Convince me Bush lied

[w4wtf]

Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] ]
So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.


There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this. We do not work in the White House, we're not privileged to access such information. In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here since there's plenty of information on this subject published by news organizations.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.


My understanding is that he disposed of the VX by dropping it on Kurdish civilians.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.


I am firmly convinced that Bush misled only the US and the British. Had he been successful in misleading other nations, the coalition forces would include France, Germany, Italy and major forces from NATO and UN nations, not just token support.

Bush was unsuccessful in selling his war.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.


Assuming what you have written to be true, the fallacy is that you and I do not know what happened between the time Clinton said it and Bush said it. In that time span, Iraq could have disposed of their weapons because UN weapons inspectors had been in the country.

Quote[/b] ]
Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.


You're underselling the context of the yellow cake ordeal. What you have is someone outing at best an error, at worst a misrepresentation and *then* retribution being taken against those who published the details. That's pretty significant in that the administration just didn't say "yeah, we made a mistake", they covered it up and punished those who outed them.

What sealed the deal for me in convincing me that this war is built upon lies is how this thing was marketed. And yes, I mean the word marketed. First it was WMD, then it was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, then it was to bring democracy to the region. I imagine if you keep giving reasons why you're there, eventually you'll get one that fits. Right now, it appears that the one that fits is "to destroy a progressive Muslim country and bring the region into chaos".

As far as convincing, that's not my job. You need to research this yourself and make informed and intelligent decisions. I suggest you start by tuning out Fox News, CNN, Limbaugh, MSNBC and pick up some books.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,09:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
Yes, the Dems also swore up and down he had WMDs. They also supported going into Iraq to find and eliminate them.

What is piss poor about the whole situation, is the lack of decent intelligence and accurate information concerning the WMDs.

Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised. Once the invasion began and none were found, it was no longer a theory, it was fact.

More research should have been done to confirm, without a shadow of a doubt that those weapons did in fact exist. The nation (both sides) went off half-cocked and look at us know.

Bush was left holding the bag because he happened to be the HMFIC when it all happened.

[K3XR]

Well, at least Al got it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

[W1GUH]

He made no good case for it. #Important allies looked at what was presented at the UN and were unconvinced. #To me, it really doesn't matter if he deliberately lied or not. #He was probably personally convinced that he was "correct", but if that is the case that would mean that he has very bad judgement, which, to me, is as bad as, or maybe even worse, than lying.

In either case, we've lost tens of thousands of souls due to either lying or terrible, terrible judgement.

[KF0RT]

When the results are the same, I am not sure whether the difference between lies and stupidity matters that much.

73, Rob

[W8EFA]

It is obvious his intent was to invade Iraq and 911 was his convenient excuse to fool the American people. #

He took every bit of questionable evidence in support of an invasion and trumped it up. #He took every bit of information against invasion and tried to squash it. #There is numerous evidence of both, but it would be a waste of time listing it all because your mind is made up. #For example when told that Iraq was not connected to Al Queda he said look again. #When Richard Clarke the head terrorist czar told him he was crazy to invade Iraq as there was no valid reason he got rid of him. #Bush had Cheney and others saying they had proof of WMD's when we now know they had none, outright lies. #My God we have the Downing street memos that Blair and others don't dispute with Bush saying arrange the intelligence to support invading. We have weapons inspectors who had free and unfettered access for months and not finding anything pulled out. #And finally we have the PNAC plan written years before by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and the other Bush administration idiots calling for this invasion.

Other politicians and leaders insinuations and rhetoric about Iraq were just comments and opinions and are #light years away from idiot Bush actually invading a sovereign country that was not a threat nor attacked us.

Absolutely the worst Foreign policy error by the US and the Worst President in our history. #Iraq is now ranked the second worse country in the world after Darfur thanks to Bush.

[W8EFA]

Even after all the Bush lies and manipulation fooled many congressman the bottom line is the Republicans voted it in not the democrats.
215 Republicans authorized the war with only 6 against

126 Democrats voted against with only 81 for.

Most of the 81 believed the lies of the Bush administration and trusted him. What a mistake

[kf6rdn]

I voted for him in '00, but I think around 03 I became convinced he was crooked.

Not that they arent all crooked.

No, no proof, just in some of his policies, reading between the lines, applying a bit of logic. The Iraq thing is very debatable and questionable, and yes some hindsight, but stuff that should have been researched, as in the impact it would have on the power balance of the region.


More then that though, my personal pet peeve is his stance on illegal immigration. This is a social, financial and national security issue, and I EXPECT a Republican to FIX this, not make it WORSE! (He announces amnest in 02 and we get a rash more illegals). Why would he go so strongly against the base?
I'm all for free market but not at loss of integrity.

[N2RJ]

I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best.

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority.

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 20 2007,03:49)]Quote[/b] ]
So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.


There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this. #We do not work in the White House, we're not privileged to access such information. #In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here since there's plenty of information on this subject published by news organizations.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.


My understanding is that he disposed of the VX by dropping it on Kurdish civilians.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.


I am firmly convinced that Bush misled only the US and the British. #Had he been successful in misleading other nations, the coalition forces would include France, Germany, Italy and major forces from NATO and UN nations, not just token support.

Bush was unsuccessful in selling his war.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.


Assuming what you have written to be true, the fallacy is that you and I do not know what happened between the time Clinton said it and Bush said it. #In that time span, Iraq could have disposed of their weapons because UN weapons inspectors had been in the country.

Quote[/b] ]
Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.


You're underselling the context of the yellow cake ordeal. #What you have is someone outing at best an error, at worst a misrepresentation and *then* retribution being taken against those who published the details. #That's pretty significant in that the administration just didn't say "yeah, we made a mistake", they covered it up and punished those who outed them.

What sealed the deal for me in convincing me that this war is built upon lies is how this thing was marketed. #And yes, I mean the word marketed. #First it was WMD, then it was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, then it was to bring democracy to the region. #I imagine if you keep giving reasons why you're there, eventually you'll get one that fits. #Right now, it appears that the one that fits is "to destroy a progressive Muslim country and bring the region into chaos".

As far as convincing, that's not my job. #You need to research this yourself and make informed and intelligent decisions. #I suggest you start by tuning out Fox News, CNN, Limbaugh, MSNBC and pick up some books.
I love this comment. NCR you're one of the arrogant ones constantly spreading the talking point Bush Lied mantra and I have asked the same question, show us proof.

Now you come down from your mountain and say "There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this."

What a load of bull.

K2WH (Neocon)

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. The evidence WAS their homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.

[K6UEY]

You know in the confusion I always forget ,how many Mushroom clouds over the cities are we suppose to count before we invade an agressor ?? Is the count the same for east coast cities as it is for west coast cities,or is it only the big cities with the biggest mushroom cloud that we count ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ June 20 2007,03:50)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,09:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
Yes, the Dems also swore up and down he had WMDs. #They also supported going into Iraq to find and eliminate them.

What is piss poor about the whole situation, is the lack of decent intelligence and accurate information concerning the WMDs. #

Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised. #Once the invasion began and none were found, it was no longer a theory, it was fact.

