View Full Version : Bush Lied-Thousands Died
Jail Time (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.
The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."
Ouch.
n2ize
06-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Yep, a corrupt was was waged that didn't have to be, Even our top weapons inspector said it was unnecessary.
Of course those poor persecuted neokons will say that the mean dems are picking on them. ;)
WB2WIK
06-05-2008, 08:44 PM
Now think about how much bigger your "incentive" tax rebate might have been if we still had that trillion dollars this war has cost America.
Let's see...a trillion, divided by 120 million taxpayers...that's about $83K per person, no?
I'll take mine in small bills.:p
N4VGB
06-05-2008, 08:46 PM
AH but the next four years are on the Dems, whether Obama or McCain is in the White House. :D:D:D
W1GUH
06-05-2008, 08:51 PM
Of course those poor persecuted neokons will say that the mean dems are picking on them. ;)
All I can think of is something about horses and water. That is, when I'm not dizzy from the spin.
Of course those poor persecuted neokons will say that the mean dems are picking on them. ;)
No way, we just laugh at the fools
Jail Time (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc)
Ouch.
Now their down to tearing off 5 year old bumper stickers and making ZED topics out of them.
Now their down to tearing off 5 year old bumper stickers and making ZED topics out of them.
So nothing to say about the content of the thread itself, danno?
The best part, ZED LIBS believe the drivel they post.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/05/senate-committee-highlights-untrue-statements-later-proved-correct/?print=1
W3MIV
06-05-2008, 09:16 PM
I feel strongly both ways. While there is no doubt whatsoever that the Bush administration cooked the books to instigate their war in Iraq, there is also no doubt whatsoever that this report is, indeed, a "political exercise" undertaken in an election year. Intelligence is an iffy bisnez, and one man's menace is another man's challenge. Like beauty, threats lie as much in the eye of the beholder as they do in the ground of realpolitik.
The truth is probably hiding under a table between the two sides, trying to avoid being kicked and mauled for partisan advantage.
Whatever the outcome, you can rest assured that the incoming administration will proceed with slow, measured steps to make any changes in our current military posture in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not a crap shoot; the stakes are far higher.
The best part, ZED LIBS believe the drivel they post.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/05/senate-committee-highlights-untrue-statements-later-proved-correct/?print=1
Over 4000 honorable Americans dead in a wrong war is "drivel"?
Post on Mr. bin Laden lover.
The best part, ZED LIBS believe the drivel they post.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/05/senate-committee-highlights-untrue-statements-later-proved-correct/?print=1
Reuters beats hotair.com every time, Danno.
Are the LIBS ready with their next lie??
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=26857
N4VGB
06-05-2008, 11:18 PM
Whatever the outcome, you can rest assured that the incoming administration will proceed with slow, measured steps to make any changes in our current military posture in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not a crap shoot; the stakes are far higher.
Amen. Apparently Mr. Obama is now being forced to deal in realism, as witnessed in his speech to the AIPAC recently, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93FE247B-452D-4022-8374-088D8704C1DE.htm .
It will now be interesting to see what he can come up with in the way of real plans and programs that might actually be workable. He has little time left to change my vote.
Now think about how much bigger your "incentive" tax rebate might have been if we still had that trillion dollars this war has cost America.
Let's see...a trillion, divided by 120 million taxpayers...that's about $83K per person, no?
I'll take mine in small bills.:p
What about the nearly $1 trillion Bush just ask for to continue the war?
Maybe that will not come to be if McCain is not elected anyway. He may well cost us more in many ways.
N4VGB
06-06-2008, 12:06 AM
What about the nearly $1 trillion Bush just ask for to continue the war?
Maybe that will not come to be if McCain is not elected anyway. He may well cost us more in many ways.
What candidate is it that you believe has committed to an instantaneous withdrawal of troops from the middle east!? :confused::rolleyes:
KP3FT
06-06-2008, 12:23 AM
I feel strongly both ways. While there is no doubt whatsoever that the Bush administration cooked the books to instigate their war in Iraq, there is also no doubt whatsoever that this report is, indeed, a "political exercise" undertaken in an election year. Intelligence is an iffy bisnez, and one man's menace is another man's challenge. Like beauty, threats lie as much in the eye of the beholder as they do in the ground of realpolitik.
The truth is probably hiding under a table between the two sides, trying to avoid being kicked and mauled for partisan advantage.
Whatever the outcome, you can rest assured that the incoming administration will proceed with slow, measured steps to make any changes in our current military posture in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not a crap shoot; the stakes are far higher.
Couldn't agree more. I hope there's a serious investigation into who exactly knew what and when, who ordered who, and so on, and prosecute if necessary.
W1GUH
06-06-2008, 01:11 AM
Whatever the outcome, you can rest assured that the incoming administration will proceed with slow, measured steps to make any changes in our current military posture in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not a crap shoot; the stakes are far higher.
That's usually been the norm for incoming administrations. But there are two glaring examples of administrations that took huge, wildly reckless steps...imbecile ronnie and the FM. Especially the FM. I wouldn't call the Iraq debacle a "small, measured" step.
KW4MW
06-06-2008, 01:33 AM
It's so easy to have the simple answer - especially if it favors your own political philosophy.
Whoa guys - don't think too hard now, just remember "Bush lied - thousands died". Say it with me now "Bush lied - thousands died, Bush lied - thousands died" There - just keep repeating that mantra - no heavy lifting required.
