How can Dean and the Dems say Bush lied?

[Cskin]

Read this factcheck.org report analyzing, in greater detail, Dean and the Dems claims that "Bush lied... soldiers died".

Talk about treasonous acts.... Dean is the best thing to happen to the GOP. He's simply out there lying to the public, along with Dingy Harry... Turbin Durbin.. John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry... and the rest of the Democratic "Bush Lied" Cabal.

You know what else is treasonous? Congessmen and Senators who vote on such an important measure, going to war with Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, who don't even take the time to read the entire 92 page National Intelligence Estimate. Dean says they didn't get it... Kerry says they didn't have the same intelligence..... HELL...they didn't read what they did get and now they want to claim the Bush Administation lied? :doh:

Read on... and let's discuss....

Fact Check.org report on Dean's "Bush lied" claims

I think mistakes were made... intelligence entities disagreed.... and some sources lied (Al-Qaeda capture)... but could we just sit around and HOPE the Secular Hussein and Al-Qaeda continue to not play together? There was a ricin poison camp in northern Iraq already.... and Zarqawi already in Iraq after receiving medical attention for injuries suffered while fighting US forces in Ashcanistan.

To me we did the right thing.... and our brave soliders are going to come home victorious.... and Iraq will be a burgeoning ally for us in the ME. The Dems will look like "cut & runners" and military haters and .... most importantly... the voters will support the troops in 06 and 08.

[Larry]

My opinions and recollections:

I don't recall once, a single administration official saying "Saddam is going to attack us with WMDs within the next year, if we don't invade."

OTOH, I remember there was a period of about a year when there wasn't a single inverview of a single administration spokesman, where the question "Why invade Iraq?" wasn't asked.

And I don't remember a single answer that didn't imply that WMDs were the reason.

"WMD" wasn't even a word, untill it became the reason for the war.

(I also remember seeing one administration spokesman, (Rumsfeld?), the Sunday after we invaded, on Meet The Press, when asked when we'd be finding WMDs, say that there really was no one, big, reason for the war, that WMDs, and in particular, nuclear WMDs, "for political reasons" (I really remember that phrase) were the reason that the administration chose to push, to sell the war to the voters.)

Did Bush say "This war is because of WMDs"? No.

Did he issue orders to his entire cabinet to imply it, at every opportunity, for over a year? Yep.

Therefore, to me: Yep. He lied.

(Now, did he have a good, honest, reason to lie? Could well be. I'm not claiming he lied because he wanted to boost Haliburton's stock price. (Although there is some evidence to support that.) Or that he did it for revenge over the attempt against his father. (I could believe that that might well have caused him to pre-disposed to regard Saddam as a Bad Guy, but that's not the same thing.) I'd also believe that he really thinks he can bring peace to the middle east by creating a prosperous democracy in Iraq, although I'd have more faith in that theory if he'd actually had a plan for what to do the day after Baghdad fell.)

[Cskin]

Larry... that's the best you can come up with.... forming an opinion on what you think someone said on Meet the Press... and what you think Bush instructed his cabinet to imply? You're better than that.

I think after 9-11 and the Islamofacists declaration to kill the infidels and take the fight to the shores of the US.... how could we have not made plans to attack Iraq... our new enemy whom we crushed in 91 and is now showing a penchants for REWARDING suicide bombers in Palestinian territory for killing as many Israelis as possible. Is it not a huge leap to think he, Hussein or possibly his sons, would make a deal with the devil and give WMDs to Al-Qaeda in order to get his revenge for being decimated militarily during the 1st gulf war?

And remember... he already was allowing, if he had this ruthless grip on the people of his country, a group of Islamofacists to develop the Ricin poison on his soil in northern Iraq.

Finally, why did Zarqawi end up in Iraq for medical attention if there was no clear connection between the two entities? If Hussein didn't want anything to do with Al-Qaeda, why would allow one of Bin Laden's lieutenants to come to Iraq for medical attenion after being injured in Ashcanistan? Seems to me he'd be saying..."Don't come here... I don't that hell that has no fury raining that metal on me or my palaces".

[dreamingwolf]

My opinions and recollections:

"WMD" wasn't even a word, untill it became the reason for the war.

In 1998, US law formalised WMD as devices able "to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people" using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2744411.stm

[Mackdaddydean]

Therefore, to me: Yep. He lied.

Lying means that you know differently from what you are saying. Therefore, to say "Bush lied" would mean that from the start Bush knew that WMDs were not there. So why would Bush then send 150,000 troops to search for WMDs that he knows are not there for all the world to see and for him to be mocked?