More research should have been done to confirm, without a shadow of a doubt that those weapons did in fact exist. #The nation (both sides) went off half-cocked and look at us know.

Bush was left holding the bag because he happened to be the HMFIC when it all happened.
"Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised."

NO IT WASN'T SURMISED.

Lots of people forget, Saddam did use WMD's on his own people. We all saw it. In addition, Saddam did nothing to convince anyone he didn't have WMD's. Remember the inspections he was constantly thwarting and happering and even cancelled. He was part of the illusion of his possession of WMD's. Why did he not allow the inspections to continue and why did he put on this show he was hiding them? He could have stopped the invasion. It's his fault.

K2WH (Neocon)

[K0RGR]

I can't categorically say that Bush knew it was a total lie. He may have been hoping he would find enough evidence to silence the critics. But did he really think he'd find the mountains of WMD that they promised? No way...

You have to remember that they were talking about tons of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, not a few stray shells here and there.

I don't think there is any question that he intended to invade Iraq when he took office. He instructed his cabinet members at their first meeting to look for any evidence that could be used to justify it. Richard Clarke says that the President personally instructed him to look for evidence linking Iraq to AL Qaeda, even when there was none. Members of the administration started talking about Iraq even before they were inaugurated, leaving those of us who read the news to scratch our heads.

He obviously had some terrible advice from his Vice President and the current Secretary of State. They overrode the objections of the most respected man in the cabinet, Gen. Powell, and the objections of U.S. military commanders. He overrode the objections of the CIA and covered them up. According to insiders who've come forward - Cheney 'stovepiped' the intelligence.

The Downing Street papers - there was much , much more than just one memo - are pretty convincing. The trigger may not have been formally pulled, but it's obvious that the decision to pull it had been formed ages earlier, and the whole exercise of debating the war was simply a ruse. The decision was already made.

Here are some Bush quotes:

"Bush: 500 Tons of Sarin, 30,000 Munitions
Jan. 28, 2003
George W. Bush
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

Sep. 18, 2002
Donald Rumsfeld
His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.

His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapon

Did you notice the statement about "thousands of tons" of weapons? They didn't bury thousands of tons of anything in the desert or send it to Syria.

Some might call those exaggerations. Some would call them lies. It depends which side you voted for if you were in Congress. Republicans will insist that all of those statements were true in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best.

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority.

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. The evidence WAS their homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move.

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ June 20 2007,12:43)]You know in the confusion I always forget ,how many Mushroom clouds over the cities are we suppose to count before we invade an agressor ?? Is the count the same for east coast cities as it is for west coast cities,or is it only the big cities with the biggest mushroom cloud that we count ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Typical neo-kon scare tactics.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 19 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ June 20 2007,12:43)]You know in the confusion I always forget ,how many Mushroom clouds over the cities are we suppose to count before we invade an agressor ?? Is the count the same for east coast cities as it is for west coast cities,or is it only the big cities with the biggest mushroom cloud that we count ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Typical neo-kon scare tactics.
Be afraid.

Be Very Afraid.

[KC4HGH]

OK, what about the word "lie" don't you "Bush lied!" proponants don't get?

Until YOU have personally served in that post and experienced ALL the things one does in that position, you DON'T have the right to slander someone- namely, the President of YOUR country.

Reading the "Bush lied!" posts here show me the same mindless rote I hear on Air America (I tune in when I travel to hear what they have to say and it's always "Bush lied!")- maybe the left-wing QRZers need to turn off left-wing radio like they tell us to turn off right-wing radio? Maybe so- it's affecting their brains....

Until you KNOW without a shadow of doubt someone lied, SHUT UP! Your willful ignorance is eclipsed only by your blind hatred....

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,13:27)]Until YOU have personally served in that post and experienced ALL the things one does in that position, you DON'T have the right to slander someone- namely, the President of YOUR country.
Good idea.

Now work on getting that constitution amended. I'd like to run for President.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 19 2007,12:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
Sometimes is sounds as if neo-cons just can't help but say some of the things they do because they've been so completely programmed to react and not think about what they're saying. #

The good news is that they really are a small minority, and getting smaller. #I don't expect miracles, after all, programming is very difficult to overcome even if the programmee is aware of his/her programming and wants to change. #But at least the unprogrammed, thinking people are waking up and getting the cajones to speak their mind.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,10:34)]I love this comment. NCR you're one of the arrogant ones constantly spreading the talking point Bush Lied mantra and I have asked the same question, show us proof.

Now you come down from your mountain and say "There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this."

What a load of bull.

K2WH (Neocon)
The OP asked for proof on that point and I don't participate in the government, ergo I do not access to the information to prove nor disprove. Stating that fact is a whole lot easier and rational than the game in which you engage, which is to emphatically state your case as if it were true because the proof is nothing more than your desire for it to be reality. I mean, I understand that perception is reality, but you sir are no better than anyone else so spare me your indignation.

Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that we were fed a pack of lies as we continue to be fed lies by this administration. A simple way to see is to watch the Daily Show in which Jon Stewart continually mocks the administration asking them "do they not understand that we tape everything they say?" I applaud your stalwart nature, standing by these people when two-thirds of the population has pretty much turned their backs.

Think about this; while lack of proof does not mean he lied it also does not mean he didn't lie. Regardless, I'm sure we'll find out as history wears away the cover of this administration.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,07:21)]So convince me
Why would I want to?

Doesn't matter if Bush lied or was duped. Who cares?

He's an idiot either way. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

WB2WIK/6

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,13:27)]Until YOU have personally served in that post and experienced ALL the things one does in that position, you DON'T have the right to slander someone- namely, the President of YOUR country.
Good idea.

Now work on getting that constitution amended. I'd like to run for President.
Curious comment! Amend the Constitution how? Are you not U.S. born?

My wife told me that I wouldn't be a good politician- I'm too honest & would make many, many enemies in D.C.! Plus, we don't have the millions of dollars for campaigning....

I would like to see more honest people prevail in government...we are blessed here in Alabama to have two good Senators and a good Representative.

[n2ize]

Anyone who belives that Bush told us the honest truth about Iraq at this stage of the game is either nuts or in a very serious state of denial or, has been locked in a cave for a long time.

First and foremost it is abundantly clear that the USA attacked a soverign nation which neither invaded nor threatened the United States.

Secondly, there was clear testimony from prominent weapons inspectors who understood that while Sadaam may not have entirely dismantled every last and solitary peice of equipment his capacity to produce WMD's and/or act as an eminent threat to the Unitied States was either incapacitated or severly curtailed.

Third, we were told of ties to Al Queda when in reality there were none.

4th, we were told by Condeleeza of the eminent danger of a "mushroom cloud" when there clearly was none.

5th, images used by Colin Powell were shown to be not recent and in fact some were dated as far back as prior to the first gulf war.

6th, We were told of a critical Nigerian uranium connection when there clearly was none.

7th, some of the governments own documentation, including agencies such as the CIA indicates that the Bush administration could not have been unaware that the claims they were making we false.

