Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on December 09, 2008, 10:42:04 AM
-
In the United States, conservatism is a philosophy without a party.
Take Ronald Reagan, considered the patron saint of late 20th century conservatism. Coupled with extravagant military spending, Reagan's tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations increased the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, transforming the U.S. into the world's biggest debtor nation. Under Reagan, William Voegeli wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2007, "government did nothing but expand. In 1981, the federal government spent $678 billion; in 1989 it spent $1.144 trillion. Factoring out inflation, that was an increase of 19% in real spending. Republicans never expected that Reagan would leave office with a 'federal establishment' one-fifth larger than when he arrived."
George W. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," but conservatism was as absent from his governance as compassion. He has increased the federal deficit from $3.3 to $5.9 trillion. Add in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--estimated at $2.4 trillion as of 2007--and he will have put the country a staggering $5 trillion deeper into the hole. He hired 180,000 federal employees for a new cabinet-level department, Homeland Security, all to make you take off your shoes at the airport.
Conservative? Not these guys.
Source - Ted Rall
-
Ill agree that he has gone against some core conservative principles but you must also look at the times and situations that took place during his presidency...obama campaigned as a utopian savior i think he will have a hard time living up to that as well.
-
If you are a true conservative you have to really be scratching your head.
It seems like its more lip service than anything.
-
Ill agree that he has gone against some core conservative principles but you must also look at the times and situations that took place during his presidency...obama campaigned as a utopian savior i think he will have a hard time living up to that as well.
Translation: It's not Bush's fault he chose to invade iraq, and Obama sucks worse so I dont care what Bush did.
-
If you are a true conservative you have to really be scratching your head.
It seems like its more lip service than anything.
heres the deal though, again he has gone against some conservative core values however if you really think that we are worse off with the patriot act in place i think your ignorant, even though i think its unconstitutional i also think in these times it is necessary. Ppl going after homeland security is stupid of course it seems frivalous when we arent being attacked but guess what maybe thats why we arent being attacked. No child left behind bail outs etc...are things that i take as wrong and directly flying in the face of conservative priniciples.
-
Translation: It's not Bush's fault he chose to invade iraq, and Obama sucks worse so I dont care what Bush did.
LOL at least i admit bushs faults you seem to turn a blind eye and completely deny your saviors. I never said it wasnt bush's fault but you morons think it was a easy decision and that you or any other would have done a better job is laughable...oh I care what bush did i hope obama does well but doesnt get half of his crazy lefty agenda accomplished although it seems like his promises have been put off for at least a little while anyway.
-
Translation: It's not Bush's fault he chose to invade iraq, and Obama sucks worse so I dont care what Bush did.
LOL you should talk you spammed the board for weeks about false and ignorant ass shit about palin but didnt start one thread condemming obama for wright or any of the other retarded shit he did...and you wonder why we call him your savior.
-
heres the deal though, again he has gone against some conservative core values however if you really think that we are worse off with the patriot act in place i think your ignorant, even though i think its unconstitutional i also think in these times it is necessary. Ppl going after homeland security is stupid of course it seems frivalous when we arent being attacked but guess what maybe thats why we arent being attacked. No child left behind bail outs etc...are things that i take as wrong and directly flying in the face of conservative priniciples.
How did the patriot act come into this?
The biggest thing I'm concerned about is wire-tapping without a judge. I'm not as versed on the details of the patriot act to comment either way.
I think 3 million people losing their jobs might be too much if we don't bail out the Big 3, even though i am of the opinion NOT to bail them out.
Schools need to be restructured a bit and more money needs to go to education. The root of the problem is the education of parents and the break down of the family unit combined with popular culture in the media that doesn't promote getting good grades and working towards an education. I think the money is better spent in school than trying to change a culture.
Homeland security is needed even if we aren't attacked. 9/11 proved that.
-
Ill agree that he has gone against some core conservative principles but you must also look at the times and situations that took place during his presidency...obama campaigned as a utopian savior i think he will have a hard time living up to that as well.
This 'utopian savior' nonsense should die a horrible death. It's the rightwing's desperate attempt to besmirch the man before he's even done a thing as president.
What the hell is so utopian about rebuilding this country's infrastructure like Obama is proposing?
Did the word 'infrastructure' cross the lips of Bush or any Bush adiminstration official?
It's been crumbling down around our ears yet nothing was done.
But I'll be goddammed if we aren't spending a trillion dollars in Iraq so Bush's business buddies can rape the national treasury.
I guess roads, bridges and schools just aren't that important to true-blue american politicians.
It's nice to know that Baghdad has better schools and healthcare before we do. On our dime, no less.
-
This 'utopian savior' nonsense should die a horrible death. It's the rightwing's desperate attempt to besmirch the man before he's even done a thing as president.
What the hell is so utopian about rebuilding this country's infrastructure like Obama is proposing?
Did the word 'infrastructure' cross the lips of Bush or any Bush adiminstration official?
It's been crumbling down around our ears yet nothing was done.
But I'll be goddammed if we aren't spending a trillion dollars in Iraq so Bush's business buddies can rape the national treasury.
I guess roads, bridges and schools just aren't that important to true-blue american politicians.
It's nice to know that Baghdad has better schools and healthcare before we do. On our dime, no less.
LOL dude just another thread or two ago you where ragging on palin and mccain where you not? but all of a sudden we cant touch barry?
the infrastructure thing didnt really come apart of any policy until after he was elected not before...this is more a way to stir the economy than anything else.
You really think that the main reason we are in iraq is b/c bush wanted to make his buddies rich?
-
How did the patriot act come into this?
The biggest thing I'm concerned about is wire-tapping without a judge. I'm not as versed on the details of the patriot act to comment either way.
I think 3 million people losing their jobs might be too much if we don't bail out the Big 3, even though i am of the opinion NOT to bail them out.
Schools need to be restructured a bit and more money needs to go to education. The root of the problem is the education of parents and the break down of the family unit combined with popular culture in the media that doesn't promote getting good grades and working towards an education. I think the money is better spent in school than trying to change a culture.
Homeland security is needed even if we aren't attacked. 9/11 proved that.
the patriot act came into this b/c it flies against conservative principles...schools to need to be restructured and better funded but basing that funding on test scores only causes teachers to teach for that test and not much else.
Why not let them simply declare bankruptcy? I might be missing something but wouldnt that help the situation? who here hasnt flown with a bankrupt airline? did it seem much different then flying with a airline that wasnt bankrupt?
-
You really think that the main reason we are in iraq is b/c bush wanted to make his buddies rich?
it's what happened.
haliburton made billions of dollars, borrowed from the chinese under our grandparents' names.
