Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

[chomerics]

Simple question, looking for a poll on where everyone here is as compared with the rest of the country.

[Cdowwe]

WTF Chom. Nice poll. Oh wait, there isnt one.

Ok, now there is one. Ill just leave this up so you realize I caught you lol.

But back to your question.

I dont think Bush did any more than any other politician did every year leading up to the war.

[zoony]

The real question to ask yourself, is will ANY president, ANY PRESIDENT AT ALL, NO MATTER WHO, be able to maintain integrity and popularity in the face of the information age?

Clinton couldn't... and Bush doesn't appear to be winning either.

I don't think we'll ever have a beloved president ever again. Call me a pessimest, but I just don't see it happening. Not today. Not tomorrow. Never again.

[stevenaa]

Could we beat this topic anymore to death.

[Thiebear]

More like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...

24hrs a day is a long time to fill..

Kinda like Chomerics starting: (not just posting but STARTING)

Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

Can anyone find DITSUM #044-02

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

Has anyone noticed Bush is starting WWIII

Analysis of the Libby Indictments

McCllelan is taking a beating today

President created terror mess he describes

Rove Next to be Indicted?

Delay Indicted a Second Time

Homeland Insecurity. Friedman on Bush & China

Bush, Gannon and the height of Hypocracy

More Bush Big Government Spending

War Criminal Warnings to the White House

Aug 6 memo to the White House

I mean if one guy is this dedicated from his comfy chair at home on a sports website, imagine what people with an agenda can do...

[nelms]

More like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...

24hrs a day is a long time to fill..

Kinda like Chomerics starting: (not just posting but STARTING)

Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

Can anyone find DITSUM #044-02

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

Has anyone noticed Bush is starting WWIII

Analysis of the Libby Indictments

McCllelan is taking a beating today

President created terror mess he describes

Rove Next to be Indicted?

Delay Indicted a Second Time

Homeland Insecurity. Friedman on Bush & China

Bush, Gannon and the height of Hypocracy

More Bush Big Government Spending

War Criminal Warnings to the White House

Aug 6 memo to the White House

I mean if one guy is this dedicated from his comfy chair at home on a sports website, imagine what people with an agenda can do...

Can we say "obsession"? :laugh:

[Larry]

Was Bush pushing for a war from 9/12? Absolutely.

Was he spinning the parts he revealed to make Saddam look like more of a threat? I could tell that from here.

Did he honestly believe that he had a good reason? Could well be.

I think Lincoln used spin to get the Union to support the civil war. Was he wrong?

The line between "lieing to the people" and "leadership" can be subtle.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What if everyone just automatically agreed with chomerics? There'd be no more political debates on here.

From here on out everyone just nod and smile and lets see what happens

[tlk2rn]

WTF Chom. Nice poll. Oh wait, there isnt one.

Ok, now there is one. Ill just leave this up so you realize I caught you lol.

But back to your question.

I dont think Bush did any more than any other politician did every year leading up to the war.

I couldn't agree with you more Cdowwe!

[Predicto]

What if everyone just automatically agreed with chomerics? There'd be no more political debates on here.

From here on out everyone just nod and smile and lets see what happens

Even worse, what if there was no chomerics? None of the rest of us liberals have the stamina to argue and refute in detail, over and over, everytime the right-wing caffeklatch starts up again (as it always does). We just shake our heads and move to the next thread, and someone might think the original post copied from World Net Daily was accurate.

Now when the first post comes from DailyKos, there are 20 people ready to jump on it :laugh: but there is only one chomerics.

[DeanCollins]

If the board respondants reflect the current polls of the american public, the yes percentage should be above 60. I heard a poll figure today of 65. And that only Nixon had lower approval ratings than "W". Republican Presidents in meaningless foreign wars? "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

[Commander PK]

What if everyone just automatically agreed with chomerics? There'd be no more political debates on here.

From here on out everyone just nod and smile and lets see what happens

I agree Chom. You are right as usual.

[RabidFan]

Aren't we supposed to question the authority on stuff we believe in? Chom is stating what he believes and I respect that and lean his way anyway but regardless I respect the opposing views of ThieBear,Spiffer, and others but not when they equated him with people at Shady Pines and obsessed freaks who don't move on. If you have a passion for something and there are others that share your same point of view should you give it up to join others? Thats like telling a Skins fan here to become a boys fan when they were winning bowls in the 90s.....you can't change your believes because of adversity. I respect all opinions here, extreme or not and regardless if I agree unless its some troll mouthing off. Lets not order the white coat for Chom yet...at least he posts articles and documents released and doesn't give the stock "well politicians do that" or "well clinton did that" or my favorite after denials for 3 years: "this is old news". Big ups to all.

[JimboDaMan]

The line between "lieing to the people" and "leadership" can be subtle.

What really confounds me is the perceived difference between lying and misleading. In one case you make a false statement to deliberately mislead. In the other case you make a deliberately misleading statement that, when parsed and examined at length, does not actually contain a falsehood (because it does not actually say that which it intends the audience to believe). It continually amazes me that people find a moral difference between the two.