Don't blame bad intelligence on the president. Because numerous intelligence agencies all thought there was WMDs. Not just ours. FURTHERMORE, this whole "Congress didnt see the same intelligence" stuff needs to be sorted out. As it turns out that statement is actually true. There were intelligence documents that only the President viewed on Iraq. But review of those documents now reveals that the evidence in those was even MORE compelling than the evidence presented in the intelligence given to Congress. Therefore, this wouldn't have changed a thing. We have to separate the failure of MANY different intelligence agencies from Bush. Bush did NOT lie.

Edit side note: There were 22 reasons to go to war as part of the resolution to go to war that Congress voted on. How many of those involved WMDs? 1.

[Mad Mike]

Read this factcheck.org report analyzing, in greater detail, Dean and the Dems claims that "Bush lied... soldiers died".

Talk about treasonous acts.... Dean is the best thing to happen to the GOP. He's simply out there lying to the public, along with Dingy Harry... Turbin Durbin.. John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry... and the rest of the Democratic "Bush Lied" Cabal.

You know what else is treasonous? Congessmen and Senators who vote on such an important measure, going to war with Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, who don't even take the time to read the entire 92 page National Intelligence Estimate. Dean says they didn't get it... Kerry says they didn't have the same intelligence..... HELL...they didn't read what they did get and now they want to claim the Bush Administation lied? :doh:

Read on... and let's discuss....

Fact Check.org report on Dean's "Bush lied" claims

I think mistakes were made... intelligence entities disagreed.... and some sources lied (Al-Qaeda capture)... but could we just sit around and HOPE the Secular Hussein and Al-Qaeda continue to not play together? There was a ricin poison camp in northern Iraq already.... and Zarqawi already in Iraq after receiving medical attention for injuries suffered while fighting US forces in Ashcanistan.

To me we did the right thing.... and our brave soliders are going to come home victorious.... and Iraq will be a burgeoning ally for us in the ME. The Dems will look like "cut & runners" and military haters and .... most importantly... the voters will support the troops in 06 and 08.

I'm sure Chom will be along soon to chastise you for spreading propaganda and claim he "owned you" with his clever rebuttal. Have fun!

:laugh:

[NoCalMike]

Bush said that in the war on terrorism "you could not distinguish Osama Bin Ladin from Saddam Hussein" That right there is a blatant lie, as Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

The administration also said they knew exactly where the weapons were, which is an obvious lie.

[Thiebear]

Bush did lie.

You were right Chomerics, Liberty, Nocal...

O.K. no reason to post anymore on this..

[NoCalMike]

"Fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" is a lie, considering Al Qaeda is housed in over 70 Countries, and Iraq wasn't one of them, UNTIL WE took out their border security.

[phishhead]

The fact that no one else in the world, even Israel or Kuwait, regarded Iraq as a threat to their existence yet Americans did, is quite telling. Of course, it might have had something to do with that Iraq war propaganda campaign starting around September 2002, pretty much the same time as the terrifying National Security Strategy of 2002 came out.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to attack a country you know had no capability whatsoever to fight back, than say going into North Korea where you know it would certainly be a major bloodbath from the get go?

So it would make sense that they actually knew beforehand that Iraq's WMD program was non-existant and that the Saddam regime could be crushed with relative ease. Its amazing how the civilian and military planners have completely blundered this war that should have been a damn cakewalk for the strongest military force the world has ever seen.

But then again, I don't believe our military is built to occupy entire countries for long periods of time.

[dreamingwolf]

Bush said that in the war on terrorism "you could not distinguish Osama Bin Ladin from Saddam Hussein" That right there is a blatant lie, as Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

The administration also said they knew exactly where the weapons were, which is an obvious lie.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

this might deserve its own thread, but Ive always seen saddam as a threat on the level of obl maybe even more dangerous. I would like bacculus to look into that link, cause if Im right hes a fan of conspiracy theories and that link makes a pretty good case for saddam being very interested in taking down the world trade center and has a pretty interesting take on his involvement in the bombing of it in 1993. I would be interested in his take on it.

One of the more interesting things in that theory is that durring the kuwaiti invasion iraqi intelligence manipulated kuwaiti identities, and links ramzi yousef to one of those identities.

[Mad Mike]

Bush said that in the war on terrorism "you could not distinguish Osama Bin Ladin from Saddam Hussein" That right there is a blatant lie, as Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

The administration also said they knew exactly where the weapons were, which is an obvious lie.

