Bushy Had Good Intel on Iraq... He Ignored It!

[Rohirrim]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/24/iraq.missed.warnings.ap/index.html

U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

[clarkster]

im not saying he didnt, or that he did, but its pretty easy to sit afterwards and say "hey we told you" i see alot of that now, and i personally wonder if anyone really did, or maybe they made a halfassed attempt at it. i work for the govt, so i know how this goes.

"well that didnt work"
"told you"
"no you didnt"
"yeah i did, remember that email?"

[Hotrod]

im not saying he didnt, or that he did, but its pretty easy to sit afterwards and say "hey we told you" i see alot of that now, and i personally wonder if anyone really did, or maybe they made a halfassed attempt at it. i work for the govt, so i know how this goes.

"well that didnt work"
"told you"
"no you didnt"
"yeah i did, remember that email?"

Good point no doubt.

I personally think he cherry picked his intel thou.

[Rohirrim]

The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

[freak6]

I personally think he cherry picked his intel thou.

LOL!



The intelligence is being fixed around the policy

[Rohirrim]

IMO, this is just another piece of evidence to back up the claims of Bob Woodward, Richard Clark, and many others: Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 911. He didn't care what any general said. He didn't care what any CIA analyst said. He didn't care what his own father said. He was going to invade Iraq from the day he got elected. It was personal.

[Play2win]

IMO, this is just another piece of evidence to back up the claims of Bob Woodward, Richard Clark, and many others: Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 911. He didn't care what any general said. He didn't care what any CIA analyst said. He didn't care what his own father said. He was going to invade Iraq from the day he got elected. It was personal.

Of course, within the first month of when he was originally elected, he installed the WAR MACHINE...

[patteeu]

Good point no doubt.

I personally think he cherry picked his intel thou.

For those who don't understand how these things work, I'll pull the curtain back a bit. This criticism is a case of cherry picking too. With the benefit of hindsight, they go back through all the conflicting assessments, find the ones that predict what eventually transpired, and hold it up as "proof" that Bush had good intel on Iraq but he ignored it. The problem is that it wasn't obvious that it was "good" intel until after the fact.

In my opinion, the type of deceptive cherry picking going on here is worse than the kind the administration is accused of doing. In the case of the administration, you have them first drawing a legitimate conclusion based on all of the intel and then, perhaps, cherry picking that which they would use to make the case to the public. In the case of the critics, they are trying to mislead people into thinking that the administration actually knew that their original conclusion wasn't right, which isn't true. In other words, the administration tried to sell what they believed was the truth with some puffery and, by contrast, their critics are now trying to sell what they know is a falsehood with some sleight of hand.

[Rohirrim]

For those who don't understand how these things work, I'll pull the curtain back a bit. This criticism is a case of cherry picking too. With the benefit of hindsight, they go back through all the conflicting assessments, find the ones that predict what eventually transpired, and hold it up as "proof" that Bush had good intel on Iraq but he ignored it. The problem is that it wasn't obvious that it was "good" intel until after the fact.

In my opinion, the type of deceptive cherry picking going on here is worse than the kind the administration is accused of doing. In the case of the administration, you have them first drawing a legitimate conclusion based on all of the intel and then, perhaps, cherry picking that which they would use to make the case to the public. In the case of the critics, they are trying to mislead people into thinking that the administration actually knew that their original conclusion wasn't right, which isn't true. In other words, the administration tried to sell what they believed was the truth with some puffery and, by contrast, their critics are now trying to sell what they know is a falsehood with some sleight of hand.

You either didn't read the article, or prefer to believe what you want to believe regardless of any other evidence, which, come to think of it, reminds me of somebody. ;D

[patteeu]

You either didn't read the article, or prefer to believe what you want to believe regardless of any other evidence, which, come to think of it, reminds me of somebody. ;D

I challenge you to show me how I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that there was unanimity among the intelligence community on the likelihood of "internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence?" If you are, I think you are believing what you want to believe.

[Rohirrim]

I challenge you to show me how I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that there was unanimity among the intelligence community on the likelihood of "internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence?" If you are, I think you are believing what you want to believe.

Reread the first paragraph of the article:
U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

That says to me that:
1. The Bushies were told what would likely happen if he went into Iraq.
2. They were warned to include this intel analysis in their game plan for Iraq.
3. Events since then prove that the Bushies completely ignored the warning.

Hell, it's no big surprise. The Bush 1/Scowcroft analysis in 1991 said the same damn thing. Bush ignored that too. Remember. He said that he didn't ask advice from his father. He got that from a "higher father."

[Hotrod]

For those who don't understand how these things work, I'll pull the curtain back a bit. This criticism is a case of cherry picking too. With the benefit of hindsight, they go back through all the conflicting assessments, find the ones that predict what eventually transpired, and hold it up as "proof" that Bush had good intel on Iraq but he ignored it. The problem is that it wasn't obvious that it was "good" intel until after the fact.

In my opinion, the type of deceptive cherry picking going on here is worse than the kind the administration is accused of doing. In the case of the administration, you have them first drawing a legitimate conclusion based on all of the intel and then, perhaps, cherry picking that which they would use to make the case to the public. In the case of the critics, they are trying to mislead people into thinking that the administration actually knew that their original conclusion wasn't right, which isn't true. In other words, the administration tried to sell what they believed was the truth with some puffery and, by contrast, their critics are now trying to sell what they know is a falsehood with some sleight of hand.

I disagree the kind of cherry picking going on "here" or "there" has not todate cost American lives or dollars.

On another note I see your point and agree that people who are anti-Bush are finding/using cherry picked info to discredit him. Yet on another note they really are wasting their time as Bush has pretty much already discredited himself single handedly.

[Rohirrim]

In a week, the report will be declassified and published. Then we can see if CNN is "cherry picking" or not. I'm betting the warnings were concise, and specific. After all, like I said, the Scowcroft analysis predated this stuff by more than ten years and came to the same conclusions. Patteau's ship has already sunk to the bottom and he's still waving the flag.

[TailgateNut]

The problem is that it wasn't obvious that it was "good" intel until after the fact.

.


Do you read what you write? What a joke!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In other words, the administration tried to sell what they believed was the truth with some puffery and, by contrast, their critics are now trying to sell what they know is a falsehood with some sleight of hand.Geeezus!

[BroncoBuff]

IMO, this is just another piece of evidence to back up the claims of Bob Woodward, Richard Clark, and many others: Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 911. He didn't care what any general said. He didn't care what any CIA analyst said. He didn't care what his own father said. He was going to invade Iraq from the day he got elected. It was personal.

Rep.and.rep.

[W*GS]

I challenge you to show me how I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that there was unanimity among the intelligence community on the likelihood of "internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence?"

Christ. Did there have to be "unanimity" in the intel community for Bush to make a better decision than he did?

When are you going to admit that Iraq is a cluster**** and Bush's decisions from the get-go have almost all been wrong?

[Spider]

For those who don't understand how these things work, I'll pull the curtain back a bit. This criticism is a case of cherry picking too. With the benefit of hindsight, they go back through all the conflicting assessments, find the ones that predict what eventually transpired, and hold it up as "proof" that Bush had good intel on Iraq but he ignored it. The problem is that it wasn't obvious that it was "good" intel until after the fact.

In my opinion, the type of deceptive cherry picking going on here is worse than the kind the administration is accused of doing. In the case of the administration, you have them first drawing a legitimate conclusion based on all of the intel and then, perhaps, cherry picking that which they would use to make the case to the public. In the case of the critics, they are trying to mislead people into thinking that the administration actually knew that their original conclusion wasn't right, which isn't true. In other words, the administration tried to sell what they believed was the truth with some puffery and, by contrast, their critics are now trying to sell what they know is a falsehood with some sleight of hand.

Hilarious! ROFL! ......... Denial isnt just a river in Egypt .........seeing how bad you are taking this news , I am glad the internet wasnt around when you found out about Santa Clause ..........

[loborugger]

I personally think he cherry picked his intel thou.

That is the problem in a nutshell right there. Concise and perceptive. Maybe you should be the Prez... ;)

[Hotrod]

That is the problem in a nutshell right there. Concise and perceptive. Maybe you should be the Prez... ;)

My first act would be in have a national holiday for the Broncos

My second act would be to make all non-sports illegal.....ie golf/soccer/ballet etc.

[loborugger]

My first act would be in have a national holiday for the Broncos

My second act would be to make all non-sports illegal.....ie golf/soccer/ballet etc.

Dude - I am totally there. Can I be on your cabinet? Maybe I could be the Sec. of Excessive Drinking or something like that.

[Rohirrim]

My first act would be in have a national holiday for the Broncos

My second act would be to make all non-sports illegal.....ie golf/soccer/ballet etc.

Hey! The English tried to outlaw golf. The Scots went ape**** on them. Don't mess with golf. The rest of that crap is cool. ;D

[Hotrod]

Dude - I am totally there. Can I be on your cabinet? Maybe I could be the Sec. of Excessive Drinking or something like that.

Hired

[Hotrod]

Hey! The English tried to outlaw golf. The Scots went ape**** on them. Don't mess with golf. The rest of that crap is cool. ;D

Lets meet in the middle and keep putt putt golf hows that ;D

[Hotrod]

Or how about we make golf into some kind of drinking game. One shot or beer for every stroke. ???

[Rohirrim]

Or how about we make golf into some kind of drinking game. One shot or beer for every stroke. ???

That would pretty much end the 18 hole round. Ha!

[Hotrod]

LOL but it would make it a much more exciting view sport

[Hotrod]

Or we could handicap it alittle. Help out the sucky players by making say a player who makes par has to drink a beer. And for every shot under par the player must take a shot. So say Tiger makes 2 under par on the first hole he must have 1 beer and 2 shots. This would even the field by what the 6th hole?

[patteeu]

Reread the first paragraph of the article:
U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

That says to me that:
1. The Bushies were told what would likely happen if he went into Iraq.
2. They were warned to include this intel analysis in their game plan for Iraq.
3. Events since then prove that the Bushies completely ignored the warning.

Hell, it's no big surprise. The Bush 1/Scowcroft analysis in 1991 said the same damn thing. Bush ignored that too. Remember. He said that he didn't ask advice from his father. He got that from a "higher father."

The article gives us no reason to think that what the "Bushies" were told was the unanimous opinion of the intelligence community. Instead, it's far more likely that this is a cherry-picked opinion and that they also were told that the plan they adopted would work.

If your only point is that someone, somewhere in the intelligence community made an accurate prediction and that that prediction didn't win the day when it came time to convince the policymakers, then I can accept that. If your point is that the policymakers *should* have been convinced, you can't make the case based on what little we know about the overall intelligence picture. Hindsight is not a factor in the latter calculation.

[patteeu]

In a week, the report will be declassified and published. Then we can see if CNN is "cherry picking" or not. I'm betting the warnings were concise, and specific. After all, like I said, the Scowcroft analysis predated this stuff by more than ten years and came to the same conclusions. Patteau's ship has already sunk to the bottom and he's still waving the flag.

You're apparently missing the point. I'm not arguing that a single report was equivocal or nonspecific and that cherries were picked from within that report (although I suspect that that's the case too). I'm arguing that even if that report was filled with concise and specific warnings that all actually turned out to be correct, it's just one report among many and it doesn't represent the whole intelligence picture that was presented to Bush.

[Rohirrim]

A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

[patteeu]

Christ. Did there have to be "unanimity" in the intel community for Bush to make a better decision than he did?

When are you going to admit that Iraq is a cluster**** and Bush's decisions from the get-go have almost all been wrong?

If an intelligence pov wasn't unanimous and you treat it as if it was, you are cherry picking. I doubt that I will ever admit that which I don't believe. I think there have been mistakes made, but I think you overstate the case to a very large degree. If you think I agree with Bush at every turn, you are mistaken. For example, I think Fallujah should have been leveled the first time we sent in the marines.

[TailgateNut]

You're apparently missing the point. .


"The earth is flat".Hilarious!

[TailgateNut]

If an intelligence pov wasn't unanimous and you treat it as if it was, you are cherry picking. I doubt that I will ever admit that which I don't believe. I think there have been mistakes made, but I think you overstate the case to a very large degree. If you think I agree with Bush at every turn, you are mistaken. For example, I think Fallujah should have been leveled the first time we sent in the marines.


Why even fund intelligence if the information isn't considered credible once analyzed. Bush has yet to listen to anything but the voices in his head!

[Rohirrim]

From 60 Minutes:

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

What I keep seeing, and what this Senate intelligence report illustrates once again, is that the testimony of Clarke, Woodward, and many others is being corroborated over and over again, while the denials of the Bush cabal grow weaker and weaker.

The picture is clear. The Bush cabal intended to invade Iraq when they entered the WH, and used 911 to further that purpose - duping the American people in the process. The string of theory behind the invasion runs clearly from Sharon and Likud, through Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld and Cheney and finally, to the oval office and Bush himself.

They lied America into an unnecessary war. In my book, that qualifies under the heading "high crimes and misdemeanors."

[TailgateNut]

From 60 Minutes:

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

What I keep seeing, and what this Senate intelligence report illustrates once again, is that the testimony of Clarke, Woodward, and many others is being corroborated over and over again, while the denials of the Bush cabal grow weaker and weaker.

The picture is clear. The Bush cabal intended to invade Iraq when they entered the WH, and used 911 to further that purpose - duping the American people in the process. The string of theory behind the invasion runs clearly from Sharon and Likud, through Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld and Cheney and finally, to the oval office and Bush himself.

They lied America into an unnecessary war. In my book, that qualifies under the heading "high crimes and misdemeanors."


It's all "cherry picked" and everybody except for Bush and Co are liars!:rofl:

[Hotrod]

From 60 Minutes:

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

What I keep seeing, and what this Senate intelligence report illustrates once again, is that the testimony of Clarke, Woodward, and many others is being corroborated over and over again, while the denials of the Bush cabal grow weaker and weaker.

The picture is clear. The Bush cabal intended to invade Iraq when they entered the WH, and used 911 to further that purpose - duping the American people in the process. The string of theory behind the invasion runs clearly from Sharon and Likud, through Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld and Cheney and finally, to the oval office and Bush himself.

They lied America into an unnecessary war. In my book, that qualifies under the heading "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Foh-shizzle-dizzle.....or in other words..........holy ****.

[W*GS]

If an intelligence pov wasn't unanimous and you treat it as if it was, you are cherry picking.

Bush clearly cherry-picked which intel to use to bolster his cabal's case for attacking Iraq. It's rather obvious he ignored the vast majority of the intel presented to him - probably at the neo-cons' insistence.

I doubt that I will ever admit that which I don't believe. I think there have been mistakes made, but I think you overstate the case to a very large degree. If you think I agree with Bush at every turn, you are mistaken. For example, I think Fallujah should have been leveled the first time we sent in the marines.

The whole Iraq war has been a mistake - a colossal one, easily on par with Vietnam. Consider the criticisms you would level against LBJ and the Democrats in charge of Congress from 1963-1968 and use them against Bush and the GOP 2003-2006...

[patteeu]

Why even fund intelligence if the information isn't considered credible once analyzed. Bush has yet to listen to anything but the voices in his head!

If the world were as simple as it is in your cartoon imagination, being President would be as simple as painting by number.

[Hotrod]

If the world were as simple as it is in your cartoon imagination, being President would be as simple as painting by number.

Have you tried a paint my numbers lately??? Seriously I did with my son and they put differnet numbers in spaces that are too damn close together. Its acutally quite challenging. Im just saying.

[patteeu]

From 60 Minutes:

If you take Richard Clarke's word as gospel, it sure does make Richard Clarke look like a hero. Hooray for Richard!

That members of the Bush administration immediately suspected Iraqi connections is not particularly surprising and that they eventually came to the conclusion that regime change in Iraq (the same policy we'd been following since the last half of the Clinton administration, btw) was one of the keys to changing the dynamics of the middle east that had led to 9/11 even if there wasn't a direct connection isn't particularly shocking either.

How does any of this prove that the intelligence community predicted "internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence" without significant dissent or that this view was even a consensus? Was it in the document that most clearly represents the intelligence community's consensus, the National Intelligence Estimate?

[patteeu]

Have you tried a paint my numbers lately??? Seriously I did with my son and they put differnet numbers in spaces that are too damn close together. Its acutally quite challenging. Im just saying.

ROFL! Good point, although when it comes to art, no matter how hard a paint by number set is, the result is going to come out better for me than if I have to free hand it.

[bendog]

Memorial Day.

[Rohirrim]

If you take Richard Clarke's word as gospel, it sure does make Richard Clarke look like a hero. Hooray for Richard!

That members of the Bush administration immediately suspected Iraqi connections is not particularly surprising and that they eventually came to the conclusion that regime change in Iraq (the same policy we'd been following since the last half of the Clinton administration, btw) was one of the keys to changing the dynamics of the middle east that had led to 9/11 even if there wasn't a direct connection isn't particularly shocking either.

How does any of this prove that the intelligence community predicted "internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence" without significant dissent or that this view was even a consensus? Was it in the document that most clearly represents the intelligence community's consensus, the National Intelligence Estimate?

I hope you always find a way out of jury duty, since you have no comprehension of what the phrase "preponderance of evidence" means. ;D

[patteeu]

Bush clearly cherry-picked which intel to use to bolster his cabal's case for attacking Iraq. It's rather obvious he ignored the vast majority of the intel presented to him - probably at the neo-cons' insistence.

You can't possibly know what the majority of intel presented to him said. You can be sure that the majority of intel didn't make it to his desk, but that's simply because intel goes through a funneling process where it is consolidated and analyzed into a useable form up the food chain from the people who collect the raw data to those who write the assessments, but I get the feeling that that's not what you're going on about.

I accept that this President, like all previous presidents who had to sell the country on military action, cherry picked the intel that he would present to the country when they made that case. That's just the way things happen. It's not a new concept created by this administration.

