TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush lied?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Bush lied?

Just curious what the left has to say since everyone says he's the one that lied...

(Call me a Bush kisser if you want, I'm not all that hype on the guy, but this does seem pretty damning)



In case this doesn't work...I'm such an HTML nOOb
>>Link<<

Fair enough. All this proves to me is that America needs to sort out it's foreign policy, no matter which political alliegance you have stateside.

You also have to remember for the 2002+ stuff, every politician was on the Bush bandwagon for killing every anti-american undesirable. Patrotism is a powerful tool.

i agree with Bush's statements near the end of the video.


The democrats are trying to rewrite history. They are just like Arabs and holocaust deniers.

I'm not getting this streaming very good on my shitty spare CPU (since my other one's down for repairs), so I don't know what is being said on the program. Let me venture a guess, however, and see if I'm correct -

Is this perhaps a collection of quotes or something along those lines of Dems. who also felt Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with too?

If so, I happily concede such a point. I've got no problems with that at all. Take Bill Clinton, for example - numerous times has he mentioned the threat of Saddam and how he had to be dealt with. Numerous times has many Dems. stated the very same thing about Saddam in the late '90's and early 2000's about Saddam. Fine, I certainly concede that.

But who decided to invade?

Who had the opportunity to fully examine all the evidence presented for or against the case to sell to the public? And who presented this evidence to the public?

Was that Bill Clinton?

Now let me be clear on something - I would have happily taken Bill's ass to the woodshed if he went to war in the exact same manner as George did. I'd be just as fucking pissed as hell to see all the counterevidence against the case of Saddam possessing WMDs and nuke capabilities no matter who sits in the office. You have to keep in mind something here - many of us Dems. including myself were behind this president to go to war with Iraq at first because we TRUSTED him. We trusted that the intelligence he was using was correct, and that there was no other intelligence that might weaken his case. We trusted that all was under control with Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and that our troops were actively hunting him down rather than giving such powers to paid off corrupt drug warlords in Afghanistan.

Neither was true.

I happily accept the fact that our intelligence gathering during the 90's had fallen to the wayside. Much of that had to do with HOW we were gathering intelligence, which the 9/1 report lays this out pretty well. After the Cold War, our intelligence gathering more or less took a backseat as we relied less and less on spies on the ground and more on satellite photos and second hand information. If you want to lay that on the feet of Clinton, fine, but make sure you also lay it on the feet of your former Republican President Bush Sr., whom Clinton was more or less following his script of downsizing.

Things, however, are coming out that are clearly showing just how correct Hersh's Stovepipe article truly is:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

This war was made as a selling point by a group of slimy salesmen:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...sion=6.0.8.1024

Now I've gone into detail before as to all the counterevidence against this Administration's selling points on the war, but the bottom line is this and it's quite inescapable:

This Administration had information that was not passed down to Congress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/

Things that were mentioned as selling points were more or less summaries without the caveats and descriptors that clearly showed such "firm" evidence against Saddam was not so firm. And here's a kicker that you Republicans can never escape from. Actually it's two kickers:

1. The claim of the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam (and ultimately 9/11).

2. The absolute idiocy in post-war planning.

You boys own those two points all on your own. And for #1, combined with the possibility that Saddam had possible nuke capabilities, you guys got yurselves a purty little war, didn't cha?

So yes, in particular Bush is lying through his fucking teeth, especially when the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam was dubious as fuck to begin with, yet the President and his Administration KNEW this beforehand and said it anyway:

quote:

The intelligence report from February 2002 said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making allegations about Iraqi support for al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons. .....Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGLTFJRLA1.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...in1041302.shtml

The only way you could possibly undercut this is to say that he simply didn't know about it.

And I counter that your president is that fucking stupid enough NOT to know this intelligence handed to him in his lap? Talk about incompetence.

But I don't believe that, and I'd venture to guess deep down neither do you. And just this morning, we see this in the LATimes:

quote:

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

So yes, he's lying. As for the Dems. and others who didn't have all the evidence presented to them in full, I can't speak for them. They'll have to stand up for themselves, something which admittedly many of them have difficulties doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus They are just like Arabs and holocaust deniers.

Don't lump two mutually exclusive things together. Where the hell did the Arab comment come from anyways? I'm guessing you're referring to Israel/Palestine history. Well, even Israeli revisionist like Avi Shlaim are acknowledging the obvious now, which other Israeli historians have not, the existence of the Palestinian people in the region throught the ages and their forced displacement. Stop taking pathetic jabs Yoepus.

EDIT: Just because you hate Arabs, doesn't mean you have to make things up.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Don't lump two mutually exclusive things together.

You are right, replace the "and" with "or" (although some Arabs are probably holocaust deniers too).



And for the record: I do not hate Arabs.
I do however, hate the way they make up history (and yes, that is a generalization).

