You can view the whole Senate Select Committee Report on Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq here:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

Another interested read regarding why the intelligence community failed, is a letter written by Stuart Cohen the Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...%20Programs.htm
It has detailed answers to several Myths that surround the NIE report given to Congress in 2002.
I would consider it a must read for anyone interested in the subject.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Although I have sworn off Political posts to appease those that don't care for my threads, I must say that it sure is nice to see an excellent, level headed post! While all this may be appearant to a few, the Bush haters are blind to any reason so you likely wasted your time. Cheers anyway.

[Hellfighter]

welcome back into the sandbox Mr.Rocket
lol I knew you couldn't stay away for too long....
the tension was just too much I bet at not pouncing on the Bush-hater meanies

Anyway-regardless of the counter claims you put forth the fact is- Bush and cronies lied their thick heads off to get their costly war. I'm a Bush-policy hater btw -not a 'Bush-hater', as I mentioned before. So this isn't personal- it's his dumb logic I hate.
Here's the truth-> regardless of the diversions about Clintons and Edwards backtracking -irrelevant....
Hillary is smart but dumb at the same time.... she mispronounces words she should know as a 'leader' -ie, her reference to the Glascow bombing she emphatically says Glas -COooow-instead of Glascohhh -and double talks consistently to earn popularity points.
All this 'conspiracy to hate Bush anyway' chit-chat means nothing regarding the neo-con faction lying at that time in question- how does whether all, some, or none of people being gullable to fall for their lies, change the fact that lies knowingly took place? What kind of defence is that?

1.
The CIA WERE mystified by Bush admin.'s eagerness to state their self-admittedly HEDGY reports on uranium transfer between Iraq and Niger IN the UN presentation speech to make the case to go to War. FACT.
Bush lied about the actual ineffectuality of the cia documents -he trumped up the info- deliberately misleadingly -and used a mr.Nice guy Colin Powwell to do so purposefully. DECEPTION.
> this was not a case to launch a nation into war -there was NO SOLID proof ->>>>>>lie-lie-lie period.
Where's the logic for starting wars on heresay unless other unspoken reasons are the real cause.

2.
The sole reason given to go to War was over WMD existence.
No-please, don't start with- 'Sadam used weapons on his own people' line -that was many years before and pansy international actions were taken back then - the War was not about taking him down for that - many other dictators currently around not being bothered with to be squashed. Reasons were WMD. So for Bush and cronies to start saying WMD was the reason for war when the neo-cons had other motivations for going into war is again LIE,LIE, LIE-period
3.
Why was the war started. Bush then -AND STILL a small percentage neo-con doorknobs believe there was WMD in Iraq. Anyone can say/claim anything - even Sadam was initially not denying accusations of having WMDs in Iraq to intimidate Iran -according to US intels interview with captured sadam.... BUT, once sadam was giving up on that deception with UN inspectors being given full access to scour everywhere for WMDs the Bush blow-hards were in a panic..... they had been revealed as schemers AND liars, liars, liars -not merely over-zealous fools. The actual war started WHEN Bush gave Sadam 48 hours to leave Iraq;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html
Yes, Mr.Rocket that was how the war began-
-not discovery of WMD
-not because of an immediate threat of WMD
-not for payback for 911 in which Iraq had no part
-not because connections with Bum Laden
-not for a Crusade against Jihadists
-not because sadam may be thinking about a wmd program 'down the road'.
The neo-cons had territorial ulterior motives one can now safely establish -they thought they had a clear run at sadam but all their reasonings evaporated. So they made a deadline while the iron was not hot- but getting lukewarm. Sadam wouldn't leave in the 48 power period that's why the war started.
And what if the thug sadam did leave--- can you imagine the worse mess hypothetically with a fracticious government taking over.... imagine what the muck-up now would be like in Iraq AND no 150,000 US troops there stabilizing and poilicing things. Can you imagine how much worse that nation would be ripped up-with even larger incursions of factions from Iran, Saudis, international al quaeda flooding in- and then internally sunni,shite radicals going at it full force... kurds breaking away from southern Iraq-Turkey launching an invasion in the north against them.
Remember 'Chump' Cheney predicted such destabilization if Iraq was invaded 10 years earlier -the interview is in a thread in this forum. So there's another LIE LIE LIE for you regarding how neo-cons claimed they had everything ready for a smooth transitional takeover of power with their puppet government and lying iraqi dissidents.