The Bush administration made the case that Saddam's regime possessed WMD and that they were seeking a nuclear weapon capability. They believed this to be true. So did the CIA of both this administration and the Clinton administration. So did the intelligence agencies of our European allies. So did almost everyone else.

The Bush administration did not try to make the case that Saddam was behind 9/11. They may have believed that he was and they identified some limited evidence that could have supported such a belief, but in the end they were willing to admit that they didn't have any solid proof of this.

It's not obvious at all that there was abundant evidence that should have disabused them of the belief that Saddam had WMD. In fact, quite the contrary.

The whole Iraq war has been a mistake - a colossal one, easily on par with Vietnam. Consider the criticisms you would level against LBJ and the Democrats in charge of Congress from 1963-1968 and use them against Bush and the GOP 2003-2006...

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not sure whether Iraq was a mistake or not. Certainly, if democrats and other anti-war critics succeed in forcing the US to withdraw from Iraq and concede defeat, it will insure that it was a mistake. As long as we are willing to continue to work on making Iraq a success, it remains to be seen whether it was a mistake, IMO.

That's not to say that there haven't been mistakes made along the way. There is no doubt that there have been (although exactly what the mistakes are might be subject to debate). It's also not to say that invading Iraq in exactly the way we did it was the very best possible option we had at the time we did it. Those are areas where we should be reviewing our choices and learning lessons.

[patteeu]

I hope you always find a way out of jury duty, since you have no comprehension of what the phrase "preponderance of evidence" means. ;D

That phrase didn't appear in your post. The National Intelligence Estimate is the best representation of the preponderance of evidence as viewed by the top level representatives of our intelligence community. Did the NIE or any similar top level, comprehensive document warn the president that the course of action that he ultimately elected to follow was a high risk, low reward strategy? Or is this whole thread based on a cherry picked glimpse into one tiny corner of the nation's intelligence product? I'm confident it's the latter as so many of the after-the-fact criticisms of this administration have been.

[The Lone Bolt]

They lied America into an unnecessary war. In my book, that qualifies under the heading "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I know you don't want to hear this, but it hasn't yet been proven in a court of law that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's one of the most important founding principles of our democracy and it's disturbing how many feel it should be disregarded for people that they don't like.

And nothing you have presented here conclusively proves that Bush knew that the Iraq prewar intel was wrong and he intentionally promoted it anyway to deceive the American public. Looks to me that he has a preconceived notion of Saddam's guilt and would not accept any information that conflicted with his bias.

Ironically, it's the same thing the "Bush lied people died" crowd is doing. They refuse to accept any interpretation of the evidence that doesn't fit their own beliefs.

[loborugger]

I know you don't want to hear this, but it hasn't yet been proven in a court of law that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's one of the most important founding principles of our democracy and it's disturbing how many feel it should be disregarded for people that they don't like.

And nothing you have presented here conclusively proves that Bush knew that the Iraq prewar intel was wrong and he intentionally promoted it anyway to deceive the American public. Looks to me that he has a preconceived notion of Saddam's guilt and would not accept any information that conflicted with his bias.

Ironically, it's the same thing the "Bush lied people died" crowd is doing. They refuse to accept any interpretation of the evidence that doesn't fit their own beliefs.

You are, to a point, correct. Bush didnt lie to us. He lied to himself. He wanted what he wanted - war in Iraq - and he found just a few facts that made war justifiable. He then sold us a bill of goods. He and his ilk deceived themselves into believing (cuz they wanted to) that a few events were the norm, instead of just a few patterns.

Specifically, the war was justified because there were proven ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. To bolster this statement, Bush and Co came out with the fact that an Iraqi intell officer met with an Al Qaeda operative in Europe the year before.

Now, I am not calling this a lie. But, we dont know what was discussed. For all we do know this coulda been a rogue agent as much as a consolidation of efforts.

Further, I bet you dimes to donuts that a CIA agent, or a source working on behalf of the CIA, has at some time (esp before 9/11) met with a known Al Qaeda operative. Does that put the US in bed with Al Qaeda? Hardly.

But this one incident was used to bolster the claim. But, is this a pattern of behavior or an aberation? If I wake up one morning and see my neighbor take off running from his porch is he an avid jogger, a newbie, or just a dude running to the corner store for some milk?

I dont think he lied. I think he has spun the facts - as he sees them - in his head (he and his small group) til it makes sense to them. The fact that he continues to run the same tired rhetoric over and over again makes me think that he seriously believes it and he wants you to believe it, too... much the same way a child will tell you that since there was no milk in the kitchen for breakfast he had to eat cookies, there was no other option. And while Bush, along with the kid in this example, honestly believe what they are saying, the rest of us are pretty sure we know better.

[bendog]

Lone Bolt, democracy does not require a court of law to conclude a leader lied, or intentionally misled. It's called the court of public opinion. Everyone knew WJC lied his ass off over Monica, but some 65% of us just didn't care much. Conversely, something like 70% of us know Bushii lied his ass off to us, and maybe himself too as Logobrunner suggests, but rather than impeaching him, most of us just want him to STFUandSiddown.

[The Lone Bolt]

Lone Bolt, democracy does not require a court of law to conclude a leader lied, or intentionally misled. It's called the court of public opinion. Everyone knew WJC lied his ass off over Monica, but some 65% of us just didn't care much. Conversely, something like 70% of us know Bushii lied his ass off to us, and maybe himself too as Logobrunner suggests, but rather than impeaching him, most of us just want him to STFUandSiddown.


So "mob rule" is now the law of the land? How sad that we've fallen so far.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

im not saying he didnt, or that he did...

The Senate report says he did.

It's just a question of whether you choose to ignore the report or not.

[Rohirrim]

I guess we can all wait until next week and see what the unclassifed documents say. Until then, let's all try to avoid the mushroom clouds and yellow cake, eh?

[Rohirrim]

So "mob rule" is now the law of the land? How sad that we've fallen so far.

I guess one man's mob rule is another man's democratic majority.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I hope you always find a way out of jury duty, since you have no comprehension of what the phrase "preponderance of evidence" means. ;D

:D ^5

Seems to be a common and pervasive problem for the increasingly endangered species that is the BushCo apologist.

[Rohirrim]

That phrase didn't appear in your post. The National Intelligence Estimate is the best representation of the preponderance of evidence as viewed by the top level representatives of our intelligence community. Did the NIE or any similar top level, comprehensive document warn the president that the course of action that he ultimately elected to follow was a high risk, low reward strategy? Or is this whole thread based on a cherry picked glimpse into one tiny corner of the nation's intelligence product? I'm confident it's the latter as so many of the after-the-fact criticisms of this administration have been.

What I'm talking about is a preponderence of evidence brought forward since 911 that Bush had every intention of invading Iraq regardless of its connection to anything. This latest Senate report only adds to it. Perhaps you could present one shred of evidence that the Bush administration actually believed anything they told the country, keeping in mind that they changed their rationale for the invasion more than five times? Who's the liar, the one whose story never changes, or the one whose story changes time and time again? I know how a jury would answer that question. We have a preponderence of courtroom history on that point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yet on another note they really are wasting their time as Bush has pretty much already discredited himself single handedly.

:~ohyah!: :thumbsup:

http://www.bartcop.com/dopey-monkey.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who's the liar, the one whose story never changes, or the one whose story changes time and time again? I know how a jury would answer that question. We have a preponderence of courtroom history on that point.

Ding ding ding! :thumbsup: ^5

[patteeu]

Looks to me that he has a preconceived notion of Saddam's guilt and would not accept any information that conflicted with his bias.

Ironically, it's the same thing the "Bush lied people died" crowd is doing. They refuse to accept any interpretation of the evidence that doesn't fit their own beliefs.

Very good point, Lone Bolt.

[patteeu]

You are, to a point, correct. Bush didnt lie to us. He lied to himself. He wanted what he wanted - war in Iraq - and he found just a few facts that made war justifiable. He then sold us a bill of goods. He and his ilk deceived themselves into believing (cuz they wanted to) that a few events were the norm, instead of just a few patterns.

Specifically, the war was justified because there were proven ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. To bolster this statement, Bush and Co came out with the fact that an Iraqi intell officer met with an Al Qaeda operative in Europe the year before.

Before the war, the administration had acknowledged that while this claim had been made by the Chechs, it wasn't something that was verified. They explicitly acknowledged that there wasn't proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Now, I am not calling this a lie. But, we dont know what was discussed. For all we do know this coulda been a rogue agent as much as a consolidation of efforts.

Further, I bet you dimes to donuts that a CIA agent, or a source working on behalf of the CIA, has at some time (esp before 9/11) met with a known Al Qaeda operative. Does that put the US in bed with Al Qaeda? Hardly.

But this one incident was used to bolster the claim. But, is this a pattern of behavior or an aberation? If I wake up one morning and see my neighbor take off running from his porch is he an avid jogger, a newbie, or just a dude running to the corner store for some milk?

I give you credit for some good analysis here, but I'd point out that everyone should be capable of recognizing the difference between evidence of a possible conversation and proof of an operational connection. And since the administration explicitly acknowledged that they couldn't prove a connection, that's all the more reason for people to be on notice that these claims might not add up to the most damning possible conclusion. But yet, the Bush Lied People Died folks want to pretend that Bush was pushing this as if he had hard proof that Saddam ordered the attacks.

[patteeu]

What I'm talking about is a preponderence of evidence brought forward since 911 that Bush had every intention of invading Iraq regardless of its connection to anything. This latest Senate report only adds to it. Perhaps you could present one shred of evidence that the Bush administration actually believed anything they told the country, keeping in mind that they changed their rationale for the invasion more than five times? Who's the liar, the one whose story never changes, or the one whose story changes time and time again? I know how a jury would answer that question. We have a preponderence of courtroom history on that point.

One shred? That's easy. I'll just post the article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack) that someone else posted here the other day. It was written by a Clinton administration intelligence official and it makes it clear that Bush had plenty of reason to believe that Saddam had WMD:

The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. It was first advanced at the end of the 1990s, at a time when President Bill Clinton was trying to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and was hardly seeking assessments that the threat from Iraq was growing.

...

U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

That's a pretty sweeping statement coming from, not a neocon, but from a member of the Clinton national security apparatus. Now, if you read that article, you'll see that he has plenty of criticisms for the Bush administration to go along with the quoted material, but he's at least fairly close to even handed about it. Bush didn't go to war in Iraq because of some kind of personal grudge as you've ridiculously suggested, he did it because he believed it was the right thing to do based on the preponderance of the evidence. You might not like it, and you might think he should have come to different conclusions but you can't show that he was taking us to war based on lies about things he knew were untrue.

[patteeu]

Who's the liar, the one whose story never changes, or the one whose story changes time and time again? I know how a jury would answer that question. We have a preponderence of courtroom history on that point.

When you talk about stories changing are you talking about all the democrats who assured us that Saddam was the threat that Bush said he was (even before Bush took office) and then later, after no WMD were discovered, they pretended that they were misled by the Bush administration? Yeah, I think you might be onto something if that's what you're talking about.

As for Bush, his story has been remarkably consistent. What you mistake for changing rationales for the war is really just a complex and multifaceted rationale for war. As the different facets have been explained, the previous explanations are not discarded, they are augmented.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."


tsk tsk

There you go catapulting the same old discredited propaganda.

Both Powell and Rice are on record saying just the opposite:


Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

Full article: http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229

[Rohirrim]

Before the war, the administration had acknowledged that while this claim had been made by the Chechs, it wasn't something that was verified. They explicitly acknowledged that there wasn't proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.



I give you credit for some good analysis here, but I'd point out that everyone should be capable of recognizing the difference between evidence of a possible conversation and proof of an operational connection. And since the administration explicitly acknowledged that they couldn't prove a connection, that's all the more reason for people to be on notice that these claims might not add up to the most damning possible conclusion. But yet, the Bush Lied People Died folks want to pretend that Bush was pushing this as if he had hard proof that Saddam ordered the attacks.

This is a complete fabrication on your part. This has been hashed over time and time again on this board. No reasonable person could possibly listen to Cheney over the years and not come to the conclusion that this administration did everything in its power to convince the American people that Saddam was connected to 911. I could post a raft of quotes proving the point. And it worked. Polls still show that a large percentage of Bush backers still to this day are convinced that Saddam was involved in 911. Where do you think they got that impression? We will probably never know if they believed that or not, but they never stopped trying to sell it. Cheney hasn't given up on that fairy tale connection even to this day.

[Rohirrim]

One shred? That's easy. I'll just post the article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack) that someone else posted here the other day. It was written by a Clinton administration intelligence official and it makes it clear that Bush had plenty of reason to believe that Saddam had WMD:



"In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

That's a pretty sweeping statement coming from, not a neocon, but from a member of the Clinton national security apparatus. Now, if you read that article, you'll see that he has plenty of criticisms for the Bush administration to go along with the quoted material, but he's at least fairly close to even handed about it. Bush didn't go to war in Iraq because of some kind of personal grudge as you've ridiculously suggested, he did it because he believed it was the right thing to do based on the preponderance of the evidence. You might not like it, and you might think he should have come to different conclusions but you can't show that he was taking us to war based on lies about things he knew were untrue.

I am certainly not alone in my "ridiculous" suggestion that Bush always intended to attack Saddam. Shall I list the names of those who believe it? Who's being ridiculous? Wolfowitz drew this up in the early 90s with a Sharon assist. Cheney and Rummy were on board even then. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

But now you're dancing. Did we invade Iraq because of WMDs or because of connections to 911 and Al Queda? You are also bringing up evidence from the late 90s. What evidence did Bush have in 2003? LABF has already posted the quotes from Powell and Rice. Shall I post the quotes from the UN weapons inpectors themselves telling Bush that the evidence for WMDs was rapidly diminishing and that they needed more time? One might suspect that one of the reasons Bush rushed to the attack was that he knew his reasons for the invasion were evaporating, hence the plot vs. Plame & Wilson. Cheney was the enforcer. They couldn't allow their propaganda campaign against the American people to come off the tracks. Once again, your arguments do nothing to change the perception that Bush intended to invade Iraq, no matter what, and simply used American anger over 911 to goad them into it. The evidence of that fact is overwhelming. Even the article you posted attests to this fact:
The Administration stretched those estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at once, rather than taking the time to build regional and international support for military action.

In other words, "You can't handle the truth!"

Meanwhile, Bin Laden and Zawahiri are alive. The Taliban are expanding. Omar is regaining his power. And the U.S. is mired in the complete disaster of Iraq. Bush continues to lie to the American people, trying to convince them that Iraq is the center of the fight against Islamic terrorism while the actual center, in the mountains of Afghanistan, grows stronger every day. For the good of our country, the entire Bush cabal should be impeached as quickly as possible.

[Play2win]

Money is not really the ROOT OF ALL EVIL... Wolfowitz is.

[DenverBrit]

IMO, this is just another piece of evidence to back up the claims of Bob Woodward, Richard Clark, and many others: Bush was determined to invade Iraq long before 911. He didn't care what any general said. He didn't care what any CIA analyst said. He didn't care what his own father said. He was going to invade Iraq from the day he got elected. It was personal.

If you saw 'Bush's Brain', a documentary about Karl Rove, you may recall that Rove spoke at a Republican meeting one year before 911. He stated in that meeting, that invading Iraq would be a good re-election topic. There is no doubt that this administration had its eye on Iraq long before 911. It's amazing how much these people have been able to get away with during their White House occupation. Sometime down the road, this administration will be held accountable for its actions. They are at the very least, criminally incompetent, at worst..........the sky's the limit.

[Spider]

Patty 2 and the Lone bolt got beat up pretty good on this thread , down deep they know the left was right about everything , they are clinging to some far right mis info in some kind of hope that their god Bush isnt wrong ....... Hero worship dies hard

[TailgateNut]

Patty 2 and the Lone bolt got beat up pretty good on this thread , down deep they know the left was right about everything , they are clinging to some far right mis info in some kind of hope that their god Bush isnt wrong ....... Hero worship dies hard


It's all that they have left to hang their hats on. Deep down they must know if/ or when we drag this administration in front of a judge they will be found guilty of crimes against our nation which has resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths.
But hey, who cares, it's all about the WMD's (err OIL)!

[bendog]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Look, face it, before 9-11 these guys wanted to invade Iraq. To do so, they destroyed the CIA.

[Spider]

It's all that they have left to hang their hats on. Deep down they must know if/ or when we drag this administration in front of a judge they will be found guilty of crimes against our nation which has resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths.
But hey, who cares, it's all about the WMD's (err OIL)!

:approve: pretty much .......... their defense of Bush now looks like a man crush thing

[The Lone Bolt]

Patty 2 and the Lone bolt got beat up pretty good on this thread , down deep they know the left was right about everything , they are clinging to some far right mis info in some kind of hope that their god Bush isnt wrong ....... Hero worship dies hard

A) I think Bush is an idiot. If he's is dragged before a court of law or a Senate Committee and found guilty of intentionally misleading the American public and impeached I'd be the first to celebrate. All I'm saying is until then presumed innocence applies.

b) I also consider myself to be a moderate lefty. And I am open to the possibility that Bush intentionally mislead the American public and it was all about oil. But the quotes by Condi and Colin don't prove that Saddam had disarmed. The body responsible for that conclusion was the U.N Security Council, and they did not determine after 12 years an 17 U.N. resolutions that he had disarmed of his WMD. There's no getting around that. And the weak argument that he would have been declared "disarmed" in another two weeks is pure speculation. The weapons inspector did not say that they would declare him in compliance given another two weeks.

And if they didn't, how much longer would they need? When were we going to get a meaningful deadline from the U.N.? ??? Were the inspectors going to stall and stall and stall until the opportunity to remove Saddam by force had passed permanently in order to appease the Russian, Germans, and French who wanted to protect the $$$ they were making off of Iraqi oil and weapons sales? ???

