From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent
threat. :-) But ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
"What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush
authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part
of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page
white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass
destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's
reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding
that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against
American territory. That, too, was sanitized."
-------------------------------------------
"A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate the
fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he claimed
Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the intelligence
community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and told the public a
whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters
in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with
bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war
on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those
troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and
concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and
that's coming from someone who voted for Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
Paul Sperry
Yes, Bush lied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in
U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.
The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council
at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the
"key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence
community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says
formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without
provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.
Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals
with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most
Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence
Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:
a.. had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
b.. was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
c.. and was not a terrorist threat to America.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has
directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.
However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that
only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist
attack that he would hope to conduct."
Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival
of the regime," the report explained.
"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of
assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and
biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even
consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an
organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He
wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida -
unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.
Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the
gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by
confidence level - high, moderate or low.
According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low
confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in
clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or
biological weapons with al-Qaida."
Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida
unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe.
If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.
Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the
war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely
different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less
than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on any given day" -
provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not - Saddam could team
up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using
weapons of mass destruction.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in
his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could
allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The
terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."
By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip
unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the
president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence
report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida
unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose - and might even find that
hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations
with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.
If that's not lying, I don't know what is.
What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush
authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part
of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page
white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass
destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's
reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding
that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against
American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on lying
with impunity about the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while flouting the
judgments of his own intelligence agencies.
Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of
al-Qaida," he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist
network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."
In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons or
al-Qaida links, the White House press corps has finally put down their
stenographer's pads and started asking tough questions, forcing the
president to at least level with the American people about Saddam's assumed
role in 9-11.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11"
attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public what
his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.
The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that
seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the 9-11
attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?
Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam
was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one:
"Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President Bush
said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11, we've
entered into a new era in a new war.
"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he
continued, referring to Saddam. "This is a man who, in my judgment, would
like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal
with for the sake of peace."
Or this one:
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," Bush
said March 6 in a White House news conference. "The attacks of Sept. 11
showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait
to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass
destruction."
Or this:
"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam
Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror," he said at
the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should say to the American people that
we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a
terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."
In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times,
Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam, as
I pointed out in a column just before the war.
During the war, Bush said he couldn't leave "enemies free to plot another
Sept. 11 - this time, perhaps, with chemical, biological or nuclear terror."
In that April 5 radio address, he added: "We'll remove weapons of mass
destruction from the hands of mass murderers."
Even when we found no weapons to remove, he continued to distort the truth
about Iraq and 9-11.
"We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again," he said Aug. 26 in
an American Legion speech, rationalizing his Iraq attack. "We will strike
them before they hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens."
The juxtaposition was no accident. Just as it was no accident that the White
House timed the media rollout of its war campaign for the first 9-11
anniversary.
No wonder 71 percent of Americans told University of Maryland pollsters
after the war that they believe the "Bush administration implied that Iraq
under Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." A more recent
Washington Post poll, as well as other polls, came up with roughly the same
number.
Sadly, it's the small minority of respondents who said they saw no
connection at all who most accurately reflect the views of the U.S.
intelligence community, proving again the power of unfiltered propaganda.
A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate the
fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he claimed
Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the intelligence
community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and told the public a
whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters
in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with
bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war
on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those
troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and
concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and
that's coming from someone who voted for Bush
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 AM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent
threat. :-) But ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
"What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that
Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech,
as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The
25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged
weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part
about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also
didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other
al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized."
-------------------------------------------
"A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate
the fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he
claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the
intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and
daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops
there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to
bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a
war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted
those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty
and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about
it - and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
Paul Sperry
Yes, Bush lied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents
in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.
The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence
Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush
known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S.
intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the
president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively
invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound
intelligence," Bush has remarked.
Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate,
deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock
to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense
Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed
that Baghdad:
a.. had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
b.. was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
c.. and was not a terrorist threat to America.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has
directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.
However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that
only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of
terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."
Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the
survival of the regime," the report explained.
"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme
step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical
and biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his
last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with
him."
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he
even consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an
organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship.
He wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with
al-Qaida - unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse
of his regime.
Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered
the gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key
judgments by confidence level - high, moderate or low.
According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was
"low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage
in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or
biological weapons with al-Qaida."
Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida
unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big
maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against
attacking Iraq.
Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with
the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a
completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the
American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned
that "on any given day" - provoked by attack or not, sufficiently
desperate or not - Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint
terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7
in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists
could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving
fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida
members."
By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip
unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the
president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence
report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to
al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose - and might
even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint
terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.
If that's not lying, I don't know what is.
What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that
Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech,
as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The
25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged
weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part
about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also
didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other
al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on
lying with impunity about the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while
flouting the judgments of his own intelligence agencies.
Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of
al-Qaida," he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist
network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."
In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons
or al-Qaida links, the White House press corps has finally put down
their stenographer's pads and started asking tough questions, forcing
the president to at least level with the American people about Saddam's
assumed role in 9-11.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11"
attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public
what his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.
The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that
seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the
9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?
Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting
Saddam was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one:
"Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President
Bush said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11,
we've entered into a new era in a new war.
"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he
continued, referring to Saddam. "This is a man who, in my judgment,
would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we
must deal with for the sake of peace."
Or this one:
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,"
Bush said March 6 in a White House news conference. "The attacks of
Sept. 11 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We
will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with
weapons of mass destruction."
Or this:
"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like
Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror,"
he said at the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should say to the
American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed
here at home."
In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine
times, Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into
Saddam, as I pointed out in a column just before the war.
During the war, Bush said he couldn't leave "enemies free to plot
another Sept. 11 - this time, perhaps, with chemical, biological or
nuclear terror."
In that April 5 radio address, he added: "We'll remove weapons of mass
destruction from the hands of mass murderers."
Even when we found no weapons to remove, he continued to distort the
truth about Iraq and 9-11.
"We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again," he said Aug. 26
in an American Legion speech, rationalizing his Iraq attack. "We will
strike them before they hit more of our cities and kill more of our
citizens."
The juxtaposition was no accident. Just as it was no accident that the
White House timed the media rollout of its war campaign for the first
9-11 anniversary.
No wonder 71 percent of Americans told University of Maryland pollsters
after the war that they believe the "Bush administration implied that
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." A more
recent Washington Post poll, as well as other polls, came up with
roughly the same number.
Sadly, it's the small minority of respondents who said they saw no
connection at all who most accurately reflect the views of the U.S.
intelligence community, proving again the power of unfiltered
propaganda.
A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate
the fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he
claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the
intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and
daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops
there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to
bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a
war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted
those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty
and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about
it - and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 02:43:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:54:41 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.06.19.43.21.695874@tepidmail.com...
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Woods
The last thing you'd want to be able to do is face the truth like a man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 06:00:37 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.06.19.43.21.695874@tepidmail.com...
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Woods
The last thing you'd want to be able to do is face the truth like a man.
My points all have to do with before the invasion, when Democrats and
Republicans were saying we must disarm Saddam ... and Saddam was
refusing to cooperate with the inspectors. But knowing what I know now,
would I support the invasion? No, I wouldn't. And instead, I'd be
hearing from all the crying Democrats about how the corrupt UN Oil for
Food program is starving the Iraqi people, and how unfair it is. And
pretty soon, we'd have dropped the sanctions, and eventually Saddam
would have reconstituted his WMD programs, as many analysts have said
he would do once the sanctions were lifted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:06:40 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Are they blameless? Seriously, are they blameless?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 06:38:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:06:40 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Are they blameless? Seriously, are they blameless?
The question you should be asking is "were they lied to?", and the answer
to THAT is yes.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 10:14:35 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:06:40 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Are they blameless? Seriously, are they blameless?
The question you should be asking is "were they lied to?", and the answer
to THAT is yes.
Democratic Leader Gephardt was lied to? Who lied to him?
.
|
|
|
| User: "living large" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 10:11:26 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154920475.870563.280390@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:06:40 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:13:10 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
I Predict... Stephen Douglas will pipe up and try to squiggle his
way out of these damaging facts by simply pretending they don't
exist, then spewing 5 paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo about possible
future scenarios if we don't invade some country.
Most likely, he'll blame the Democrats. ;-)
Are they blameless? Seriously, are they blameless?
The question you should be asking is "were they lied to?", and the answer
to THAT is yes.
Democratic Leader Gephardt was lied to? Who lied to him?
Ahmed Chalabi. Follow the evidence trail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "living large" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 06:22:50 PM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:Z5Kdnb6U4O-eYEjZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@locallink.net...
From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent threat. :-) But
ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
"What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the
unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day
before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war.
