Bush Lied about Al Qaeda/Iraq Connection

[Decker]

Report accuses Bush of misrepresenting Iraq intel

 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new Senate report gives a fresh shot of adrenaline to the election-year debate over the Iraq war. President Bush and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The panel put a new spin on old charges, comparing claims made in five speeches by top Bush administration officials with intelligence reports. The committee says officials wrongly linked Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida; claimed Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and said Iraq was developing drone aircraft to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.

None was borne out by intelligence.

 http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-23-08-13


The report was bipartisan.  Please see my current thread on why Bush (and company) should be charged with murder.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=217981.0

[Decker]

By the way, look at how the article by the 'liberal media' condescendingly phrases the report.

"a fresh shot of adrenaline to the election-year debate"

"a new spin on old charges"

If I didn't know better, I'd say Beach Bum wrote that article. hahaha

[Dos Equis]

The report was bipartisan. 

O Rly?  From your link:

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, endorsed the report.

The committee's five other Republicans, however, assailed it as a partisan exercise. They accused Democrats of covering for their own members, including Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who made similar statements about Iraq based on the same intelligence the Bush administration used.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-23-08-13

Do you retract or spin?   

[War-Horse]

O Rly?  From your link:

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, endorsed the report.

The committee's five other Republicans, however, assailed it as a partisan exercise. They accused Democrats of covering for their own members, including Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who made similar statements about Iraq based on the same intelligence the Bush administration used.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-23-08-13

Do you retract or spin?   

In bold is the reason why bush will be held accountable.  Congress had support based on lies and deception.  Do you know who told the lies and deceptions to mislead congress and the american people??
Its going to come out as it is one of the greatest tragedies of our time...........

[a_joker10]

Many don't understand how government works.

The Senate and congress committees have the same reports as the president and consult with the president.
They all believed in the same information.

Blame Bush all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that the Dems also supported the War, based on the same intelligence.

Obama didn't vote on Iraq, action talks, Bullsh*t walks.

A speech at the DNC doesn't make a president.

Action hanging out in church and having a racist merry you and Baptise your kids.
Talk, My Grandma crosses the street when black people walk down.
Maybe his Grandma crosses the street when any man walks down, but did he ask his grandma.

Obama is a fraud. Have fun voting for him.

[240 is Back]

Obama is a fraud.

Bush has done so many things to lose what he had in 2001 - the near-total support of the media, 80% of the country, and control of Congress.

At this point, people would elect a purple dinosaur named Adolf if it means they don't have to put up with Bush anymore.  Can't blame dems because Bush wasted all his political capital and created this deep resentment that mccain now inherits.

[a_joker10]

Congress approval rating is even lower then Bush.

He isn't the only one having ill will.

I personally would have supported Hillary.
Somehow American politics will take foreign business money, but not private foreign donations.

I would never ever support Obama.

But then again I probably am clinging to my religion and guns(which I don't own).

Obama couldn't even win in South Dakota on the day he sealed the deal.

[Decker]

O Rly?  From your link:

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, endorsed the report.

The committee's five other Republicans, however, assailed it as a partisan exercise. They accused Democrats of covering for their own members, including Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who made similar statements about Iraq based on the same intelligence the Bush administration used.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-23-08-13

Do you retract or spin?   

Neither b/c I know what 'bipartisan' means.

bi·par·ti·san    Audio Help   /baɪˈpɑrtəzən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bipartisan

Tell me Beach Bum, did any republicans join the democrats in this venture?

[Dos Equis]

Neither b/c I know what 'bipartisan' means.

bi·par·ti·san    Audio Help   /baɪˈpɑrtəzən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bipartisan

Tell me Beach Bum, did any republicans join the democrats in this venture?

You disappoint me Decker.  You called this a bipartisan report.  Calling it "bipartisan" when only two of seven Republicans, plus all Democrats supported it is just misleading.   

Bipartisan support = the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq.  The House voted 296 to 133 (with 81 Democrats supporting, 126 opposing).  The Senate voted 77 to 23 (with 29 Democrats support, 21 opposing).   

[Decker]

You disappoint me Decker. 

Why b/c I know what bipartisan means?

You called this a bipartisan report.  Calling it "bipartisan" when only two of seven Republicans, plus all Democrats supported it is just misleading.

At which threshold does 'bipartisanship' happen?  10% of Rep. agree w/ Dems, 20%, 30% or 40% or more?

Bipartisan support = the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq.  The House voted 296 to 133 (with 81 Democrats supporting, 126 opposing).  The Senate voted 77 to 23 (with 29 Democrats support, 21 opposing). 

 
That is correct. 

And the order to illegally invade Iraq was a purely partisan effort pulled of by republican president GW Bush.

[Dos Equis]

Why b/c I know what bipartisan means?
At which threshold does 'bipartisanship' happen?  10% of Rep. agree w/ Dems, 20%, 30% or 40% or more?
  
That is correct. 

And the order to illegally invade Iraq was a purely partisan effort pulled of by republican president GW Bush.

I'd say a significant number and typically a majority.  Certainly not 2 out of 7 Republicans who side with all Democrats.  Calling that bipartisan is misleading.

What you're essentially saying is anytime a member of the opposite party supports a measure it is bipartisan.