8th, it is not the job of QRZ members to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bush administration lied and took us for a ride. All it takes is an open mind and a little critical research and thinking., Conclusive proof is what we pay those in government for,

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ June 20 2007,10:43)]You know in the confusion I always forget ,how many Mushroom clouds over the cities are we suppose to count before we invade an agressor ?? Is the count the same for east coast cities as it is for west coast cities,or is it only the big cities with the biggest mushroom cloud that we count ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Well, thus far I counted zero such clouds. That said, what "aggressor" did we invade ? last I checked Iraq never attacked the USA nor had any plans of doing so. last I checked prior to the Bush war against Iraq no Iraqi people harmed anyone from the USA. We chose to invade their country which resulted in the deaths of many thousands of their people. In that sense WE are the aggressor. If some foreign country invaded the US in the manner that Bush invaded Iraq you would be screaming bloody murder. Oh, last I checked Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,11:27)]OK, what about the word "lie" don't you "Bush lied!" proponants don't get?

Until YOU have personally served in that post and experienced ALL the things one does in that position, you DON'T have the right to slander someone- namely, the President of YOUR country.

Reading the "Bush lied!" posts here show me the same mindless rote I hear on Air America (I tune in when I travel to hear what they have to say and it's always "Bush lied!")- maybe the left-wing QRZers need to turn off left-wing radio like they tell us to turn off right-wing radio? #Maybe so- it's affecting their brains....

Until you KNOW without a shadow of doubt someone lied, SHUT UP! #Your willful ignorance is eclipsed only by your blind hatred....
Quote[/b] ]
Until YOU have personally served in that post and experienced ALL the things one does in that position, you DON'T have the right to slander someone- namely, the President of YOUR countr


Okay, I'll bite. But make sure you apply that philosophy to ALL persons. Don;t slander the "drug dealer" on your corner until you have stood in his position and experienced ALl the things he has experienced in that position. Just because he hands bags of white powder in exchange for money in front of the local grammar school doesn;t mean you have a right to slander him. Ditto for the burglar, the rapist, etc. When you are ready to apply that rule equally to everyone then I'll bite.

Quote[/b] ]
Reading the "Bush lied!" posts here show me the same mindless rote I hear on Air America (I tune in when I travel to hear what they have to say and it's always "Bush lied!")- maybe the left-wing QRZers need to turn off left-wing radio like they tell us to turn off right-wing radio? #Maybe so- it's affecting their brains....


Perhaps Air America is calling it as they see it. When a person tells you one thing then changes the story to something else or what we see in reality is quite different from what we were told you generally assume that lying has taken place. Perhaps, unlike Rush and friends Air America is simply looking at what is visible.

Quote[/b] ]
Until you KNOW without a shadow of doubt someone lied, SHUT UP! #Your willful ignorance is eclipsed only by your blind hatred....


Well, if the president didn't lie then he sure did an awfully lousy job of telling the truth. In any event to tell the American people to shut up when they clearly see the dots do not connect and there is a great discrepancy between what they were told and what really is getting a bit harsh. At least the president should learn how to tell the truth without contradicting himself and making it come across as a lie.

[n2nh]

Okay. Bush told everyone there were WMDs and he actually believed that. Then after a year or so, Bush admitted that there were NO WMDs. How does this play out?

1) He's a smart man who knew better so he lied.

2) We're giving him waaay too much credit. He wasn't that smart.

As far as nobody disagreed with the Bush assessment of WMDs, there's always Hans Blix:

Quote[/b] ]Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Newt Gingrich stated that approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media"

Yep, Newt, he was a big mistake. Blix was the chink in the WMD argument that wouldn't go away.

Bush lied. He's not as stupid as you'd like us to believe.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,13:37)]Curious comment! #Amend the Constitution how? #Are you not U.S. born?
You are correct. I am not U.S. born.

If you really look at it - the law barring naturalized citizens from the presidency is unfair, unjust and irrelevant in today's society, especially when naturalized citizens are more than willing to lay their lives on the line for this country.

I should add that I am not yet a citizen. However, I am waiting on the interview which should happen in a couple of months. USCIS has promised that its goal is to have naturalization cases processed within 6 months. We will see.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,12:24)]Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,13:37)]Curious comment! Amend the Constitution how? Are you not U.S. born?
You are correct. I am not U.S. born.

If you really look at it - the law barring naturalized citizens from the presidency is unfair, unjust and irrelevant in today's society, especially when naturalized citizens are more than willing to lay their lives on the line for this country.

I should add that I am not yet a citizen. However, I am waiting on the interview which should happen in a couple of months. USCIS has promised that its goal is to have naturalization cases processed within 6 months. We will see.
This provision, as I was told, was intended to avoid the problems of a president who may have lingering entanglements.

The founding fathers were intimately familiar with how European monarchy interbred between the borders of countries. I have to believe they wanted to avoid that game and the problems like the Hapsburgs.

Is it relevant today? Probably not as much, but given the current state of nationalism in this country, good luck getting an amendment.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 19 2007,13:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
Whoa....Dude! You might think about adjusting your meds or whatever's got you so worked up.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 20 2007,14:35)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,12:24)]Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ June 20 2007,13:37)]Curious comment! Amend the Constitution how? Are you not U.S. born?
You are correct. I am not U.S. born.

If you really look at it - the law barring naturalized citizens from the presidency is unfair, unjust and irrelevant in today's society, especially when naturalized citizens are more than willing to lay their lives on the line for this country.

I should add that I am not yet a citizen. However, I am waiting on the interview which should happen in a couple of months. USCIS has promised that its goal is to have naturalization cases processed within 6 months. We will see.
This provision, as I was told, was intended to avoid the problems of a president who may have lingering entanglements.

The founding fathers were intimately familiar with how European monarchy interbred between the borders of countries. I have to believe they wanted to avoid that game and the problems like the Hapsburgs.

Is it relevant today? Probably not as much, but given the current state of nationalism in this country, good luck getting an amendment.
Today it is pretty much irrelevant because first generation US born to immigrant parents can run, and they are pretty much immersed in the "old country" and its culture, thanks to their parents. They can run even if their parents are illegal aliens. Compare that to the immigrant who comes here, grows up in American culture and even serves in the military. Two extremes, but two common situations.

But you are right about the amendment, but hey, it doesn't hurt to try. Who knows.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best.

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority.

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. The evidence WAS their homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move.

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
If you look at the performance of this administration it appears they have little regard for the opinions of the American people. it is also evident that this administration cares little if anything about the opinions, rights, and/or sovereignty of other peoples and nations in the world. Indeed, when Bush was asked publically what is meant by 'sovereign" he could not explain the meaning of the word. Imagine a world leader who cannot define a word that a grammar school child could ?

That is why many Europeans who look at this administration objectivly see it for what it is, arrogant, self serving and disregarding. I am learning more and more that these who remain fond of the actions of this administration tend to have a thought process very similar to that of this adminitration, i.e., that like attracts like.