So my chum, you can pick through items with a fine tooth comb all you want on the basis of hindsight is 20/20 - but none of the [slanted in my opinion] revelations -if any are even irrefutable- does not change the facts of the times gone by - Bush and his admin [and perhaps Bush was a patsy for the neo-cons, but still he went along with them] were lying and deceiving in their PREPARATION for war and during the war.They lied all the way and 80% of Americans are fed up with the now-obvious charade....
Did you see the Florida Republican debate- all but one of the challengers were backing the Bush 'case' for war - and the audience was utterly silent- a few years ago, the audience would've been hooting with support.... so imagine when Ron Paul spoke and utterly denounced the war as a farce [in so many words] and the entire lot of Repubs were openly wild with a supporting outburst!!!
Despite the neocons claim the world is safer with Sadam gone ??? the lie, lie, lie reveals otherwise- the world is not safer for it-bum laden has recovered, recruited more fanatics -now I wish I was wrong, but one can only deludeoneself so much with the tragic facts staring straight out.
And is it now too late that focus is switching back to the critical Afghan/Pakistan border - the weakened Musharraf is now fearful of letting the US forces operate effectively in that area.

That's my undeniable claim of contradictions. Bush's going back on alot of what he formerly trumpeted as gospel truth and now he's sheepishly adopting the advice of what others were telling him to do wisely in the first place /Generals included -which he had frowned upon as nonsense... [in more patriotic-hyped statements].
- hmmm, for one - oh, look he's now talking OPENLY about a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq-need I pull up links where he angrily scoffed at senators/congresspersons calls for that action.

So now if you're defining 'Bush-haters' / Bush disagreer's as doofuses for not forgiving his lying ways then you're in that special group of 20% of Americans thinking the neo-con con job had merits and were done for above-board reasons.

Why do I beat this subject to death... I'm doing my small part to reveal misconceptions about this huge 'mistake' that's directly wrecking innocent lives -American and others all over the world, because there are still some uninformed holdouts [as I saw from a few folks in this forum in recent threads] that equate the reasons for going to war as getting back at sadam for 9-11 -figure that out!!?
Anyway voters should send a strong message of never again to the candidates in this and future races-not just repubs... A Dem here for instance who spins yet again on a dime.... this was what lost my support a few months ago in formerly believing Hill-Billy's had the needed smarts and shrewdness for a responsible world leader role.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwi...or_b_66174.html

Anyways, good to see you in trench warfare again ... Let's get readddyyyyyyyy to ruuuuuumble!!!


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/28/08 11:22am

[Midnight Rambler]

All these 935 lies only became lies after the fact? If i tell you something that is untrue all I have to do is say I thought it was accurate when I said it? What ever happened to being accountable? I guess that's for "other people".
Since the study was done by not for profits we can safely ignore it. We all kno those not for profits are communist fronts.
Colin Powell went to the U.N. and in front of the world said the administration KNOWS that Iraq has WMD. He went on to show pictures of what turned out to be harmless industrial equipment. Do you think Powell acted without the approval of the president? Rice and Cheney stood in front of the cameras and stated that America was in danger of NUCLEAR attack. They were lying.
You think they were acting on "bad information"? That makes them the most incompetent administrationin history. They sent Americans off to die without knowing the facts. Which is criminal.
As I have stated several times before the French and Germans refused to join in the war becuase they knew Iraq had no WMD and they were mocked by the right wingnuts for it. Do you believe the U.S. intelligence services are not as good as the French and Germans?
Let's not forget that there were weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND in Iraq looking for WMD and finding nothing. Before they could complete the job Bush withdrew them and pushed the war.
We are there now and stuck with the mess but that doesn't excuse the lies that were told to get us there.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

LIAR LIAR Pants on FIRE> Don't forget these people, Midnight!

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/..._2003_0123.html

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/..._2002_1009.html

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/...tical.analysis/

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...text092302.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...text092302.html

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/stateme...c2-a840e5150b85

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source http://bar-nettwork-strategies.us/F.B.Name...d.Iraq.War.html

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/20...tmt0102002.html

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html


Regardless of whether they support the war or not, they are all LIARS! (According to your definition).


This post has been edited by Cpt. Snot Rocket: 01/28/08 3:36pm

[Ghost Child]

Did anyone ever read this book by Geroges Sada, a Christian, who was the number 2 man in the Iraqi Air Force? I've read the book, it's quite convincing, and well worth the read.