Some of you guys here are laboring under the absurd and naive notion that "containment" could have been continued indefinitely. I've pointed out over and over again that the containment policy was on the verge of total collapse. See Ken Pollack's book The Threatening Storm and the chapter entitled "The Erosion of Containment" for details. How some of you can continue to cling to this fantasy is beyond me.

All it would have taken for me was a meaningful deadline for disarmament: "Come into compliance by (date) or face U.N approval for military force." That's all it would have taken, and I would have been vehemently opposed to an invasion without U.N. approval. The fact that they refused to pass such a resolution proved to me that they were not serious about disarming Saddam.

[Spider]

A) I think Bush is an idiot. If he's is dragged before a court of law or a Senate Committee and found guilty of intentionally misleading the American public and impeached I'd be the first to celebrate. All I'm saying is until then presumed innocence applies. Preponderances of evidence

b) I also consider myself to be a moderate lefty. And I am open to the possibility that Bush intentionally mislead the American public and it was all about oil. But the quotes by Condi and Colin don't prove that Saddam had disarmed. The body responsible for that conclusion was the U.N Security Council, and they did not determine after 12 years an 17 U.N. resolutions that he had disarmed of his WMD. There's no getting around that. And the weak argument that he would have been declared "disarmed" in another two weeks is pure speculation. The weapons inspector did not say that they would declare him in compliance given another two weeks.
sure it is about oil , always has been , it isnt us taking control as much as it is the disruption of oil flow allowing prices to be manipulated ........ (Cheney was pissed at clinton when oil was below 20.00 per barrel)
and Saddam was disarmed , hans Blix report showed there was a small amount that was unaccounted for , Flying J truckstop food does more damage then what was missing .........

And if they didn't, how much longer would they need? When were we going to get a meaningful deadline from the U.N.??? Were the inspectors going to stall and stall and stall until the opportunity to remove Saddam by force had passed permanently in order to appease the Russian, Germans, and French who wanted to protect the $$$ they were making off of Iraqi oil and weapons sales???
LOL forget the french , the oil for food and weapons scam involved Kinda Sleezy Rice , thats why it is off the radar .........

Some of you guys here are laboring under the absurd and naive notion that "containment" could have been continued indefinitely. I've pointed out over and over again that the containment policy was on the verge of total collapse. See Ken Pollack's book The Threatening Storm and the chapter entitled "The Erosion of Containment" for details. How some of you can continue to cling to this fantasy is beyond me.

All it would have taken for me was a meaningful deadline for disarmament: "Come into compliance by (date) or face U.N approval for military force." That's all it would have taken, and I would have been vehemently opposed to an invasion without U.N. approval. The fact that they refused to pass such a resolution proved to me that they were not serious about disarming Saddam.
yeah , we tripped all over weapons that Saddam didnt destroy ........ you are still full of shít on this ...........

[W*GS]

(Cheney was pissed at clinton when oil was below 20.00 per barrel)

As if Clinton set the price of oil.

[The Lone Bolt]

Preponderances of evidence

I see, so we just declare him guilty and no trial needed? Listen to yourself for a moment.


sure it is about oil , always has been , it isnt us taking control as much as it is the disruption of oil flow allowing prices to be manipulated ........ (Cheney was pissed at clinton when oil was below 20.00 per barrel)

Could be, but not proven conclusively.

and Saddam was disarmed , hans Blix report showed there was a small amount that was unaccounted for , Flying J truckstop food does more damage then what was missing .........

So if they knew at the time that Saddam was disarmed, why didn't the U.N., Security Council find him in full compliance of UN resolutions and lift the sanctions?? Once again no getting around that.


yeah , we tripped all over weapons that Saddam didnt destroy ........ you are still full of shít on this ...........


Yes, in hindsight we know he had disarmed. In hindsight we know that some who SPECULATED that he had disarmed were right. But at the time the U.N Security Council had not declared him in full compliance in spite of over 12 years of sanctions and resolutions. It's easy to play Monday morning QB and say "toldja so", but you could have easily been wrong.

[Spider]

As if Clinton set the price of oil.

He did when he threatened to release the strategic oil reserve .......

[Spider]

I see, so we just declare him guilty and no trial needed? Listen to yourself for a moment.
well I wouldnt suspect a hung jury on this .........




Could be, but not proven conclusively.
Yeah silly me Diesel is up around 2.89 per gallon x's that by 300 gallons , I notice fuel Prices ........



So if they knew at the time that Saddam was disarmed, why didn't the U.N., Security Council find him in full compliance of UN resolutions and lift the sanctions?? Once again no getting around that.
Long range Scud missiles , not that they was WMD , but they had a longer range then Saddam was allowed ........ SO yeah no getting around that
:crazy:




Yes, in hindsight we know he had disarmed. In hindsight we know that some who SPECULATED that he had disarmed were right. But at the time the U.N Security Council had not declared him in full compliance in spite of over 12 years of sanctions and resolutions. It's easy to play Monday morning QB and say "toldja so", but you could have easily been wrong.
and the title of this thread is what again ?

[W*GS]

He did when he threatened to release the strategic oil reserve .......

As if that would have made any significant difference...

The US President doesn't determine the price of oil. Period.

[Spider]

As if that would have made any significant difference...

The US President doesn't determine the price of oil. Period.

well boy wonder , I was paying 98 cent a gallon under Clinton , went up to a 1.50 , Clinton threatened to release the reserves Fuel went back down ..... it isnt rocket science ....... Not that hard to figure out W*GS ..Perhaps your hard on for Clintons weenie is clouding your judgment on this

[W*GS]

well boy wonder , I was paying 98 cent a gallon under Clinton , went up to a 1.50 , Clinton threatened to release the reserves Fuel went back down ..... it isnt rocket science ....... Not that hard to figure out W*GS ..

Look up post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Perhaps your hard on for Clintons weenie is clouding your judgment on this

You and LABF (and others) are far more obsessed with Clinton's genitalia than anyone else... Why?

[The Lone Bolt]

Yeah silly me Diesel is up around 2.89 per gallon x's that by 300 gallons , I notice fuel Prices ........

WOW! Open and shut case!! Surely there's no other explanation!!hmmm...


Long range Scud missiles , not that they was WMD , but they had a longer range then Saddam was allowed ........ SO yeah no getting around that
:crazy:

I see . . . and you have the U.N Security Council quote stating that all WMD had been destroyed and the scuds were the only sticking point? Aren't you just speculating here?



and the title of this thread is what again ?


Ummm . . . is it "We Should Have Given Credibility In Hindsight to Some Lucky Guesses Just Because It Fits Our Political Views?" No wait . . . it must be "Bush Is Guilty Without A Trial Because We Have Reached That Conclusion Based On Some Facts That We Like."

[Spider]

Look up post hoc ergo propter hoc.
the direct result is Clinton influenced the price of oil ........ Deal with it



You and LABF (and others) are far more obsessed with Clinton's genitalia than anyone else... Why?

LOL sure thing ........ the ole bait and switch tactic ........
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/d7/Don_Adams.jpg

[Spider]

WOW! Open and shut case!! Surely there's no other explanation!!hmmm... thats right ..........




I see . . . and you have the U.N Security Council quote stating that all WMD had been destroyed and the scuds were the only sticking point? Aren't you just speculating here?
why is it you insist on looking stupid ? can you google Hans Blix ? go find out for yourself , do research from the comfort of your own home ......






Ummm . . . is it "We Should Have Given Credibility In Hindsight to Some Lucky Guesses Just Because It Fits Our Political Views?" No wait . . . it must be "Bush Is Guilty Without A Trial Because We Have Reached That Conclusion Based On Some Facts That We Like."

as to sending 3,000 + To their death ? I am failing to see the downside of realy looking at the intel before going to war ...

[W*GS]

the direct result is Clinton influenced the price of oil ........ Deal with it

Prove it. Provide references to support your (often faulty) recollection. Otherwise, shut the **** up on the topic.

Why is it you and others who defend Clinton always bring up his genitalia when anyone points out your adoration of him is misplaced? Is that supposed to settle the argument in some fashion? "Gee, everyone who criticizes Clinton is just after his weiner"?

Grow up.

[Bronco Bob]

As if that would have made any significant difference...

The US President doesn't determine the price of oil. Period.

So it's just mere coincidence that oil men are the president and vice president,
the price of gasoline is steadily rising, and the oil companies are making record profits.
Where-as in the previous administration neither the president or the VP
had any major interests in oil and the price of gasoline remained fairly steady.

[The Lone Bolt]

why is it you insist on looking stupid ? can you google Hans Blix ? go find out for yourself , do research from the comfort of your own home ......

Did I tell you that I gave a flying f-ck what Blix said? No I did not. Blix is NOT the U.N. Security Council. If Blix had a solid case that Saddam had disarmed then why did he not make his case to the UN Security Council and why did they not subsequently issue a statement concluding that there were no WMD in Iraq?? You are avoiding the real subject which is the findings of the U.N. Security Council, not Hans Blix.

[W*GS]

So it's just mere coincidence that oil men are the president and vice president, the price of gasoline is steadily rising, and the oil companies are making record profits. Where-as in the previous administration neither the president or the VP had any major interests in oil and the price of gasoline remained fairly steady.

There are many factors that go into what you pay at the pump - the particular residents of the WH being a nearly-irrelevant one.

Provide evidence otherwise - other than "gas was cheaper, now it's more expensive, ergo, Bush and Cheney are at fault".

[Bronco Bob]

There are many factors that go into what you pay at the pump - the particular residents of the WH being a nearly-irrelevant one.

Provide evidence otherwise - other than "gas was cheaper, now it's more expensive, ergo, Bush and Cheney are at fault".

Do you have any proof they aren't? Am I supposed to be privy to deals
behind closed doors based on a wink and a handshake? All I am doing is
laying out the facts.

1. Bush and Cheney are former oil men.
2. Gasoline prices have been steadly increasing from
Jan. 2001 to present.
3. Oil companies are making record profits
4. Niether Clinton or Gore were oil men.
5. The price of gasoline was fairly even from
Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001

It is up to you to conclude that it is mere coincidence or not. You choose
to beleive they have nothing to do with it. I myself have my doubts,
based on other dubious dealing this administrations has already been
shown to be involved in.

[Rigs11]

There are many factors that go into what you pay at the pump - the particular residents of the WH being a nearly-irrelevant one.

Provide evidence otherwise - other than "gas was cheaper, now it's more expensive, ergo, Bush and Cheney are at fault".

Wrong. The fiasco that is iraq has created a shortage of oil coming out of that country, as well as fears of war with iran, and the massive use of gas to supply the military.All of which are factors to what we pay at the pump.

[The Lone Bolt]

OK §Pide®, let's take a look at what Blixii had to say:

Saturday March 20, 2004
The Guardian

Disarming Iraq by Hans Blix


Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
by Hans Blix
289pp, Bloomsbury, £16.99

The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq a year ago risks turning into the catastrophe of our era, a sort of Suez, Algeria and Vietnam rolled into one. Sorting out the shambles in Iraq is of first importance, but how it became a shambles is of interest, if only to ensure such a thing never happens again.

How did the United States and Britain come to invade Iraq in search of stockpiles of lethal germs and gases that have so far proved to be mere phantoms? How were the Bush and Blair governments so misled? Or was the threat of chemical, biological and even nuclear attack simply conjured as justification for a war that both wanted to fight? How did Iraq fail to convince western opinion that it had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? And why did the institutions of world diplomacy, notably the United Nations, fail to prevent a war that, on its own terms, was quite futile?

These are the questions asked by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, in the first of what is sure to be a flood of mém-oires justificatifs from the chief participants. Blix reveals nothing new about the tense few months between the Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 8 2002, giving Iraq one last chance to show itself clean of unconventional weapons, and the US ultimatum to Iraq of March 17 2003. He writes in sober and diplomatic language. For all that, Disarming Iraq is a fascinating tale of folly, pride, arrogance, intrigue and deceit. Nobody comes out of the story at all well and Blix honourably admits that he himself suspected Iraq was guilty as charged.

Blix, an elderly Swedish diplomat with great experience in disarmament and hawkish creden- tials, came out of retirement in January 2000 to head a new organisation to scour Iraq for illegal weapons, the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission for Iraq (Unmovic). The Iraqi nuclear programme was almost certainly in ruins and inspectors had found little evidence of chemical or biological weaponry since the immediate aftermath of the Gulf war in 1991. Still, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had stopped cooperating with the weapons inspectors in 1998 and the western powers were convinced he was secretly back to his old ways. Blix's own "gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items".

The Iraqis stalled as they had done throughout the 1990s. Then came September 11 2001. It is Blix's contention that the aerial attacks on New York and Washington "changed the vision" of the Bush administration. Saddam's ruthless conduct, his use of chemical weapons in the war with Iran in the 80s, his nuclear ambitions, and the cat-and-mousing with the weapons inspectors were seen in a "more ominous and incriminating light".

Having declared war on terrorism, President Bush needed "to eliminate this perceived threat well before the next presidential election". The president, Blix feels, sincerely believed that Iraq was pursuing WMD but neither Dick Cheney, the vice-president, nor Donald Rumsfeld at the defence department had any commitment to inspections. Even before Unmovic carried out its first inspection on November 27 2002, Cheney was telling Blix that the "US was ready to discredit inspections in favour of disarmament", that is, invasion. Even Colin Powell, the secretary of state, who was quoted on February 24 2001 as saying Saddam did not have "any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction", had shifted.

It was not merely that US and British intelligence was poor. Blix argues that the certainties of the Bush and Blair circles influenced the spies rather as they influenced the media. As the US disarmament expert Greg Thielmann put it, it was as if the US administration was saying: "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Blix is quite withering about some of the intelligence passed by the US to Unmovic involving giant drones, mobile bio-laboratories, aluminium pipes supposedly for centrifuges, and uranium yellowcake from west Africa.

The immense US military build-up in Kuwait, though effective in pushing the Iraqis to concessions, had its own sinister momentum. As the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told Blix on February 28 2003, it was hard to keep an army sitting. The hot weather was coming on apace.

When, on March 7, Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported to the Security Council that Iraq had greatly improved its work with the inspectors, the Americans reacted by attempting to pressurise and undermine the two men and even, conceivably, to spy on them. "I could not exclude the possibility," he writes, "that the US had managed to crack our secure fax."

The British come out a little better. Blix says the British took no part in the bash-Blix-and-Baradei campaign of March 2003 at the UN, and credits Blair with sincerity and with attempting to find a peaceful solution right to the wire. (Blix seems to have been entranced by the crumpets at Chequers, which he describes, beautifully, as "like knighted muffins".) Yet both British and US governments were probably conscious that they were "exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support they would not otherwise have had". That, presumably, is diplomatic language for what Spain's next prime minister calls lies.

Blix is inclined to believe Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who briefly defected to Jordan in 1995 and told his interrogators that he had ordered all WMD destroyed in the summer of 1991. Why then had the Baathi regime in Iraq not presented categorical evidence to the inspectors? The answer, Blix surmises, is that Saddam is a proud man. Also, badly weakened after his defeat in 1991, he may have needed the threat of unconventional weaponry to deter the Kurds, the Shia and his neighbours. To have bluffed when the stakes were so high was a misjudgment of heroic proportions.

By January, terrified of the US military build-up, Iraq was frantically agreeing to almost anything the inspectors demanded: interviews outside Iraq of key scientists, over-flights by U2 spy aircraft and the destruction of dozens of Al Samoud 2 missiles, which were its technical pride and joy. Yet if Hussein Kamel had truly destroyed the chemical and biological munitions in 1991, why did the Baath not put up witnesses for interview by Unmovic in November and December? Blix believes something like that might just have turned the tide.

One answer, which was a favourite Baathi argument in the 1990s, is that it is hard (some say impossible) to prove a negative: that is, I can easily prove that a wren is sitting outside my window now, but not that there are no starlings elsewhere in my garden. By January 2003, the Iraqis were in the contradictory position of needing to declare some WMD so as to be able to convince the US they had made a strategic change of heart. Or as Blix puts it, "It occurred to me [on March 7] that the Iraqis would be in greater difficulty if... there truly were no weapons of which they could 'yield possession'." In the absence of any trust, the UN inspection process and Unmovic were epistemological dead ends.

Blix concludes that the UN arms inspectorate in Iraq was a success: "The UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it." That is as may be. The agony of Iraq has proved what was suspected but never tested during the period of US-Soviet nuclear rivalry: that there is absolutely no point disarming unless your adversary knows you are disarming.

More to the point, Iraq is not disarmed. It is bristling with lethal weapons of every description. It may well be more dangerous than it was before the US and Britain took it on themselves to set the world to rights.

James Buchan reported from Iraq in the 1990s.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1173509,00.html

Note first of all that the author of this review hardly takes a conservative pro-war position. He's hardly a biased neocon.

Secondly, note that even Blixii thought that there was no blood-for-oil conspiracy. His views support the hypothesis that Bush was motivated to make the evidence fit his own biases, not that he made intentional mistatements of evidence he knew at the time was wrong. And even Blixii thought that Saddam was "guilty as charged."

[W*GS]

Do you have any proof they aren't?

I can't prove a negative. The assertion is yours to prove.

Am I supposed to be privy to deals behind closed doors based on a wink and a handshake? All I am doing is laying out the facts.

You wish.

1. Bush and Cheney are former oil men.

True.

2. Gasoline prices have been steadly increasing from Jan. 2001 to present.

Wrong.

3. Oil companies are making record profits

True.

4. Niether Clinton or Gore were oil men.

True.

5. The price of gasoline was fairly even from Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001

What's "fairly even"? Provide some data.

It is up to you to conclude that it is mere coincidence or not. You choose to beleive they have nothing to do with it. I myself have my doubts, based on other dubious dealing this administrations has already been shown to be involved in.

What about all the other factors that go into the price of gasoline? Have you considered them at all?

[Rigs11]

Do you have any proof they aren't? Am I supposed to be privy to deals
behind closed doors based on a wink and a handshake? All I am doing is
laying out the facts.