Can we keep the middle east out of a discussion for once?

Well at least they can realise they were wrong...

Plus if you check what they really say, most of them only condem what saddam might be up to, they are not saying that we should go to war.

Plus if the Clinton admin wanted to go to a large scale war as well, they would have. But they knew it wouldnt be a great idea and didn't.

That said there are a lot of Democratic jackasses as well.

Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

quote:

Originally posted by gabba420 Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

Yeah, it was different, which is why we're at war now, but weren't in the 90s. I'm not saying Clinton did everything right, far from it, but in this case, we see how the alternate method of dealing with people we don't like is working.

quote:

Originally posted by gabba420 Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

What were they lying about? Be specific as to explaining which ones and exactly what they said that indicates they are lying.

And when you're through, kindly re-read my post earlier. If indeed, Saddam was as big of a threat as he was made out to be, and indeed if the Dems. and Clinton had decided to make a case for war to the public and Congress based on intelligence that was dated and shoddy at best, and decided to stovepipe the intelligence and discard any and all counterevidence against their claims, I would be just as upset with them in a heartbeat.

But it wasn't the Dems, that was Bush and the Republicans.

But please explain in detail, if you could.

Sorry about that. i think i should re-read my work. I meant that Republicans are saying the Democrats are liars, because demo. all voted for war and now say that they never did. I was saying that Democrats during the Clinton era only said that Sadam was a dangerous individual. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the international community. But now the Republicans are taking text out of context by making it seem that democrats agreed to war during the Clinton era and during the beginning of the war.
In my opinion the democrats are not saying that they never voted for war. Some of them did vote for war. All there are saying now is that going to war was a mistake because they had false evidence and want Bush to admit the mistake also

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus ....The democrats are trying to rewrite history. They are just like Arabs and holocaust deniers.

quote:

Originally posted by gabba420 I meant that Republicans are saying the Democrats are liars, because demo. all voted for war and now say that they never did.

First of all this video is from a gop website. Kind of bias, but it tells some of the truth, nonetheless. Let's remember we did not find any WMD's in Iraq and our original problem was with Afghanistan and the connection to Bin Laden, but I digress. Yes the Democrats recognize fully that they voted for the war (patriotism, wmd's, etc)and for whatever reason they are now hypocritically regretting their decision. But the democrat's before and after stance on the war has nothing to do with the rewriting history. The TRUE and MAIN issue the Democrats have is the suggestion that the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence in order to have a strong reason to go to war. Bush claims that the war in Iraq is legitamite. The statement made by the Democrats regarding manipulated prewar intelligence is the same statement Bush is trying to counteract in his speech at the end of the video. That is the rewriting history part Bush is referring to. The only reason he pulls out the Democrats support for the war in his speech is to make the public believe what you have just said gabba420.

conclusion: he lied.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Kind of bias, but it tells some of the truth, nonetheless.

Bias, yes.

Truth? No.

quote:

Let's remember we did not find any WMD's in Iraq and our original problem was with Afghanistan and the connection to Bin Laden, but I digress.

All true.

quote:

Yes the Democrats recognize fully that they voted for the war (patriotism, wmd's, etc)and for whatever reason they are now hypocritically regretting their decision.

Not all Dems. did. I forget the exact count, but you had some 20 or so Dems. in the Senate, and over 100 Dems. in the House that did NOT vote for the war. We cannot lump them all together here.

But more importantly, what was at issue here with most of the Dems. that voted for the war and are now turning against it is the fact that they did NOT have the same intelligence as Bush had, and went on nothing but trust that Bush had strong intelligence to support the case for Saddam having WMD.

What also needs to be clarified is that there were a few select Dems. that did have access to the classified info. that clearly showed the intelligence was shoddy at best and was not as strong as Bush wanted everyone to believe.

The problem, however, is that those few select Dems., because of the classified status, could NOT publicly state anything whatsoever about the shaky intelligence itself. That would be illegal for them to do so. However, to their credit, those few DID vote against the war and with good reason:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php#more


As for the rest of Congress, they did not receive the declassified descriptives of the NIE document until it was too late:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11...d-case-for-war/

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/

And Bush to this day still refuses to give up his daily intelligence briefings, which would have some very key information on just how strong the intelligence he used for his case to go to war.

This is the job for Part 2 of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to examine. But considering just how much water the chairman of that Committee, my Senator Roberts (R-KS) has held for Bush up to this point, I don't anticipate this Chairman to be fully cooperative in this regard.

quote:

conclusion: he lied.

And I do agree with your conclusion.

The argument is simple:

The democrats has the same intelligence available to them as the republics as did the president. They all (majority) believed: Saddam has WMD and something most be done about it.

Some aruge Bush had "better" intelligence than that which was available to Congress, perhaps. But there was a lot of intelligence. Everyone (majority) chose to believe in WMD, just like they chose to believe before Sept-11th that no one would fly planes into tall buildings.