Your right, Saddam only supported a dozen terrorist organizations and at the very least those organizations supported AQ. On top of that he was harboring a top AQ terrorist who was wounded in Iraq and preaching his hatred of America. That must make him a Nobel Laureate and invading Iraq, as Kerry said (lied) the equivalent of invading Mexico.

As for your second statement, please show us the quote in full context.

[BlueTalon]

The fact that no one else in the world, even Israel or Kuwait, regarded Iraq as a threat to their existence yet Americans did, is quite telling.

You're making quite an assumption here. How do you know Israel did not consider Iraq to be a threat to their security or existance? Saddam was paying $25,000 a pop to families of suicide bombers, and you know where most of those were going.

[Larry]

OK, some of you folks are at least half right.

I regard it as being "as close to proven as you'll ever get unless Nixon's tape machines are still running" that Bush instructed his staff to push WMDs as the reason for the war. (And yes, wolf, I'm quite aware that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is likely 50 years old. But the acronym became common because of the Bush administrations constant use of the term. As the reason for the war.)

No, I wasn't invited to that staff meeting. But there is no other rational explanation for the fact of over a dozen people staying on exactly one message, a dozen times a day, for a year.

But you're right, Mackdaddydean, that doesn't prove that Bush knew that their weren't any WMDs.

(I would assert that he knew there was a chance that there weren't any. My reasoning: The fact that White House spokesmen implied that WMDs were the reason about 10,000 times, but never said it once, not only says that they were under instructions to imply it, but that they were under instructions to only imply it. Anybody really want to try to claim that it's a coincidence, if all the Bushies thought Saddam had WMDs, why they never said so, not even once?)

But no, I'm not claiming that it's proven, or even pretty likely, that Bush expected to find no WMDs. When I think he lied, is when he "implied" that WMDs were the reason for the war. I think he had another reason, and used WMDs (amd 9/11) as the justification. And I don't have enough information to even come up with a theory what that reason was.

(I remember at the time, pointing out that it seemed that the D's were all claiming

• There's no proof Saddam has WMDs, and
  
• If we invade, he'll use them.
  

Whereas the R's were all claiming

• We have to invade before he gets them, because the instant he gets them, he'll give them to Osama, and Osama'll use them in the US. And
  
• He's had them for 15 years. (And nobody's used them against us.)
  

[chomerics]

Read this factcheck.org report analyzing, in greater detail, Dean and the Dems claims that "Bush lied... soldiers died".

Talk about treasonous acts.... Dean is the best thing to happen to the GOP. He's simply out there lying to the public, along with Dingy Harry... Turbin Durbin.. John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry... and the rest of the Democratic "Bush Lied" Cabal.

Would you consider holding back information lying? Something like the fact that Hussen had NO alliance to Al Qaeda, that he was absolutely NOT associated with 9-11, and that the only "ties" he had with Bin Laden was because he wanted to moniter his movements, because he viewed Bin Laden as a threat. Do you think it is "treasonist" to withold information like that from Congress? Don't you think they should have seen something like that if they were going to decide to go to war?

It's funny how Fact check, a website that I USED to think had all their eye's dotted and T's crossed, has exposed themselves this time. . . they are really sloppy in their attempt to play the mediator, and have overlooked some key information.

You know what else is treasonous? Congessmen and Senators who vote on such an important measure, going to war with Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, who don't even take the time to read the entire 92 page National Intelligence Estimate. Dean says they didn't get it... Kerry says they didn't have the same intelligence..... HELL...they didn't read what they did get and now they want to claim the Bush Administation lied? :doh:

How about not telling them counter arguments? How about witholding the PDBs from Congress which stated that Saddam was a secular ruler who viewed Bin Laden as a threat? How about keeping the said PDBs from the Senate Intellegence Committee which stated that Hussen would NOT ally with Al Qaeda? Why isn't that treason? You are telling your fellow Americans that there is a posibility to go to war, don't you think they should actually have ALL the facts before them, not just the ones your side sees fit to show them?

Read on... and let's discuss....

Fact Check.org report on Dean's "Bush lied" claims

I think mistakes were made... intelligence entities disagreed.... and some sources lied (Al-Qaeda capture)... but could we just sit around and HOPE the Secular Hussein and Al-Qaeda continue to not play together? There was a ricin poison camp in northern Iraq already.... and Zarqawi already in Iraq after receiving medical attention for injuries suffered while fighting US forces in Ashcanistan.