1. Bush and Cheney are former oil men.
2. Gasoline prices have been steadly increasing from
Jan. 2001 to present.
3. Oil companies are making record profits
4. Niether Clinton or Gore were oil men.
5. The price of gasoline was fairly even from
Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001

It is up to you to conclude that it is mere coincidence or not. You choose
to beleive they have nothing to do with it. I myself have my doubts,
based on other dubious dealing this administrations has already been
shown to be involved in.

Not to mention the bill that congress wanted to pass on price gouging that the bush admin quickly stated they would veto.I mean seriously it's common sense.

[The Lone Bolt]

From another review:


. . . Washington's logic, he writes, appeared similar to that of witch hunting in the Middle Ages. ''The witches exist; you are appointed to deal with these witches; testing whether there are witches is only a dilution of the witch hunt.'' . . .

And yet Blix also believed that the witches existed. He suspected that the Iraqis were hiding weapons and weapons programs. He came to this conclusion on the basis of the same logic -- a lack of evidence. In 1991 the United Nations had found vast stockpiles of chemical and biological agents in the country. Iraq claimed to have destroyed them but had never presented a single piece of evidence that it had done so. If they had destroyed them, Blix wondered, why did they not ''try to convince us of this in 2002 and 2003. . . . Had there really been no written orders issued in 1991? . . . Why was the Iraqi side so late in presenting . . . lists of people who they claimed had taken part in the destruction of prohibited items in 1991? Why did they not present these people for interviews in December 2002?'' Thus in his first report to the Security Council, in January 2003, Blix declared, ''Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E1DF1339F932A25757C0A9629C8B 63

Once again, Blixii's own words. Now who looks stupid?

[W*GS]

Wrong. The fiasco that is iraq has created a shortage of oil coming out of that country, as well as fears of war with iran, and the massive use of gas to supply the military.All of which are factors to what we pay at the pump.

What's the military usage of gas compared to the usage of the US as a whole, and the world as a whole?

What's been the effect of decreased supply coming from Iraq, and is it truly significant?

What's the "uncertainty premium"?

Do you take into account the demand side of things, or just the supply side?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

From another review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E1DF1339F932A25757C0A9629C8B 63

Once again, Blixii's own words. Now who looks stupid?
Of course you never post the comments (of we're not finding anything and running out of places to look) in the weeks before Bush launched his invasion.

[Rigs11]

What's the military usage of gas compared to the usage of the US as a whole, and the world as a whole?

What's been the effect of decreased supply coming from Iraq, and is it truly significant?

What's the "uncertainty premium"?

Do you take into account the demand side of things, or just the supply side?

Not sure of the usage compared to the US but the department of defense is the biggest oil user in the world.144 million barrels in 2004.

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. You do the math.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/

Fears of war with iran drive prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6501875.stm

[bendog]

Bolt, are you honestly trying to say that on the day bushii invaded, after the blix and el-baradi reports in each of the two months prior, you really think bushii invaded on concerns that Iraq might ****ing attack the US? If so, you're either nuts or lying, but if you have some links, I might look at them. Don't have the time to take them down, but they'd be bull**** all the same.

It was about nation building and doing what his daddy didn't. It was in the cards from the date the supreme court gave the job to him. I'm really sorry I voted for him.

[W*GS]

Not sure of the usage compared to the US but the department of defense is the biggest oil user in the world.144 million barrels in 2004.

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

You're misstating your reference. Read it again and correct it.

According to

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

the US consumes 20,802,000 barrels/day. That's more than 50 times what the military consumed, per day, in 2004. That is to say, the US military consumes about 2% of the total US oil consumption. The world as a whole consumes about 84 million barrels/day.

Therefore, how much impact does the US military consumption have on the world oil market? Very very small.

Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. You do the math.

Meaning what? What does Iraq's reserves have to do with the price of oil, and the price of gasoline?

Fears of war with iran drive prices.

There's other factors operating as well, which you've entirely neglected.

You're 0-for-3. Care to try again?

[The Lone Bolt]

Bolt, are you honestly trying to say that on the day bushii invaded, after the blix and el-baradi reports in each of the two months prior, you really think bushii invaded on concerns that Iraq might ****ing attack the US? If so, you're either nuts or lying, but if you have some links, I might look at them. Don't have the time to take them down, but they'd be bull**** all the same.

It was about nation building and doing what his daddy didn't. It was in the cards from the date the supreme court gave the job to him. I'm really sorry I voted for him.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that even Blixii thought that Saddam had WMD. It's right there in black and white.

I never thought that an Iraqi attack on the US was imminent. But "containment" was over whether you want to admit it or not. Should we have just waited around and let Saddam gain power, influence, and weapons? Should we have just allowed Saddam to defy the international community and get away with it? Remember, the UN decided that Saddam was so dangerous that he should be deprived of his WMD.

[TailgateNut]

I see, so we just declare him guilty and no trial needed? Listen to yourself for a moment.




.


Isn't thay his own SOP. He likes to incarcerate on a whim. Kind of deserving Karma if you ask me.

[The Lone Bolt]

Of course you never post the comments (of we're not finding anything and running out of places to look) in the weeks before Bush launched his invasion.


Blixii says in his own words in his own book that he believed Saddam was hiding WMD. Are you calling him a liar?

"We're not finding anything and running out of places to look" does not = "We know that Iraq has disarmed of their WMD." If you think that a declaration of compliance from the UN Security Council was imminent show me the proof.

[Spider]

Prove it. Provide references to support your (often faulty) recollection. Otherwise, shut the **** up on the topic.

Why is it you and others who defend Clinton always bring up his genitalia when anyone points out your adoration of him is misplaced? Is that supposed to settle the argument in some fashion? "Gee, everyone who criticizes Clinton is just after his weiner"?

Grow up.

ooooooooo looks like I touched a nerve hey , anytime I bring up something Clinton did was good , you go apeshít ..........it is ok W*GS most Americans remember cheap oil and the fight between Clinton and the republican congress over releasing the oil reserve to flood the market and having a direct effect on oil prices .......... no need to get pouty about it.......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Blixii says in his own words in his own book that he believed Saddam was hiding WMD. Are you calling him a liar?

"We're not finding anything and running out of places to look" does not = "We know that Iraq has disarmed of their WMD." If you think that a declaration of compliance from the UN Security Council was imminent show me the proof.It doesn't take a genius to figure out Bush knew that the inspectors weren't finding anything and probably weren't going to.

---------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 22, 2003

Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1. The UN inspectors have determined that the missiles have an illegal range limit. Iraq can have missiles that reach neighboring countries, but not ones capable of reaching Israel.

Mar. 1, 2003

Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Feb. 24–
Mar. 14, 2003

The U.S. and Britain's intense lobbying efforts among the other UN Security Council members yield only four supporters (in addition to the U.S. and Britain, Spain and Bulgaria); nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage. The U.S. decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.

3/03/03

IAEA official tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents are forgeries so error-filled that "they could be spotted by someone using Google."

3/7/03

Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."

3/08/03

Joseph Wilson appears on CNN and is asked to comment on ElBaradei's appearance at the U.N. the day before, in which ElBaradei called the Niger uranium document forgeries. Wilson says it's an embarrassment that the U.S. intelligence community couldn't come to this conclusion on its own. "It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early '60s. All this stuff is open." He doubts that ElBaradei's announcement was the first time the U.S. had reason to think the documents were fakes. "I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday."

3/08/03

President Bush tells the nation, "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."

3/08/03

Halliburton is awarded a $7 billion reconstruction contract over the objections of Army Corps of Engineers procurement officer Bunnatine Greenhouse. Testifying before Congress, she later calls the contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed." She is demoted in short order.

3/08/03

On CBS's Face the Nation, Condoleezza Rice says, "We know from a detainee that - the head of training for al-Qaeda - that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help." Al-Libi, the detainee in question, has been doubted by American intelligence since February 2002. All of his intel was obtained under torture, and in 2004 the CIA will recall all intelligence assessments based on his testimony.

3/16/03

Cheney appears on Meet the Press.
He says, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
On the fact that ElBaradei doubts Saddam Hussein has a nuclear program: "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing."
After saying several times that Saddam is trying to build a nuclear weapons, Cheney says: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Six months later after the beginning of the war, Cheney will claim that he misspoke.

3/17/03

With little international support, the U.S., Britain, and Spain officially scrap the quest to obtain a new U.N. resolution on Iraq. Four and a half months have passed since U.N. Resolution 1441, and a new resolution would signal the world's belief that Iraq had failed the terms of that resolution and now faced the consequences. The "coalition of the willing" announces it will enforce the U.N. resolution without the U.N.'s approval.

Mar. 17, 2003

All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.

Mar. 19, 2003

President Bush declares war on Iraq.

[Spider]

Blixii says in his own words in his own book that he believed Saddam was hiding WMD. Are you calling him a liar?

"We're not finding anything and running out of places to look" does not = "We know that Iraq has disarmed of their WMD." If you think that a declaration of compliance from the UN Security Council was imminent show me the proof.

I am not going to pick apart that long one , bunch of shít with someones interpretation . it is real simple and why the Bushies attacked hans Blix the amount that was reported Saddam had was not the same amount reported destroyed , less then 10 tonnes of each Class of WMD Saddam had , we know he had WMD pre 1991 , but didnt after 1991 , no one has denied Saddam wanted WMD , but he didnt have the means to get it , or put one together .....
and yes you still look stupid . I dont know why you didnt post the original , but here you go ......... Here is a little excerpt
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed. However, I must add that no destruction has happened today. I hope it’s a temporary break.



To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.



Two ‘reconstituted’ casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.



The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.



More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.



There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.

[bendog]

No, it doesn't take a genius to have figured out the inspectors weren't likely to find anything, which is one reason bushii invaded before they finished.

But why you people continue to accept blatant lies is beyond me. There were reasons to invade. Valid ones. Arguably legal ones. We do need a democracy in the ME, other than Israel. Though, Algeria and Jordan and Turkey are not chopped liver (pun intended.) The war was planned on the cheap, and based on lies, though. And that's why it prolly will fail. But, accepting that your govt lied to you over a war isn't going to kill you. Not facing up to the fact that that happens, just may kill you though.

[The Lone Bolt]

Ummm . . . nothing you guys presented here proves that:

A) We had conclusive evidence before the invasion that Iraq had been completely disarmed of their WMD,

B) We knew that the U.N Security Council was on the verge of declaring Iraq in full compliance with U.N resolutions,

C) Blixii declared that Iraq had been completely disarmed (in fact in his own words he believed otherwise)

These are all claims you guys (Beerslug, §Pide®) have made on this thread, but you've failed to make your case.

It amazes me that you guys support your positions with weak evidence or no evidence at all yet continue to insist that you are winning this debate.::)

[The Lone Bolt]

No, it doesn't take a genius to have figured out the inspectors weren't likely to find anything, which is one reason bushii invaded before they finished.

But why you people continue to accept blatant lies is beyond me. There were reasons to invade. Valid ones. Arguably legal ones. We do need a democracy in the ME, other than Israel. Though, Algeria and Jordan and Turkey are not chopped liver (pun intended.) The war was planned on the cheap, and based on lies, though. And that's why it prolly will fail. But, accepting that your govt lied to you over a war isn't going to kill you. Not facing up to the fact that that happens, just may kill you though.

Once again, do you have conclusive evidence that Bush knew the Iraq prewar intel was inaccurate when he said otherwise?? All you guys have presented to this effect is circumstantial evidence and spin. I'm just pointing out the objective truth which is that there is at this time no conclusive evidence that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. The evidence suggests that he did believe that Saddam was hiding WMD (as did all of the world's ICs) and he was only willing to accept information that supported his own biases. That makes him an idiot not a liar. If you can present evidence that eliminates this possibility I'd like to see it.

If it is a "fact" that Bush did not believe that the Iraq prewar intel was accurate and intentionally mislead the American public then present the conclusive evidence to that effect. Without conlcusive supporting evidence it's only a theory not a "fact". That's not my personal bias or wish, it's the objective truth.

[W*GS]

ooooooooo looks like I touched a nerve hey , anytime I bring up something Clinton did was good , you go apeshít

Clinton didn't make your fuel cheaper. He (nor any President) has that power.

..........it is ok W*GS most Americans remember cheap oil and the fight between Clinton and the republican congress over releasing the oil reserve to flood the market and having a direct effect on oil prices .......... no need to get pouty about it.......

:bs:

Almost anytime you use the word "remember", you're wrong. There simply isn't enough crude in the SPR (and don't forget that crude and gas aren't the same thing) to truly impact prices at the pump.

Clinton doesn't deserve credit for cheap gas. Period.

[cutthemdown]

actually it means that everything is going according to the plan and the troop losses were all expected. They feel the losses aren't that bad IMO. They just don't want to say that because it would piss everyone off.

[TailgateNut]

Once again, do you have conclusive evidence that Bush knew the Iraq prewar intel was inaccurate when he said otherwise?? All you guys have presented to this effect is circumstantial evidence and spin. I'm just pointing out the objective truth which is that there is at this time no conclusive evidence that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. The evidence suggests that he did believe that Saddam was hiding WMD (as did all of the world's ICs) and he was only willing to accept information that supported his own biases. That makes him an idiot not a liar. If you can present evidence that eliminates this possibility I'd like to see it.

If it is a "fact" that Bush did not believe that the Iraq prewar intel was accurate and intentionally mislead the American public then present the conclusive evidence to that effect. Without conlcusive supporting evidence it's only a theory not a "fact". That's not my personal bias or wish, it's the objective truth.


Do you have CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to the contrary? Which CONCRETE EVIDENCE supports your and Bushs' CLAIM that Saddam had WMD's?

Is it ok to leave an IDIOT in control of the reigns of this country?....or would a LIAR be better suited for that position?

BTW: get a tissue, it's running down your chin!

[The Lone Bolt]

Do you have CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to the contrary? Which CONCRETE EVIDENCE supports your and Bushs' CLAIM that Saddam had WMD's?

Is Bush presumed guilty of lying and has to prove his innocence conclusively? I thought that wasn't how things worked in America.

And Saddam agreed to prove that he disarmed of his WMD after Gulf War I. The burden of proof of disarmament was on him and he failed to do so after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.

Is it ok to leave an IDIOT in control of the reigns of this country?....or would a LIAR be better suited for that position?

I think I'd prefer an idiot to a liar.;D Of course I'd really prefer neither but it's hard to find a politician who isn't one or the other.

[Rigs11]

You're misstating your reference. Read it again and correct it.

According to

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

the US consumes 20,802,000 barrels/day. That's more than 50 times what the military consumed, per day, in 2004. That is to say, the US military consumes about 2% of the total US oil consumption. The world as a whole consumes about 84 million barrels/day.

Therefore, how much impact does the US military consumption have on the world oil market? Very very small.



Meaning what? What does Iraq's reserves have to do with the price of oil, and the price of gasoline?



There's other factors operating as well, which you've entirely neglected.

You're 0-for-3. Care to try again?


Hmm. I figured you were smarter than that Wigs. Ok i'll spell it out for you. Iraq has the second largest reserve of crude. Since the Iraq fiasco they aren't pumpin out any.Hence the price of a barrel of crude goes up.

I know that there are other factors but you stated that the WH did not have any impact on oil prices. from what is going on in iraq you are mistaken.

The military used 40 million more gallons of oil in 2004 while they were in war status as opposed to not.that's alot of oil and would add to the already lack of oil output of iraq that they stopped pumping in 2003.it may only be 2% but it will still affect us all at the pump.

[Spider]

Hmm. I figured you were smarter than that Wigs. Ok i'll spell it out for you. Iraq has the second largest reserve of crude. Since the Iraq fiasco they aren't pumpin out any.Hence the price of a barrel of crude goes up.

I know that there are other factors but you stated that the WH did not have any impact on oil prices. from what is going on in iraq you are mistaken.

The military used 40 million more gallons of oil in 2004 while they were in war status as opposed to not.that's alot of oil and would add to the already lack of oil output of iraq that they stopped pumping in 2003.it may only be 2% but it will still affect us all at the pump.

Like I told our chager fan that is only operating on one cylinder ...... it was about Oil , not us owning it , just disrupting the flow ..........W*GS is a little slow on picking up on this ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ooooooooo looks like I touched a nerve hey , anytime I bring up something Clinton did was good , you go apeshít ..........

Yep - gotta hate that peace and prosperity stuff, huh?

(To say nothing of that $1.00 gas.)

:wiggle:

[Spider]

Is Bush presumed guilty of lying and has to prove his innocence conclusively? I thought that wasn't how things worked in America.

And Saddam agreed to prove that he disarmed of his WMD after Gulf War I. The burden of proof of disarmament was on him and he failed to do so after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.



I think I'd prefer an idiot to a liar.;D Of course I'd really prefer neither but it's hard to find a politician who isn't one or the other.
I think we have proved our case well enough , no one brought up the Downing street memo , see we have so much evidence to draw from ,we would bury you in it ...Richard Clark ( with actuall quotes of Condi or Cheney lying one of the 2 ) Richard Pearle , Baghdad scotty ( name he got before the war stating Iraq didnt have WMD , in fact I think the government tried to set up Baghdad scotty on the arsenic letter crap ) on down to Blix ........ ..and all you have offered was , innocent till proven guilty ........

[Spider]

Clinton didn't make your fuel cheaper. He (nor any President) has that power.



:bs:

Almost anytime you use the word "remember", you're wrong. There simply isn't enough crude in the SPR (and don't forget that crude and gas aren't the same thing) to truly impact prices at the pump.

Clinton doesn't deserve credit for cheap gas. Period.
LOL you are so full of shít ........ seriously either you have been in that government supported Ivory tower to long to remember what went down , or you are probably the most stupid assed person to post here .......... I will let you take your pick ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL you are so full of shít ........ seriously either you have been in that government supported Ivory tower to long to remember what went down , or you are probably the most stupid assed person to post here .......... I will let you take your pick ........