[Cskin]

When the whole story is laid out there.... both from the right and the left and coupled with coinciding evidence.... the answer is.... who knows? I know as far as I'm concerned.... I'd prefer my brave GIs putting bullets in their brains over there, every terrorist that cares to step into the bullring that is Iraq, than fight them over here. If Iraq is a attracting the young and disillusioned islamofacists than I'm all for killing them by the thousands with the good ole' US military.

Of course, the Dems don't want the whole story told.... they want only to cherry pick what they believe are the points of contention. Never mind that a bipartisan panel concluded that the Bush Administration did not steer intelligence agencies to manufacturer evidence. Never mind that the Dem leadership themselves are quoted as believing Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs. You see... the Dems don't want THAT part of the story told.... and the National Media is doing a good job keeping THAT EVIDENCE under wraps and away from those people still dumb enough to get their news from the big three Nightly News circus acts.

[Duncan]

Simple question, looking for a poll on where everyone here is as compared with the rest of the country.

Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

[chomerics]

When the whole story is laid out there.... both from the right and the left and coupled with coinciding evidence.... the answer is.... who knows? I know as far as I'm concerned.... I'd prefer my brave GIs putting bullets in their brains over there, every terrorist that cares to step into the bullring that is Iraq, than fight them over here. If Iraq is a attracting the young and disillusioned islamofacists than I'm all for killing them by the thousands with the good ole' US military.

Of course, the Dems don't want the whole story told.... they want only to cherry pick what they believe are the points of contention. Never mind that a bipartisan panel concluded that the Bush Administration did not steer intelligence agencies to manufacturer evidence. Never mind that the Dem leadership themselves are quoted as believing Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs. You see... the Dems don't want THAT part of the story told.... and the National Media is doing a good job keeping THAT EVIDENCE under wraps and away from those people still dumb enough to get their news from the big three Nightly News circus acts.

Cskin, I really have no problems throwing the dems under the bus, and they deserve a lot of backlash, but I do not know the entire story yet. Everything I have read so far seems to show my side of the argument, but that also doesn't mean that I am correct either.

Personally, I just want to know the truth (cue in Col. Jessup YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!) :laugh: but in all honesty that is what I want. If Bush did not mislead the American public, then fine. If he did, send his ass off to Levanworth. The intellegence reports will show if he did or not, and the stonewalling has been something fierce lately, which leads me to believe they've got a lot to hide.

As of this moment, I think the decision to invade Iraq was made way before 9-11 (booooo hissssss from the righties). I think the PNAC crew and the neo-cons were way to entangled in the Bush Administration, and when 9-11 happened, they looked at it as a "golden oppertunity" to out Saddam. They used the horror of 9-11 to invade Iraq, something they wanted to do ever since the first gulf war. Like always, I honestly hope I am 100% wrong, but everything I've read and seen from both sides tends to point me in that direction.

On the poll, I was really curious as to what the responses would be here. I always considered this site a slightly conservative site, and I think we are a good judge of the population as a whole, albiet a bit right of center. I am curious as to how this turns out. I think it is a little less then 2/3rds right now, or about 62% of the population believe this, so I was curious as to how this would come out.

[chomerics]

Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

I think so :laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Even worse, what if there was no chomerics? None of the rest of us liberals have the stamina to argue and refute in detail, over and over, everytime the right-wing caffeklatch starts up again (as it always does). We just shake our heads and move to the next thread, and someone might think the original post copied from World Net Daily was accurate.

Now when the first post comes from DailyKos, there are 20 people ready to jump on it :laugh: but there is only one chomerics.

I was just messing around, I've learned a lot from the guy. And the dude knows his baseball. I don't like liberal ideals, but chomerics is a-ok in my book. :thumbsup:

[JacktheMack]

NO!!!

I am so sick of the way the liberals are corrupting and portraying Bush in the media. In case you all did not know 80% of the media are liberals. That's why it seems like everytime you turn on the tv, something bad is being said about Bush.

The only reason liberals bash FOX NEWS is because it is one of the only fair, balanced, non-liberal controlled news stations in America. Try watching it. I guarantee you will see things the way they really are.

These are huge quotes that prove my point. You never hear about this in the media do you???

"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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.

To those of you who are liberal, that is who you voted for. It was right for us to go into Iraq and John Kerry and all the other liberals try to make it sound like they never said those quotes. I have never been so ashamed or mad at the Democrats but they have become a corrupt party feeding off of controversy and lies just to put them in office again in '08.

Another quote that our old friend Bill said who recently went to Iraq and said (While There) that it was a mistake to go there. TO OUR TROOPS!

"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.

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

[DjTj]

Yes, of course. It is now indisputable that Saddam was not, in fact, an imminent threat to the United States. That means the information we got prior to the war was false and misleading.

John Kerry and many Democrats also misled Americans about the imminent threat with their statements.

...the real question is what their intent was. Were we misled inadvertently? Did everyone in the administration actually believe the threat was imminent? Or did someone know there was no credible threat? Did Bush? Did Cheney? Did Rumsfeld? Did Tenet?