The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass
destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to
al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other
al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized."
-------------------------------------------
"A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate the fact that the
president had no such evidence before the war when he claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as
thieves, contradicting the intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq;
and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their
attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real
and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources - including
intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt
for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've
regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own
families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and that's coming from someone who voted for
Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
Paul Sperry
Yes, Bush lied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was
published and couriered over to the White House.
The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included
an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of
the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says
formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report
"was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.
Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and
draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq.
The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that
Baghdad:
a.. had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
b.. was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
c.. and was not a terrorist threat to America.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against
U.S. territory," the report stated.
However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such
as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."
Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the
report explained.
"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the
Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and biological weapons] attack against the
United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with
him."
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the
"extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or
preexisting relationship. He wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with
al-Qaida - unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.
Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the gold standard of
intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by confidence level - high, moderate or low.
According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low confidence" before the
war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or
"share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."
Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back
against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow
light against attacking Iraq.
Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd
approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence
consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on
any given day" - provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not - Saddam could team up
with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass
destruction.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist
group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech.
"Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving
fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."
By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida
if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret
intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he
were attacked and had nothing to lose - and might even find that hard to do since he had no
history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the
U.S.
If that's not lying, I don't know what is.
What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the
unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day
before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war.
The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass
destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to
al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other
al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on lying with impunity about
the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while flouting the judgments of his own intelligence agencies.
Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida," he said May 1
from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from
the Iraqi regime."
In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons or al-Qaida links, the
White House press corps has finally put down their stenographer's pads and started asking tough
questions, forcing the president to at least level with the American people about Saddam's assumed
role in 9-11.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush confessed
last month, finally repeating for the public what his own intelligence services had told him a
year earlier.
The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that seven in 10 Americans
tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the 9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did
they get such an idea?
Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam was to blame for 9-11,
starting with this one:
"Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President Bush said about Iraq in an
Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11, we've entered into a new era in a new war.
"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he continued, referring to Saddam.
"This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a
man that we must deal with for the sake of peace."
Or this one:
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," Bush said March 6 in a White
House news conference. "The attacks of Sept. 11 showed what the enemies of America did with four
airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of
mass destruction."
Or this:
"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans
would protect us from his type of terror," he said at the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should
say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."
In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and
Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam, as I pointed out in a column just before the
war.
During the war, Bush said he couldn't leave "enemies free to plot another Sept. 11 - this time,
perhaps, with chemical, biological or nuclear terror."
In that April 5 radio address, he added: "We'll remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands
of mass murderers."
Even when we found no weapons to remove, he continued to distort the truth about Iraq and 9-11.
"We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again," he said Aug. 26 in an American Legion
speech, rationalizing his Iraq attack. "We will strike them before they hit more of our cities and
kill more of our citizens."
The juxtaposition was no accident. Just as it was no accident that the White House timed the media
rollout of its war campaign for the first 9-11 anniversary.
No wonder 71 percent of Americans told University of Maryland pollsters after the war that they
believe the "Bush administration implied that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept.
11 attacks." A more recent Washington Post poll, as well as other polls, came up with roughly the
same number.
Sadly, it's the small minority of respondents who said they saw no connection at all who most
accurately reflect the views of the U.S. intelligence community, proving again the power of
unfiltered propaganda.
A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate the fact that the
president had no such evidence before the war when he claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as
thieves, contradicting the intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq;
and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their
attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real
and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources - including
intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt
for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've
regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own
families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and that's coming from someone who voted for
Bush
While I don't think Bush lied, he did so much damage to America that the country will never recover.
Bush and the remaining members of the administration were manipulated by Iran to take out Saddam.
Bush represents the epitome of incompetance. Iran is laughing at Americans. They fooled the
mightiest power on earth into fighting a war that'll destroy it's economy and render it helpless.
The Iraq war will go down as the biggest blunder and greatest military defeat in history. Iran beat
America without lifting a sword or shedding one drop of blood.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 10:09:37 AM |
|
|
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar. This I
felt the absolute first time I ever saw him.
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:Z5Kdnb6U4O-eYEjZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@locallink.net...
From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent
threat. :-) But ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
"What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush
authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as
part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The
25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons
of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about
Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see
the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack
against American territory. That, too, was sanitized."
-------------------------------------------
"A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate
the fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he
claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the
intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters
in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with
bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a
war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted
those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and
concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it -
and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
Paul Sperry
Yes, Bush lied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in
U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.