Too many Americans seem to feel that the US is the only nation in the world that matters or counts. That what the USA says goes unconditionally and nobody else matters or is worthy of passing consideration. Such attitudes unfortunately only serve to weaken the rold of the US as a world innovator.

This is not a vindication of other administrations. it is just to point out a particular arrogance which has befallen upon our nation and it's leadership and a percentage of its populous. By not holding our leadership to higher standards we only derve to discredit ourselves not only to the eyes of the world but to ourselves as well. we undermine both our own nation, our military and ourselves.

[w4wtf]

OK, I can believe he possibly made bad decisions, and was more inclined to believe information that presented that favored his position (much the same way the "Bush lied" crowd does, or almost anybody does).

I have not yet been convinced that he knew what he was saying was a lie and said it anyway. I am not yet convinced that he knew there was going to be no WMD found yet sent us there looking for it. And thats what it takes to be a lie.


I can believe misled. I can believe bad judgement. Nobody has shown its was all lies.

And that is a huge jump between mistaken and lied.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,12:45)]OK, I can believe he possibly made bad decisions, and was more inclined to believe information that presented that favored his position (much the same way the "Bush lied" crowd does, or almost anybody does).

I have not yet been convinced that he knew what he was saying was a lie and said it anyway. I am not yet convinced that he knew there was going to be no WMD found yet sent us there looking for it. And thats what it takes to be a lie.


I can believe misled. I can believe bad judgement. Nobody has shown its was all lies.

And that is a huge jump between mistaken and lied.
It's hard to imagine that there was no lying involved. face it, this administration was as eager to get into Iraq as a hungry fish goes after a bloody worm. #If the admin was that misled then it shows extreme incompetance. The kind of incompetance that has proven dangerous and cost many many lives. #read carefully and you'll discover that there was plenty of info from numerous and trusted government and military sources indicating that they have to have known that Iraq was not an eminent danger to the US. #So either they lies or they are totally naive and absolutely incompetant. Either way it doesn;t change the fact that it is an unjust and corrupt war that needs to end.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,15:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
This ought to be good. I can hardly wait. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W8EFA]

What really convinced me were the weapons inspectors. #The fact is that when they were pulled out they had free and unfettered access to anywhere in Iraq. #They had a team of over 60 inspectors and they were walking in unannounced anywhere they wanted including Government palaces and institutions in the weeks leading up to the invasion. #This is a fact if you care to research it. #Yes, earlier inspections were hindered but the final inspections the last 2 months were not as Sadaam was worried we were going to invade and really backed down.

It is just plain common sense. #The reasoning for invading was the threat of WMD's! #Why would you pull out the weapons inspectors looking for them? #Because every day that went by without them finding something made it harder and harder to invade.

Bush wanted to avenge his Father, establish a base in that area, and possibly establish a democracy in that area. #He could not tell the truth and invade - he had to lie. #My mother always told me, Nothing ever good comes of a lie.

[KC9KOC]

Well let them find the critical proof.

Funny how so many politicians from both parties who believed there were probaby WMDs in Iraq did an about face after the fact.

[n2nh]

Truth neocon mind
http://i10.tinypic.com/2ni87lx.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KC9KOC @ June 20 2007,16:37)]Well let them find the critical proof.

Funny how so many politicians from both parties who believed there were probaby WMDs in Iraq did an about face after the fact.
What fact? Are you even trying to imply that WMDs were a fact? They changed their mind when they realized that there were indeed no WMDs as BUSH had emphatically told them.

So, either he was smart and lied, or you're saying he's a moron and believed this? Still waiting to hear the answer.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,15:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best.

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority.

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement "His administration didn't do their homework" is incorrect. The evidence WAS their homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
"Bush" and "wise" and "intelligent" simply do not go together! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move.

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
He still has his knickers in a knot over Chavez's refusal to kiss the shrub's @$$.

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>KILL! KILL! KILL!</span></span> ... '08 Campaign Slogan for the &quot;Party of Hate&quot;.

&quot;Vote Republican. One Way, Our Way&quot;.

[WA3WDR]

Oh, please. #At a minimum, Bush is guilty of depraved indifference. #It was mostly Cheney's war. #I think Bush knew it was BS and didn't care, because Saddam had tried to kill his daddy.

Look at how seriously Bush took the war, and its casualties, and the amazing WMD vaporware. He thought it was all a big joke!

Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires
BBC News, March 26, 2004
Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm)
Quote[/b] ]At a black-tie dinner for journalists, Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members of his administration.

One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: &quot;Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.&quot;

After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: &quot;No, no weapons over there,&quot; he said.

And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: &quot;Maybe under here?&quot;
Yeah, it was just a big funny joke. Ha ha ha. #Over 3,500 US troops dead now. #Right, bring it on!

[wa8rti]

There has been mention by White House insiders that Chaney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were talking war with Iraq long before 9/11. #9/11 provided them with the perfect excuse to push ahead with their goals. Daddy Bush seems to have had better advise on the dangers of removing Sadam completely and the genie of sectarian violence that he kept in the bottle. #To bad Junior's advisors weren't as smart. #Their counsel has put us into a quicksand mess.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,08:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement &quot;His administration didn't do their homework&quot; is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
&quot;Bush&quot; and &quot;wise&quot; and &quot;intelligent&quot; simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
I just threw that in there to see if you would catch it. On the other hand, what has South America done for us today? NOTHING.

Just fooling around.

K2WH (Hillary for President. She deserves it - the bitch)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,17:01)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,08:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement &quot;His administration didn't do their homework&quot; is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
&quot;Bush&quot; and &quot;wise&quot; and &quot;intelligent&quot; simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
I just threw that in there to see if you would catch it. #On the other hand, what has South America done for us today? #NOTHING.

Just fooling around.

K2WH (Hillary for President. #She deserves it - the bitch)
In aan evil sort of way I almost would like to see Hillary become president... just to spite the neocon arrogance.

[k6bbc]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,07:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
Let's just put it this way. In most businesses, if one were just wrong that many time, ones ass would be fired.

The question I have to ask is, if I starting a business, would I trust George W. Bush to run it.

NO!

bbc

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 20 2007,17:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,17:01)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,08:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,06:26)]I wouldn't necessarily say that Bush lied.

However, he made a very poor judgement call on evidence that was flaky at best. #

His administration didn't do their homework and they went in shooting from the hip, cowboy style. #Yeehaw!

Furthermore, Iraq should never have been a priority. #

That was, has and always will be my stand on this issue.
Another one. #I would say Bush made a wise and intelligent call on the evidence presented. #I would also tend to believe no matter who was in office at the time would have made the same decision.

Your statement &quot;His administration didn't do their homework&quot; is incorrect. #The evidence WAS their #homework good or bad and you will come to the same conclusion.

The evidence supported Iraq as THE priority.
&quot;Bush&quot; and &quot;wise&quot; and &quot;intelligent&quot; simply do not go together! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq. #You seem to forget that a lot of people were against this war from the very start, and questioned whether there were any WMD's in Iraq, and many people questioned Iraq's link to 9/11 (there was none).