The question isn't whether or not we were misled ... of course we were. What we may never know is whether that misleading was intentional.

[JacktheMack]

Yes, of course. It is now indisputable that Saddam was not, in fact, an imminent threat to the United States. That means the information we got prior to the war was false and misleading.

John Kerry and many Democrats also misled Americans about the imminent threat with their statements.

...the real question is what their intent was. Were we misled inadvertently? Did everyone in the administration actually believe the threat was imminent? Or did someone know there was no credible threat? Did Bush? Did Cheney? Did Rumsfeld? Did Tenet?

The question isn't whether or not we were misled ... of course we were. What we may never know is whether that misleading was intentional.

I completely disagree. No, not of course is it indisuputable that Saddam was not holding or creating weapons of mass destruction. Do you know how many terrorists and dictators in the Middle East he had as allies? No, we have not found weapons of mass destruction but I don't need to remind you that we gave them over a month to give them up, and they could have just as easily got rid of them.

As far as what there intent was, you are just speculating. You can't just speculate about anything at all. Why would you think that someone inside knew that the threat wasn't imminent? How could they know that and where are you getting your ideas from? The intelligence was clear. There were weapons of mass destruction. At least that is what it said and I find it hard to believe that someone inside his administration was scheming to go to war with Iraq for other purposes.

What makes me the madest of all is that the media is twisting the truth about the Iraq situation. All you ever hear on the news is things that have gone wrong in Iraq and when there's nothing bad to report, they don't report at all. I know many soldiers who have come back and said that it is clear that we are making progress and that they feel passionate about what they are doing there.

There is an intent here, but not from the Bush administration. It is clear, like with you, that the liberal press is affecting the people with their misleading stories and their unending bashing of President Bush. The power of office is all that the liberals, or at least the liberal media, is concerned with. Notice how when Bill Clinton lied under oath, he was not impeached, he was mainly made fun of. Now if you insult Bill, liberals will defend him with everything they have. It is sick, it is twisted, and I'm sick of it.

[DjTj]

I completely disagree. No, not of course is it indisuputable that Saddam was not holding or creating weapons of mass destruction. Do you know how many terrorists and dictators in the Middle East he had as allies? No, we have not found weapons of mass destruction but I don't need to remind you that we gave them over a month to give them up, and they could have just as easily got rid of them.

As far as what there intent was, you are just speculating. You can't just speculate about anything at all. Why would you think that someone inside knew that the threat wasn't imminent? How could they know that and where are you getting your ideas from? The intelligence was clear. There were weapons of mass destruction. At least that is what it said and I find it hard to believe that someone inside his administration was scheming to go to war with Iraq for other purposes.

What makes me the madest of all is that the media is twisting the truth about the Iraq situation. All you ever hear on the news is things that have gone wrong in Iraq and when there's nothing bad to report, they don't report at all. I know many soldiers who have come back and said that it is clear that we are making progress and that they feel passionate about what they are doing there.

There is an intent here, but not from the Bush administration. It is clear, like with you, that the liberal press is affecting the people with their misleading stories and their unending bashing of President Bush. The power of office is all that the liberals, or at least the liberal media, is concerned with. Notice how when Bill Clinton lied under oath, he was not impeached, he was mainly made fun of. Now if you insult Bill, liberals will defend him with everything they have. It is sick, it is twisted, and I'm sick of it.

When Clinton lied, no one died.

Notice I didn't say anything about WMD's. Saddam certainly did have WMD's at one point, and he may have had them in 2002. However, Pakistan, India, China, France, and Russia all have WMD's too and we're not about to invade them. The question isn't whether or not he had WMD's but whether or not he was an "imminent threat," and I think it's pretty safe to say that he was not. Even if he had WMD's, there was no way he was getting them to the US ... certainly not imminently.

I don't doubt that we are making progress in Iraq. Personally, I would like to see us commit more resources there, at least in the short term, so that we can really stabilize the country and put them on a path to self-sustaining democracy ... but that's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about whether or not Iraq was an imminent threat. It was not, but Bush said it was. Cheney said it was. Rumsfeld said it was. Kerry said it was. They were all wrong.

...but did they know they were wrong? :paranoid:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Is oil innate to the universe or a product of decayed organic material?

[JacktheMack]

And how do you know? It is easy to look back right now and say that it was not a threat but Saddam could have bombed a U.S. city and Bush would get all the blame for not going into Iraq.

Do you know who you are talking about. Yes those other countries are, for the most part threats too, but we are talking about Saddam Hussein. The man who hates America about as much as someone can. The man who put his own people through human shredders because they protested. How can you tell me that he was not a threat and that everyone was wrong about going into Iraq.

The question is "Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein and the answer is clearly NO the Bush Administration did not mislead America. That was the intelligence. The same intelligence that your Kerry agreed on as well as Bill Clinton and many other libs. Anyone who looks at the facts can realize the truth and the fact that so many people in this country are determined to disagree with whatever Bush does and whatever the Republican party does even though it is right.

The whole liberal media and Democrat party would be charged with treason if it was up to me.