Looking back at it you can see intelligence faults. US intelligences is crap, perhaps some of the crappiest, but then again, many intelligence agencies messed up big on the WMD cause.

So to simplify: Everyone had the same intelligence. Bush decided to act on this intelligence. The intelligence was proven wrong. Bush is the only liar

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Bush is the only liar

I'll never under the arguement either.
The U.S. was far from being the only country with intelligence on Iraq but it appears a lot of people have selective memories.
The fact of the matter is, what's done is done and let's make the best of it rather than backtracking and trying to rewrite history for the sake of an election just to look good.

is a schizophrenic lying when he claims that five-foot bugs are crawling on the walls and we can not see them?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So to simplify: Everyone had the same intelligence. Bush decided to act on this intelligence. The intelligence was proven wrong. Bush is the only liar

mmm, no.


Bush (The White House, FBI, CIA, Defense Dept.; the executive branch) had a plethora of intelligence, all of which could not lead a rational person to a specific conclusion as to the viability of Mr. Hussein's weapon programs and threat to the US or the allies of the US in the middle east. Bush, who possesed a long-held desire to depose Mr. Hussein, and his political appointees and cronies in the executive branch decided to select and present, to the congress and the public, only intelligence that supported their objective and ignored and did not present the intelligenece that did not support ther objective.

did bush lie? did he allege a false fact knowing that it was false? we'll never know. did he abuse his power and trust of the public? yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange did he abuse his power and trust of the public? yes.

no.
Why was it put to a vote then? Not once but TWICE

Finish the damn job...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r no. Why was it put to a vote then? Not once but TWICE Finish the damn job...

It's always the position of Republicans and their supporters to say this whenever cornered on Bush's misdeeds. The immediate reaction, of course, is to concede the point. But we really must investigate it further.

(disclaimer - I would do the same for Clinton when he was President)

When you have something like 50% of voter turnout for registered voters, you're talking some 120 million or so voters total, right? You have some 300 million or so population here in the U.S., and Bush's voters are about 1/6 of that total. So you have something like 16.7% of our population voting for the man in charge.

And you're trying to tell me that 16.7% is a representation of the CURRENT pulse of our nation? Is that how you Canadians conduct your rationalization?

Or perhaps, just perhaps that's why we have polls, which granted are a smaller number of people being polled, but do have a relatively more statistically accurate representation of the current national sentiment towards Bush and our GOP leaders.

And as you might imagine, those numbers, the more accurate representation of the nation's current pulse, tend to state otherwise:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

A winner in 2004 he most certainly is.

An honest man in 2005 he most certainly is not, according to the current and seemingly longstanding public sentiment.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange did bush lie? did he allege a false fact knowing that it was false? we'll never know.

Thats the point; those that say he did are simply rewriting history for their own political end and nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It's always the position of Republicans and their supporters to say this whenever cornered on Bush's misdeeds. The immediate reaction, of course, is to concede the point. But we really must investigate it further. (disclaimer - I would do the same for Clinton when he was President) When you have something like 50% of voter turnout for registered voters, you're talking some 120 million or so voters total, right? You have some 300 million or so population here in the U.S., and Bush's voters are about 1/6 of that total. So you have something like 16.7% of our population voting for the man in charge. And you're trying to tell me that 16.7% is a representation of the CURRENT pulse of our nation? Is that how you Canadians conduct your rationalization? Or perhaps, just perhaps that's why we have polls, which granted are a smaller number of people being polled, but do have a relatively more statistically accurate representation of the current national sentiment towards Bush and our GOP leaders. And as you might imagine, those numbers, the more accurate representation of the nation's current pulse, tend to state otherwise: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm A winner in 2004 he most certainly is. An honest man in 2005 he most certainly is not, according to the current and seemingly longstanding public sentiment.

In short, you guys need to learn how to vote then...
(or better yet, get off those McFatty fat, fat legs and participate in voting)

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r In short, you guys need to learn how to vote then... (or better yet, get off those McFatty fat, fat legs and participate in voting)

No argument there. One of the biggest problems with liberals in general.

Bush informed in 2001 of lack of Iraq-Qaeda ties

Wed Nov 23, 3:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush was reportedly informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and that act of terror.


Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, The National Journal said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terror network was insufficient.

Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.

Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime.

Little additional evidence has emerged over the past four years that could contradict the CIA conclusion about a lack of a collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Journal quotes a high-level government official as saying.

The magazine believes the evidence raises yet more questions about the administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005112...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Bush informed in 2001 of lack of Iraq-Qaeda ties Wed Nov 23, 3:39 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush was reportedly informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and that act of terror. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005112...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--

Exactly and let's not forget advanced warnings before September 11 from several countries around the world that we were going to be attacked on that day.

source:http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02...ion.cgi.30.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.