How can Dean and the Dems say Bush lied?

[chomerics]

Hey Chom, just look at the facts....factcheck.org

Factcheck got it wrong, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Congress and the Senate did NOT have access to the presidents PDBs as well as other items. They basically saw the report which was thrown together in two weeks because there was NOTHING WRITTEN on the subject!!!

THere is a great book out now, it is called "The WMD Myth", and it talks about everything in the leadup to the war, what the intel was, and what was known. It goes through what was proposed to Congress, and what the actual underlying intel was behind the "quips" in the intellegence report. . .

For example, the bit about Saddam having 500tons of VX nerve gas was years old and extrapolated and conjectured on as to what he could possibly have IF a tanker they saw was holding the gas. Basically, they had a picture of a tanker at a pharmacutical company (which as was making pharmacitucles) and they said there was a possibility that they could be transporting WMDs in the tankers. They saw the size of the tanker, and then extrapolated how much VX gas it could hold. They then looked at how many tankers were unloading/loading and extrapolated that they could have 500tons of vx nerve gas.

The report Congress got was that Saddam Hussen has 500tons of VX nerve gas. Nothing describing the flimsy intel, what it was based on, how old it was or anything else. . . just that Saddam has 500 tons of VX nerve gas. :doh:

[nelms]

Factcheck got it wrong

Mr. KIA strikes again. :laugh:

[chomerics]

The partisan rhetoric get us no where and is becoming more than tedious. The administration did say they knew where the WMD were, because we were tracking them via satellite. When we got on the ground and checked those sites, we found nothing. There are only two explanations for this:

1. Hussein moved, hid, gave away or destroyed the WMD before we could get to it.

2. There were no WMD, but Hussein purposely put on a show that he knew we'd see and interpret as him still having WMD.

Whichever of these is the truth, there is no way, short of boots on the ground that our intell folks could have figured it out. Bush made his decisions based on the intell he had. There were objections within the intell community to certain specific pieces of intell, but the opinion of the overwhelming majority of American, European and Russian intell agencies all agreed that Hussein had WMD and was pursuing nuclear weapons.

AMF- I agree that there was no way of knowing unless we had boots on the ground, but we DID have boots on the ground:doh: If you remember correctly, the wepons inspections were going on and they were working!!! Saddam was allowing them more access then ever, and he was giving them what they asked for. What he did not give them was proof that he destroyed ALL of the WMDs, but they were 100% inactive anyway!!! They don't have an indefinate shelf life, and in fact they would have been useless. He had given them everything else that they asked for. The Weapons inspections WERE working!!!

More importantly, the post-war knowledge we have gained tells us that Hussein was still pursuing both WMD and nuclear weapons.

This is a false statement. He was NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, and WMDs. He kept the capibility to build them, by keeping the intellectual people in his country, but he was not pursuing them by any means. We had a strong hold of him, and he was trying to get the sanctions removed.

He was attempting to get out of the sanctions regime against him through compliance with the UN Resolutions, while saving face in the Arab world by leaving it ambiguous whether he had WMD or not.

This is correct, and doesn't this make sense as to why he did not let people know he destroyed the WMD's?

If he were serious about giving up WMD and rejoining the community of nations, he had the South African model to follow. He didn't, because he wanted to claim he had disarmed, have inspectors fail to prove he hadn't, retain the possibility in the minds of the world that he still had arms, and then quickly rearm, gaining nuclear weapons once the sanctions regime had been lifted.

His intentions were to get the sanctions lifted. That is what Saddam wanted, that is why he was agreeing to do what the UN wanted. He also could not "quickly rearm", he would not be alowed to rearm once the sanctions were lifted. We know what he was buying, who he was buying from and how he was going about his business. We knew everything he was doing, and he wasn't getting away with anything. The ironic part is that our intellegence was very very good when it came to his procurement aspects. We knew where he was, who he talked to and what was sold or discussed with any and all other countries.

Hussein had not ceased to be a threat; he had developed a long-term strategy to outsmart the UN. Pretending anything different is revisionist history and useless conspiracy theory.