Here is one artcile about it.



http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

[Robert]

I really expected a better replied than
"It doesn't matter he still lied"
Or
"Well France said"


Everyone talks about what a dummy Bush is but apparently he is genius.
1) He was able to pull off secretly manipulating over a dozen intelligence agencies without leaving a single piece of evidence.
2) Was able to manipulate intelligence agencies of several other countries.
3) 2 years before even becoming president he was able to force the then current president and several members of congress especially those who sat on the intelligence sub-committees to begin laying the ground work for a case of WMD's in IRAQ.
4) Also while only the governor of Texas, was secretly in control of IRAQ to the point that Saddam would never fully allow the inspectors access.
5) Able to make 935 statements, where not a single statement could latter be shown to have been KNOWINGLY made contrary to the information he had at the time the statement was made.


It cracks me up people continue to fall back on
"Bush Lied"
Sure you can always find dissenting opinions and say "he should have listened to them"
That could be said in any situation.
We're talking vast majority versus small minority


I may as well go through a civics lesson while we're at it.
I guess we could argue the semantics and split hairs all day, so to prevent that we'll just call this my opinion.
The President is not the end all be all of America.
Singularly, yes
As a branch of government, then I would say Congress.
Bush is the Commander and Chief of the Military, yet he cannot declare war, that is the lone ability of congress. He has the right under the "War Powers Act" to make limited use of the military without congressional approval but even then, he must gain congressional approval within 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities. Also along the same lines, it requires congress to fund any military action.
Guess we'll ignore all that, an stick with it's all Bush's Fault.
It's worked out really well so far.


I've no problem with someone being against what happen in Iraq.
My issue is....
Chanting "Bush Lied" does little to solve the problem

[Blitz]

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ws_1-14-99.html
I guess ABC news lied.... The video is proof!

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ry_of_Terrorism
a lot of reading here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1520819/posts
The Clinton administrations case for war... err airstrikes to take the heat off the Monica issue anyway.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...30205-1.html#13
The actual UN briefing... Iraq was after all in violation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/...ain604971.shtml
Libya turned over a new leaf... I wonder why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Saddam pays terrrorists.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
(the address to the nation after 9-11, please re-read / watch it in case you've fogotten)

I found these quotes interesting.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. "

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated"

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

I guess I look at the war like this... We tried to catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan and failed. (no different than other administrations) finding a dead end there we want after another sponser of terrorism that was funding terrorism and harboring terrorists.

Did the administration muck things up in this war. Hell yes, are things getting better?
It seems like it to me...

People seem to forget that we are at war with terrorism / radical islam as a whole not only Bin Laden.
Creating a safe-haven for freedom and democracy in the middle east could have long lasting reprocussions that would be felt for generations. Maybe that was the idea?

I guess we should have just said Saddam was a terror supporting tyrant and went in, if anyone thinks this is all about WMD's I'm sure the government has a $5,000 toilet seat they could sell you.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Clearly leading Democrats began lying about WMD's long before Bush arrived on the scene. Bush is just a pawn of the Democrat's. Suckered into the WMD lie's and then when things turned a bit sour, they left him hanging on their rope.

[Hellfighter]

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ws_1-14-99.html
I guess ABC news lied.... The video is proof!

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/...ry_of_Terrorism
a lot of reading here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1520819/posts
The Clinton administrations case for war... err airstrikes to take the heat off the Monica issue anyway.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...30205-1.html#13
The actual UN briefing... Iraq was after all in violation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/...ain604971.shtml
Libya turned over a new leaf... I wonder why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Saddam pays terrrorists.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
(the address to the nation after 9-11, please re-read / watch it in case you've fogotten)

I found these quotes interesting.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. "

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated"

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

I guess I look at the war like this... We tried to catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan and failed. (no different than other administrations) finding a dead end there we want after another sponser of terrorism that was funding terrorism and harboring terrorists.

Did the administration muck things up in this war. Hell yes, are things getting better?
It seems like it to me...

People seem to forget that we are at war with terrorism / radical islam as a whole not only Bin Laden.
Creating a safe-haven for freedom and democracy in the middle east could have long lasting reprocussions that would be felt for generations. Maybe that was the idea?

I guess we should have just said Saddam was a terror supporting tyrant and went in, if anyone thinks this is all about WMD's I'm sure the government has a $5,000 toilet seat they could sell you.