Then Bush ignored us all and went in anyway... Found NOTHING yet is still convinced that he made the right move. #

But of course, Neocons like yourself with their heads up where the sun don't shine would never see the truth.
N2RJ: Whoever was in office at the time would NOT have chosen to go into Iraq.

Apparently you believe anyone but Bush would not have gone to war. #Therefore, you believe there is a flaw in Bushs' thinking process that is completely alien to the rest of the US population. #Is this what you are suggesting?

Since I am a US citizen and could run for President, if I was in his position, I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent. #So, with that statement made, your statement is incorrect.

K2WH (Neocon, Bloomberg for President)
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
I just threw that in there to see if you would catch it. #On the other hand, what has South America done for us today? #NOTHING.

Just fooling around.

K2WH (Hillary for President. #She deserves it - the bitch)
In aan evil sort of way I almost would like to see Hillary become president... just to spite the neocon arrogance.
When hillary does become president, it will prove most of what has been said about her, bad and or good....

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ June 20 2007,20:35)]
When hillary does become president, it will prove most of what has been said about her, bad and or good....
Just as Bush has proven almost every negative comment ever uttered about him true.

Yeah, may as well elect Shrillary. The howling of the neocons for at least four years would provide endless amusement.

[WA3WDR]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,15:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent.
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
About as much as Iraq had to do with 9/11.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (WA3WDR @ June 20 2007,20:42)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 20 2007,15:44)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,14:28)]I would have nuked the entire friggin South American continent.
I do have to ask, what does South America have to do with this?
About as much as Iraq had to do with 9/11.
Swish! 3-pointer ... nothing but net! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

On a related, more somber note:

U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,531
<span style='color:gray'><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Associated press Headline June 20, 2007</span></span>

[KI4SQT]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 19 2007,09:49)]Quote[/b] ]
So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.


There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this. #We do not work in the White House, we're not privileged to access such information. #In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here since there's plenty of information on this subject published by news organizations.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.


My understanding is that he disposed of the VX by dropping it on Kurdish civilians.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.


I am firmly convinced that Bush misled only the US and the British. #Had he been successful in misleading other nations, the coalition forces would include France, Germany, Italy and major forces from NATO and UN nations, not just token support.

Bush was unsuccessful in selling his war.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.


Assuming what you have written to be true, the fallacy is that you and I do not know what happened between the time Clinton said it and Bush said it. #In that time span, Iraq could have disposed of their weapons because UN weapons inspectors had been in the country.

Quote[/b] ]
Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.


You're underselling the context of the yellow cake ordeal. #What you have is someone outing at best an error, at worst a misrepresentation and *then* retribution being taken against those who published the details. #That's pretty significant in that the administration just didn't say &quot;yeah, we made a mistake&quot;, they covered it up and punished those who outed them.

What sealed the deal for me in convincing me that this war is built upon lies is how this thing was marketed. #And yes, I mean the word marketed. #First it was WMD, then it was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, then it was to bring democracy to the region. #I imagine if you keep giving reasons why you're there, eventually you'll get one that fits. #Right now, it appears that the one that fits is &quot;to destroy a progressive Muslim country and bring the region into chaos&quot;.

As far as convincing, that's not my job. #You need to research this yourself and make informed and intelligent decisions. #I suggest you start by tuning out Fox News, CNN, Limbaugh, MSNBC and pick up some books.
&quot;In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.'
I think what you mean here is that... what ever the news media prints or broadcasts on this subject is either heresay or conjecture...based on politically motivated disinformation in order to support a much farther lean to the left than we have ever experienced...
Even the staunchest LIBS swallowed it hook, line and sinker right after 9/11...And if you really believe that...that bunch of paranoid nitwits didn't check out all of the information (Intelligence) given to them on the subject of the middle east, from every possible angle and 9 ways from Sunday, I've got some beach front property that you should be interested in...

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:47)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ June 20 2007,03:50)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,09:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
Yes, the Dems also swore up and down he had WMDs. They also supported going into Iraq to find and eliminate them.

What is piss poor about the whole situation, is the lack of decent intelligence and accurate information concerning the WMDs.

Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised. Once the invasion began and none were found, it was no longer a theory, it was fact.

More research should have been done to confirm, without a shadow of a doubt that those weapons did in fact exist. The nation (both sides) went off half-cocked and look at us know.

Bush was left holding the bag because he happened to be the HMFIC when it all happened.
&quot;Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised.&quot;

NO IT WASN'T SURMISED.

Lots of people forget, Saddam did use WMD's on his own people. We all saw it. In addition, Saddam did nothing to convince anyone he didn't have WMD's. Remember the inspections he was constantly thwarting and happering and even cancelled. He was part of the illusion of his possession of WMD's. Why did he not allow the inspections to continue and why did he put on this show he was hiding them? He could have stopped the invasion. It's his fault.

K2WH (Neocon)


Sure it was surmised. They THOUGHT he had them. If he DID, we would have FOUND them, right?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif We've been in Iraq for over 3 years. With the exception of some old busted up, rusted, junk left over from the PGW, nothing has been found of any significance.

The intelligence was a failure. People jumped half-cocked. Nothing was found. 3,500 U.S. soldiers dead.

The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks is still at large too. Another failure. Except this failure was intentional. Your boy from Texas said he's not important. Your boy from Texas doesn't wanna screw up his business ties with the Bin Laden family and the rest of the Saudi's.

19 hijackers, ALL Saudi. Not a single shot fired in the Arabian Peninsula. I guess Bush knows which side of the bread the butter is on, huh?

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,07:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
You've got to have faith and believe. Otherwise it's a lost cause.

[k6bbc]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ June 20 2007,18:09)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,07:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
You've got to have faith and believe. Otherwise it's a lost cause.
A truly mind-numbing comment.

bbc

[k5rna]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ June 20 2007,17:58)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2007,12:47)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ June 20 2007,03:50)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,09:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
Yes, the Dems also swore up and down he had WMDs. #They also supported going into Iraq to find and eliminate them.

What is piss poor about the whole situation, is the lack of decent intelligence and accurate information concerning the WMDs. #

Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised. #Once the invasion began and none were found, it was no longer a theory, it was fact.

More research should have been done to confirm, without a shadow of a doubt that those weapons did in fact exist. #The nation (both sides) went off half-cocked and look at us know.

Bush was left holding the bag because he happened to be the HMFIC when it all happened.
&quot;Prior to the invasion, Saddam's possession of WMDs was surmised.&quot;

NO IT WASN'T SURMISED.

Lots of people forget, Saddam did use WMD's on his own people. #We all saw it. #In addition, Saddam did nothing to convince anyone he didn't have WMD's. #Remember the inspections he was constantly thwarting and happering and even cancelled. #He was part of the illusion of his possession of WMD's. #Why did he not allow the inspections to continue and why did he put on this show he was hiding them? #He could have stopped the invasion. #It's his fault.