Hussen was absolutely NO threat. Please tell me HOW he was a threat, give me something that says HOW he is a threat. Just saying the words mean absolutely nothing, and when they are examined against the facts of the case, the "threat" is just a straw man used to justify taking over the country.

[chomerics]

Thanks.

I agree 100%. It continues to amaze me that this is not the #1 topic of concern to the American people.

Colin Powell came out recently to defend his presentatino to the UN. He said that sites where we knew WMD had been produced in the past show up on satelite imagry with activity. We have satelite images of UN inspectors on the way to the site, then images of trucks leaving the back of the sites right before the inspectors arrive, then the inspectors report finding nothing there. If you were interpreting this intell, what would you think?

That is not true. There was nothing like that, and the UN Weapons Inspectors explained that that was NOT happening. The UN Weapons inspectors were give free roam of Iraq which means unannounced visits. The one thing they were not allowed was to have their interviews NOT taped, and they fought that. That had to do with Saddams paranoia more then anything else.

Did Hussein secretly destroy the stock piles the UN confirmed he had prior to the war? Did he give the WMD to another country? Is it buried in the desert somewhere?

They were destroyed in the first Gulf War and the rest were destroyed by the weapons inspectors and Hussen himself.

There are weapons the UN actually saw and catalogued that have never been accounted for -- where the hell did they go? And why is no one else asking this question?

Because they were destroyed, just as the UN wanted. The book I mentioned before, "The WMD Myth" talks about those weapons in detail.

[chomerics]

Chom... you failed to comment on the fact that some agencies DID raise concerns about the validity of some of the intelligence.... AND THAT TOO was in the National Estimate Report. Some Dems say it was in the fine print... or the last few pages... when the FACTS are it was highlighted on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the report that some entities had problems with solme of the intelligence.

I never said there wasn't information in the NIE, but have you read it? I ask because if you see how it reads, it is pushing false evidence and supressing reasoning for why it is false.

for example. . .

Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

The reason the tubes were not for nuclear material is because they would not withstand the forces necessary, and they would be useless for a centerfuge. THe wall thickness was to thin. It was never put in the NIE WHY the evidence wasn't correborated, but that they didn't agree with the CIA'a assesment. The NIE was done in two weeks, at the request of Senators because nothing had been prepared, even though the vote was coming up.

Face it... the Dems are simplying lying about this because they believe it's the only way to regain control of the Congress and the White HOuse.... the two branches of govt. they believe they should control because of their birth right as Democrats.

Skin, I hate to break it to you bud, but the Dems are not lying. They are telling the exact truth, and they did not see what Bush saw. Some of them voted because of pressure, I agree, but if they saw the Sept. 21st. PDB which stated that Saddam was NOT working with Al Qaeda, and that the only contacts were by Saddam trying to moniter Bin Ladens movements because he thought Osama was a threat, would be pertinant information? Do you think Congress and the Senate had a right to see that intel?

You Left leaners also fail to comment on why an Al-Qaeda top leader was allowed to seek medical attenion in Iraq after being injured in Ashcanistan? Just ignoring this FACT aren't we? If Hussein had no connection with Al-Qaeda, why is Al-Qaeda seeking refuge and medical attenion from his country instead of in IRan... a known terrorist sympathizer.

He went to a hospital, and he was working in the northern portion of Iraq, next to Kurdistan which was not controlled by Hussen. It was the best facility nearby, without crossing the border into Iran. I think the border patrol between Iran nad Iraq is just a wee bit tighter then our border along Canada and Mexico.

You left leaners continue to ignore your own Democratic leaders who spouted about the dangers of Hussein left unfettered with WMDs. Are we to believe that it's ok for THEM to have been wrong but no ok for the INTELLIGENCE community and the President's administration to be wrong.

No, they were not the ones that decided to invade a country, our president was. The leftists voted on giving the president the authority to go to war at his discression because Saddam only understood force. . .remeber that argument? Remember WHY Bush needed the leverage? It also worked, and Saddam let the inspectors back in. They also were allowed carte blanche in the state, and Saddam was very accommidating to them. In other words, the vote worked, but when the president saw that it was working, he used the power to invade.