4200 soldiers died, so that Iraq could INSIST that we GTFO of their country.
-
it's what happened.
haliburton made billions of dollars, borrowed from the chinese under our grandparents' names.
4200 soldiers died, so that Iraq could INSIST that we GTFO of their country.
yes and even your savior obama who campaigned on getting out is now saying we will stay longer...maybe bush knew something the rest of us didnt?
and that wasnt my question my question was does HE not you really think thats why we went into iraq
-
LOL dude just another thread or two ago you where ragging on palin and mccain where you not? but all of a sudden we cant touch barry?
the infrastructure thing didnt really come apart of any policy until after he was elected not before...this is more a way to stir the economy than anything else.
You really think that the main reason we are in iraq is b/c bush wanted to make his buddies rich?
I am not a relativist. Obama is much more articulate and intelligent than Festus Withers and his sidekick Kitty the town strumpet. His platform was superior to theirs.
Fiscal
"The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on ... If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, Speech in the U.S. Senate, March 13, 2006
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
When 9 billion dollars stored in Iraq just disappears, I would say that one of the major reasons we went to war was to enrich the elite class.
This is how these people operate. They get their fucking hooks into lucrative gov. contracts, provide substandard, if any, services/products and then overcharge the gov. to the hilt. That's how the Bush family built their empire.
Did you see the recent revelation that foodstuffs provided by KBR was tainted with remains...
-
yes and even your savior obama who campaigned on getting out is now saying we will stay longer...maybe bush knew something the rest of us didnt?
and that wasnt my question my question was does HE not you really think thats why we went into iraq
And maybe Bush apologists will say anything to try and salvage the mass murderer's reputation.
Re Iraq, why do you think that the US installed immediately a free market system that sold off Iraqi national assets to all comers?
Is it b/c unfettered capitalism is just so darn good? Or was it done to give financial elites more investment opportunities, i.e., fucking locusts on a crop?
-
And maybe Bush apologists will say anything to try and salvage the mass murderer's reputation.
Re Iraq, why do you think that the US installed immediately a free market system that sold off Iraqi national assets to all comers?
Is it b/c unfettered capitalism is just so darn good? Or was it done to give financial elites more investment opportunities, i.e., fucking locusts on a crop?
LOL dude im not apologizing for his mistakes again you ppl seem to think that you either defend bush all together or attack him all together. Ive said in this thread go back and read he has done things i dont like. What do you think these ppl where better off when saddam was in power? LOL dude you say things like iraq doesnt benefit from any of this and its all one sided...where we supposed to just eliminate saddam and then let them sit there and not help them? I think going in was a mistake ive said it before however that being said we are in and need what we can to help.
-
LOL dude im not apologizing for his mistakes again you ppl seem to think that you either defend bush all together or attack him all together. Ive said in this thread go back and read he has done things i dont like. What do you think these ppl where better off when saddam was in power? LOL dude you say things like iraq doesnt benefit from any of this and its all one sided...where we supposed to just eliminate saddam and then let them sit there and not help them? I think going in was a mistake ive said it before however that being said we are in and need what we can to help.
The Iraq disaster was a mistake from its inception. I don't give two shits how many 'good' things we do in Iraq. Those 150,000 people are still dead.
It wasn't in the US's power to get rid of Hussein. That was only accomplished by the lawless Bush administration.
Lipstick on a pig, my friend.
-
The Iraq disaster was a mistake from its inception. I don't give two shits how many 'good' things we do in Iraq. Those 150,000 people are still dead.
It wasn't in the US's power to get rid of Hussein. That was only accomplished by the lawless Bush administration.
Lipstick on a pig, my friend.
misinformation my friend led us in...now that we are in we have to do right...you dont go into a fight and expect ppl not to get killed...you place all your blame on bush fine its your opinion you should however place blame on everybody else that voted for the war, clinton for not stopping obl when he had a chance as well.
-
misinformation my friend led us in...now that we are in we have to do right...you dont go into a fight and expect ppl not to get killed...you place all your blame on bush fine its your opinion you should however place blame on everybody else that voted for the war, clinton for not stopping obl when he had a chance as well.
Which misinformation was that?
Was it the up-to-the=minute reports of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq FINDING NOTHING.
Or was that misinformation the 10 year old reports that concluded Iraq may have a stockpile of chemical weapons.
Which misinformation fits the pro-war crowd's agenda?
There again with "blame everybody else" crap.
No!
It was Bush and Bush alone that beat the drum for war, who fabricated white papers to show an Iraqi threat, who lied repeatedly to the US and Congress re Iraq's ties to AQ and its current possession of WMDs and nukes.
Stop pretending that stuff never happened.
You do realize that consent gained through lies is no consent at all?
-
Which misinformation was that?
Was it the up-to-the=minute reports of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq FINDING NOTHING.
Or was that misinformation the 10 year old reports that concluded Iraq may have a stockpile of chemical weapons.
Which misinformation fits the pro-war crowd's agenda?
There again with "blame everybody else" crap.
No!
It was Bush and Bush alone that beat the drum for war, who fabricated white papers to show an Iraqi threat, who lied repeatedly to the US and Congress re Iraq's ties to AQ and its current possession of WMDs and nukes.
Stop pretending that stuff never happened.
You do realize that consent gained through lies is no consent at all?
LOL your a fuking retard do you not remember after 9/11 the entire country was foaming at the mouth jackass...
you and 240 operate under the assumption that you have the same knowledge that the president has you should know that isnt true just look at obama and his plan for removing troops which got delayed as soon as he got a briefing on the situation in iraq.
Im not saying that bush doesnt get blamed but to say that others arent copable for any actions they did that led to the events that transpired is ignorant.
-
LOL you should talk you spammed the board for weeks about false and ignorant ass shit about palin but didnt start one thread condemming obama for wright or any of the other retarded shit he did...and you wonder why we call him your savior.
your right we don't need to 240 to post shit to know how ignorant Palin is.
-
LOL your a fuking retard do you not remember after 9/11 the entire country was foaming at the mouth jackass...
you and 240 operate under the assumption that you have the same knowledge that the president has you should know that isnt true just look at obama and his plan for removing troops which got delayed as soon as he got a briefing on the situation in iraq.
Im not saying that bush doesnt get blamed but to say that others arent copable for any actions they did that led to the events that transpired is ignorant.
No offense Tony but you are one big fuckin pain in the ass. I tire of trying to make sense of the uninformed garbage you post.
Now it's ghosts of 9/11 (which Iraq had zero to do with) and then it's Obama's view on Iraq and then it's back to share the blame for the mistake that isn't really a mistake b/c we're doing good things to the surviving Iraqis.
The attention span of today's american is frustrating as hell. Change the fucking channel or pick up a book.