For those of you who can go beyond being told what to think - consider reading this op ed from the WSJ. (The operative word here is 'consider' i.e. to think, to judge, to mullover, refrect upon, deliberate )
Why We Went to Iraq (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)
Excerpts
By FOUAD AJAMI
June 4, 2008; Page A21
Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: "In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came."
It is odd, then, that critics have launched a new attack on the origins of the war at precisely the time a new order in Iraq is taking hold.
.
.
We don't need to overwork the stereotype that Arabs understand and respond to the logic of force, but this is a region sensitive to the wind, and to the will of outside powers. Before America struck into Iraq, a mere 18 months after 9/11, there had been glee in the Arab world, a sense that America had gotten its comeuppance. There were regimes hunkering down, feigning friendship with America while aiding and abetting the forces of terror.
Liberal opinion in America and Europe may have scoffed when President Bush drew a strict moral line between order and radicalism – he even inserted into the political vocabulary the unfashionable notion of evil – but this sort of clarity is in the nature of things in that Greater Middle East. It is in categories of good and evil that men and women in those lands describe their world. The unyielding campaign waged by this president made a deep impression on them.
.
.
There is no way of convincing a certain segment of opinion that there are indeed wars of "necessity." A case can always be made that an aggressor ought to be given what he seeks, that the costs of war are prohibitively high when measured against the murky ways of peace and of daily life.
.
.
Fair enough. In the narrow sense of command and power, this war in Iraq is Mr. Bush's war. But it is an evasion of responsibility to leave this war at his doorstep. This was a war fought with congressional authorization, with the warrant of popular acceptance, and the sanction of United Nations resolutions which called for Iraq's disarmament. It is the political good fortune (in the world of Democratic Party activists) that Sen. Barack Obama was spared the burden of a vote in the United States Senate to authorize the war. By his telling, he would have us believe that he would have cast a vote against it. But there is no sure way of knowing whether he would have stood up to the wind.
.
.
With the luxury of hindsight, the critics of the war now depict the arguments made for it as a case of manipulation and deceit. This is odd and misplaced: The claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were to prove incorrect, but they were made in good faith.
.
.
Nor is there anything unprecedented, or particularly dishonest, about the way the rationale for the war shifted when the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had run aground. True, the goal of a democratic Iraq – and the broader agenda of the war as a spearhead of "reform" in Arab and Muslim lands – emerged a year or so after the onset of the war. But the aims of practically every war always shift with the course of combat, and with historical circumstances. Need we recall that the abolition of slavery had not been an "original" war aim, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was, by Lincoln's own admission, a product of circumstances? A war for the Union had become a victory for abolitionism.
.
.
It is not easy to tell people of threats and dangers they have been spared. The war put on notice regimes and conspirators who had harbored dark thoughts about America and who, in the course of the 1990s, were led to believe that terrible deeds against America would go unpunished. A different lesson was taught in Iraq. Nowadays, the burden of the war, in blood and treasure, is easy to see, while the gains, subtle and real, are harder to demonstrate. Last month, American casualties in Iraq were at their lowest since 2003. The Sunnis also have broken with al Qaeda, and the Shiite-led government has taken the war to the Mahdi Army: Is it any wonder that the critics have returned to the origins of the war?
Now return to your CNN mind control program already in progress.
Now think about how much bigger your "incentive" tax rebate might have been if we still had that trillion dollars this war has cost America.
Let's see...a trillion, divided by 120 million taxpayers...that's about $83K per person, no?
I'll take mine in small bills.:p
I don't have a calculator handy, but isn't it more like $8,300 per taxpayer?
W1GUH
06-06-2008, 07:07 AM
I don't have a calculator handy, but isn't it more like $8,300 per taxpayer?
I just did that on the windows calculator...twice...and came up with the same number you did. But still...that's a nice check. Who's counting zeros, anyway?
Good try LIBS, but, once again, you fail.
http://newsbusters.org/node/21823/print
Good try LIBS, but, once again, you fail.
http://newsbusters.org/node/21823/print
They would love to rewrite history to meet their obsessions. Too bad their own words, and the truth, doesn't match their desires for ever repressive powers and corruption.
W4DFW
06-09-2008, 06:59 PM
Good try LIBS, but, once again, you fail.
http://newsbusters.org/node/21823/print
You mean John Rockefeller, the DEMOCRAT Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, concluded that the President's statements on Iraq were "generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates?"
GREAT GOD!! WHAT will the leftwingnuts say now?? Oh, I know . . .
When Bush lied, the Washington Post DIED!! :D :D
Good try LIBS, but, once again, you fail.
http://newsbusters.org/node/21823/print
The LIBS will always fail 'cause they are NOT very intelligent; if they were they would be REPUBLICANS .... must be the drugs ( see link )
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Liberals_Drug_use/2008/06/16/104882.html?s=al&promo_code=6469-1
... to be continued
I noticed some of you LIBS like Snopes.....Snope this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp?print=y
N4VGB
06-19-2008, 02:04 AM
I noticed some of you LIBS like Snopes.....Snope this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp?print=y
Come on man! You really think that the "Bush Fixation" crowd of Dumbocrats can face the words of their own leaders! :eek:;):D
Why do you think the Dumbocrats in this forum and in Congress are working so hard to fan the flames of "Bush Fixation"! It's self protection! ;):rolleyes::D