K2WH #(Neocon)


Sure it was surmised. #They THOUGHT he had them. #If he DID, we would have FOUND them, right?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #We've been in Iraq for over 3 years. #With the exception of some old busted up, rusted, junk left over from the PGW, nothing has been found of any significance. #

The intelligence was a failure. #People jumped half-cocked. #Nothing was found. #3,500 U.S. soldiers dead.

The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks is still at large too. #Another failure. #Except this failure was intentional. #Your boy from Texas said he's not important. #Your boy from Texas doesn't wanna screw up his business ties with the Bin Laden family and the rest of the Saudi's.

19 hijackers, ALL Saudi. #Not a single shot fired in the Arabian Peninsula. #I guess Bush knows which side of the bread the butter is on, huh?
What do you mean,our boy from Texas?Bush is from Ct. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K6UEY]

Are You aware :
During the 3 years we have lost over 3500 lives in a WAR we also lost OVER 120,000 Innocent Civillians right here at HOME on our Hiways!!
Who is financing the March to STOP the innocent Men,Women,and Children from being slaughtered on our Hiways ?? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[K3XR]

Who lied???

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 20 2007,18:26)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ June 20 2007,18:09)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ June 20 2007,07:21)]Ok, I see it more and more here.

So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.

Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.

Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.

Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.

Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.

Convince me.
You've got to have faith and believe. Otherwise it's a lost cause.
A truly mind-numbing comment.

bbc
About a mind-numbing subject.

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 20 2007,19:40)]Who lied???

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816
If it is not on NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc, it is right wing biased dribble and is irrelevant.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ June 20 2007,22:35)]Are You aware :
During the 3 years we have lost over 3500 lives in a WAR we also lost OVER 120,000 Innocent Civillians right here at HOME on our Hiways!!
Who is financing the March to STOP the innocent Men,Women,and Children from being slaughtered on our Hiways ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
That comparison is truly for the brain dead. President Bush hasn't yet ordered anyone on our highways to their death. Yet. I suspect, that given time, and if corporate interests are involved ...

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ June 21 2007,01:54)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ June 20 2007,22:35)]Are You aware :
During the 3 years we have lost over 3500 lives in a WAR we also lost OVER 120,000 Innocent Civillians right here at HOME on our Hiways!!
Who is financing the March to STOP the innocent Men,Women,and Children from being slaughtered on our Hiways ?? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
That comparison is truly for the brain dead. #President Bush hasn't yet ordered anyone on our highways to their death. #Yet. #I suspect, that given time, and if corporate interests are involved ...
Its' called &quot;clutching at straws&quot;.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4SQT @ June 20 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 19 2007,09:49)]Quote[/b] ]
So convince me, line by line, that the president was 100% sure Saddam had no WMD and intentionally misled the world. Provide good, verifable sources that will stand up to scrutiny. Prove to me there was no way anyone could have thought he had anything.


There is no way for you or I to have access in order to prove this. #We do not work in the White House, we're not privileged to access such information. #In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me it is in no way possible that mixed intel was misread, that it is not possible that Saddam intentionally placed false intel out there in the hopes that it would scare us from messing with him.

Convince me Saddam only gave weapons inspectors a hard time and roadblocks for fun.


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here since there's plenty of information on this subject published by news organizations.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that the 100-400 tons of VX we gave Saddam (a mistake, yes), that is still unaccounted for, was not only destroyed but the Bush had 100% proof of that.


My understanding is that he disposed of the VX by dropping it on Kurdish civilians.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that Bush not only mislead the US, but other world leaders and thier entire intel agencies.


I am firmly convinced that Bush misled only the US and the British. #Had he been successful in misleading other nations, the coalition forces would include France, Germany, Italy and major forces from NATO and UN nations, not just token support.

Bush was unsuccessful in selling his war.

Quote[/b] ]
Convince me that when Clinton also said Iraq had WMD's, he was not telling a lie, but somehow as soon as Bush was elected that became a lie.


Assuming what you have written to be true, the fallacy is that you and I do not know what happened between the time Clinton said it and Bush said it. #In that time span, Iraq could have disposed of their weapons because UN weapons inspectors had been in the country.

Quote[/b] ]
Do all this without using hindsight, but the evidince available at that time. I know the Plame deal and will give you that one, but thats a small piece of a huge puzzle.


You're underselling the context of the yellow cake ordeal. #What you have is someone outing at best an error, at worst a misrepresentation and *then* retribution being taken against those who published the details. #That's pretty significant in that the administration just didn't say &quot;yeah, we made a mistake&quot;, they covered it up and punished those who outed them.

What sealed the deal for me in convincing me that this war is built upon lies is how this thing was marketed. #And yes, I mean the word marketed. #First it was WMD, then it was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, then it was to bring democracy to the region. #I imagine if you keep giving reasons why you're there, eventually you'll get one that fits. #Right now, it appears that the one that fits is &quot;to destroy a progressive Muslim country and bring the region into chaos&quot;.

As far as convincing, that's not my job. #You need to research this yourself and make informed and intelligent decisions. #I suggest you start by tuning out Fox News, CNN, Limbaugh, MSNBC and pick up some books.
&quot;In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the problems critics have with the White House in that none of what the President has said *is* verifiable and they do everything to chase away scrutiny.'
I think what you mean here is that... what ever the news media prints or broadcasts on this subject is either heresay or conjecture...based on politically motivated disinformation in order to support a much farther lean to the left than we have ever experienced...
Even the staunchest LIBS swallowed it hook, line and sinker right after 9/11...And if you really believe that...that bunch of paranoid nitwits didn't check out all of the information (Intelligence) given to them on the subject of the middle east, from every possible angle and 9 ways from Sunday, I've got some beach front property that you should be interested in...
Much of it IS verifiable. All you have to do is listen to the presidents own words. There is such a thing as recording. Much of what people see of this administration doesn't have to come from media slant or some bizzare liberal plot. All you have to do is look at the performance of the administration...

Now, if you are trying to argue that every bit of information is wrong and put through some strange bizzare liberal filter thus obscuring any and all reality then I would sense something delusional. In that case how do we know there really is an Iraq war, how do we know 911 really happened, how do we know 3500+ soldiers have died ??

I think the so called corporate owned liberal media may not be as liberal as you think. of course by todays neocon standards Richard Nixon would be considered an extreme left wing radical hippie liberal. The founding forefathers would be considered to be extreme left wing communist traitors. The neocons have shifted so far to the extreme right that itt is mind boggling. What was considered right of center a few years ago is now considered far left.

[w2amr]

Did someone mention bush lies?



February 23, 2004 CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES

The True Lies of George W. Bush


A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by Jeremy Warren


When Democrats accuse George W. Bush of being a liar, Republicans -- and until recently, the media -- have responded that Bush is a man of integrity whom you can trust at his word. It was the evil Bill Clinton who lied. Remember him wagging his finger at us? That bastard!

Well, yes, Bill Clinton did indeed lie to us. He lied to us about a blow-job. It sure is good that we spent nearly $100 million to find out how semen reacts on a cotton blue dress from the Gap. Of course, it turned out that he was telling the truth to us about Whitewater and filegate and travelgate and campaign finance-gate and gate-gate and more. I'm sure we could find better uses for that money today. But, Clinton certainly did lie about that hummer. Imagine that, a man lying about sex. In America no less.