Both, I'd wager. :D

[The Lone Bolt]

I think we have proved our case well enough , no one brought up the Downing street memo , see we have so much evidence to draw from ,we would bury you in it ...Richard Clark ( with actuall quotes of Condi or Cheney lying one of the 2 ) Richard Pearle , Baghdad scotty ( name he got before the war stating Iraq didnt have WMD , in fact I think the government tried to set up Baghdad scotty on the arsenic letter crap ) on down to Blix ........ ..and all you have offered was , innocent till proven guilty ........

What you fail to realize is that none of those pieces of evidence eliminates the possibility that Bush was biased toward information that confirmed his own beliefs, as opposed to believing/knowing that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally misleading the American public. All you can "bury" me with is inconclusive and circumstantial evidence that proves nothing. Every single piece of evidence that you list above leaves open the possibility that Bush believed Saddam had WMD, so none of it can be considered proof that he "lied" no matter how much of it you have.

And I do have some supporting evidence to offer. Read this: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

The Senate Select Committee Report goes into great detail on exactly what when wrong with the prewar intel. I think it's a must read for anyone sincerely seeking the truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What you fail to realize is that none of those pieces of evidence eliminates the possibility that Bush was biased toward information that confirmed his own beliefs, as opposed to believing/knowing that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally misleading the American public.

What you fail to realize is that lying by omission = misleading.

[The Lone Bolt]

What you fail to realize is that lying by omission = misleading.

A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else. A liar is a person who is known to have a tendency to tell lies.

A lie involves the use of conventional truthbearers, (i.e., statements in words or symbols) and not natural signs. Intentional deceit involving natural signs, such as wearing a wig, shamming a limp, or wearing a fake arm cast, is not usually classed as "lying", but as "deception".

A true statement may be a lie. If the person who makes the true statement genuinely believes it to be false, and makes the statement with the intention that his audience believe it to be true, then this is a lie. When a person lies he or she is intentionally untruthful, but he or she is not necessarily making an untrue statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

lie 2 Pronunciation (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie


As you can see common definitions of the word "lie" require that:

A) the statement was believed to be false by the person telling it, and

B) that person told it with the intent to deceive.

Therefore if Bush knew or believed that the prewar intel was inaccurate and repeated it anyway with the intent to deceive then he "lied". If he did not then he didn't "lie". I didn't write these definitions so this isn't just a matter of my personal bias.

[Spider]

What you fail to realize is that none of those pieces of evidence eliminates the possibility that Bush was biased toward information that confirmed his own beliefs, as opposed to believing/knowing that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally misleading the American public. All you can "bury" me with is inconclusive and circumstantial evidence that proves nothing. Every single piece of evidence that you list above leaves open the possibility that Bush believed Saddam had WMD, so none of it can be considered proof that he "lied" no matter how much of it you have.

And I do have some supporting evidence to offer. Read this: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

The Senate Select Committee Report goes into great detail on exactly what when wrong with the prewar intel. I think it's a must read for anyone sincerely seeking the truth.

you just dont get it do you ? By leaving things out Bush knowingly misled people , I dont give a rats ass what your oped site says ,I offered you the real text on the long range missiles why the UN handled Iraq the way they did , your answer was innocent until proven guilty ?
then you have the nads to say go to this site if your are looking for the truth ? **** - you little man dont come in here acting so enlightened , there can only be 2 reasons for you wanting to share your dumb ass views on this ....
1. you cant get laid ......
2. you are a freaking retard ....
I will let you decide

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Therefore if Bush knew or believed that the prewar intel was inaccurate and repeated it anyway with the intent to deceive then he "lied".

Then, according to that definition, he did, in fact, lie. (See case of moblie weapons labs for just one example.)

But your definition still doesn't address lying by omission.

Don't you ever tire of trying to prove 2+2=5?

http://www.bartcop.com/mem-remember-the-lies.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Is Bush presumed guilty of lying and has to prove his innocence conclusively?
Like I said before, anyone defending the Bush cartel at this point doesn't live in the real world but in some Neocon fairy tale.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq

See also this analysis of the fraud by retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega: http://www.impeachbush.tv/editorials/delavega_060421.html

Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

* Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.

* Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.

* Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]

* Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]

* Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]

* Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

* Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]

Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

[The Lone Bolt]

Then, according to that definition, he did, in fact, lie. (See case of moblie weapons labs for just one example.)

But your definition still doesn't address lying by omission.

Don't you ever tire of trying to prove 2+2=5?

http://www.bartcop.com/mem-remember-the-lies.jpg

Umm, I recall the debate on the mobile weapons labs. You still haven't proven that he "knew" those weren't mobile weapons labs before making that claim. The finding that you use as proof that Bush "lied" was produced a mere two days before he made the claim and transmitted to Washington the day before, and you haven't proven that Bush read the report, much less believed it to be credible.

For example:

The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

So not only did dubya (maybe) get this info at the last minute, but he was also being told otherwise by the CIA. Isn't it possible that he simply chose to accept the information that confirmed his own beliefs (assuming once again that he read the report in question in the first place which you haven't established)? This is the problem with your reasoning LABF: there are very plausible alternative explanations that you dismiss simply because they don't confirm your own beliefs.

And furthermore that info came to light after the invasion so it was not information used to "mislead" the public into war.

But feel free to point to any incident which you can prove conclusively that Bush knew what he was saying was not true. Just haul out one and we can discuss it.

I'm off work now. I'll be back tomorrow.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Umm, I recall the debate on the mobile weapons labs. You still haven't proven that he "knew" those weren't mobile weapons labs before making that claim. The finding that you use as proof that Bush "lied" was produced a mere two days before he made the claim and transmitted to Washington the day before, and you haven't proven that Bush read the report, much less believed it to be credible.

It was known by the WH prior to Dim Son's speech that the mobile labs claim was bogus, but Dim Son used the claim in his speech anyway.

Hence, the responsibility for using this bogus claim in Trifecta Boy's speech is on the WH.

Your appeal to ignorance would be laughed out of any court of law.

And, leave us not forget, I just presented you with seven lies - not just this one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html




tsk tsk

[W*GS]

Iraq has the second largest reserve of crude. Since the Iraq fiasco they aren't pumpin out any.Hence the price of a barrel of crude goes up.

Iraq is not "pumpin out any". Besides, what percentage of global oil production was from Iraq before 2003?

I know that there are other factors but you stated that the WH did not have any impact on oil prices. from what is going on in iraq you are mistaken.

Since your claim about "what is going on in iraq" is wrong, my point stands.

The military used 40 million more gallons of oil in 2004 while they were in war status as opposed to not.that's alot of oil and would add to the already lack of oil output of iraq that they stopped pumping in 2003.it may only be 2% but it will still affect us all at the pump.

Provide us time series of Iraqi oil production since (say) 1979 (from before the Iran-Iraq war) to today, and tell me when it zero, and what percentage of global oil production that represented. Also explain how a shift of (as you claim) 40 million gallons (did you mean barrels) over the course of the year when America alone consumes 20+ million barrels per day explains the change in gas prices.

Please.

[W*GS]

LOL you are so full of shít ........ seriously either you have been in that government supported Ivory tower to long to remember what went down , or you are probably the most stupid assed person to post here .......... I will let you take your pick ........

I can always tell when you're up **** creek without a paddle.

I read crap like the above.

Let's just end it here by noting that you've got no evidence, no proof, and nothing other than your vague drug-addled recollections of some things that may or may not have happened.

I've talked with old hippies who spent most of the late 1960s and early 1970s stoned out of their gourds, and yet they're more lucid than you are.

[Spider]

I can always tell when you're up **** creek without a paddle.

I read crap like the above.

Let's just end it here by noting that you've got no evidence, no proof, and nothing other than your vague drug-addled recollections of some things that may or may not have happened.

I've talked with old hippies who spent most of the late 1960s and early 1970s stoned out of their gourds, and yet they're more lucid than you are.
so what one was it 1 or 2 ?

[W*GS]

Neither, dork.

On the other hand, almost all your posts consist of nothing but #2.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I've talked with old hippies who spent most of the late 1960s and early 1970s stoned out of their gourds, and yet they're more lucid than you are.One of them is ruling the country.

You just don't understand Spiderese.

[W*GS]

One of them is ruling the country.

The last guy in the WH (and his VP) didn't seem to have any problems, and they were both serious stoners. I understand Al Gore was going through pot by the bale...

You just don't understand Spiderese.

I understand it quite well - and it's not "Spiderese", it's "Bull****-ese".

[Spider]

Neither, dork.

On the other hand, almost all your posts consist of nothing but #2.

has to be one or the other ...........

[Spider]

The last guy in the WH (and his VP) didn't seem to have any problems, and they were both serious stoners. I understand Al Gore was going through pot by the bale...



I understand it quite well - and it's not "Spiderese", it's "Bull****-ese".

LOL you dont understand shít goofball .......... Clinton did have an affect on the price of oil , I know it is hard for you to understand , but that is the way it went down

[W*GS]

LOL you dont understand shít goofball .......... Clinton did have an affect on the price of oil , I know it is hard for you to understand , but that is the way it went down

:bs:

You're full of it. Period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One of them is ruling the country.



ROFL! ^5

[Spider]

:bs:

You're full of it. Period.
LOL , well guess what , not only did Clinton affect oil Prices , Clinton also saved the economy ............that really should send you over the top

[W*GS]

Clinton also cured cancer, made peace in the Middle East, found Jimmy Hoffa, and walked on water too.

Of course, he kinda fubared the whole al-Qaeda waging war on us thing, letting them get more and more emboldened, thus leading directly to 9/11, but what's that one little mistake compared to his other miracles, eh?

[Rohirrim]

Clinton also cured cancer, made peace in the Middle East, found Jimmy Hoffa, and walked on water too.

Of course, he kinda fubared the whole al-Qaeda waging war on us thing, letting them get more and more emboldened, thus leading directly to 9/11, but what's that one little mistake compared to his other miracles, eh?

I've finally figured it out. The way you rewrite history to suit your needs... you must be from China! Right?

[Spider]

Clinton also cured cancer, made peace in the Middle East, found Jimmy Hoffa, and walked on water too.

Of course, he kinda fubared the whole al-Qaeda waging war on us thing, letting them get more and more emboldened, thus leading directly to 9/11, but what's that one little mistake compared to his other miracles, eh?

come on ......... walked on water ? ok he did but the water wasnt that deep

[W*GS]

I've finally figured it out. The way you rewrite history to suit your needs... you must be from China! Right?

Wrong. Scandahoovian and English/Irish.

That aside, what about Clinton's utter paralysis in reaction to the war al-Qaeda was waging upon us is incorrect? Please give us the heretofore unknown list of direct actions against al-Qaeda Clinton took that had an effect on their operations and planning.

Face it - Clinton, in regards to al-Qaeda, was all talk and no walk. He didn't do squat, because he feared soiling his legacy more than he wanted to carry out his Constitutional obligation to protect us against them.

[Spider]

Wrong. Scandahoovian and English/Irish.

That aside, what about Clinton's utter paralysis in reaction to the war al-Qaeda was waging upon us is incorrect? Please give us the heretofore unknown list of direct actions against al-Qaeda Clinton took that had an effect on their operations and planning.

Face it - Clinton, in regards to al-Qaeda, was all talk and no walk. He didn't do squat, because he feared soiling his legacy more than he wanted to carry out his Constitutional obligation to protect us against them.

whats wrong ? besides the fact that your are wrong , you never mention Clintons wanting to make air port security tighter , but I know the real problem W*GS , now that all of this stuff has came out about Bush it is hard to justify your hatred of Clinton ......

[Rohirrim]

Wrong. Scandahoovian and English/Irish.

That aside, what about Clinton's utter paralysis in reaction to the war al-Qaeda was waging upon us is incorrect? Please give us the heretofore unknown list of direct actions against al-Qaeda Clinton took that had an effect on their operations and planning.

Face it - Clinton, in regards to al-Qaeda, was all talk and no walk. He didn't do squat, because he feared soiling his legacy more than he wanted to carry out his Constitutional obligation to protect us against them.

Maybe you'll sucker some newbie into posting all that stuff all over again that you have simply ignored time and again, but I've been there, done that. Waste of time. You would just sit in the corner covering your ears and shouting, "I hate Clinton, so blah, blah, blah, blah!" like some enraged toddler. History will record it was not Clinton who did not take terrorism seriously, but the Right. It was Tom DeLay and Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich who tore into Clinton for his pursuit of Bin Laden. It was George Bush and his entire cabal who completely ignored Bin Laden right up until the morning of 911, not Clinton. It was George Bush who received the portfolio on the Cole attack and took no action whatsover. In fifty years or so, the materials will be declassified and the history will be written. George Bush and the herd of morons who support him will be brought out into the light for all to shake their heads at in disbelief. Meanwhile, unfortunately, they'll continue to post their self-justifying drivel on message boards all over the internets.

[Spider]

Maybe you'll sucker some newbie into posting all that stuff all over again that you have simply ignored time and again, but I've been there, done that. Waste of time. You would just sit in the corner covering your ears and shouting, "I hate Clinton, so blah, blah, blah, blah!" like some enraged toddler. History will record it was not Clinton who did not take terrorism seriously, but the Right. It was Tom DeLay and Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich who tore into Clinton for his pursuit of Bin Laden. It was George Bush and his entire cabal who completely ignored Bin Laden right up until the morning of 911, not Clinton. It was George Bush who received the portfolio on the Cole attack and took no action whatsover. In fifty years or so, the materials will be declassified and the history will be written. George Bush and the herd of morons who support him will be brought out into the light for all to shake their heads at in disbelief. Meanwhile, unfortunately, they'll continue to post their self-justifying drivel on message boards all over the internets.
LOL .......that pretty ended this thread

[W*GS]

Attempt to defend Clinton all you want by deflecting onto Bush's ****ups, Ro, but the fact of the matter is that Clinton didn't take the battle to al-Qaeda in any way, shape, or form. al-Qaeda attacked us multiple times over a span of some years, and Clinton did absolutely nothing of any significance to destroy, impede or even inhibit al-Qaeda's activities. When historians look back from a distance of a couple decades from now, Clinton's total inaction in the face of al-Qaeda's war against us will be regarded as one of the biggest failures of a President in the history of the office.

That Bush made all his own mistakes doesn't detract from Clinton's. Period.

[W*GS]

whats wrong ? besides the fact that your are wrong , you never mention Clintons wanting to make air port security tighter , but I know the real problem W*GS , now that all of this stuff has came out about Bush it is hard to justify your hatred of Clinton ......

By the time hijackers are attempting to board planes, it's pretty damned late in the game, Spider. Tightening airport security is a pathetic little piffle of a nothing when it comes to fighting al-Qaeda.

Explain to me why our troops weren't unleashed against al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, after the Cole attack? Or are the deaths of sailors from a bombing of a US Navy vessel in port (normally considered an act of war, but apparently not during the Clinton era) irrelevant?

[Spider]

W*GS why do you insist on Bullshítting ? look we all get it ,you hate clinton , you might be related to Monica in some way ,but why play these games ? you dont have a leg to stand on , your reality is so ****ed up , you make the x files look realistic ..Now pay attention Clinton wanted to pass the bill long before 9-11 , now to normal people , this means these Hijackers would have been held up ........I dont know why I bother trying to reason with you , you and reality said good bye a long time ago ..........

[W*GS]

On what grounds would Clinton's program to tighten airport security have caught the 9/11 hijackers? Obviously you know all the facts about it, and what Clinton proposed, so please explain, Spider.

[Rohirrim]

Let’s play, “Slap a Tard!”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609280001

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

As Media Matters for America noted, this response stands in stark contrast to that of the Bush administration to the August 6, 2001, PDB. The 9-11 Commission stated that Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so" and "found no indication" that his aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609270001

On that program, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed former 9-11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste about how he had "specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9-11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden." According to Ben-Veniste, "one of the questions ... I specifically had, was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise-missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him." Ben-Veniste also questioned why Bush did not pursue the Taliban and "bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan."


And let's all ask the question: When did the FBI and CIA inform the U.S. government that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing?


I can do this all day.

[W*GS]

I can do this all day.

Indeed - deflecting from Clinton's dereliction of his Constitutional duties.

If al-Qaeda could be defeated by a blizzard of memos and meetings, then Clinton's strategy would have worked.

[Rohirrim]

Indeed - deflecting from Clinton's dereliction of his Constitutional duties.

If al-Qaeda could be defeated by a blizzard of memos and meetings, then Clinton's strategy would have worked.

Like I said, sit in the corner and cover your ears.

[W*GS]

Get back on your Sit-n-Spin and tell us some more good ones about Clinton and his administration's actions against al-Qaeda.

The one about upping airport security (meaning what, and in what year?) was tasty...

[Rohirrim]

Get back on your Sit-n-Spin and tell us some more good ones about Clinton and his administration's actions against al-Qaeda.

The one about upping airport security (meaning what, and in what year?) was tasty...

I'm not a Clinton backer, but just for you, I hope Hillary gets back in the WH and you get to watch Bubba in action for eight more years. Ha!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Indeed - deflecting from Clinton's dereliction of his Constitutional duties.
If al-Qaeda could be defeated by a blizzard of memos and meetings, then Clinton's strategy would have worked. Of course, Clinton was hamstrung by the Republican congress that refused to authorize military actions time and again but I think he should have invaded Iraq to get those al Qaedas. That would've taught them a lesson!

[W*GS]

Of course, Clinton was hamstrung by the Republican congress that refused to authorize military actions time and again [...]

Poor, poor Bill, eh? Always someone else's fault when he royally ****ed up...

[Rigs11]

Iraq is not "pumpin out any". Besides, what percentage of global oil production was from Iraq before 2003?



Since your claim about "what is going on in iraq" is wrong, my point stands.