-
No offense Tony but you are one big fuckin pain in the ass. I tire of trying to make sense of the uninformed garbage you post.
Now it's ghosts of 9/11 (which Iraq had zero to do with) and then it's Obama's view on Iraq and then it's back to share the blame for the mistake that isn't really a mistake b/c we're doing good things to the surviving Iraqis.
The attention span of today's american is frustrating as hell. Change the fucking channel or pick up a book.
maybe i didnt explain myself well enough i think your problem is you dont follow trains of thought very well...if clinton had apprehended obl it could have possibly put a kink in al quedas plans for 9/11 which led to the invasion of Iraq did it not?
I was using obamas views on iraq to show your ignorant ass that the general public is not previe to everything the president knows...I.E. his position change on pulling troops out after his briefing on Iraq after he was elected...you think he was lying to all america when he was campaigning or he got new info that made him change his mind?
-
maybe i didnt explain myself well enough i think your problem is you dont follow trains of thought very well...if clinton had apprehended obl it could have possibly put a kink in al quedas plans for 9/11 which led to the invasion of Iraq did it not?
No. 9/11 did not lead to the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The invasion of Iraq was a Bush creation.
Do you see that. Do you understand that?
I was using obamas views on iraq to show your ignorant ass that the general public is not previe to everything the president knows...I.E. his position change on pulling troops out after his briefing on Iraq after he was elected...you think he was lying to all america when he was campaigning or he got new info that made him change his mind?
Jesus fuckin christ you argue just like Brixton Bulldong.
When you're cornered out comes the SECRET EVIDENCE.
How does Obama's proposed management of current troop levels in Iraq change the fact that Bush lied, manufactured evidence and ordered the invasion himself? I.e., the entire Iraq enterprise is crime from its inception...a crime perpetrated by the Bush administration and no other.
-
No. 9/11 did not lead to the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The invasion of Iraq was a Bush creation.
Do you see that. Do you understand that?
Jesus fuckin christ you argue just like Brixton Bulldong.
When you're cornered out comes the SECRET EVIDENCE.
How does Obama's proposed management of current troop levels in Iraq change the fact that Bush lied, manufactured evidence and ordered the invasion himself? I.e., the entire Iraq enterprise is crime from its inception...a crime perpetrated by the Bush administration and no other.
LOL your a fuking idiot so if 9/11 didnt happen we would have still invaded iraq?
Answer the question do you think obama lied to all of america when he told them his expectations in removing from iraq or do you think he got filled in on something when he got briefed?
-
LOL your a fuking idiot so if 9/11 didnt happen we would have still invaded iraq?
Answer the question do you think obama lied to all of america when he told them his expectations in removing from iraq or do you think he got filled in on something when he got briefed?
I'm an idiot.
How big of you.
Maybe you're missing something. I think it's apparent to everyone but you that 9/11 had ZERO to do with IRaq. Even Bush's own people admit that.
Hell, once Bush got his invasion, he admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The only people still holding that falsehood are you and Dick Cheney.
I think Obama listens to his advisers and makes decisions with his mind. If the facts on the ground today lend themselves to an extended phased withdrawal then so be it.
How different is that from Bush...Mr. "I follow my gut instinct"?
-
I'm an idiot.
How big of you.
Maybe you're missing something. I think it's apparent to everyone but you that 9/11 had ZERO to do with IRaq. Even Bush's own people admit that.
Hell, once Bush got his invasion, he admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The only people still holding that falsehood are you and Dick Cheney.
I think Obama listens to his advisers and makes decisions with his mind. If the facts on the ground today lend themselves to an extended phased withdrawal then so be it.
How different is that from Bush...Mr. "I follow my gut instinct"?
im not saying that iraq had something to do with the planning or carrying out of 9/11 jackass only that 9/11 was a reason for going into iraq.
you side stepped the question and tried not to get to the point which was that he was given new information that changed his mind. I.E. we the general public are not previe to all info that the president had are we?
-
im not saying that iraq had something to do with the planning or carrying out of 9/11 jackass only that 9/11 was a reason for going into iraq.
you side stepped the question and tried not to get to the point which was that he was given new information that changed his mind. I.E. we the general public are not previe to all info that the president had are we?
if 9/11 didn't happen the government would have manufactured a reason to invade just as they did.
-
im not saying that iraq had something to do with the planning or carrying out of 9/11 jackass only that 9/11 was a reason for going into iraq.
Even this assertion shows your ignorance. The two things had nothing to do with each other, but the Bush administration conflated them for a naive portion of the American public.
Iraq was allegedly about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction. Even in the run up to the war, the claim was dubious. Cheney and co tacked on allegations of terrorist camps being run out of Iraq to play into the malignant jingoism festering around the country. People like you thought "Gee, Iraq and Afghanistan are in the same part of the world and those people are all the same color. They's must be up to sumthin'!"
Years later, half the country still believes that, in some not totally clear way, the two events are related.
-
Even this assertion shows your ignorance. The two things had nothing to do with each other, but the Bush administration conflated them for a naive portion of the American public.
Iraq was allegedly about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction. Even in the run up to the war, the claim was dubious. Cheney and co tacked on allegations of terrorist camps being run out of Iraq to play into the malignant jingoism festering around the country. People like you thought "Gee, Iraq and Afghanistan are in the same part of the world and those people are all the same color. They's must be up to sumthin'!"
Years later, half the country still believes that, in some not totally clear way, the two events are related.
LOL no i thought it was a mistake you have any proof that bush was going to go into iraq any way?
you probably subscribe to the thinking that 9/11 was an inside job too dont you used by the bush administration to have an excuse to go after saddam ::)
-
LOL no i thought it was a mistake you have any proof that bush was going to go into iraq any way?
you probably subscribe to the thinking that 9/11 was an inside job too dont you used by the bush administration to have an excuse to go after saddam ::)
Way to introduce a straw man argument when your premise is faulty. Whether Bush planned to invade iraq prior to 9/11 is a moot topic. The fact of the matter is that he did use 9.11 as a smoke screen to start an unrelated war. You have confused the two multiple times in this thread. I'm not exactly sure why you can't grasp the actuality of the situation, but you seem to be warping the facts to fit some strange reality you've created. You've already posted that you understand that Iraq would not have been invaded if 9/11 hadn't happened and you have also posted that you understand that the two evenst are not related.
-
If you are a true conservative you have to really be scratching your head.