Of course, unlike another president, Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone.

Anyway, I decided to put just a short list together of lies by George W. Bush. These are not banal lies about one's sex life, these are big lies, whoppers and tall tales about his own record, who he is, what he's done and what he stands for.

1. The Iraq War.


We could really start and end with this one, since this lie has killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqi men women and children. But this one certainly does not stand alone.

Let's break this out into subcategories as well, such as:

a) &quot;The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud.&quot; Iraq didn't even have ####ake mushrooms.

b) &quot;Saddam would not let the inspectors in.&quot; Bush has now made this claim twice. It came as quite a surprise to the hundreds of U.N. inspectors that were in Iraq in 2003 and were told by the U.S. to get out or get bombed.

c) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. All right, I cut them some slack on this one as EVERYONE thought that he still possessed some WMD capability. The difference is that no one else felt that Hussein was any sort of credible military threat to the rest of the region, much less the United States. And, by &quot;no one&quot; else, I mean C.I.A., the U.N. and anyone else not named Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Pearle.

d) &quot;We know exactly where they are.&quot; So said Rumsfeld shortly after the war ended. I wonder if he's shared that bit of information with his boss yet?

e) The laundry list. Both Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech and Colin Powell at the United Nations read through a laundry list of horrors that was quantified down to the milliliter. Powell called these charges &quot;facts&quot; that were unassailable. Yet we have still not found a drop.

f) &quot;We believe that, in fact, Saddam Hussein has reconstituted nuclear weapons.&quot; Dick Cheney said this on Meet the Press in 2003. Even as Bush and others were careful of going overboard, Dick &quot;Goebbels&quot; Cheney kept going for not just the Big Lie, but the Grandaddy of them all.

g) Drones that could attack the United States. True, if they were launched from Padre Island. The truth is that little Timmy down the block has a more sophisticated remote control airplane than Saddam did.

h) Yellow cake uranium. The Italian press thought those documents were fake. Let me repeat that: the ITALIAN PRESS thought they were forgeries!

i) We will be welcomed as liberators. Those are bullets, roadside bombs and RPGs, not roses fellas.

j) Imminent? Who said imminent? Well, Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld and others. But, apparently Bush never said the words himself. He just used every other phrase he could think of to scare the crap out of us. And, as a point of order, isn't it the Bush Administration? When someone is speaking for the administration, don't they speak for Bush?

k) Al Qaeda and Saddam had close ties. Well, both he and bin Laden are Sunni Muslims, they both have moustaches and, to quote Cliff Clavin, neither of them have ever been in my kitchen. They must be like brothers.

l) &quot;We have found WMDs in Iraq.&quot; Bush and others have made this claim regarding an ever so dangerous weather tracking truck.

m) &quot;They could have been destroyed by Saddam. Or moved out of the country.&quot; I know Bush doesn't read the papers or watch the news, but does he even listen to his own staff? David Kay, his hand-picked inspector, said there obviously weren't any weapons in the first place. But, what if Bush is right and they were moved, shipped out of the country? Well, then the whole purpose of the war -- to keep Hussein from giving his WMDs to terrorists -- was a failure. Well, George, which one is it?

I could go on and on, but we've got even more real hardcore, honest to goodness, Grade A lies to address.

2. Taxes (part 1)


Bush has consistently claimed that he is against tax increases. Yet, as Governor, his 1997 tax plan would have forced tens of thousands of business to pay franchise taxes that previously did not have to pay. According to the GOP School of Taxes playbook, that's a tax increase, no if ands or buts about it.

3. Taxes (part 2)


Throughout the 2000 campaign and through 2001, Bush claimed that his mega tax cut for the mega rich was actually a tax cut for the working folks. In fact, he said &quot;the vast majority&quot; would go to &quot;the bottom.&quot; As Al Franken has so ably pointed out, &quot;by far the vast majority&quot; usually means more than 14.7 percent that the bottom 60 percent received. Consider that &quot;fuzzy math.&quot;

4. Taxes (part 3)


In 2003, Bush claimed his latest sop to the uber-wealthy would create jobs. In fact, the special interest, Rockefeller tax cut was -- in true Orwellian fashion -- named the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Someone wake me when those 2.6 million jobs Bush promised in 2004 start being created. He needs to create around 300,000 jobs a month through Election Day to reach his pledge.

5. Taxes (part 4)


Bush, who tried to extend taxes to thousands of businesses and not call it a tax increase, now claims that if his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not made permanent, that is a tax increase. Now, remember, the law as written says those taxes automatically phase out if nothing is changed. Bush now says if the law as written -- the law he signed -- is not changed, that is a tax increase.

6. &quot;I fulfilled my duty.&quot;


&quot;He didn't take his flight physical because his doctor was in Houston.&quot; The entire National Guard spin is falling apart before our eyes. The facts of the issue have remained the same, but the Bush Team's laughable responses become &quot;inoperable&quot; by the day. Despite their ever-angrier denials, the issue won't go away. Last Friday night's document dump and run still hasn't answered the key question: where were you during the war, George? At least 1972. You can say it's &quot;trolling for trash&quot; all you want, but you can't make the issue go away without some proof.

7. &quot;I'm a uniter not a divider&quot;


Bush's 2000 mantra -- bought hook, line and sinker by much of the media -- was that only he could come to Washington and end the partisan bickering. Within weeks, this proved to be completely untrue. His heavy-handed partisanship even cost him control of the U.S. Senate for a time, as Republican Jim Jeffords bolted the party.

In 2002, Bush showed his unifying skills by saying that Democrats who disagreed with his behemoth vision for the Department of Homeland Security -- a plan he had opposed for nearly a year -- &quot;didn't care about the security of the country.&quot; You know, guys like Senator Tom Daschle, who was actually a terrorist target. He then thanked Max Cleland and Mary Landrieu for their steadfast support by targeting them and backing opponents who questioned their patriotism and, in Louisiana, sent out mailers to black neighborhoods with the wrong election date.

Well, Bush is a uniter in one way: He has united the Democratic Party like never before, and is driving independents back to the Democratic Party in droves. Please, keep uniting us.

8. The 2004 budget.


From front to back, the latest Bush budget is one of the most fraudulent documents ever created by the U.S. government. Well, at least since the last budget. Like 2003, Bush doesn't count the cost of Iraq or Afghanistan into his fantasy land accounting. He also counts in billions of spending cuts that are flat out pipe dreams that even the GOP won't support. According to the White House, the deficit -- which has gone from hundreds of billions in the black to $518 billon in the red in just three short years -- will be cut in half. This from an administration that has overestimated growth and underestimated projected deficits each year. But, according to George, prosperity truly is just around the corner.

9. &quot;I won't run a deficit.&quot;


During the 2000 campaign, Bush responded to those who -- quite correctly -- said his voodoo economic plan would drive us right back into the gutter that he would not operate a deficit. He said that he was &quot;a governor. I believe in balanced budgets.&quot; Yes, the same way kids believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.