Yes, mistakes were made. HUGE GARGANTUAN mistakes were made. We invaded a country and overthrew a government for something they did NOT have!!!! We said they were a threat, and they were not. We EFF'd up bigtime, and we will be paying for this ludicrous decision for the next 20 years and then some :doh:

As for sitting around. . . Was Hussen working with Al Qaeda? NO!!! Was he aiding them? NO!!! He viewed them as a threat, and that information was KEPT from Congress and the Senate. . . yet you still want to say everyone saw the same intel :doh:

To me we did the right thing....

How could you say invading a country under false pretenses based on extremely shaky and faulty inteligence, doing so without the support of the UN and basically sticking our middle finger up to the entire world was the right choice?? How do you come to that conclusion? Look at what it has done to our standing in the world? we have absolutely no leverage with ANYONE, and leverage is what you need to fight terrorism!!!! You need the aid of everyone else, and we have eff'd that up royaly. . .yet you still think we "did the right thing" :doh:

and our brave soliders are going to come home victorious.... and Iraq will be a burgeoning ally for us in the ME. The Dems will look like "cut & runners" and military haters and .... most importantly... the voters will support the troops in 06 and 08.

You are dillusional to the end. Rosey all the time. You need to take off the glasses and look at reality for a change. It is a freakin mess, and we are leaving Iraq right now. We will start to withdraw the troops, and there will be a civil war. It is inevidible. Iraq will turn into the new Afghanistan, excapt the insurgence are quite a lot better. They've been practicing on our troops for over 2 years now :doh:

Iraq was the right thing to do :hammer:

[Winslowalrob]

OK, some of you folks are at least half right.

I regard it as being "as close to proven as you'll ever get unless Nixon's tape machines are still running" that Bush instructed his staff to push WMDs as the reason for the war. (And yes, wolf, I'm quite aware that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is likely 50 years old. But the acronym became common because of the Bush administrations constant use of the term. As the reason for the war.)

No, I wasn't invited to that staff meeting. But there is no other rational explanation for the fact of over a dozen people staying on exactly one message, a dozen times a day, for a year.

But you're right, Mackdaddydean, that doesn't prove that Bush knew that their weren't any WMDs.

(I would assert that he knew there was a chance that there weren't any. My reasoning: The fact that White House spokesmen implied that WMDs were the reason about 10,000 times, but never said it once, not only says that they were under instructions to imply it, but that they were under instructions to only imply it. Anybody really want to try to claim that it's a coincidence, if all the Bushies thought Saddam had WMDs, why they never said so, not even once?)

But no, I'm not claiming that it's proven, or even pretty likely, that Bush expected to find no WMDs. When I think he lied, is when he "implied" that WMDs were the reason for the war. I think he had another reason, and used WMDs (amd 9/11) as the justification. And I don't have enough information to even come up with a theory what that reason was.

(I remember at the time, pointing out that it seemed that the D's were all claiming

• There's no proof Saddam has WMDs, and
  
• If we invade, he'll use them.
  

Whereas the R's were all claiming

• We have to invade before he gets them, because the instant he gets them, he'll give them to Osama, and Osama'll use them in the US. And
  
• He's had them for 15 years. (And nobody's used them against us.)
  

Nice subtle argument there. I agree

By the way, I KNOW if this happened to Clinton or Gore, everyone would be calling them liars. Ergo, I reserve the right to call Bush a liar based on his massive amounts of half-truths, which count as lies in conservative lexicons as long as a liberal says them.

[Mad Mike]

You are dillusional to the end. Rosey all the time. You need to take off the glasses and look at reality for a change. It is a freakin mess, and we are leaving Iraq right now. We will start to withdraw the troops, and there will be a civil war. It is inevidible. Iraq will turn into the new Afghanistan, excapt the insurgence are quite a lot better. They've been practicing on our troops for over 2 years now :doh::

My GOD you make me sick ,you freaking defeatist coward.

Tell me. How does it feel to warm the hear of terrorists everywhere?

[Winslowalrob]

My GOD you make me sick ,you freaking defeatist coward.

Tell me. How does it feel to warm the hear of terrorists everywhere?

Haha, a terrorists best friend is a reactionary government. You are just as guilty by supporting the curtailing of civil rights, because in that regard the terrorists are winning as well .

[altair4]

Where are the WMD?

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

Where is the Nigerian yellowcake?

Bush Lied. Fact. End of story.

[chomerics]

My GOD you make me sick ,you freaking defeatist coward.

Tell me. How does it feel to warm the hear of terrorists everywhere?

No Mike, it is called realism, it's what is going on, it is called REALITY!!!! It is called understanding an ignorant and compltely moronic ideological viewpoint. It is knowing that you can not occupy a country, and have them follow by your laws simply because you think your way of life is better. It is knowing the religious tension and the history surrounding the factions in Iraq. It is knowing that they will NOT shower you with roses and let you do it!!!!