It seems like its more lip service than anything.
progressives are the new conservatives
-
Way to introduce a straw man argument when your premise is faulty. Whether Bush planned to invade iraq prior to 9/11 is a moot topic. The fact of the matter is that he did use 9.11 as a smoke screen to start an unrelated war. You have confused the two multiple times in this thread. I'm not exactly sure why you can't grasp the actuality of the situation, but you seem to be warping the facts to fit some strange reality you've created. You've already posted that you understand that Iraq would not have been invaded if 9/11 hadn't happened and you have also posted that you understand that the two evenst are not related.
just b/c the two are not related in terms of terrorist activity doesnt mean that they arent related at all how do you and decker not understand this...if you concede that if 9/11 didnt happen then we wouldnt be in iraq how can you say they arent related? its a simple logic if then situation...if 9/11 happens then we invade iraq, if 9/11 doesnt happen then we dont invade iraq...how are the two not related? I understand what your saying in that iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11 and i agree but you must understand that its b/c of 9/11 that we are in iraq so they two are related.
-
im not saying that iraq had something to do with the planning or carrying out of 9/11 jackass only that 9/11 was a reason for going into iraq.
How was the attacks of 9/11 a reason for going into Iraq?
you side stepped the question and tried not to get to the point which was that he was given new information that changed his mind. I.E. we the general public are not previe to all info that the president had are we?[/quote]You mean that the public does not have the same facts as the leaders do instantly?
No shit. Thanks for adding that to the discussion.
-
just b/c the two are not related in terms of terrorist activity doesnt mean that they arent related at all how do you and decker not understand this...if you concede that if 9/11 didnt happen then we wouldnt be in iraq how can you say they arent related? its a simple logic if then situation...if 9/11 happens then we invade iraq, if 9/11 doesnt happen then we dont invade iraq...how are the two not related? I understand what your saying in that iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11 and i agree but you must understand that its b/c of 9/11 that we are in iraq so they two are related.
These are the ramblings of a confused person.
Are you trying to say that...I give up, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
It looks like you're trying to say 9/11 was used as pretext for the Iraq invasion but somehow the words "Pres. Bush" never appear.
It's like the Iraq invasion was just a result of 9/11 turmoil.
hahaha.
NOpe, the invasion was a duplicitous and concerted effort by Bush and Co. to start a war where one was not merited.
And as Always, Al did a great job of pointing out your bush league attempt at debating the matter.
-
These are the ramblings of a confused person.
Are you trying to say that...I give up, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
It looks like you're trying to say 9/11 was used as pretext for the Iraq invasion but somehow the words "Pres. Bush" never appear.
It's like the Iraq invasion was just a result of 9/11 turmoil.
hahaha.
NOpe, the invasion was a duplicitous and concerted effort by Bush and Co. to start a war where one was not merited.
And as Always, Al did a great job of pointing out your bush league attempt at debating the matter.
and im sure you have proof of this as well dont you just like i asked of doggity? i guess not...
so you rag on me for secret info and you use some yourself i see hahahah
you never answer my question if 9/11 didnt happen would we be in iraq?
-
and im sure you have proof of this as well dont you just like i asked of doggity? i guess not...
so you rag on me for secret info and you use some yourself i see hahahah
you never answer my question if 9/11 didnt happen would we be in iraq?
Fascinating. It's historical fact that Bush and co. started a concerted effort to impress upon the american people that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US b/c of WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda.
Where the hell have you been?
It’s hard to believe but some people still assert that President Bush was somehow “misled” by poor intelligence into attacking Iraq.
We’ll look at some of the 55 documented lies of Bush on the matter.
A lie occurs when a false impression is made knowingly. That includes exaggerations and omissions used to create that false impression.
Bush Lie #1
Statement: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Fact: the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #2
Statement: "Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Fact: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #3
Statement: "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Fact: This statement is a lie because it suggested that Iraq, at the time, was providing support to al Qaeda. The U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. Bush omitted this part of the matter in his statement to push Iraq as a threat to us. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.
Lie. Omitting relevant, key countervailing information is lying.
Only 52 more to go. And that’s just Bush’s lies.
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...orge+W%2E+Bush
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
If Bush, for whatever reason, did not want to go to war with Iraq, then why was he constantly lying about the threat posed by Iraq?
Those are public statements. They are not secrets.
you never answer my question if 9/11 didnt happen would we be in iraq?
9/11 made Bush's push for war much easier.
-
LOL dude you have no idea what info he was given this is part of my point i.e. the obama iraq strategy change...what you is after the fact knowledge not first hand at the time knowledge hindsight is always 20/20 at the time its possible is it not that he thought that they where a threat?
so your saying that bush was going after iraq no matter what? pls provide evidence for this
-
LOL dude you have no idea what info he was given this is part of my point i.e. the obama iraq strategy change...what you is after the fact knowledge not first hand at the time knowledge hindsight is always 20/20 at the time its possible is it not that he thought that they where a threat?
What?
so your saying that bush was going after iraq no matter what? pls provide evidence for this
I just gave you 55 lies by Bush himself which were used to portray Iraq as a threat to the US requiring military action.
Do you understand that?
-
What?
I just gave you 55 lies by Bush himself which were used to portray Iraq as a threat to the US requiring military action.
Do you understand that?
i tried clicking on your link and the web page didnt come up?
what im sayng is that even though there where reports saying this there where also reports saying the opposite in addition to that fact you have we have no idea what other relevant information the president had that we did not at the time and still has not been made public.
-
i tried clicking on your link and the web page didnt come up?
what im sayng is that even though there where reports saying this there where also reports saying the opposite in addition to that fact you have we have no idea what other relevant information the president had that we did not at the time and still has not been made public.
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Speaker=President+George+W%2E+Bush
Sorry about that, the address condensed into an ellipsis.
How do you know there's more intel out there? We've seen the white papers that Bush doctored to fabricate the Iraqi 'threat' to the US.
What more do you need--lies, fabricated documents, violation of the law in ordering the attack...what more do you need?
-
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Speaker=President+George+W%2E+Bush
Sorry about that, the address condensed into an ellipsis.
How do you know there's more intel out there? We've seen the white papers that Bush doctored to fabricate the Iraqi 'threat' to the US.
What more do you need--lies, fabricated documents, violation of the law in ordering the attack...what more do you need?
no problem
Do you really think that you have all the same intelligence as the president of the United States on any matter none the less something as sensitive as this? honestly? Again its quite apparent that that the general public doesnt have all the info look at barack obama and his plan for removing troops prior to his briefing and then after some info was given to him that made him change his plan either that or he was lying to all america and knew his plan would not work.
is it possible that bush fabricated documents after the invasion and after there where no wmd perhaps to save face?
if bush really did fabricate documents to invade iraq dont you think he would have been impeached
also if im not mistaken their where other countries with their intelligence saying the same thing where there not? where they in on it too?