10. &quot;I hit the trifecta.&quot;


Following our steady plummet back into deficit land, Bush used the handy excuse of &quot;the trifecta&quot;: war, national emergency and recession. He explained away his past statements that he wouldn't run a deficit by claiming he had made an exception for those three things. Of course, he never actually said that. Paul Begala, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, Joe Conason and others have all reviewed every statement printed during the 2000 campaign and Bush never made any such qualification. Of course, why should we hold them to what he actually said? As Larry Speakes, Ronald Reagan's press secretary once said, &quot;No it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.&quot;

11. &quot;I released all my National Guard records in 2000.&quot;

On Meet the Press, Bush once again fell back to his standard behavior when confronted with an uncomfortable subject: he lied his ass off. Four years after reporters first asked him to release his records -- and a nearly a week after he promised to -- Bush finally followed in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey and Wes Clark and released his full military record.

12. &quot;I'm spending less than Bill Clinton.&quot;

On Meet the Press, an interview that will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions Karl Rove has ever made, Bush claimed that government spending has actually dropped under his tenure. Even GOP stalwarts ran away from this one faster than Rush Limbaugh runs to a bowlful of Oxycontins. The truth of the matter is that federal spending has exploded under George W., just as spending exploded in Texas while he was governor. This fella just ain't your daddy's fiscal conservative.

Here is a great quote on Bush's spending:

&quot;His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson's &quot;Great Society.&quot; The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22% from 1999 to 2003. A Washington Post report said, &quot;The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full- throttle under President Bush.&quot; Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is &quot;out of control.&quot;&quot; The source? Liberal media publication Intellectual Conservative in an article entitled &quot;Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush&quot;, February 15, 2004.

13. Free Trade.


George W. Bush supports free trade. That's why he slapped tariffs on imported steel. Of course, had the potentially affected steel mills been located in New York instead of Pennsylvania -- a state he hopes to win in 2004 -- Bush would still be a pure free trader.

14. Outsourcing.


Last week, the Bush Administration claimed that the outsourcing of high-paying U.S. jobs to other countries &quot;is a good thing.&quot; N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote a report saying exactly that. He then reiterated his belief in the wonderful attributes of Americans losing their jobs at a press briefing on the report. Once again, Republicans are fleeing from this statement as fast as they can. So is George Bush, who immediately ran to Pennsylvania to promise 2.6 million jobs by the end of the year. Unfortunately, Mankiw is Bush's hand-picked employee -- and the president has already signed the report.

As Senator Tom Harkin said: &quot;Under George Bush, America has a new #1 export: jobs.&quot;

15. &quot;No one could have imagined them hijacking airplanes.&quot;

Of all the lies, this one might be the most annoying. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice made this claim repeatedly during the summer of 2002. Nevermind that Ramsey Yousef, one of the masterminds of the original attack on the World Trade Center, had his plot to hijack and crash 12 airplanes foiled by U.S. and foreign intelligence agents...in 1995. It was big news then, but apparently didn't make it all the way out to Stanford University. Rice's deceit was completely exposed in 2002 when details of the President's Daily Intelligence Briefing in August 2001 revealed that CIA and other sources warned the administration of just such hijackings. But she is never called on this or other lies when she makes her media rounds.

16. Air Force One was a target.


While everyone remembers and praises Bush's appearance with firefighters in New York City, the White House -- and the press -- conveniently ignore the actual timeline of events. That meeting took place on September 14, 2001. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, the entire New York congressional delegation and, of course, Rudy Gulliani, had been on the scene for days, Rudy and Bill since almost minute one. On September 11, 2001, after he was notified of both the first and second plane crashes, it took nearly an hour for Bush to depart Florida. But, he did not go to Washington, or even make a statement in Florida. No, first he flew to an Air Force Base in Louisiana; then, to the safety of a bunker in Nebraska. He told Americans it was safe, while he was entombed.

Many criticized his absence, most notably Peter Jennings who asked &quot;Where is the President.&quot; To combat such criticism, the Bush White House claimed that they zig- zagged across the country because of a &quot;credible threat&quot; against Air Force One. Nearly a year later, they were forced to admit that they had, in fact, received no such threat.

Now, I am not necessarily criticizing Bush's flight itinerary on 9/11/01. Keeping the President safe was the top priority and they rightly took steps to ensure his safety. So why not just say that and be done with it? Why did the White House have to put out another lie to try to make themselves look heroic? Because that's what they do.

17. Bill Clinton pillaged the White House as he walked out the door.

Well, according to the General Accounting Office in yet another investigation that spent our tax dollars, the allegations of looting just weren't true. Was there some damage and pranks? Of course, just as there are in every transition. But widespread damage? No, it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.

18. Leave No Child Behind.


The president's key education initiative is a well- intentioned attempt to change education in the United States. It could lead to real changes, if Bush had actually funded the plan rather than treat it as a nice photo op to show he really cared.

According to Senator Edward Kennedy, the author of the legislation and Bush's main prop in 2001, &quot;in the two years since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, the Bush Administration has cut its funding, reneged on promised resources for better teachers and smaller classes, and worked to divert millions of dollars to private school vouchers... President Bush's new budget for 2005 will leave over 4.6 million children behind. Still pending before Congress is President Bush's 2004 budget which provides schools with over $7.5 billion less than promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. And there is every expectation that the President will propose again not only to cut resources for public school reform, but to divert scarce public education dollars to private schools.&quot;

Enough said.


19. Cost of the Medicare Bill.


Oops! They must have forgot to carry the one...or they are just liars. In fall 2003, Bush sold his Medicare budget with some interesting numbers: it would only cost $400 billion over 10 years. Now keep in mind that passage of this plan was in extreme doubt, as Democrats opposed the plan as a joke that would cost too much and do too little, while Republicans complained that, well, it cost way too much. The Bush Team assured everyone that it would cost no more than $400 million and the plan passed the House by a razor thin margin.

Lo and behold, they snookered us again. Just a few months later, the plan now costs $540 billion, with more sure to be added as the plan actually begins the implementation process.

20. Ken Lay.


After the Enron scandal hit full force, Bush tried to downplay his relationship with Ken Lay by saying &quot;he gave money to my opponent&quot; Ann Richards. Suddenly Lay, whom Bush had previously called &quot;Kenny Boy,&quot; didn't' ring a bell. Despite the fact that Enron was Bush's #1 contributor from 94-00, the fact that Bush was flown around the campaign trail in 1998 on Lay's private plane, and Lay's status as a Pioneer (and serious contender for Commerce Secretary) Bush and he really weren't that close. Maybe that's why Martha Stewart is on trial and not Ken Lay.

(By the way, does it strike anyone as odd that Martha is being tried for almost exactly what George W. Bush did when he left Harken Energy?)

21. I'm against Nation Building.


Throughout the 2000 campaign, Bush assailed Clinton's successful military forays in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, saying he opposed &quot;nation building.&quot; Today, see Afghanistan; see Iraq. In fairness