Well you know what Mike, those weren't roses they were throwing at us those were bombs. Those were human suicide bombers who hate us so freakin much, they will kill themselves just so they can kill more of us then them. You were 100% wrong then, and you are yet again 100% wrong!!! Whay am I not suprised :shot:

Yes Mike, I am not a defeatist coward, but smart enough to face up to reality. I have the BALLS to say exactly what is going on, and what the probable outcome is. It was people like myself, the people who actually KNOW what others are likely to do, that were thrown out of government. It was people who actually knew what they were talking about, that were fired or forced to resign. People who actually said that Iraq will turn into EXACTLY what it is now, were fired. . .

Now we are surrounded by a bunch of people who don't know their ass from their elbow. We have just managed to eliminate everyone who actually could have helped, people like Colin Powell, General Scowcroft, General Sinsheki, leaders of this country. We have also surrounded ourselves by a bunch of people who just don't get "it". We end up losing two towers, and we lose a freaking city because they have no fricken' clue as how to run a country. They are to busy covering up their other eff'ups, and they're so freakin clueless, they don't even have the friging smarts to make a vacation short when a horrible disastor is barreling down our throat.

Yes, you can call me a coward all you want, but you know what. . . It is not me who is the coward. It is you. You are the coward because you can not face the facts. You can not face the situation. You are smart enough to understand, yet you will do anything you can not to face reality. Somebody who can not even face up to himself and admit what is staring him directly in the face. . . That is a coward.

[Joe Sick]

Bush said that he woud restore honor and dignity to the White House.

He lied about that.

And it is a FACT that Senators don't see the same intel that the president does, in his PDBs. He could've spent a little more time reading that "OBL determined to strike in the US" one a little more. He probably was getting Laura to sound out the tough words in "My Pet Goat."

[chomerics]

Bush said that he woud restore honor and dignity to the White House.

He lied about that.

And it is a FACT that Senators don't see the same intel that the president does, in his PDBs. He could've spent a little more time reading that "OBL determined to strike in the US" one a little more. He probably was getting Laura to sound out the tough words in "My Pet Goat."

Yes, the September 21st PDB was a pretty bad one as well. One that said exactly what I mentioned before. . .

[dreamingwolf]

(And yes, wolf, I'm quite aware that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is likely 50 years old. But the acronym became common because of the Bush administrations constant use of the term. As the reason for the war.)

I think if we are even gonna have any kind of nonpolitical slanted discussion about this topic, one mistruth that we are gonna have to hurdle first is your insistance that the acronym WMD was not common long before the second gulf war and Bush. If you are unwilling to cede this simple and true fact and instead remain firm in your wrong political rhetoric its pointless to even discuss anything else.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

...

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

...

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

...

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

...

(and so on and so on throught the whole speech)

That is a transcript in which Clinton gave to explain his military strikes in Iraq in 1998. He used the term "weapons of mass destruction" so many times in that speech I lost count. Now granted clinton in his presidential speech actually said the full phrase and not the acronym. Are you going to tell me that for the sake of your slanted political rhetoric that the media wasnt using the acronym WMD at that time. WMD was a prolific acronym long before Bush took office, even to us "commoners".

[DjTj]

My GOD you make me sick ,you freaking defeatist coward.

Tell me. How does it feel to warm the hear of terrorists everywhere?

Yeah, chom ... stop warming the hearts of the terrorists reading the Extremeskins Tailgate ... :paranoid:

... Oh yeah, we know you're out there (I'm talking to YOU Weird Gymnasium, you freaking terrorist ****) ... don't be looking for any aid and comfort around here, because you ain't gonna find it on the Redskins message boards anymore ... :ciao:

Anyhow, as to the topic of this thread. I think the Democrats should be allowed to say "Bush lied, people died" because it rhymes. It may not be true, but it's pretty close to true, and it has to be the best rhyming political slogan since "I Like Ike." I mean seriously, how can you force the Democrats to pass up an opportunity like this? "Bush lied, people died." It rolls right off the tongue ... in an age of boring, non-rhyming political rhetoric, we truly can not afford to let this one fall by the wayside. :2cents:

[SkinsHokieFan]

I really do hate those who try and say that any Islamic leader (outside of Turkey) is secular

Secularism isn't a part of our religion at all, you either IS, or you ISN'T

Just because a Muslim country doesn't force every woman to viel up and doesn't use zakat as the tax code, doe NOT mean its secular by any means at all

If Saddam was secular, George Bush is downright European in the way he handles religion