-
believeeverythingthegove rnmenttellsyou.com
-
believeeverythingthegovernmenttellsyou.com
LOL nope just dont go believing unsubstantiated rumors 9/11 was an inside job, palins daughter is really her daughters daughter, she had an affair with a business partner, her daughter is a gang banging lesbo, obama is muslim, obama isnt a citizen...ignorant shit if you ask me
-
no problem
Do you really think that you have all the same intelligence as the president of the United States on any matter none the less something as sensitive as this? honestly? Again its quite apparent that that the general public doesnt have all the info look at barack obama and his plan for removing troops prior to his briefing and then after some info was given to him that made him change his plan either that or he was lying to all america and knew his plan would not work.
Why was it that Bush's lies always made Iraq's threat greater rather than lesser? Does that indicate a rational pattern of deception to you?
is it possible that bush fabricated documents after the invasion and after there where no wmd perhaps to save face?
The fabrication of the summary of the NIE report was the White Paper produced by the Bush White House. In it "the president and his administration edited the "White Paper", or declassified version of the NIE released to Congress and the public, censored in a way that made the Iraqi threat seem more ominous than it actually was." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder
Bugliosi goes into detail on the precise additions and omissions used by Bush to make Iraq seem dangerous.
if bush really did fabricate documents to invade iraq dont you think he would have been impeached
Are you kidding? With those democrats? Impeachment is not the same thing as the criminal code. Impeachment is a quasi-legal proceeding that is more political than it is legal.
also if im not mistaken their where other countries with their intelligence saying the same thing where there not? where they in on it too?
You are misstating the problem. All the intel estimates of the US and other countries was years and years old.
It's a good thing that the most recent estimates and inspections of 2002 showed Iraq was not a threat to the US and that Iraq did not have WMDs.
But if you want to rely on outdated intel to make your point, that's your prerogative.
The best and latest evidence was from 2002...not 1998.
And the Uniter said he would be making up his mind to attack Iraq based on the latest intel. Or was that just a lie?
I'm sorry, misstatement.
-
sigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
"The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003," Yes there was intelligence that said there where none there was also intelligence that said there where.
from your link
"A National Intelligence Estimate of less than a week earlier stated that while Iraq did have WMD capabilities, it had no plans to use its weapons except in the capacity of self-defense," this is from 2002 so apparently their was intelligence that pointed towards iraq having wmd.
of course it was censored again we are not privie to all the same info that the president is and we shouldnt be no matter who is president obama, bush, clinton they will know things that we dont and should not know. How do they know it made it more ominous did they get their hands on the classified version?
Enough for colin powell and rice to assert that their was as well...again i believe this was a mistake now do i believe that they intentionally misled america, no sorry i dont.
Ok so why havent any criminal charges been filed against him if that is the case?
-
sigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
"The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003," Yes there was intelligence that said there where none there was also intelligence that said there where.
That statement is nothing but wishful thinking with no basis in evidence or fact. It's pro-war bullshit with no support.
And so what if the US and Britain really did believe that? Bush lied his ass off and Blair was an accomplice.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that the WMD inspectors found nothing to support the allegations.
The best most recent evidence available contradicted Bush's allegations. Yet he ordered an attack to disarm a disarmed country. That's murder.
from your link
"A National Intelligence Estimate of less than a week earlier stated that while Iraq did have WMD capabilities, it had no plans to use its weapons except in the capacity of self-defense," this is from 2002 so apparently their was intelligence that pointed towards iraq having wmd.
Again, so what? That paragraph states in black and white that Iraq was no threat to the US.
Why did Bush make a national address that very day claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat when the latest intel said the exact opposite?
Look at the date of the estimate. Oct 7, 2002. The weapons inspections did not start until November 18, 2002....after Bush ran to the UN asking to enforce the disarmament aspects of the terms of the surrender of the first Gulf War....thus Resolution 1441.
of course it was censored again we are not privie to all the same info that the president is and we shouldnt be no matter who is president obama, bush, clinton they will know things that we dont and should not know. How do they know it made it more ominous did they get their hands on the classified version?
The relevant portions of the NIE were declassified.
Ok so why havent any criminal charges been filed against him if that is the case?
A sitting president cannot be sued for the crimes Bush is accused of. Wait a couple of more weeks.
-
That statement is nothing but wishful thinking with no basis in evidence or fact. It's pro-war bullshit with no support.
And so what if the US and Britain really did believe that? Bush lied his ass off and Blair was an accomplice.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that the WMD inspectors found nothing to support the allegations.
The best most recent evidence available contradicted Bush's allegations. Yet he ordered an attack to disarm a disarmed country. That's murder.
Again, so what? That paragraph states in black and white that Iraq was no threat to the US.
Why did Bush make a national address that very day claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat when the latest intel said the exact opposite?
Look at the date of the estimate. Oct 7, 2002. The weapons inspections did not start until November 18, 2002....after Bush ran to the UN asking to enforce the disarmament aspects of the terms of the surrender of the first Gulf War....thus Resolution 1441.
The relevant portions of the NIE were declassified.A sitting president cannot be sued for the crimes Bush is accused of. Wait a couple of more weeks.
LOL so now britain is in on the shame too?
Look dude as much as you want to rant and rave there was intelligence that said they did have wmd bush choose to believe them instead of the ones that said they didnt or the one that said they could but probably wouldnt attack us.
Either way he didnt intentionally misled ppl which is what you are asserting like i said i think it was a mistake and a bad decision but your portraying it as a big conspiracy which it isnt.
LOL ill wait a few more weeks but i doubt and you probably know nothing will come of it.
-
LOL nope just dont go believing unsubstantiated rumors 9/11 was an inside job, palins daughter is really her daughters daughter, she had an affair with a business partner, her daughter is a gang banging lesbo, obama is muslim, obama isnt a citizen...ignorant shit if you ask me
I agree with you totally about being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism.
But as far as Bush and the Iraq war goes - it would really be in his best interest to put forward any kind of evidence that support starting a war with Iraq.
Do you remember how Bush had Colin Powell talking to the UN claiming there were intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Something that were never found.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but there were actually UN inspectors searching throughout the whole of Iraq at the time of the invasion. They reported back everyday how they didn't find anything, how they got the kind of access they demanded, and so on.
They were all over the place.
Further, no Al-Qaida ties were found at the time.
From what I understand, terrorists have actually established themselves in Iraq these days.
-
I agree with you totally about being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism.
But as far as Bush and the Iraq war goes - it would really be in his best interest to put forward any kind of evidence that support starting a war with Iraq.
Do you remember how Bush had Colin Powell talking to the UN claiming there were intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Something that were never found.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but there were actually UN inspectors searching throughout the whole of Iraq at the time of the invasion. They reported back everyday how they didn't find anything, how they got the kind of access they demanded, and so on.