Provide us time series of Iraqi oil production since (say) 1979 (from before the Iran-Iraq war) to today, and tell me when it zero, and what percentage of global oil production that represented. Also explain how a shift of (as you claim) 40 million gallons (did you mean barrels) over the course of the year when America alone consumes 20+ million barrels per day explains the change in gas prices.

Please.

Poor Wigs. getting owned on this thread.ROFL!

Ok you stubborn egotistical clinton hating "libertarian".

Pre war production by iraq (2002) was 2.5 million barrels a day.The US imported 11.3 million barrels in december of 2002 alone.Not to mention the other countries that imported iraqi oil that can no longer import, which adds to a shortage of oil worldwide.Couple this with the WH refusing to use any of it's reserves to alleviate gas prices.before the war in iraq oil was at $30 a barrel, now it's at $63. Coincidence?Yup Wigs the WH has no impact on the price of gas.Hilarious!

See for yourself.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2491045.stm

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2579

[W*GS]

I'm not a Clinton backer, but just for you, I hope Hillary gets back in the WH and you get to watch Bubba in action for eight more years. Ha!

No answer - your Sit-n-Spin broke. Too bad.

[Rigs11]

Poor, poor Bill, eh? Always someone else's fault when he royally ****ed up...

You make the same excuses for poor poor Dubya.difference is that Bill is no longer president, Bush is.Get it?I've yet to hear you place blame on bush for failing to stop alqaeda.

[Rohirrim]

No answer - your Sit-n-Spin broke. Too bad.

When Hillary gets elected, it will be you doing the Sit-N-Spin. :rofl:

[W*GS]

You make the same excuses for poor poor Dubya.difference is that Bill is no longer president, Bush is.Get it?I've yet to hear you place blame on bush for failing to stop alqaeda.

Deflecting to Bush's ****ups doesn't get Clinton off the hook for his ****ups.

Get it?

[Rohirrim]

Deflecting to Bush's ****ups doesn't get Clinton off the hook for his ****ups.

Get it?

You have yet to prove Bill's **** ups and have simply ignored any information that leads to the conclusion that he took reasonable actions at the time, given what he knew then. Clinton was right when he confronted Chris Wallace. He did do more than anybody else did at that time, and he took **** for doing it from the same Righties who now want to claim they are so great against terrorism. Disprove that. What did Giuliani do in NY after the WTC bombings of 1993? Answer? Nothing. The rest of your biases are clearly based on "rear view mirror" judgments. Noting Bush's complete failure to do anything whatsover is not deflection, it's simply a useful comparison.

You want to blame the Cole response on Clinton? When did the CIA/FBI complete its investigation and inform the U.S. government that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing?

[Spider]

On what grounds would Clinton's program to tighten airport security have caught the 9/11 hijackers? Obviously you know all the facts about it, and what Clinton proposed, so please explain, Spider.

it has already been answered so many times and even on this thread , just cause time passes doesnt mean we forgot , you have been owned on this thread , now you just look like an Idiot ......... you really should stop

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Poor, poor Bill, eh? Always someone else's fault when he royally ****ed up...Who's saying that? You shouldn't have a problem of me pointing out one of the problems of what actually happened. The U.S. really didn't start taking al Qaeda seriously until the late 90s. The Congress was controlled during that time by Republicans who felt it was more important to go after Clinton for lying about his blowjob than going after al Qaeda.

[W*GS]

Ro, BB, and Spider.

Deflecting from Clinton's ****ups doesn't work.

[Spider]

Ro, BB, and Spider.

Deflecting from Clinton's ****ups doesn't work.

well we can only help you so much W*GS , you have alot of idiotic notions , I dont know where they came from , but you got your ass kicked on the price of oil thing , the airport security thing , and you havent produced 1 Clinton **** up ......you are entertaining , but Bullshít only goes so far ..........

[Rohirrim]

Ro, BB, and Spider.

Deflecting from Clinton's ****ups doesn't work.

Neither does sticking your head in the sand and ignoring posts. When did the FBI and the CIA notify the U.S. government that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing?

[W*GS]

Poor Wigs. getting owned on this thread.

Riiiiiight.

You still can't answer my questions. You're not much for researching and finding relevant data, are you?

[W*GS]

Like I said, if al-Qaeda could be defeated by a blizzard of memos and meetings, then Clinton's strategy would have worked.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Neither does sticking your head in the sand and ignoring posts. When did the FBI and the CIA notify the U.S. government that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing?W*GS doesn't want to deal with the actual facts, that would be like the Jolly Green Giant pissing all over his Clinton bashing party.

[The Lone Bolt]

you just dont get it do you ? By leaving things out Bush knowingly misled people

That's the issue though, isn't it: "knowingly" mislead people. In other words, you believe he KNEW that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally said otherwise (or intentionally omitted facts). You haven't yet delivered any conclusive evidence that this was the case. Citing info that he MIGHT have had and SHOULD have taken seriously if he had it is not conclusive evidence. Citing evidence that he disregarded because it didn't fit a certain view isn't proof of lying either. Did he do it with malicious intent or did he do it because he believed the information was not credible?

Bush MIGHT have lied, but without CONCLUSIVE evidence we can't say absolutely for certain that he did.


, I dont give a rats ass what your oped site says ,I offered you the real text on the long range missiles why the UN handled Iraq the way they did , your answer was innocent until proven guilty ?

Err . . . that was no "oped" site. Did you bother to read it? Apparently not.

That was a link the the Senate Select Committee Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence, not an "oped" piece. It is a report produced by a bipartisan committee of the United States Senate. Here is a link to the report in Adobe format: http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

The Committee did a rigorous and exhaustive examination of the events which produced the Iraq Prewar Intel used by dubya:

n early June 2003, the IC provided the Committee with nineteen volumes (approximately 15,000 pages) of intelligence assessments and source reporting underlying the IC's assessments of Iraq's WMD programs, ties to terrorist groups, threat to stability and security in the region, and repression of its own people. Committee staff began immediately to read and analyze every report provided to determine how intelligence analysts reached their conclusions and whether any assessments were not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. In late August and early September 2003, Committee staff requested additional intelligence to support IC assessments which Committee staff had judged were not supported by the intelligence that had been previously provided.

the IC said it had uncovered an additional six volumes of intelligence material that supported the IC's assessments on Iraq's WMD programs. These materials were also reviewed by Committee staff. The IC provided the contradictory intelligence information in late November. During the twelve months of the Committee's review, Committee staff submitted almost 100 requests for supplemental intelligence information, received over 30,000 pages of documents in response to those requests, and reviewed and analyzed each document provided.

Committee staff interviewed more than 200 individuals including intelligence analysts and senior officials with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, National Ground Intelligence Center, the Air Force, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Staff also interviewed former intelligence analysts, National Intelligence Officers, operations officers, collection managers, signals intelligence collectors, imagery analysts, nuclear experts with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ambassadors, former United Nations inspectors, Department of Defense weapons experts, State Department officials, and National Security Council staff members.

Tell me, how many documents did the author of the Downing Street Memo review to reach his conclusions? How many people did he interview? I suggest you read the report.


then you have the nads to say go to this site if your are looking for the truth ? **** - you little man dont come in here acting so enlightened , there can only be 2 reasons for you wanting to share your dumb ass views on this ....
1. you cant get laid ......
2. you are a freaking retard ....
I will let you decide


DAAAAAAMNNNN!!Yikes! Jeez, I like to think we can debate politics like mature adults withouth the namecalling. I guess I was wrong.

And my "dumbass views" are backed up by a 508 page bipartisan Senate committee report which came from researching thousands of pages of documentation and interviewing hundreds of IC professionals, as well as the informed opinions of ME analyst Ken Pollack and former UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix (who not too long ago you were citing as a credible source). I think I have a case. Open your mind a little and consider what they are saying.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's the issue though, isn't it: "knowingly" mislead people. In other words, you believe he KNEW that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally said otherwise (or intentionally omitted facts). You haven't yet delivered any conclusive evidence that this was the case.Geeeezus, defending the Neocons no matter how obvious their agenda is must be one of your oaths in life.

[The Lone Bolt]

Geeeezus, defending the Neocons no matter how obvious their agenda is must be one of your oaths in life.

No, but defending the objective truth is. I really don't give a rats @ss about dubya.

[Rohirrim]

No, but defending the objective truth is. I really don't give a rats @ss about dubya.

It doesn't look like it. Any way you look at it, this is one of those "depends on the meaning of is" kind of arguments. I think there is more than ample evidence that the Bush cabals' INTENT was to deceive.

[W*GS]

Neither does sticking your head in the sand and ignoring posts. When did the FBI and the CIA notify the U.S. government that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing?

Certainly not too late for Clinton to act.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

Clarke recalled that while the Pentagon and the State Department had reservations about retaliation, the issue never came to a head because the FBI and the CIA never reached a firm conclusion. He thought they were “holding back.” He said he did not know why, but his impression was that Tenet and Reno possibly thought the White House “didn’t really want to know,” since the principals’ discussions by November suggested that there was not much White House interest in conducting further military operations against Afghanistan in the administration’s last weeks. He thought that, instead, President Clinton, Berger, and Secretary Albright were concentrating on a last-minute push for a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Looks like Clinton's cabal wasn't that serious about finding out and acting upon what they did learn.

[Spider]

That's the issue though, isn't it: "knowingly" mislead people. In other words, you believe he KNEW that the prewar intel was wrong and intentionally said otherwise (or intentionally omitted facts). You haven't yet delivered any conclusive evidence that this was the case. Citing info that he MIGHT have had and SHOULD have taken seriously if he had it is not conclusive evidence. Citing evidence that he disregarded because it didn't fit a certain view isn't proof of lying either. Did he do it with malicious intent or did he do it because he believed the information was not credible?

Bush MIGHT have lied, but without CONCLUSIVE evidence we can't say absolutely for certain that he did.




Err . . . that was no "oped" site. Did you bother to read it? Apparently not.

That was a link the the Senate Select Committee Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence, not an "oped" piece. It is a report produced by a bipartisan committee of the United States Senate. Here is a link to the report in Adobe format: http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

The Committee did a rigorous and exhaustive examination of the events which produced the Iraq Prewar Intel used by dubya:



Tell me, how many documents did the author of the Downing Street Memo review to reach his conclusions? How many people did he interview? I suggest you read the report.





DAAAAAAMNNNN!!Yikes! Jeez, I like to think we can debate politics like mature adults withouth the namecalling. I guess I was wrong.

And my "dumbass views" are backed up by a 508 page bipartisan Senate committee report which came from researching thousands of pages of documentation and interviewing hundreds of IC professionals, as well as the informed opinions of ME analyst Ken Pollack and former UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix (who not too long ago you were citing as a credible source). I think I have a case. Open your mind a little and consider what they are saying.

really dont want ot read your Bullshít , and thats what it is 100% Bullshít , making your post longer doesnt help ......... Look I will put it in plain english ......... YOU ARE FULL OF SHíT , BUSH IS FULL OF SHíT and your stupid assed oped Pieces won change that .......... So go Bullshít someone else

[The Lone Bolt]

It doesn't look like it. Any way you look at it, this is one of those "depends on the meaning of is" kind of arguments. I think there is more than ample evidence that the Bush cabals' INTENT was to deceive.


Can't say I agree. The "Bush Lied" folks are citing exclusively circumstantial evidence. In a court of law at least some direct evidence would be required for a conviction. Their case would never hold up.

Direct evidence would be someting along the lines of multiple, credible eyewitness accounts of Bush saying something like "hey I know this Iraq intel is inaccurate" before he went before the American public and said otherwise. The evidence that the "Bush Lied" supporters are presenting does not eliminate the plausible alternative explanation that Bush did believe that Iraq was hiding WMD and would not accept any conflicting information. This hypothesis has been supported, as I said, by credible insiders such as Blix and Pollock.

I really don't think the Bush Lied crowd has as strong a case as they think they do.

[The Lone Bolt]

really dont want ot read your Bullshít , and thats what it is 100% Bullshít , making your post longer doesnt help ......... Look I will put it in plain english ......... YOU ARE FULL OF SHíT , BUSH IS FULL OF SHíT and your stupid assed oped Pieces won change that .......... So go Bullshít someone else


I see. How do you know the SSC report is bull****? You haven't read it and are now refusing too, even though you are the one who challenged me to present such evidence!:kiddingme

How open-minded of you.::)

And get it straight: It's a Senate committee report, not an "oped" piece.

[Spider]

I see. How do you know the SSC report is bull****? You haven't read it and are now refusing too, even though you are the one who challenged me to present such evidence!:kiddingme

How open-minded of you.::)

And get it straight: It's a Senate committee report, not an "oped" piece.

the senate committee report doesnt mean shít , the senate didnt see the original PBD they saw it after Douglas Fithe edited it .. so Yeah it is a ****ing op ed piece ........... and be thankful you caught me after my mid afternoon , I am real cranky when I miss it

[The Lone Bolt]

the senate committee report doesnt mean shít , the senate didnt see the original PBD they saw it after Douglas Fithe edited it .. so Yeah it is a ****ing op ed piece ........... and be thankful you caught me after my mid afternoon , I am real cranky when I miss it

Are you referring to the PDB that suggested to dubya that there were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq? If so, how does this invalidate the entire SSC report?

And I think you're still a little cranky. Maybe you need another nap.

[Spider]

Are you referring to the PDB that suggested to dubya that there were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq? If so, how does this invalidate the entire SSC report?

And I think you're still a little cranky. Maybe you need another nap.

No there were several of them PBD's and I am happy as hell you fruit cake

[Rohirrim]

Certainly not too late for Clinton to act.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

Clarke recalled that while the Pentagon and the State Department had reservations about retaliation, the issue never came to a head because the FBI and the CIA never reached a firm conclusion. He thought they were “holding back.” He said he did not know why, but his impression was that Tenet and Reno possibly thought the White House “didn’t really want to know,” since the principals’ discussions by November suggested that there was not much White House interest in conducting further military operations against Afghanistan in the administration’s last weeks. He thought that, instead, President Clinton, Berger, and Secretary Albright were concentrating on a last-minute push for a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Looks like Clinton's cabal wasn't that serious about finding out and acting upon what they did learn.

Can't you just imagine the Bush (incoming president)cabal and Repug response had Clinton attacked Afghanistan in his last couple of weeks in office? Especially without a final intelligence report? Puhleeze. I can just hear DeLay, Lott and Gingrich now. Your anti-Bubba hatred is taking you into la la land. Can we now discuss why Bushy did absolutely nothing about the Cole whatsoever even after he had the full report? Why he ignored the PDBs? Clinton met with Clarke every week about Al Queda. Bush never discussed the issue before 911 and never met with anybody PLUS, in his first year in office he busted the presidential vacation record. Give us all a break. Bubba didn't do enough. But he at least tried. Had he hit Bin Laden with one of those missiles, the Righties would have impeached him for assassinating an innocent Saudi businessman. Your boy did zip, nada, zilch. In fact, given what we know now, his lack of action equals malfeasance of office and a criminal disregard for his constitutional duties.

[W*GS]

Bush is not "my boy". Drop the bad LABF imitation.

This bit is particularly telling about Clinton's inaction:

[...]since the principals’ discussions by November suggested that there was not much White House interest in conducting further military operations against Afghanistan in the administration’s last weeks.

Remember, this is "your boy" Clarke's view - and the "by November" bit isn't as easily overlooked as you would like.

And don't forget that the Cole was one of several attacks by al-Qaeda on us during Clinton's watch. Where's your spin on his paralysis in reacting to those?

Like I said, deflecting onto Bush from Clinton's ****ups doesn't excuse Clinton.

What was it you said? "[H]is lack of action equals malfeasance of office and a criminal disregard for his constitutional duties." Fits Clinton to a "T".

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush is not "my boy". Drop the bad LABF imitation.

This bit is particularly telling about Clinton's inaction:

[...]since the principals’ discussions by November suggested that there was not much White House interest in conducting further military operations against Afghanistan in the administration’s last weeks.

Remember, this is "your boy" Clarke's view - and the "by November" bit isn't as easily overlooked as you would like.
And why would there be (at the end of any administration)?

[Rohirrim]

Bush is not "my boy". Drop the bad LABF imitation.

This bit is particularly telling about Clinton's inaction:

[...]since the principals’ discussions by November suggested that there was not much White House interest in conducting further military operations against Afghanistan in the administration’s last weeks.

Remember, this is "your boy" Clarke's view - and the "by November" bit isn't as easily overlooked as you would like.

And don't forget that the Cole was one of several attacks by al-Qaeda on us during Clinton's watch. Where's your spin on his paralysis in reacting to those?

Like I said, deflecting onto Bush from Clinton's ****ups doesn't excuse Clinton.

What was it you said? "[H]is lack of action equals malfeasance of office and a criminal disregard for his constitutional duties." Fits Clinton to a "T".

Once again, we have to listen to another Bush apologist pretend like the efforts of Bubba, which failed, came anywhere near the complete and cavalier obliviousness of Bush. Bubba's responses were anything but "paralysis." I save that word for Bush and "My Pet Goat." They've been posted on this board so many times that you obviously are just going to blatantly disregard my posting them one more time. Forgive me if I don't bother. I'm not a big fan of Bubba, but your consuming hatred for the man is getting kind of spooky.

[W*GS]

And why would there be (at the end of any administration)?

That's got to be one of your more idiotic comments.

[W*GS]

Ro, let me put it this way - for someone who doesn't much care for Clinton, you sure do work hard to defend him - and directly.

[Rigs11]

Riiiiiight.

You still can't answer my questions. You're not much for researching and finding relevant data, are you?

I provided links that explain it. You're either too stupid or too stubborn to admit that the war in iraq is a cause of higher oil prices.You should go on that tv show where they pit the grown up against the 5th grader.My money's on the kid.

[W*GS]

I provided links that explain it. You're either too stupid or too stubborn to admit that the war in iraq is a cause of higher oil prices.