How does 'if anyone thinks' reasoning support the lies for war. Why dance around the issue of why the war actually started- why do you skip over the fact that UN Inspectors were scouring Iraq entirely!!
Why do you ignore the fact the CIA never gathered any solid proof at all regarding wmds -let alone terrorists in Iraq.
Things getting better you say.... things are perhaps getting back to modest levels of violence -how's that better is a strange argument -almost 200,000 Iraqi citizens confirmed dead and neighbourhoods ethnically cleansed, 10's of 000's more displaced from their homes! Better.....
The Surge which should have ended 6 months ago [Bush lie] seems to be well executed but do you think that's a guarantee against several terrorists a month causing massive destruction around Iraq each month even after 'a declaration of mission accomplished' for the surge.

As well-informed pro-iraq war enthusiasts want to believe they are since their rivals make opposite cases to them they need to perhaps realize how much informed they are of the total picture. Pakistan is a safe haven for terrorists -we KNOW that. Now where is your case for why a major military assault doesn't go in there... any 'ideas' for that?
Why do you say we failed to get Bum Laden -he's still around....
Does 'pursue' =launch falsified reasons to go into a $1 trillion war?
Give truthful reasons and let citizens/soldiers/representatives decide based on that truth what they will be asked to sacrifice for.....

Who does the war end with after al quaeda? - you apparently know who this mysterious endgame enemy is - who and why?

Why when we're focussed on one issue do you bring up other irrelevant issues as an argument that I've not defended nor supported.
I didn't even bother going through your links, sorry- I know the stories and don't find them relevant - but from what I remember of them I'll give you brief replies based on my views that you are being presumptious to know about how I I 'must be thinking of them/defending'.
-At the time of Clinton's airstrikes I was initially outraged thinking it was a diversion from Lewinsky. I liked Clinton as a President but that doesn't mean I like him altogether.
Funny how neocons were obsessed on Monica affair at the time instead of pushing billyboy to go after bum Laden.
-Libya takes an airstrike killing Khadafy's relatives -he gets shaken and has a change of attitude /not to mention lawsuit filed against him for Locherby airplane bombing he was involved in.
Airstrike is way-way-way different than a nation-wide war - don't you think?
-Iraq was in violation you say - how about Bush leading US into war practically alone without a UN consensus?
-You can pour out all the 'feel good' reasons for war in Iraq you want but you need to focus on what the reasons given for war was, and the actual reason for war was - even with full access inspections going on in Iraq, Sadam did not leave Iraq within 48 hours-bottom line.

Out of curiosity, I did look at the first link 'Proof!'
I was confused and mystified -what proof for what - there was nothing in that whole article that I hadn't known about for many years....
and let's see - can I show you a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam... well ok
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
this was in the time Sadam was using gas /WMDs against Iranian human wave attacks in their war...
X-Files time-> what were Rumsfeld and Sadam being chummy about - and no doubt in this time Sadam was exterminating the first thousands of his quarter million Iraqi civilian victims.
So proof of a Iraqi intel/al quaeda meeting means what - where in 2003 was the case to go to war in Iraq....
You need to know this I suppose - not a 1998 meeting, but a reality of the sit. closer to the war;
this is nothing to do with the actual deceptive reasons Bush wanted a war in Iraq -he didn't say it was for those dreamed up connections with al quaeda pro-war 'experts' like to claim - show me where he told the UN that please?
anyway, You want real proof regarding your 'proof' side track, then here it is ->
at best any connections regarding al quaeda and Iraq are maybes; not reason for a War or the argument for the War. Sadam and bum Laden had differing views on how they run their brands of dictatorships.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813266/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussei...-Qaeda_timeline

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp


Boogeyman reasons are not worth hundreds of thousands of deaths.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/28/08 11:19pm

[Hellfighter]

Guess we'll ignore all that, an stick with it's all Bush's Fault.
It's worked out really well so far.

Hey Robert good to see you... for some reason I didn't catch onto your threads of late

If Bush/admin makes the rushed deliberately inaccurate case for war it's fair to say it's his fault.
Without that case no war... there'd be alot of beliefs sadam was making a nukes program and CIA still trying to figure out fact from fiction... but there would be no war.
What actually has worked out well so far with 200,000 confirmed dead. Ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods. I hope there's peace there but the US General's there are saying everything is still balanced on the edge of a sword - we still have no clue of what will happen there for many years to come.