They were all over the place.
Further, no Al-Qaida ties were found at the time.
From what I understand, terrorists have actually established themselves in Iraq these days.
im not disputing these facts only pointing out that there was intelligence out there that pointed to the opposite and just b/c he went against info saying there wasnt doesnt mean he intentionally misled the country which is what decker is asserting.
-
im not disputing these facts only pointing out that there was intelligence out there that pointed to the opposite and just b/c he went against info saying there wasnt doesnt mean he intentionally misled the country which is what decker is asserting.
I understand.
You know what, I want to think Bush actually wasn't misleading the country.
But from all the facts I've seen, and remembering how the inspectors were more or less screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and others saying there were no Al-Qaida affiliation in Iraq...
It seems impossible that George W Bush could've been misled himself.
Then he must been real stupid.
I definately believe that the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld gang knew what was going on.
Those cats saw the opportunity that the horrible attack on USA created, and seized it, hoping to create a new world order.
From what I understand, their plan was to use any means necessary to create their version of democracy around the world.
That's just how I see it.
Whether or not Bush just became their lackey or were instrumental is equally bad.
He is right now the man with the most important job in the world.
The most powerful man in the world.
Kind of scary when you think of it. 8)
But no, I definately don't believe for a second that there were any conspiracy.
-
I agree with you totally about being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism.
The only problem is he is not "being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism." Pretty much everything Decker has posted in this thread is a well documented fact, but mctones is ignoring the obvious. His argument can't even be followed logically.
As for a conspiracy-Whether or not you believe this war had anything to do with oil, administration insiders have all but admitted that the ouster of Saddam was a central cog in their middle east strategy. At this stage, I don't know how anyone can deny that the Bush Regime pushed the case for war for reasons that they were not entirely straight forward about.
-
LOL so now britain is in on the shame too?
Look dude as much as you want to rant and rave there was intelligence that said they did have wmd bush choose to believe them instead of the ones that said they didnt or the one that said they could but probably wouldnt attack us.
LOL, yes, LOL Britain, LOL, was in on it LOL too. Or didn't you pay attention while it was happening?
Now to define what 'it' is. By 'it' you are referring to intel 5-10 years old. Right?
Now how does that measure up to the battery of unannounced inspections on the ground in Iraq right up until Bush ordered the illegal invasion?
Bush said he would base his decision to attack Iraq ON THE LATEST INTEL.
You keep recharacterizing the argument to make your point. No shit there was old intel estimating Hussein had WMDs. Too bad for you the facts on the ground destroyed those estimates.
Either way he didnt intentionally misled ppl which is what you are asserting like i said i think it was a mistake and a bad decision but your portraying it as a big conspiracy which it isnt.
Of course it was conspiracy. Do you know what a conspiracy is? It's the agreement of 2 or more people to commit a crime (and sometimes take some step toward the commission of that crime).
Since Bush and Blair worked in tandem and since the Invasion itself was illegal, I would say we have a fairly strong case of conspiracy btn Bush and Blair.
LOL ill wait a few more weeks but i doubt and you probably know nothing will come of it.
We'll see. Mass Murders who are also political figureheads usually do skate.
If there's any justice in the world, Bush will be tried.
-
I understand.
You know what, I want to think Bush actually wasn't misleading the country.
But from all the facts I've seen, and remembering how the inspectors were more or less screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and others saying there were no Al-Qaida affiliation in Iraq...
It seems impossible that George W Bush could've been misled himself.
Then he must been real stupid.
I definately believe that the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld gang knew what was going on.
Those cats saw the opportunity that the horrible attack on USA created, and seized it, hoping to create a new world order.
From what I understand, their plan was to use any means necessary to create their version of democracy around the world.
That's just how I see it.
Whether or not Bush just became their lackey or were instrumental is equally bad.
He is right now the man with the most important job in the world.
The most powerful man in the world.
Kind of scary when you think of it. 8)
But no, I definately don't believe for a second that there were any conspiracy.
By conspiracy I don't think you mean legal conspiracy b/c that's evident. It happened. It's fact.
I think by 'conspiracy' you are referring to some nefarious ulterior motive that was the reason the invasion was undertaken in the first place.
Motive is irrelevant. Who cares why Bush wanted Iraq attacked? It is wholly unnecessary to show motive to prove:
A: the invasion itself was illegal--no UN Security Authorization was given for the attack
B: Bush's lies and fabrications were the pretext to his sending our troops to die in a situation he caused. He ordered the attack under false pretenses.
-
LOL, yes, LOL Britain, LOL, was in on it LOL too. Or didn't you pay attention while it was happening?
Now to define what 'it' is. By 'it' you are referring to intel 5-10 years old. Right?
Now how does that measure up to the battery of unannounced inspections on the ground in Iraq right up until Bush ordered the illegal invasion?
Bush said he would base his decision to attack Iraq ON THE LATEST INTEL.
You keep recharacterizing the argument to make your point. No shit there was old intel estimating Hussein had WMDs. Too bad for you the facts on the ground destroyed those estimates.
Of course it was conspiracy. Do you know what a conspiracy is? It's the agreement of 2 or more people to commit a crime (and sometimes take some step toward the commission of that crime).
Since Bush and Blair worked in tandem and since the Invasion itself was illegal, I would say we have a fairly strong case of conspiracy btn Bush and Blair.
We'll see. Mass Murders who are also political figureheads usually do skate.
If there's any justice in the world, Bush will be tried.
LOL so what about all the other countries that sent troops into iraq they in on the shame too?
im done dude you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country only that he made a retarted decision which is what i said earlier
-
LOL so what about all the other countries that sent troops into iraq they in on the shame too?
im done dude you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country only that he made a retarted decision which is what i said earlier
Yes, I have nothing that says Bush intentionally misled the country to war...except for the Bush's own lying words, doctored white papers, various memos, and expert opinion.
Other than that, I'm shooting blanks.
You, on the other hand, you have won. Your statement that "you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country" trumps all the evidence I provided.
-
By conspiracy I don't think you mean legal conspiracy b/c that's evident. It happened. It's fact.
I think by 'conspiracy' you are referring to some nefarious ulterior motive that was the reason the invasion was undertaken in the first place.
Motive is irrelevant. Who cares why Bush wanted Iraq attacked? It is wholly unnecessary to show motive to prove:
A: the invasion itself was illegal--no UN Security Authorization was given for the attack
B: Bush's lies and fabrications were the pretext to his sending our troops to die in a situation he caused. He ordered the attack under false pretenses.
No, I don't deny that much indicates that there were a conspiracy to start the war.