It's a simple case of what's good for the goose not being good for the gander, with the common thread being that the Dems will stop at nothing to regain control of the Legislative and Executive Branch.

This has nothing to do with the gain of power, but the ABUSE of power. Maybe one day you will understand, but I am not holding my breath, that is for sure.

[NoCalMike]

I still find it amazing that after all the coverage the middle east gets nowadays, people still can't distinguish between, Sunnis, Shiates, Kurds.....Inurgets and Terrorists...so many on this board are willing to paint them all with the same brush, claiming that we are "killing terrorists" when we drop bombs on Iraqi cities.

People are AWARE that the terrorists in Iraq represent the SMALLEST portion of people we are fighting, right?

[Burgold]

TWA,

Your response is very reasonable. This is one where personal knowledge takes over though. Over the last two years I have logged in hundreds of hours volunteering at various military hospitals in the DC area and have heard first hand reports from people in the know about the number of wounded and the games they play in reporting the numbers. It's really sad actually. When they say wounded, they refer to combat wounded... now, that disincludes anyone who was struck by an IED, or hurt in pretty much any other way than direct combat (you shoot at me and I shoot at you). That's why the numbers are so low. It's my personal belief that those wounded in Iraq should be included in the account and that's whether they were hurt on duty or off duty, whether they were shot or fell off a ladder, whether they were hit by friendly fire or were hurt by mechanical failure... in all these cases they were hurt while serving their country and to disinclude them I believe shows them disrespect.

[chomerics]

I still find it amazing that after all the coverage the middle east gets nowadays, people still can't distinguish between, Sunnis, Shiates, Kurds.....Inurgets and Terrorists...so many on this board are willing to paint them all with the same brush, claiming that we are "killing terrorists" when we drop bombs on Iraqi cities.

People are AWARE that the terrorists in Iraq represent the SMALLEST portion of people we are fighting, right?

Stop muddying the water with facts. . . but yes, I agree completely. People don't seem to understand that 90% of the people attacking us are Iraqis:doh:

[dreamingwolf]

TWA,

Your response is very reasonable. This is one where personal knowledge takes over though. Over the last two years I have logged in hundreds of hours volunteering at various military hospitals in the DC area and have heard first hand reports from people in the know about the number of wounded and the games they play in reporting the numbers. It's really sad actually. When they say wounded, they refer to combat wounded... now, that disincludes anyone who was struck by an IED, or hurt in pretty much any other way than direct combat (you shoot at me and I shoot at you). That's why the numbers are so low. It's my personal belief that those wounded in Iraq should be included in the account and that's whether they were hurt on duty or off duty, whether they were shot or fell off a ladder, whether they were hit by friendly fire or were hurt by mechanical failure... in all these cases they were hurt while serving their country and to disinclude them I believe shows them disrespect.

While I agree the reason we cant do it is cause the militant left will run with those numbers. There are many accidents that happen in peace time, even many deaths. There are many more under the stress of war. Its important to seperate those numbers so the dissenting party(whether far right/left) wont use those large numbers to undermine the war effort.

Could you imagine the field day an anti-war poster would have if we included every scratch a soldier gets? They already dance in glee at every number advancement they are given to further their political agenda. I think leaving non combat causalities off is a good thing, cause not only does it give our own detractors less ammo but it also takes away from the goal of the terrorists which is to give our detractors more ammo.

[Winslowalrob]

While I agree the reason we cant do it is cause the militant left will run with those numbers. There are many accidents that happen in peace time, even many deaths. There are many more under the stress of war. Its important to seperate those numbers so the dissenting party(whether far right/left) wont use those large numbers to undermine the war effort.

Could you imagine the field day an anti-war poster would have if we included every scratch a soldier gets? They already dance in glee at every number advancement they are given to further their political agenda. I think leaving non combat causalities off is a good thing, cause not only does it give our own detractors less ammo but it also takes away from the goal of the terrorists which is to give our detractors more ammo.

The goal of terrorists is to keep us in Iraq, regardless of "detractors". We could not have given them a better recruitment tool than this. Keep that in mind buddy .