The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence
Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known
as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence
community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says
formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without
provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.
Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals
with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most
Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense
Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed
that Baghdad:
a.. had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
b.. was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
c.. and was not a terrorist threat to America.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has
directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.
However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that
only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of
terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."
Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the
survival of the regime," the report explained.
"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step
of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and
biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even
consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an
organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He
wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with
al-Qaida - unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of
his regime.
Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the
gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by
confidence level - high, moderate or low.
According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low
confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in
clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or
biological weapons with al-Qaida."
Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida
unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe.
If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking
Iraq.
Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with
the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a
completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American
people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on
any given day" - provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or
not - Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist
operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in
his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists
could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving
fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."
By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip
unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the
president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence
report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to
al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose - and might even
find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist
operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.
If that's not lying, I don't know what is.
What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were
withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush
authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as
part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The
25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons
of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about
Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see
the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack
against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on
lying with impunity about the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while flouting
the judgments of his own intelligence agencies.
Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of
al-Qaida," he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist
network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."
In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons
or al-Qaida links, the White House press corps has finally put down their
stenographer's pads and started asking tough questions, forcing the
president to at least level with the American people about Saddam's
assumed role in 9-11.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11"
attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public what
his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.
The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that
seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the
9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?
Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam
was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one:
"Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President
Bush said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11,
we've entered into a new era in a new war.
"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he
continued, referring to Saddam. "This is a man who, in my judgment, would
like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we must
deal with for the sake of peace."
Or this one:
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," Bush
said March 6 in a White House news conference. "The attacks of Sept. 11
showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not
wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of
mass destruction."
Or this:
"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like
Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror," he
said at the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should say to the American
people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in
the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."
In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times,
Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam,
as I pointed out in a column just before the war.
During the war, Bush said he couldn't leave "enemies free to plot another
Sept. 11 - this time, perhaps, with chemical, biological or nuclear
terror."
In that April 5 radio address, he added: "We'll remove weapons of mass
destruction from the hands of mass murderers."
Even when we found no weapons to remove, he continued to distort the truth
about Iraq and 9-11.
"We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again," he said Aug. 26
in an American Legion speech, rationalizing his Iraq attack. "We will
strike them before they hit more of our cities and kill more of our
citizens."
The juxtaposition was no accident. Just as it was no accident that the
White House timed the media rollout of its war campaign for the first 9-11
anniversary.
No wonder 71 percent of Americans told University of Maryland pollsters
after the war that they believe the "Bush administration implied that Iraq
under Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." A more recent
Washington Post poll, as well as other polls, came up with roughly the
same number.
Sadly, it's the small minority of respondents who said they saw no
connection at all who most accurately reflect the views of the U.S.
intelligence community, proving again the power of unfiltered propaganda.
A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate
the fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he
claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the
intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and
told the public a whopper.
Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters
in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with
bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on.
It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a
war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted
those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic
translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for
Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani
border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.
That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and
concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it -
and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 02:49:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:09:37 +0000, bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar.
Well, it's kind of hard to be an honest liar! ^_^
(Actually, it took me quite a while to figure out that he was a dishonest,
evil, fearmongering creep. I'm embarrassed to admit that the only reason
I didn't vote for him was because his sudden rise to power out of
nowhere raised a red flag that there was someone in the background calling
in favors to get endorsements for an inexperienced and unknown newbie -
don't like that kind of stuff).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "living large" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 10:06:45 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.06.19.49.24.101753@tepidmail.com...
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:09:37 +0000, bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar.
Well, it's kind of hard to be an honest liar! ^_^
(Actually, it took me quite a while to figure out that he was a dishonest,
evil, fearmongering creep. I'm embarrassed to admit that the only reason
I didn't vote for him was because his sudden rise to power out of
nowhere raised a red flag that there was someone in the background calling
in favors to get endorsements for an inexperienced and unknown newbie -
don't like that kind of stuff).
Woods
Bush bought into Ahmed Chalabi's con job after he became an agent of Iran. Most likely following his
banking excursion in Jordan which ended in a disaster. The reason(s) for going to war is a whole lot
more complicated than "Bush lying". Americans better demand the whole story. The "Bush lied" crap is
just as shallow and silly as the term "Iraqi Freedom". Neither American political party is searching
for the truth. All they're considering at this point is the November elections. So sad. In the mean
time Iran continues it chess match. Check mate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
08 Aug 2006 05:48:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:06:45 -0500, living large wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.06.19.49.24.101753@tepidmail.com...