I didn't say it wasn't a cause. It's not the cause, and, you've yet to show what effect the President has on oil and/or gasoline prices.

You should go on that tv show where they pit the grown up against the 5th grader.My money's on the kid.

Hans the Stomping Horse would kick your ass.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The "Bush Lied" folks are citing exclusively circumstantial evidence.

:bs:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101888_pf.html

[Rohirrim]

Ro, let me put it this way - for someone who doesn't much care for Clinton, you sure do work hard to defend him - and directly.

I like history. So, I try to correct those who smear the facts for their own sordid purposes. If you don't challenge the lies, somebody might believe them. As the Bush cabal has proven, lie hard enough and often enough and your lies become the accepted story.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's got to be one of your more idiotic comments.Actually, this is one your less intelligent ones.

How many presidents attack countries, start wars in the last few days of their reign? Answer....NONE, ever. No incoming president wants to start a term dealing with an invasion and war the outgoing president left him in his last week and no outgoing president would do that to the incoming president unless they both agreed to it.

[W*GS]

I like history. So, I try to correct those who smear the facts for their own sordid purposes. If you don't challenge the lies, somebody might believe them. As the Bush cabal has proven, lie hard enough and often enough and your lies become the accepted story.

Point out a single thing I've written that's a lie.

[W*GS]

How many presidents attack countries, start wars in the last few days of their reign? Answer....NONE, ever. No incoming president wants to start a term dealing with an invasion and war the outgoing president left him in his last week and no outgoing president would do that to the incoming president unless they both agreed to it.

Memo to enemies:

Attack the US near the end of an outgoing President's term. They will be paralyzed and unable to respond.

It's quite clear to me that Clinton, way back in November, just wasn't that interested. He was more concerned with his legacy (as I said earlier) and was expending his energy on a last-minute peace deal with the Palestinians and Israelis. A mere act of war against a Navy vessel wasn't provocation enough (never mind all the prior acts of war by al-Qaeda against us) to change his plans...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Memo to enemies:

Attack the US near the end of an outgoing President's term. They will be paralyzed and unable to respond.

It's quite clear to me that Clinton, way back in November, just wasn't that interested. He was more concerned with his legacy (as I said earlier) and was expending his energy on a last-minute peace deal with the Palestinians and Israelis. A mere act of war against a Navy vessel wasn't provocation enough (never mind all the prior acts of war by al-Qaeda against us) to change his plans...It wasn't an "act of war" by a country we could retaliate against. It took months to figure out exactly what happened and who did it.

I guess he could have invaded Iraq.



You're batting 0 here.

[The Lone Bolt]

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

I'll tell you what, LABF. If you can prove to me conclusively that:

A) Bush read the results of this fact-finding mission

B) He accepted it's conclusions as true and did not believe that the trailers were mobile bio-weapons labs,

I will admit that you have conclusive proof that Bush lied.

Are you beginning to see the flaw in your reasoning yet? This is circumstantial evidence also. Conclusive evidence would establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Bush was repeating information that he knew or believed was not true. This "evidence" does not eliminate the possibility that either Bush A) did not read the findings, or B) did but chose to believe other conflicting information instead. If either of these alternative explanations is the case then he would have been repeating information that he believed to be true, which means he was not intentionally decieving anyone (once again refer to the definitions of "lie" I have posted).

In order to prove that Bush lied you need evidence that completely eliminates such plausible alternative explanations. You have yet to provide it.

Once again, I don't give a damn about Bush. I do however give a damn about the objective truth, and I've just given it to you.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'll tell you what, LABF. If you can prove to me conclusively that:


Geeezus.

[W*GS]

It wasn't an "act of war" by a country we could retaliate against.

What would you call bombing a US Navy vessel? An "accident"? What about bombing two embassies? Or a residence for military personnel? "Ooopsies"?

It took months to figure out exactly what happened and who did it.

You want us to believe that an administration that had so focussed on OBL and al-Qaeda that they were criticized for obsessing about them was simultaneously unable to use that vast knowledge to determine what had happened? I suspect that the FBI and CIA got the hint from the Clinton WH that the level of interest from the WH just wasn't there, so they didn't work as hard as they should have...

[Rohirrim]

Point out a single thing I've written that's a lie.

You Righties have a real thing about the lawyer lingo. "Maybe it's not a lie. Maybe it's just a mis-characterization, eh?" wink wink. "Maybe it's just an exaggeration?" "Maybe we just stretched the truth but stayed within the general parameters of the general facts?" "If you can't prove intent... blah, blah, blah." Word games. Mind games. Welcome to Cheney World, which is just down the road from Wonderland. What did Humpty Dumpty say to Alice? "My words mean whatever I want them to mean."

[Rohirrim]

What would you call bombing a US Navy vessel? An "accident"? What about bombing two embassies? Or a residence for military personnel? "Ooopsies"?



You want us to believe that an administration that had so focussed on OBL and al-Qaeda that they were criticized for obsessing about them was simultaneously unable to use that vast knowledge to determine what had happened? I suspect that the FBI and CIA got the hint from the Clinton WH that the level of interest from the WH just wasn't there, so they didn't work as hard as they should have...

So far, that's been pretty much your whole act: Unsubstantiated supposition.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What would you call bombing a US Navy vessel? An "accident"? What about bombing two embassies? Or a residence for military personnel? "Ooopsies"? What countries did those things?

You want us to believe that an administration that had so focussed on OBL and al-Qaeda that they were criticized for obsessing about them was simultaneously unable to use that vast knowledge to determine what had happened? I suspect that the FBI and CIA got the hint from the Clinton WH that the level of interest from the WH just wasn't there, so they didn't work as hard as they should have...Exactly.

[Cito Pelon]

im not saying he didnt, or that he did, but its pretty easy to sit afterwards and say "hey we told you" i see alot of that now, and i personally wonder if anyone really did, or maybe they made a halfassed attempt at it. i work for the govt, so i know how this goes.

"well that didnt work"
"told you"
"no you didnt"
"yeah i did, remember that email?"

Oh, there were a lot of people said exactly that among other dire predictions. Bush "the great leader that picks the best advice and makes a decision", just was not interested in what they had to say. And he really wasn't encouraged too much by the American populace, since at the time about 73% supported invading Iraq, and Bush had about a 90% approval rating for his response to 9/11.

[bendog]

Lone bolt, the proof you require, absolute proof, is not an accepted standard in any field. Not science, not law and certainly not in the political arena. I'm curious as to whether you'd have applied the same standard to clinton and perjury.

[Spider]

Lone bolt, the proof you require, absolute proof, is not an accepted standard in any field. Not science, not law and certainly not in the political arena. I'm curious as to whether you'd have applied the same standard to clinton and perjury.

He knows that , he is just being a W*GS aka ásshole

[W*GS]

You Righties have a real thing about the lawyer lingo.

Since you can't (or won't) show me where I lied, then your comment

"So, I try to correct those who smear the facts for their own sordid purposes. If you don't challenge the lies, somebody might believe them. As the Bush cabal has proven, lie hard enough and often enough and your lies become the accepted story."

is crap.

[W*GS]

So far, that's been pretty much your whole act: Unsubstantiated supposition.

Hardly. See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1601714&postcount=174

[W*GS]

What countries did those things?

Al-Qaeda did those things (is that news to you?), using Afghanistan, and their relationship with the Taliban to their advantage as a base of operations. Don't you remember Clinton having a couple cruise missiles lobbed into Afghanistan to get OBL? That was about the extent of his action against al-Qaeda (as opposed to endless memos and meetings).

Exactly.

I've already supported my assertion, using an unassailable source.

Clinton and his administration were more concerned with a peace deal in their waning days than they were with al-Qaeda and its most recent and brazen act of war upon us. Legacy overrides protecting Americans, in Clintonville.

[The Lone Bolt]

Lone bolt, the proof you require, absolute proof, is not an accepted standard in any field. Not science, not law and certainly not in the political arena. I'm curious as to whether you'd have applied the same standard to clinton and perjury.


I'm not insisting on "absolute" proof. The problem is that all of the evidence that the "Bush Lied" crowd has presented has more than one reasonable explanation. It can support the hypothesis that Bush lied, but it can also support the hypothesis that Bush did in fact believe that there was WMD in Iraq and was unwilling to accept any conflicting information (in other words, that he was biased). Since the evidence presented by LABF and others supports more than one conclusion it cannot be considered "proof" of either hypothesis.

This standard is also true for science, law and other fields. I should know. As a grad student I studied research design and designed my own thesis. If your results can be easily explained by more than one hypothesis then your study is poorly designed and your results mean exactly squat. You need to eliminate all significant confounding variables and (thus) all likely alternative hypotheses for your findings to be meaningful.

(And yes, I know it's usually not feasible to eliminate all confounds. But if you did a good enough job of it you should make it very difficult to argue that your results support an alternative hypothesis)

I have challenged LABF and others to present evidence that eliminates the alternative hypothesis and so far they have presented none. Even one piece of compelling evidence that can't be explained by bias (or ignorance) on Bush's part (as opposed to lying) would give the "Bush lied" argument some weight.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned the same standard applies to Clinton or anyone else.

[Rohirrim]

Hardly. See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1601714&postcount=174

He said he did not know why, but his impression was...

Gee, you're right. That sure is proof. Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Since you can't (or won't) show me where I lied, then your comment

"So, I try to correct those who smear the facts for their own sordid purposes. If you don't challenge the lies, somebody might believe them. As the Bush cabal has proven, lie hard enough and often enough and your lies become the accepted story."

is crap.

Wow, your hatred of Clinton is impressive. You're like a rabid dog on this. Of course, your obsession just proves my point. You'll warp anything you find if you can bend it to smear Clinton. The Clarke piece you're so in love with is nothing more than an indication of Clarke's impressions of what was going on. Not one thing in that piece equals a fact. Like I said in regards to what you're doing, how much can you warp facts to serve your purposes before you've crossed the line into lying? It's subjective. It's no less dishonest.

[Cito Pelon]

I'm not insisting on "absolute" proof. The problem is that all of the evidence that the "Bush Lied" crowd has presented has more than one reasonable explanation. It can support the hypothesis that Bush lied, but it can also support the hypothesis that Bush did in fact believe that there was WMD in Iraq and was unwilling to accept any conflicting information (in other words, that he was biased). Since the evidence presented by LABF and others supports more than one conclusion it cannot be considered "proof" of either hypothesis.

This standard is also true for science, law and other fields. I should know. As a grad student I studied research design and designed my own thesis. If your results can be easily explained by more than one hypothesis then your study is poorly designed and your results mean exactly squat. You need to eliminate all significant confounding variables and (thus) all likely alternative hypotheses for your findings to be meaningful.

(And yes, I know it's usually not feasible to eliminate all confounds. But if you did a good enough job of it you should make it very difficult to argue that your results support an alternative hypothesis)

I have challenged LABF and others to present evidence that eliminates the alternative hypothesis and so far they have presented none. Even one piece of compelling evidence that can't be explained by bias (or ignorance) on Bush's part (as opposed to lying) would give the "Bush lied" argument some weight.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned the same standard applies to Clinton or anyone else.

Are you defending his policies, or just auditioning for Law School?

[Rohirrim]

Are you defending his policies, or just auditioning for Law School?

LOL

[W*GS]

Wow, your hatred of Clinton is impressive. You're like a rabid dog on this.

And you find that puzzling. Let's just say that the Presidential oath of office is

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And Clinton failed miserably in living up to it. His utter lack of action against al-Qaeda was just one of his many ****ups.

Of course, your obsession just proves my point. You'll warp anything you find if you can bend it to smear Clinton. The Clarke piece you're so in love with is nothing more than an indication of Clarke's impressions of what was going on. Not one thing in that piece equals a fact.

Clarke had intimate knowledge of the workings of the Clinton administration in regards to terrorism, particularly al-Qaeda and OBL. That Clinton chose to make retaliation for the Cole (never mind the other acts of war we suffered on his watch) a lesser priority than the (illusory) last-minute peace deal is something I find reprehensible. Imagine a cop witnessing a murder and then saying "I'm off my shift in 15 minutes, I don't care about the bad guy", or an ER doctor blowing off a patient because her day is almost over.

Like I said in regards to what you're doing, how much can you warp facts to serve your purposes before you've crossed the line into lying? It's subjective. It's no less dishonest.

Reporting what Clarke believed, and that his beliefs support my contention, isn't lying, no matter how desperately you try to claim that's what I'm doing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have challenged LABF and others to present evidence that eliminates the alternative hypothesis and so far they have presented none.

That's just a high falutin' way of saying you want us to prove a negative.

Why can't you just admit it's game over and that you and the smirking sociopath lost?

[Rohirrim]

Reporting what Clarke believed, and that his beliefs support my contention, isn't lying, no matter how desperately you try to claim that's what I'm doing.

I'm sure all sorts of people have "impressions" about what things mean. Doesn't make any of them fact. The initial response to the Cole bombing in intelligence circles was that Sudan was involved and that the attack could not have taken place without Sudan's assistance. I suppose you would have been satisfied if Clinton had launched an all out assault on Sudan? Yeah, we saw how you Righties reacted when he tried to hit one of Bin Laden's businesses in Sudan. "Impeach the war criminal!" Two faced bastards.

Here's a brief on George Tenet's testimony before the 911 Commission:
On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.

You just take somebody's "impression" and say, "See? That's a fact." And then, when it's proven to be anything but a fact, you back up and say, "At least you can't prove I was lying."

You could get a job on Rove's team. That's their basic MO.

As far as your ridiculous cop analogy goes, yeah, that would be bad if a cop witnessed a murder near the end of his shift and didn't respond. But in the Cole case, the murderers had blown themselves up. What would you have your allegorical cop do? Start blasting everybody on the street?

[W*GS]

I'm sure all sorts of people have "impressions" about what things mean. Doesn't make any of them fact.

Clarke isn't some guy who happened to overhear a conversation or was bcc'ed on some email...

The initial response to the Cole bombing in intelligence circles was that Sudan was involved and that the attack could not have taken place without Sudan's assistance. I suppose you would have been satisfied if Clinton had launched an all out assault on Sudan? Yeah, we saw how you Righties reacted when he tried to hit one of Bin Laden's businesses in Sudan. "Impeach the war criminal!" Two faced bastards.

If I'm a "Rightie", then you're a Monica wanna-be, what with all your spinning for Clinton.

Just admit that Clinton screwed the pooch on this one - and all the prior al-Qaeda attacks upon us.

You just take somebody's "impression" and say, "See? That's a fact." And then, when it's proven to be anything but a fact, you back up and say, "At least you can't prove I was lying."

Clarke also said:

“The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack,” he wrote. “Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price.... One might have thought that with a $250m hole in a destroyer and 17 dead sailors,the Pentagon might have wanted to respond. Instead, they have often talked about the fact that there is ‘nothing worth hitting in Afghanistan’and said ‘the cruise missiles cost more than the jungle gyms and mud huts’ at terrorist camps.” Clarke could not understand “why we continue to allow the existence of large scale al Qida bases where we know people are being trained to kill Americans.”

This (accurate) criticism being levelled at the Bush administration applies equally well to the Clinton cabal.

Spin the above.

[Rohirrim]

Clarke isn't some guy who happened to overhear a conversation or was bcc'ed on some email...



If I'm a "Rightie", then you're a Monica wanna-be, what with all your spinning for Clinton.

Just admit that Clinton screwed the pooch on this one - and all the prior al-Qaeda attacks upon us.



Clarke also said:

“The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack,” he wrote. “Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price.... One might have thought that with a $250m hole in a destroyer and 17 dead sailors,the Pentagon might have wanted to respond. Instead, they have often talked about the fact that there is ‘nothing worth hitting in Afghanistan’and said ‘the cruise missiles cost more than the jungle gyms and mud huts’ at terrorist camps.” Clarke could not understand “why we continue to allow the existence of large scale al Qida bases where we know people are being trained to kill Americans.”

This (accurate) criticism being levelled at the Bush administration applies equally well to the Clinton cabal.

Spin the above.

You're the one spinning. Not me. The historical consensus so far is that by the time Bubba left office, intelligence analysts had still not concluded who was responsible for the Cole. By March of 2001, they had concluded that it was an Al Queda attack. I agree with Clarke's statment above. I can't figure out why Bush didn't do anything about it either. Obviously, no matter what your prejudices tell you, culpability of Bubba and Bush does not apply "equally." Simple fact: Bush knew who was responsible. Bubba did not.

Disprove that.

[Spider]

You're the one spinning. Not me. The historical consensus so far is that by the time Bubba left office, intelligence analysts had still not concluded who was responsible for the Cole. By March of 2001, they had concluded that it was an Al Queda attack. I agree with Clarke's statment above. I can't figure out why Bush didn't do anything about it either. Obviously, no matter what your prejudices tell you, culpability of Bubba and Bush does not apply "equally." Simple fact: Bush knew who was responsible. Bubba did not.

Disprove that.

W*GS =http://www.toypost.co.uk/images/thumbnails/t_475.jpg

[Rigs11]

I didn't say it wasn't a cause. It's not the cause, and, you've yet to show what effect the President has on oil and/or gasoline prices.



Hans the Stomping Horse would kick your ass.

Oh brother. You've sunken to new lows. Keep telling yourself what makes you feel better.If Oreilly ever retires you would fill in nicely.With you blinding hatred of clinton who hasn't been president for what?Almost 8 years? And yet the sitting president who is screwing the country now gets pass after pass from you. If this is the libertarian way, no wonder they never win.

[The Lone Bolt]

That's just a high falutin' way of saying you want us to prove a negative.

Why can't you just admit it's game over and that you and the smirking sociopath lost?


Umm . . . . no. That's my "high falutin'" way of saying that you haven't presented any real proof. Face it LABF, the evidence you claim is "proof" that Bush "lied" isn't. It only seems like proof to you because you reject the alternate (and very plausible) explanation for no reason other than it doesn't support your own biases.

