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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

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.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

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...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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)

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Last edited by Fir3start3r on Nov-28-2005 at 00:58

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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--