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:09:37 +0000, bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar.
Well, it's kind of hard to be an honest liar! ^_^
(Actually, it took me quite a while to figure out that he was a dishonest,
evil, fearmongering creep. I'm embarrassed to admit that the only reason
I didn't vote for him was because his sudden rise to power out of
nowhere raised a red flag that there was someone in the background calling
in favors to get endorsements for an inexperienced and unknown newbie -
don't like that kind of stuff).
Woods
Bush bought into Ahmed Chalabi's con job after he became an agent of Iran.
It was before, and because it was what Bush wanted to hear. Same as
the yellowcake nonsense that nobody else was buying.
Most likely following
his
banking excursion in Jordan which ended in a disaster. The reason(s) for
going to war is a whole lot more complicated than "Bush lying".
Not really. Bush wanted a war, and set about to get one, no matter what.
Americans better demand the whole story. The "Bush lied" crap is just as
shallow and silly as the term "Iraqi Freedom". Neither American
political party is searching for the truth. All they're considering at
this point is the November elections. So sad. In the mean time Iran
continues it chess match. Check mate.
Iran is taking advantage of the opportunities a weakened US provides to
it. (We are weakened because we've lost worldwide credibility and
support, we are amassing incredible debtload, and our military is
stretched thin without even basic safety equipment).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bye" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
08 Aug 2006 06:36:40 PM |
|
|
I heard that nukes are not nearly as bad they say.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.08.22.48.29.139132@tepidmail.com...
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:06:45 -0500, living large wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.06.19.49.24.101753@tepidmail.com...
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:09:37 +0000, bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar.
Well, it's kind of hard to be an honest liar! ^_^
(Actually, it took me quite a while to figure out that he was a
dishonest,
evil, fearmongering creep. I'm embarrassed to admit that the only
reason
I didn't vote for him was because his sudden rise to power out of
nowhere raised a red flag that there was someone in the background
calling
in favors to get endorsements for an inexperienced and unknown newbie -
don't like that kind of stuff).
Woods
Bush bought into Ahmed Chalabi's con job after he became an agent of
Iran.
It was before, and because it was what Bush wanted to hear. Same as
the yellowcake nonsense that nobody else was buying.
Most likely following
his
banking excursion in Jordan which ended in a disaster. The reason(s) for
going to war is a whole lot more complicated than "Bush lying".
Not really. Bush wanted a war, and set about to get one, no matter what.
Americans better demand the whole story. The "Bush lied" crap is just as
shallow and silly as the term "Iraqi Freedom". Neither American
political party is searching for the truth. All they're considering at
this point is the November elections. So sad. In the mean time Iran
continues it chess match. Check mate.
Iran is taking advantage of the opportunities a weakened US provides to
it. (We are weakened because we've lost worldwide credibility and
support, we are amassing incredible debtload, and our military is
stretched thin without even basic safety equipment).
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 11:00:32 PM |
|
|
The day that George Bush was allowed to usurp the Presidency - this
tragic day when even the Supreme Court, in KathrineHarris-esque fashion
stopped the vote - My girlfriend and I knew right off, that the world
was about to becomes really different, really fast, and REALLY BAD!
America had turned as sour as Milk on a Hot day. Democracy was lost,
and one of the Supreme Court justices lamented that the Real Loser, is
America. He was wrong. The real loser is the World.
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:09:37 +0000, bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar.
Well, it's kind of hard to be an honest liar! ^_^
(Actually, it took me quite a while to figure out that he was a dishonest,
evil, fearmongering creep. I'm embarrassed to admit that the only reason
I didn't vote for him was because his sudden rise to power out of
nowhere raised a red flag that there was someone in the background calling
in favors to get endorsements for an inexperienced and unknown newbie -
don't like that kind of stuff).
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 06:05:44 PM |
|
|
bye wrote:
All I had to do was look at the man I knew he was a dishonest liar. This I
felt the absolute first time I ever saw him.
All politicians are liars! It's just that some are better at it than
others...
Merlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:05:29 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent
threat. :-)
Thank you. And all those quotes you provided elsewhere did not quote
him as saying it. But Rockefeller and Edwards most certainly DID say
it.
But ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
Sure, just like Democratic Leader Gephardt (who said he did not listen
to Bush for his intelligence), and Senators Kerry, Edwards,
Rockefeller, Clinton, and many others.
