Jeb Bush backpedals on Iraq war answer

[Straw Man]

i can't.  and neither can you provide any proof of your allegations.  

please provide proof that the Bush administration fabricated evidence.  Also please provide PROOF that ZERO democrats were aware of it.

I do find it funny how conspiracy theorists like you demand all this proof yet are never willing to offer any of your own.  Like you're absolved from being required to have proof.  because you know....its a cover up.

your theory just makes zero sense.  I've said again and again that I can go with the theory that there was evidence fabricated to go to war.  I don't have religious faith in George fucking Bush. I'm not loyal to politicians like you guys.  I don't know them at all.  They're just dudes on TV to me. For all i know George Bush is fucking a newborn baby as we speak.  But I simply cannot accept that ONLY the Republicans were involved and that ALL of the Democrats like Hillary were just victims of bad information. Especially since Hillary had been involved in monitoring Sadaam for 8 years before Bush even got into office and had said on numerous occasions as did Bill that Sadaam had and was willing to use WMD's.  

I just don't get how you can let yourself believe that after 2000 all of that became a lie but before 2000 it was just the facts.  Like Sadaam all of a sudden saw the fucking light on New years day 2000.  I tend to think it has something to do with believing what's convenient for you to believe.

are you joking?

Dick Cheney, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubing, Valerie Plame, and the list goes on

all documented

here's a nice summation. Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq:
note the use of a link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

If Hilary and the Dems were in the loop of these lies then please provide that info

[240 is Back]

I'm a little weirded out that some people still believe iraq wasn't sold on lies.

They go to bed believing it, still.

[bears]

are you joking?

Dick Cheney, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubing, Valerie Plame, and the list goes on

all documented

here's a nice summation. Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq:
note the use of a link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

If Hilary and the Dems were in the loop of these lies then please provide that info

are YOU joking?  a nice summation???   this link is not PROOF that anything was fabricated by the Bush administration.  all this is is a bunch of conspiracy theorist talking points.  it is not PROOF of anything.  It's "Michael Moore journalism".  nothing more.

and my proof that Hillary and the Democrats had to be part of the fabrication?  Democrats were on all of the committees to make the decision to go to war.  Hillary had been following Sadaam for longer than GWB had at the time.  She was on the committees.  It was as much her decision as anyone else's on those committees. In fact she was one of the most outspoken advocates.

The Bush administration said nothing different about Sadaam than the Clinton administration did.  They all said the same exact things regarding Sadaam and his willingness and ability to get WMD's and use them.

And you're not reading my posts.  or you're simply ignoring them.  I have said over and over again that I can agree with the opinion that it was a fabricated war.  but your opinion that ZERO democrats had ANYTHING to do with it is simply ridiculous.  It's like you're on their payroll.  Everyone was for it.  The fact that Democrats try to distance themselves from it is simply them trying to prey upon the ignorance of the voters to get votes.  

You can't sit here and lambast a Republican politician on his history of voting on bills and then when I show you Hillary voting yes on the Patriot Act and the vote to use the American armed forces against Iraq say "Well she was tricked by the Republicans".  It's just stupid.  I simply refuse to let you have it both ways.

Now if you were steadfast on your belief that anyone voting YES on the use of US forces on Iraq is an idiot and a conspirator I would respect that opinion.  It at least makes some sense.  Any other opinion is just conspiracy theory garbage with ZERO evidence.

[Victor VonDoom]

I'm a little weirded out that some people still believe iraq wasn't sold on lies.

They go to bed believing it, still.

And Donald Rumsfeld is the best Defense Secretary the country has ever had (according to Dick Cheney). Bah!

[bears]

"Dear Mr. President:

 The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

 This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

 The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

 Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

 Sincerely,

        Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
        Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
        Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
        Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

        Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
        Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
        Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
        Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
        Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
        Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
 December 5, 2001


so when you read this do you just assume that the Democrats were being tricked and the Republicans that signed this letter are lying?  How do you know this>  Or are you just cherry picking the info that is in your favor and dismissing everything else because you're a soldier for the Democratic party?

[bears]

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics.  It's about national security.  We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available.  We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today.  He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more.  Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

 I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

 What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear.  Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists.  No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.  On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

 The time has come for decisive action.  With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

 The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

 This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks.  It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives.  After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

 We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

 The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards.  But the path of inaction is far more dangerous.  This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker.  Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters.  We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

    Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
    Addressing the US Senate
    September 12, 2002

did the Republicans hold a gun to his head and make him say this?  He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Was he tricked too?  Your conspiracy theory blaming ONLY Republicans is just laughable at best, crazy like "Mel Gibson Conspiracy Theory" crazy at worst.  