What I was referring to, and I think this may be what tony is gunning for to, is that the 9/11 wasn't done by the government in order to go out and create the New World Order.
They just seized the opportunity, cooked up a good lie, and then went to war on it, praying that no one would question it because of the horrible loss that USA had suffered in the 9/11.
-
Yes, I have nothing that says Bush intentionally misled the country to war...except for the Bush's own lying words, doctored white papers, various memos, and expert opinion.
Other than that, I'm shooting blanks.
You, on the other hand, you have won. Your statement that "you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country" trumps all the evidence I provided.
sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.
-
sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.
Interesting. We have intelligence experts everywhere except Iraq saying Saddam had WMD's but didn't we have inspectors IN Iraq saying Saddam didn't have them?
-
No, I don't deny that much indicates that there were a conspiracy to start the war.
What I was referring to, and I think this may be what tony is gunning for to, is that the 9/11 wasn't done by the government in order to go out and create the New World Order.
They just seized the opportunity, cooked up a good lie, and then went to war on it, praying that no one would question it because of the horrible loss that USA had suffered in the 9/11.
That's why I mentioned that motive--new world order--is irrelevant to the legality of Bush's acts. It doesn't matter why they did it. They did it.
-
Interesting. We have intelligence experts everywhere except Iraq saying Saddam had WMD's but didn't we have inspectors IN Iraq saying Saddam didn't have them?
ok so we have intelligence that said they did if you believe that to be true like bush did and then you have inspectors saying they arent there, assuming like bush did that the first bit was true what would be the logical outcome when inturpreting the second piece of info?
-
sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.
The old intel ESTIMATES of WMDs were years old.
The most current estimates and actual evidence concluded Iraq was NOT a threat and DID NOT have WMDs.
Bush, in light of that current information, kept telling the country that Iraq was an imminent threat and did have WMDs including a nuclear program.
Do you see that distinction?
Do you know why Bush's statements can only be characterized as lies which resulted in misleading the country as to Iraq's threat and WMDs?
Do you see that if the Intel concludes no WMDs (inspections) and Bush tells the country Iraq has WMDs, that that is a lie intended to deceive?
-
The old intel ESTIMATES of WMDs were years old.
The most current estimates and actual evidence concluded Iraq was NOT a threat and DID NOT have WMDs.
Bush, in light of that current information, kept telling the country that Iraq was an imminent threat and did have WMDs including a nuclear program.
Do you see that distinction?
Do you know why Bush's statements can only be characterized as lies which resulted in misleading the country as to Iraq's threat and WMDs?
Do you see that if the Intel concludes no WMDs (inspections) and Bush tells the country Iraq has WMDs, that that is a lie intended to deceive?
ok lets just run with that for a second man this is getting old though...ok so clinton said in 98 that he had intelligence that iraq was building and had wmd and was becoming a threat to the world everyone accepted this correct? if they did have them where did they go?
many many ppl in congress and poltics here and abroad believed they had wmd or where stock piling agents to build them. al gore, john kerry, h clinton and many many more here and again abroad believed they did where they in on it as well?
IF bush did intentionally lie about it why wouldnt he have planted something there to prove his claim? This man can doop an entire world into thinking that iraq has wmd but cant plant a few pieces of evidence to give his claim credibility?
-
ok lets just run with that for a second man this is getting old though...ok so clinton said in 98 that he had intelligence that iraq was building and had wmd and was becoming a threat to the world everyone accepted this correct? if they did have them where did they go?
Thank goodness there were inspectors in '98 who didn't find anything. Should a country go to war based on an estimate, i.e., unproven belief?
many many ppl in congress and poltics here and abroad believed they had wmd or where stock piling agents to build them. al gore, john kerry, h clinton and many many more here and again abroad believed they did where they in on it as well?
Here we are with the beliefs again.
I'll take the rock-solid evidence of inspections every time. Why? B/c it's fact and not supposition.
Fact is fact and supposition can be wrong. It could even cost 4000 americans their lives, 150,000 Iraqis their lives and 650 billion dollars to us.
IF bush did intentionally lie about it why wouldnt he have planted something there to prove his claim? This man can doop an entire world into thinking that iraq has wmd but cant plant a few pieces of evidence to give his claim credibility?
It's easy to rely on dated evidence and lie about it and its relevancy to today. It's another thing to actually deliver stockpiles of WMDs with no one noticing. IF caught, that's death for treason. Why risk that when the lies worked so well.
I mean you're still here defending this sonufabitch. That's a great indication of the efficacy of Bush's lying.
-
Thank goodness there were inspectors in '98 who didn't find anything. Should a country go to war based on an estimate, i.e., unproven belief?
Here we are with the beliefs again.
It's easy to rely on dated evidence and lie about it and its relevancy to today. It's another thing to actually deliver stockpiles of WMDs with no one noticing. IF caught, that's death for treason. Why risk that when the lies worked so well.
I mean you're still here defending this sonufabitch. That's a great indication of the efficacy of Bush's lying.
the thing is again that there was conflicting evidence...
LOL your reasoning doesnt make sense like i said apparently this guy dooped the entire world into believing that iraq had wmd but he couldnt plant any evidence of wmd...we probably have black ops going on all over the place but coudlnt get some in a remote area of iraq to plant evidence? come on bro if he was going to go so far as to fabricate lies he would have gone the little extra distance to plant evidence.
Im not defending him AGAIN IT WAS A FUKING STUPID MISTAKE no denying that but i dont believe he intentionally lied to get us into a war.
-
the thing is again that there was conflicting evidence...
NOt according to the Bush Administration. Can you show me one statement about Iraq where any Bush administration official comes out and says--there is evidence that Iraq does not have WMDs....or even, "we could be mistaken"....or any statement that is not "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to.....
Why is that? And don't tell me the fucking estimates from '98 warranted it b/c the most recent estimates and evidence just before the war contradicted the '98 estimates.
LOL your reasoning doesnt make sense like i said apparently this guy dooped the entire world into believing that iraq had wmd but he couldnt plant any evidence of wmd...we probably have black ops going on all over the place but coudlnt get some in a remote area of iraq to plant evidence? come on bro if he was going to go so far as to fabricate lies he would have gone the little extra distance to plant evidence.
With nowhere left to run you start playing games. Stop it. I entertained your question and it's over.
Why didn't Bush just use the alien technology from the Roswell crash to teleport the WMDs into Iraq, hmmmmmmmmm? Answer me that one with your fancy reasoning.
Im not defending him AGAIN IT WAS A FUKING STUPID MISTAKE no denying that but i dont believe he intentionally lied to get us into a war.
It wasn't a mistake b/c that lacks the requisite intent.