The article you provided has a point of view, just like this one does:
[quoting] Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq
Bush may have been misled by the information he had, but he did not
lie.
By John Hughes
April 12, 2006 edition
[excerpt] While Bush may have been badly misled by his own intelligence
and other sources, he did not lie. He believed, and had good reason to
believe, that the weapons existed.
From thousands of official Iraqi documents captured by American forces,
and dozens of interviews with captured senior military and political
leaders, a picture is now emerging of the world of delusion in which
Hussein lived when he was in power. It is being chronicled in magazines
such as the Weekly Standard and a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs
and books such as "Cobra II." Written by New York Times reporter
Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor, the book is being hailed as
one of the most comprehensive accounts of the war in Iraq.
[...]
Messrs Gordon and Trainor say in their book that German agents in
Baghdad tipped the American military to Hussein's plan for defending
his capital. Concentric rings were to be manned by Iraqi units of
varying trustworthiness. One of the circles was called the "red line."
This was to be the final barrier, manned by Hussein's elite and most
reliable troops. US military intelligence reasoned that as American
troops reached this defense line they would be met by poison gas or
germ weapons. [end excerpt]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p09s02-cojh.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:32:59 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
You supported him and continue to support him knowing he lied
to pad the wallets of his best rich buddies. I'll bet you sleep
well at night.
John Lemke wrote:
From a columnist published in World Nut Daily no less.
And nowhere in this article does Mr. Bush say that Iraq was an imminent
threat. :-)
Thank you. And all those quotes you provided elsewhere did not quote
him as saying it. But Rockefeller and Edwards most certainly DID say
it.
But ohhhhhhhh the fear of it all..................
Sure, just like Democratic Leader Gephardt (who said he did not listen
to Bush for his intelligence), and Senators Kerry, Edwards,
Rockefeller, Clinton, and many others.
The article you provided has a point of view, just like this one does:
[quoting] Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq
Bush may have been misled by the information he had, but he did not
lie.
By John Hughes
April 12, 2006 edition
[excerpt] While Bush may have been badly misled by his own intelligence
and other sources, he did not lie. He believed, and had good reason to
believe, that the weapons existed.
From thousands of official Iraqi documents captured by American forces,
and dozens of interviews with captured senior military and political
leaders, a picture is now emerging of the world of delusion in which
Hussein lived when he was in power. It is being chronicled in magazines
such as the Weekly Standard and a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs
and books such as "Cobra II." Written by New York Times reporter
Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor, the book is being hailed as
one of the most comprehensive accounts of the war in Iraq.
[...]
Messrs Gordon and Trainor say in their book that German agents in
Baghdad tipped the American military to Hussein's plan for defending
his capital. Concentric rings were to be manned by Iraqi units of
varying trustworthiness. One of the circles was called the "red line."
This was to be the final barrier, manned by Hussein's elite and most
reliable troops. US military intelligence reasoned that as American
troops reached this defense line they would be met by poison gas or
germ weapons. [end excerpt]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p09s02-cojh.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:50:38 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817A85A7FD25rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
Yup, the clear and only view is that Bush cherrypicked the evidence that he
felt best made the case for war. Even the NIE he was referencing was
obviously sanitized because it didn't support the fantasy of Saddam's
involvment with Al Queda. It didn't concur with the fear mongering ploy
that was needed to create the specter of terrorists attacking the US with
Iraqi WMD. But this cherry picking and sanitizing was commonplace in the
run up to the war.
Bush lied and you can whine and cry about democrats all day long. The
democrats are all whining about being misled now.
Randy, have you seen how Joe Lieberman is distancing himself from Bush in
his current campaign? I wonder why it's become necessary for politicians to
do that now.
You supported him and continue to support him knowing he lied
to pad the wallets of his best rich buddies. I'll bet you sleep
well at night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 08:53:01 PM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817A85A7FD25rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
Yup, the clear and only view is that Bush cherrypicked the evidence that
he felt best made the case for war. Even the NIE he was referencing was
obviously sanitized because it didn't support the fantasy of Saddam's
involvment with Al Queda. It didn't concur with the fear mongering ploy
that was needed to create the specter of terrorists attacking the US
with Iraqi WMD. But this cherry picking and sanitizing was commonplace
in the run up to the war.
Bush lied and you can whine and cry about democrats all day long. The
democrats are all whining about being misled now.