[chomerics]

While I agree the reason we cant do it is cause the militant left will run with those numbers. There are many accidents that happen in peace time, even many deaths. There are many more under the stress of war. Its important to seperate those numbers so the dissenting party(whether far right/left) wont use those large numbers to undermine the war effort.

Could you imagine the field day an anti-war poster would have if we included every scratch a soldier gets? They already dance in glee at every number advancement they are given to further their political agenda. I think leaving non combat causalities off is a good thing, cause not only does it give our own detractors less ammo but it also takes away from the goal of the terrorists which is to give our detractors more ammo.

Yah, it's the democrats fault the Pentagon lies :doh: Man. . . is there no end to this lunacy?

[Mad Mike]

Well thanks for proving my point Mike. You see, if you HAD read my post, you would understand that you just basically admitted to NOT facing reality and being a coward :doh: :laugh: :notworthy: :notworthy: :laugh: :rotflmao: :doh:

By not reading what I had to say, you proved the entire point of my post and you exposed yourself yet once again. My god Mike, when are you going to stop walking into walls like that? When are you going to stop walking into those windmill rights? It isn't even fun anymore because it requires no thought, it's like shooting fish into a barrel. . . but then again you know that seeing how you are always on the other end of the windmill rights :doh:

You said in another thread, it is childish to post the "owned" pictures. . . well stop making it so easy for anyone with half a brain to "own" you and I will stop posting the fact that you were

Yet again :doh:

That is about the most moronic post I have yet to read on this board. Boy you sure told me. Defeatist. Coward. And Moron.

[Winslowalrob]

That is about the most moronic post I have yet to read on this board. Boy you sure told me. Defeatist. Coward. And Moron.

Oooh ooh, do me, do me!

[Mad Mike]

Reality is, you are a namecaller who reduces the quality of discourse on this board. Rather than address the points other people make, or even read them, you just repeat yourself and then insult the other person.

And use a lot of emoticons too, cause that proves you are right!

Really? How many times have I been personaly attacked without anycomment to the issues I have raised? I post facts and it is called propaganda. When is the last time I called you a name? Where are the emoticons in my post?

More idiocy.

[Burgold]

Dreamingwolf,

I have heard that argument expressed and it is the leading rationale for the deceptive aka lies about the numbers of wounded. Remember the number of medically evacuated troops out of Iraq to Germany or Andrews is more than 300 percent of the numbers the government lists for its number of wounded. By any standard of sense is that reasonable without a gross manipulation of the numbers? Please don't diminish the service our troops have performed for our nation by dimissing reality. I seriously doubt that anyone was ever medically evacuated to Germany or back to Andrews for a scratch or a splinter. Now, a bunch of these folks do return to theater, but the lie is the lie. It is the same rationale that disallows US citizens to pay final tribute to our soldiers by showing the flag draped coffins coming in. Showing an anonymous flag draped coffin is not offensive. I think the administration underestimates the American public. Part of the resistance to this war probably even stems from the fact that we've been told we should not sacrifice for this war. We should go about our lives, we should not pay tribute, we should not tighten our belts.

When some hear this, and they haven't been through the amputation wards and watched these guys get their stumps irrigated, when they haven't seen a guy go through seventeen surgeries, when they don't know that a soldier, marine, or sailor who loses a limb gets only $50,000 in compensation, but that those without lost limbs are jealous of them because they feel they get no attention and their needs are forgotten just because their wounds are less visible... though sometimes just as permanent (neurological damage)... you get a little frustrated with the way the military hides its numbers, when you see more and more military families not being supported and winding up on the streets or unable to afford to see or even visit with their loved one because the military only pays for one trip, but will not help with lodging, food or any extended stay needs, even the Malone House is a disguised hotel where the families and the troops pay daily to stay. Instead of working to help the families and our troops, they work so damn hard at playing lawerly games of fine print to supress reality and lessen support for our troops. After all, how can you support someone you don't know needs it? Again, this is amongst the worst of the lies in my opinion.

[twa]

Burgold ,this site lists all army evacs including disease and accident and mental

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/medevacstats/200509/oif.htm