Everything you have presented has a plausible alternative explanation and so isn't "proof" of "lies". You just don't want to face it.

[Rohirrim]

Umm . . . . no. That's my "high falutin'" way of saying that you haven't presented any real proof. Face it LABF, the evidence you claim is "proof" that Bush "lied" isn't. It only seems like proof to you because you reject the alternate (and very plausible) explanation for no reason other than it doesn't support your own biases.

Everything you have presented has a plausible alternative explanation and so isn't "proof" of "lies". You just don't want to face it.

In your understanding, is "deception" the same thing as "lie?"

[bendog]

Well, Clinton had an arguably plausable explaination for his lie, too.

I'd give Bolt this much, everyone expected to find gas. But that fact was the one Bushii thought would give him cover on continuing to assert Saddam had active biol and nuke programs even after Blix and el-Baradi proved he didn't. and yeah that's absolute proof because nuke programs leave traces in the air, and they weren't there, and Blix went to every biol site we gave him and found ****.

So, yeah, bolts just blowing smoke.

He's goin on ignore for being an asshole. Wags is at least sometimes honest.

[The Lone Bolt]

In your understanding, is "deception" the same thing as "lie?"


Yes, and that's the whole point. Deception is intentional. If Bush did not believe that the Iraq prewar intel was accurate but told the American public otherwise then his misstatements were clearly intentional.

On the other hand, if he did believe that the prewar intel was accurate and simply repeated information that he believed at the time to be true then his misstatements were not intentional. This is the plausible alternative explanation. Bush may have made intentional misstatements of fact (he "lied") or he might have believed that what he was saying was true (he was biased and/or ignorant, but didn't "lie").

If someone comes up to you on the street and asks you what time it is, and your watch is slow but you don't know it, you are going to make a misstatement of fact (the wrong time). You are going to give inaccurate information that you believe to be true at the time. Does that make you a "liar"?

Am I getting through yet?

[Rohirrim]

Yes, and that's the whole point. Deception is intentional. If Bush did not believe that the Iraq prewar intel was accurate but told the American public otherwise then his misstatements were clearly intentional.

On the other hand, if he did believe that the prewar intel was accurate and simply repeated information that he believed at the time to be true then his misstatements were not intentional. This is the plausible alternative explanation. Bush may have made intentional misstatements of fact (he "lied") or he might have believed that what he was saying was true (he was biased and/or ignorant, but didn't "lie").

If someone comes up to you on the street and asks you what time it is, and your watch is slow but you don't know it, you are going to make a misstatement of fact (the wrong time). You are going to give inaccurate information that you believe to be true at the time. Does that make you a "lair"?

Am I getting through yet?

Then if the Bushies believed that their intel was accurate, including the yellow cake in Nigeria intel, why would they bother to out a covert CIA agent in order to smear and discredit her husband, who was publicly questioning their intel? Who needs to protect the truth from inquiry?

Am I getting through yet?

[The Lone Bolt]

Then if the Bushies believed that their intel was accurate, including the yellow cake in Nigeria intel, why would they bother to out a covert CIA agent in order to smear and discredit her husband, who was publicly questioning their intel? Who needs to protect the truth from inquiry?

Am I getting through yet?

I don't doubt that it was politically motivated. Wilson was publicly criticizing the administration. But is it possible that Bush (or some in his admin) thought that Wilson's criticism was unjustified and a personal attack on the President? The Valerie Plame incident doesn't prove that Bush knew his intel was wrong either.

[Play2win]

Then if the Bushies believed that their intel was accurate, including the yellow cake in Nigeria intel, why would they bother to out a covert CIA agent in order to smear and discredit her husband, who was publicly questioning their intel? Who needs to protect the truth from inquiry?

Am I getting through yet?

Its very simple and clean logic to use reason to equate those acts to a swift impeachment.

I just hope an impeachment eventually happens...

[The Lone Bolt]

Its very simple and clean logic to use reason to equate those acts to a swift impeachment.

I just hope an impeachment eventually happens...

I'd be happy as a clam if Bush got nailed. But let's let the legal system decide his guilt.

[bendog]

You're never going to get throught to BoltHead. But outing Plame was just desperation. They had to be shocked to find Saddam didn't have gas. They knew that the nuke and biol stuff was bogus intell from Chalbis group (and maybe the iranians), but they still figured that after the invasion, and swift capitulation by the baath, and the shiaa greeting us with hugs, kisses, and flowers (remember the greeting with flowers thing), IF anyone mentioned "hey, where's the mini-nuke," they'd still have the gas. "ohhhh, Saddam was too dangerous to the saudis to let him have gas."

Wilson's piece came out just as people were noticing not only was there no gas, but also this occupation wasn't shaping up as advertised. They paniced to cover up their incompetence.

But, technically, I suppose bushii didn't lie that Saddam had womd. We all thought he had gas. But, bolthead's just being an a-hole by ignoring the biol and nuke lies.

[The Lone Bolt]

You're never going to get throught to BoltHead. But outing Plame was just desperation. They had to be shocked to find Saddam didn't have gas. They knew that the nuke and biol stuff was bogus intell from Chalbis group (and maybe the iranians), but they still figured that after the invasion, and swift capitulation by the baath, and the shiaa greeting us with hugs, kisses, and flowers (remember the greeting with flowers thing), IF anyone mentioned "hey, where's the mini-nuke," they'd still have the gas. "ohhhh, Saddam was too dangerous to the saudis to let him have gas."

Wilson's piece came out just as people were noticing not only was there no gas, but also this occupation wasn't shaping up as advertised. They paniced to cover up their incompetence.

But, technically, I suppose bushii didn't lie that Saddam had womd. We all thought he had gas. But, bolthead's just being an a-hole by ignoring the biol and nuke lies.



Yeah, defending the objective truth makes me an a-hole. ::) I should just join the lynch mob like you. GIT A ROPE!!ugh!~

[Rohirrim]

I don't doubt that it was politically motivated. Wilson was publicly criticizing the administration. But is it possible that Bush (or some in his admin) thought that Wilson's criticism was unjustified and a personal attack on the President? The Valerie Plame incident doesn't prove that Bush knew his intel was wrong either.

I'm beginning to think that anything short of a full, written confession by Bush would not convince you. I'd say the preponderence of evidence leads a reasonable person to conclude that there existed, in the White House, a campaign of deception, assisted by the media, that pushed this country into an unnecessary war.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'm beginning to think that anything short of a full, written confession by Bush would not convince you. I'd say the preponderence of evidence leads a reasonable person to conclude that there existed, in the White House, a campaign of deception, assisted by the media, that pushed this country into an unnecessary war.


And I think that people tend to interpret evidence according to their own personal biases. I think that you and bendog and LABF are filling in the blanks with your own political views. I'm not bashing you for it -- people tend to do that. I just think some awareness of your own biases and how they may be affecting your interpretation of the evidence might lead you to think more objectively.

I wouldn't expect a full written confession. But how about some direct evidence? If all you have to support your view is circumstantial evidence with more than one reasonable explanation then the inevitable logical conclusion is that the jury's still out on whether or not Bush "lied".

[Rohirrim]

And I think that people tend to interpret evidence according to their own personal biases. I think that you and bendog and LABF are filling in the blanks with your own political views. I'm not bashing you for it -- people tend to do that. I just think some awareness of your own biases and how they may be affecting your interpretation of the evidence might lead you to think more objectively.

I wouldn't expect a full written confession. But how about some direct evidence? If all you have to support your view is circumstantial evidence with more than one reasonable explanation then the inevitable logical conclusion is that the jury's still out on whether or not Bush "lied".

Thousands have been convicted on much less.

[The Lone Bolt]

Thousands have been convicted on much less.


And Bush hasn't yet been convicted in a court of law, yet you've already declared him guilty. I have a problem with that.

When he is (in a fair and impartial trial) I will accept the verdict.

[Rohirrim]

And Bush hasn't yet been convicted in a court of law, yet you've already declared him guilty. I have a problem with that.

When he is (in a fair and impartial trial) I will accept the verdict.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1841

Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg


This is what I mean by a "preponderance of evidence." Read all of this. Follow the links to all the rest of the lies and deceptions of the Bush regime.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Here's one from Wesley Clark.

I can't think of another presidency that was built on such an audacious and bald faced foundation of lies, from the campaigns, through the elections, through the dishonorable lying smears against political rivals, and all the way through 911 and the Iraq debacle. I still am filled with anger when I see this president, who broke the record for vacations while Al Queda was moving against us, who completely disregarded terrorism for the 8 months leading up to 911, who even ignored the Cole report and failed to do anything about it, now portraying himself as the worldwide leader against terrorism. Perhaps you can't see Bush for the liar he is because of that old saw, "Can't see the forest for the trees." There are so many lies, so much deception, that it's impossible to pinpoint one single deception out of the ocean of possiblities.

What you have a problem with is the truth.

[The Lone Bolt]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1841

Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg


This is what I mean by a "preponderance of evidence." Read all of this. Follow the links to all the rest of the lies and deceptions of the Bush regime.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Here's one from Wesley Clark.

I can't think of another presidency that was built on such an audacious and bald faced foundation of lies, from the campaigns, through the elections, through the dishonorable lying smears against political rivals, and all the way through 911 and the Iraq debacle. I still am filled with anger when I see this president, who broke the record for vacations while Al Queda was moving against us, who completely disregarded terrorism for the 8 months leading up to 911, who even ignored the Cole report and failed to do anything about it, now portraying himself as the worldwide leader against terrorism. Perhaps you can't see Bush for the liar he is because of that old saw, "Can't see the forest for the trees." There are so many lies, so much deception, that it's impossible to pinpoint one single deception out of the ocean of possiblities.

What you have a problem with is the truth.

Not at all. Here's the truth:

Clark's comments could be evidence that Bush and his admin were biased towards a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and were unwilling to believe otherwise. Clark's comments may also be interpreted as the Bush administration did not believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked and were intentionally distorting the facts to mislead the public. Both are plausible explanations. You are choosing to believe the latter because it fits your own preconceived notions, and I think you are interpreting all of the other evidence similarly. If you made even the slightest attempt to be objective you would see that there is more than one plausible explanation for all of your "evidence" that Bush lied.

That is the truth that you have a problem with.

As for the other article, here are the closest things I could find to direct evidence of "lies":

In fact, the Niger story, as documented by journalist Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03) and others, was based on crudely forged documents. In addition, the administration's own investigation in March 2002 concluded that the story was bogus. As one former State Department official put it, "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down" (Time, 7/21/03).

This suggests that Bush knew that the Niger story was wrong but said otherwise. Unfortunately however this paragraph is a little vague. What was the nature of the investigation? Who was involved? Was Bush made aware of their conclusions? Did he find them credible? I'd like more information here.


More recently, Bush has flagrantly misrepresentedthe history of the prewar conflict with Iraq over weapons inspections, telling reporters on July 14, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." In fact, after a Security Council resolution was passed demanding that Iraq allow inspectors in, they were given complete access to the country. The Washington Post (7/15/03), describing Bush's remarkable statement, could only say that his assertion "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring." Joe Conason (Salon.com, 7/15/03) took note of "the press corps' failure to report his stunning gaffe. The sentence quoted above doesn't appear in today's New York Times report, for example."

What was Bush referring to here? At one time (1998) Saddam did in fact declare that he would no longer cooperate with inspections. It's not clear if this statement was inaccurate, much less intentionally so.

Everything else in this article could also be interpreted as stubborn bias and ignorance on Bush's part, and not neccesarily "lies". Wake up and smell the objective truth.

[Rohirrim]

Ha! Being a Bush apologist is a full time job. It must get downright bizarre when you get to, say, deception #178 and you're still saying, "Well, he might have meant..." You're like the blind pundit holding the elephant's tail and proclaiming, "An elephant is like a rope."

[The Lone Bolt]

Ha! Being a Bush apologist is a full time job. It must get downright bizarre when you get to, say, deception #178 and you're still saying, "Well, he might have meant..." You're like the blind pundit holding the elephant's tail and proclaiming, "An elephant is like a rope."

If you say so bro.::) ZZZ...

[bendog]

When the Sec of State says he was misled as to the "intelligence" he presented the frigging United Nations, it's past embarrasment. But people like Bolt will "retort," "but the President might have been misled too." Right, the VP, Sec of Def and Asst Sec of Defense lied to the SOS w/o the President's knowledge and ok. Sure, sure, that's really a possibility.

Of course, we don't REALLY know if man landed on the moon, and the bible may possibly be literally true in every detail.

[Rohirrim]

As long as Bolt focusses on the particulars, piece by microscopic piece, he can ignore the pattern of deceit, which is overwhelming.

[The Lone Bolt]

As long as Bolt focusses on the particulars, piece by microscopic piece, he can ignore the pattern of deceit, which is overwhelming.

The "overwhelming pattern of deceit" is only there if you want to see it. Truth is it's an illusion and you're seeing what you want to see. One could also see an "overwhelming pattern" of incompetence, stupidity, and stubbornness.

[Spider]

The "overwhelming pattern of deceit" is only there if you want to see it. Truth is it's an illusion and you're seeing what you want to see. One could also see an "overwhelming pattern" of incompetence, stupidity, and stubbornness.

ok Lonebolt , here is what you do .............go to the nearest western outlet store near you , get a belt and have your name put on it ........... that way Bush will know the name of his next lay ..........

[Rohirrim]

The "overwhelming pattern of deceit" is only there if you want to see it. Truth is it's an illusion and you're seeing what you want to see. One could also see an "overwhelming pattern" of incompetence, stupidity, and stubbornness.

Well, yes, there's that too. Look, Bolt, when it comes to seeing a pattern of deceit coming out of the Bush WH, it's not like I'm the Lone Ranger here. By any stretch of the imagination.

[bendog]

It's almost enough to make me take him off ignore. To see what single innanity he can pluck from the facts in the patternS of deciet to say "wait, he might just be incompetent."

Almost, but not enough. I'm starting to think its a personality disorder. But I suspect he's one of those people with a pathological hatred of Dims - be it race, taxes .... sex - which makes accepting that bushii is really not the best alternative impossible to accept.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well, yes, there's that too. Look, Bolt, when it comes to seeing a pattern of deceit coming out of the Bush WH, it's not like I'm the Lone Ranger here. By any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, and I can't totally blame you. With all of the circumstances taken as a whole I can understand how one might get the impression of a conspiracy.

But appearances can be deceiving. I only ask that people keep an open mind until we heve more conclusive evidence.

[The Lone Bolt]

It's almost enough to make me take him off ignore. To see what single innanity he can pluck from the facts in the patternS of deciet to say "wait, he might just be incompetent."

Almost, but not enough. I'm starting to think its a personality disorder. But I suspect he's one of those people with a pathological hatred of Dims - be it race, taxes .... sex - which makes accepting that bushii is really not the best alternative impossible to accept.


Wow, do you have me pegged wrong. "Pathological hatred" of democrats?Hilarious! Oh please.

No, what bothers me quite frankly is extremism, be it political, religious, scientific, whatever. And I am finding the extremist lynch mob mentality of the "Bush Lied People Died" crowd very disturbing. Without a trial, even without one piece of direct evidence, they've already declared him guilty. Why? Could it be a pathological hatred of dubya? Are they unwilling to accept any other possible explanation just because they're full of hate and anger towards a conservative President? I think that's very possible.

And if Bush is guilty without a trial and based on only circumstantial evidence, who else should we just suspend presumed innocence for? I don't like where this kind of thinking is going.

But I suppose if you're part of the lynch mob it all seems very reasonable, doesn't it?

[Rohirrim]

Sure, and I can't totally blame you. With all of the circumstances taken as a whole I can understand how one might get the impression of a conspiracy.

But appearances can be deceiving. I only ask that people keep an open mind until we heve more conclusive evidence.

I didn't say "conspiracy." You should be more careful with your language. I said "pattern of deceit."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha! Being a Bush apologist is a full time job. It must get downright bizarre when you get to, say, deception #178 and you're still saying, "Well, he might have meant..." You're like the blind pundit holding the elephant's tail and proclaiming, "An elephant is like a rope."

ROFL! :yep: ^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd be happy as a clam if Bush got nailed.

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Oh man!

Stop - you're killin' me. :rofl:

[TailgateNut]

Sure, and I can't totally blame you. With all of the circumstances taken as a whole I can understand how one might get the impression of a conspiracy.

But appearances can be deceiving. I only ask that people keep an open mind until we heve more conclusive evidence.

Are you auditioning for Bush's legal team. You sure are doin a great job "Bolty"!Hilarious!

...any one who at this point has doubts that Bush lied and misled the American public is just plain ignorant IMO. You must also believe OJ was innocent!

[TailgateNut]

Wow, do you have me pegged wrong. "Pathological hatred" of democrats?Hilarious! Oh please.

No, what bothers me quite frankly is extremism, be it political, religious, scientific, whatever. And I am finding the extremist lynch mob mentality of the "Bush Lied People Died" crowd very disturbing. Without a trial, even without one piece of direct evidence, they've already declared him guilty. Why? Could it be a pathological hatred of dubya? Are they unwilling to accept any other possible explanation just because they're full of hate and anger towards a conservative President? I think that's very possible.

And if Bush is guilty without a trial and based on only circumstantial evidence, who else should we just suspend presumed innocence for? I don't like where this kind of thinking is going.

But I suppose if you're part of the lynch mob it all seems very reasonable, doesn't it?

Trial??? You can't drag Bush and Co anywhere near a judge. I personally think they would go up in flames if the had to swear to tell the truth. It would be like "garlic and Vampires" and "silver bullets and the werewolf".

Truth and Bush don't mix!

[Play2win]

Are you auditioning for Bush's legal team. You sure are doin a great job "Bolty"!Hilarious!

...any one who at this point has doubts that Bush lied and misled the American public is just plain ignorant IMO. You must also believe OJ was innocent!

The difference between the "Bush situation" and OJ is,

There is a slight possibility that somehow OJ might have been innocent...