Randy, have you seen how Joe Lieberman is distancing himself from Bush
in his current campaign? I wonder why it's become necessary for
politicians to do that now.
Bush is a hot potato right now. He's presiding over a failed
Iraq policy that's going to cost us $1 Trillion dollars plus
lots of less tangible costs for years, even decades to come.
And we'll get nothing out of this little adventure, not even
an Arab ally in the middle east (it appears the Iraqi population
and president have already decided they're siding with hezbolla).
You supported him and continue to support him knowing he lied
to pad the wallets of his best rich buddies. I'll bet you sleep
well at night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 05:49:35 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817CA44ED57Frrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush is a hot potato right now. He's presiding over a failed
Iraq policy that's going to cost us $1 Trillion dollars plus
lots of less tangible costs for years, even decades to come.
And we'll get nothing out of this little adventure, not even
an Arab ally in the middle east (it appears the Iraqi population
and president have already decided they're siding with hezbolla).
As has been said here before, the worst president in the history of the
United States. We'll be paying for this for generations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
07 Aug 2006 10:51:53 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817CA44ED57Frrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush is a hot potato right now. He's presiding over a failed
Iraq policy that's going to cost us $1 Trillion dollars plus
lots of less tangible costs for years, even decades to come.
And we'll get nothing out of this little adventure, not even
an Arab ally in the middle east (it appears the Iraqi population
and president have already decided they're siding with hezbolla).
As has been said here before, the worst president in the history of the
United States. We'll be paying for this for generations.
He was the neo-cons 'useful idiot'.
I doubt if he has any clue the damage he's caused -- or cares for that
matter. To watch the doofus answer questions at press conferences is
embarrassing -- I feel sorry for the guy in a way because he's
obviously in way over his head.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Gregory-Bla.mov
Listen to Bush's reply to a great question -- surprised he say 'I
thought you were going to ask me about the pig'.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 10:16:43 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817A85A7FD25rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
Yup, the clear and only view is that Bush cherrypicked the evidence that
he felt best made the case for war. Even the NIE he was referencing was
obviously sanitized because it didn't support the fantasy of Saddam's
involvment with Al Queda. It didn't concur with the fear mongering ploy
that was needed to create the specter of terrorists attacking the US
with Iraqi WMD. But this cherry picking and sanitizing was commonplace
in the run up to the war.
Bush lied and you can whine and cry about democrats all day long. The
democrats are all whining about being misled now.
Randy, have you seen how Joe Lieberman is distancing himself from Bush
in his current campaign? I wonder why it's become necessary for
politicians to do that now.
Bush is a hot potato right now.
In a Democratic senatorial primary in a blue state, Bush is a
liability? Stop the presses!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 10:53:31 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9817A85A7FD25rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
Yup, the clear and only view is that Bush cherrypicked the evidence that
he felt best made the case for war. Even the NIE he was referencing was
obviously sanitized because it didn't support the fantasy of Saddam's
involvment with Al Queda. It didn't concur with the fear mongering ploy
that was needed to create the specter of terrorists attacking the US
with Iraqi WMD. But this cherry picking and sanitizing was commonplace
in the run up to the war.
Bush lied and you can whine and cry about democrats all day long. The
democrats are all whining about being misled now.
Randy, have you seen how Joe Lieberman is distancing himself from Bush
in his current campaign? I wonder why it's become necessary for
politicians to do that now.
Bush is a hot potato right now.
In a Democratic senatorial primary in a blue state, Bush is a
liability? Stop the presses!
Yes, big surprise. Nobody (not even Lieberman) wants to be
associated with Bush and his failed policies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:39:07 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Bush lied, people died.
I'll ask you too -- are the Democrats blameless? You know, all those
Democrats who also believed Saddam was a threat -- are they blameless?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:48:32 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Bush lied, people died.
I'll ask you too -- are the Democrats blameless? You know, all those
Democrats who also believed Saddam was a threat -- are they blameless?
It was the Bush agenda which brought us here.
Bush lied, people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died.
You supported him and continue to support him knowing he lied
to pad the wallets of his best rich buddies. I'll bet you sleep
well at night.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Bush Lied |
06 Aug 2006 05:48:21 PM |
|
|
Bush lied, people died...So let's blame the Democrats! ROFLMAO.
eric.
P.S. Bush lied to the nation, including the Democrats. They were
naive to believe him, yes...but who controls all three branches of
government again? Hmmm....Boy, you're one ignora | | | | |