Bush intentionally and repeatedly about mushroom clouds, the deadliest toxins known to man, long-standing support for Al Qaeda, mobile death labs, drones of death.
And you have the balls to write that Bush was the harmless dupe of mistaken information?
Stop that.
-
NOt according to the Bush Administration. Can you show me one statement about Iraq where any Bush administration official comes out and says--there is evidence that Iraq does not have WMDs....or even, "we could be mistaken"....or any statement that is not "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to.....
Why is that? And don't tell me the fucking estimates from '98 warranted it b/c the most recent estimates and evidence just before the war contradicted the '98 estimates.
With nowhere left to run you start playing games. Stop it. I entertained your question and it's over.
Why didn't Bush just use the alien technology from the Roswell crash to teleport the WMDs into Iraq, hmmmmmmmmm? Answer me that one with your fancy reasoning.
It wasn't a mistake b/c that lacks the requisite intent.
Bush intentionally and repeatedly about mushroom clouds, the deadliest toxins know to man, long-standing support for Al Qaeda, mobile death labs, drones of death.
And you have the balls to write that Bush was the harmless dupe of mistaken information?
Stop that.
LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003
"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"
Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."
Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.
"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."
-
LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003
"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"
Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...
Thank goodness the 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq HAD NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL TIES WITH AL QAEDA.
Read that again slowly you pinhead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."
Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.
I asked for a quote from the Bush administration, not democrat Carl.
You're a pinhead.
"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."
Isn't that just lovely.
And how is that ESTIMATE more probative than the findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ.
You remember the inspectors, right....the ones who begged for more time to complete the inspections b/c they were so successful.
Of course you don't. . .you're a pinhead.
-
Thank goodness the 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq HAD NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL TIES WITH AL QAEDA.
Read that again slowly you pinhead.
I asked for a quote from the Bush administration, not democrat Carl.
You're a pinhead.
Isn't that just lovely.
And how is that ESTIMATE more probative than the findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ.
You remember the inspectors, right....the ones who begged for more time to complete the inspections b/c they were so successful.
Of course you don't. . .you're a pinhead.
what im trying to stress to you, you fuking retard is THAT THERE WAS INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THERE WAS WMD AND INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THAT IRAQ DID INDEED CONTRIBUTE TO TERRORISM.
you are asserting that bush had no intelligence to say there was even though there was intelligence that said there wasnt doesnt mean there wasnt intelligence that said the opposite...jackass
I remember the inspectors i remember saddam not letting them in as well if you dont let them in and supposedly you do have wmd then all of a sudden decide to let them in and they dont find them what would that make you think?
-
what im trying to stress to you, you fuking retard is THAT THERE WAS INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THERE WAS WMD AND INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THAT IRAQ DID INDEED CONTRIBUTE TO TERRORISM.
you are asserting that bush had no intelligence to say there was even though there was intelligence that said there wasnt doesnt mean there wasnt intelligence that said the opposite...jackass
I remember the inspectors i remember saddam not letting them in as well if you dont let them in and supposedly you do have wmd then all of a sudden decide to let them in and they dont find them what would that make you think?
This isn't a fucking game of "look, Bush does have intel that says Iraq is a threat".
That intel was years and year old. It was completely destroyed by the most current intel.
Yet Here come Tony McTones saying, "look, Bush had intel that said Iraq had WMDs"
No one is asserting there was no intel claiming that some thirdworld tiny shithole country was a WMD threat to the USA (on its face that's preposterous). The distinction is that the intel was no good...years old...no longer applicable.
The inspectors proved Bush's intel wrong and Bush ordered the killings anyways.
Now here comes some more of your buffoonery. The old "Hussein moved the WMDs" myth.
What makes you think that world class scientists can't tell if an area had WMDs which were moved?
-
LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003
"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"
Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."
Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.
"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."
reread this all this info given was in what 2002-2003 right? again there was info recent info that pointed to iraq possesing weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorism. You can rant and rave all you want my point is sound there was conflicting recent intel do some research.
-
reread this all this info given was in what 2002-2003 right? again there was info recent info that pointed to iraq possesing weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorism. You can rant and rave all you want my point is sound there was conflicting recent intel do some research.
Nobody is ranting.
You seem to think that the 5-10 year old intel pushed by the Bush administration was more than enough justification for the war.
Is it the job of the US President to marshall as much evidence as he can to start a war?
Does that sound like a president who grudgingly had to attack the little piss ant two bit desert country b/c of the threat it posed the USA?
Does it sound like a president who was "misled" by the intel?
Bullshit. He was lying as well as fabricating 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs? Why don't you just acknowledge that?
That's not my opinion. That's cold hard fact. You've seen some of the lies and fabrications. Why do you pretend they didn't happen?
Do you understand that all the intel ESTIMATES crumbled when the WMD inspectors were turning up no WMDs in Iraq?
Yet you trumpet discredited intel as if you have a valid point.
-
LOL again its not outdated do some RESEARCH
ok so he all of a sudden lets inspectors in after what 3 yrs or so of keeping them out...again if you thought they did have them and then all of a sudden he decides to let ppl and you dont find them what would you think?
I agree with you that it is the presidents job to weigh all evidence which is why i believe he is to blame but that doesnt mean he INTENTIONALLY mislead the ppl. He weighed the evidence and came up with the wrong conclusion and made a bad move. What was his rationalization on this i dont know and either do you all we know is that there where conflicting reports. You have to accept that there where reports and intelligence coming from the US and abroad within a respectable timeframe that said they probably had or did have wmd even though there where reports and intelligence that said the opposite as well.
-
LOL again its not outdated do some RESEARCH
The findings of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq doing the inspections render your dated OPINIONS irrelevant.
ok so he all of a sudden lets inspectors in after what 3 yrs or so of keeping them out...again if you thought they did have them and then all of a sudden he decides to let ppl and you dont find them what would you think?
Why did Hussein let the inspectors into Iraq? B/c Bush's intense saber rattling made it so.
But Bush went too far. He ordered the attack in spite of the inspections and now we have 150,000 dead b/c of it.
I agree with you that it is the presidents job to weigh all evidence which is why i believe he is to blame but that doesnt mean he INTENTIONALLY mislead the ppl. He weighed the evidence and came up with the wrong conclusion and made a bad move. What was his rationalization on this i dont know and either do you all we know is that there where conflicting reports. You have to accept that there where reports and intelligence coming from the US and abroad within a respectable timeframe that said they probably had or did have wmd even though there where reports and intelligence that said the opposite as well.
He absolutely did intentionally mislead the Congress and the People.
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.
"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq’s UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.
Those are just a small portion of the INTENTIONAL LIES told by Bush. How can you deny that?