[bears]

US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:


 Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
 Allen, George (R-VA)
 Baucus, Max (D-MT)
 Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
 Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
 Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
 Breaux, John (D-LA)
 Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
 Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
 Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
 Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
 Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
 Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
 Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
 Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
 Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
 Collins, Susan (R-ME)
 Craig, Larry (R-ID)
 Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
 Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
 DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
 Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
 Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
 Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
 Edwards, John (D-NC)
 Ensign, John (R-NV)
 Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
 Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
 Frist, Bill (R-TN)
 Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
 Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
 Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
 Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
 Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
 Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
 Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
 Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
 Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
 Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
 Inhofe, James (R-OK)
 Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
 Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
 Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
 Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
 Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
 Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
 Lott, Trent (R-MS)
 Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
 McCain, John (R-AZ)
 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
 Miller, Zell (D-GA)
 Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
 Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
 Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
 Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
 Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
 Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
 Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
 Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
 Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
 Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
 Smith, Robert (R-NH)
 Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
 Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
 Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
 Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
 Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
 Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
 Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
 Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
 Voinovich, George (R-OH)
 Warner, John (R-VA) 

[Jack T. Cross]

Pretending these fucks have competing interests is what's tragic. That's what's killing us.

[bears]

Pretending these fucks have competing interests is what's tragic. That's what's killing us.

real world facts don't play well when you're trying to paint a political picture of good guy vs bad guy.  the theories have to get more and more ridiculous when facts start getting in the way.  the conspiracies more and more vast as the facts start piling up and then you look and years later when most people actually gave up on it because its so ridiculous there are always a select few that just won't let it go because of pride.  For example, try and find people who actually believe in the facts Michael Moore laid out in Fahrenheit 9/11.  They don't exist.  When that movie came out I couldn't find anyone who didn't believe it.  Now you can't even make any of those people admit that they did in fact believe that horseshit documentary.

the fact is most voters simply don't know who voted in favor of the Iraq war or who was on the Senate Intelligence Committees in 2001-2003.  They would rather Michael Moore make up a story ignoring all of those facts than to actually try and make sense of it by themselves.

[Jack T. Cross]

real world facts don't play well when you're trying to paint a political picture of good guy vs bad guy.  the theories have to get more and more ridiculous when facts start getting in the way.  the conspiracies more and more vast as the facts start piling up and then you look and years later when most people actually gave up on it because its so ridiculous there are always a select few that just won't let it go because of pride.  For example, try and find people who actually believe in the facts Michael Moore laid out in Fahrenheit 9/11.  They don't exist.  When that movie came out I couldn't find anyone who didn't believe it.  Now you can't even make any of those people admit that they did in fact believe that horseshit documentary.

the fact is most voters simply don't know who voted in favor of the Iraq war or who was on the Senate Intelligence Committees in 2001-2003.  They would rather Michael Moore make up a story ignoring all of those facts than to actually try and make sense of it by themselves.

I may have seen parts of F-911, don't know. No worthwhile memory of it. Definitely don't remember much of anything Moore has made (maybe the fucked-up sideline with the rabbit woman in Roger-and-Me or whatever it was called).

What sorts of things did he say in 911?

[bears]

I may have seen parts of F-911, don't know. No worthwhile memory of it. Definitely don't remember much of anything Moore has made (maybe the fucked-up sideline with the rabbit woman in Roger-and-Me or whatever it was called).

What sorts of things did he say in 911?

he basically says that George Bush met with the Taliban to plan 9/11 and paid Osama Bin Laden to get terrorists to fly the planes into the Twin Towers so that he could start a war so he could build an oil pipeline, blah blah blah.  The movie was fucking ridiculous.  and I would say that 7/10 of the people I talked to believed it and thought that there was a lot of truth to it.  Now you can't find one of those people to admit that they believed it.  I mean I distinctly remember arguments and conversations where they were telling me that they thought it was true and they think I forgot. 

But that's how conspiracy theorists are.  They spread misinformation and when the facts come out they deny they ever said it or believed it.

[Jack T. Cross]

he basically says that George Bush met with the Taliban to plan 9/11 and paid Osama Bin Laden to get terrorists to fly the planes into the Twin Towers so that he could start a war so he could build an oil pipeline, blah blah blah.  The movie was fucking ridiculous.  and I would say that 7/10 of the people I talked to believed it and thought that there was a lot of truth to it.  Now you can't find one of those people to admit that they believed it.  I mean I distinctly remember arguments and conversations where they were telling me that they thought it was true and they think I forgot. 

But that's how conspiracy theorists are.  They spread misinformation and when the facts come out they deny they ever said it or believed it.

Did he say a specific meeting took place?

[240 is Back]

Moore, the fat slob, is actually not a 911 truther.   
He bought Halliburton stock before the invasion too.
Inaccurate on your portrayl of what he basically says. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Moore, the fat slob, is actually not a 911 truther.   
He bought Halliburton stock before the invasion too.
Inaccurate on your portrayl of what he basically says. 

His work isn't good. Won't waste time with it. (and everything he does is at least twice the duration it should be,, so it makes it all the worse) No.

[bears]

Did he say a specific meeting took place?

yup.  he sure did.

[Jack T. Cross]

yup.  he sure did.

Directly involving GW, you say? Where was it said to have taken place?

[Straw Man]

are YOU joking?  a nice summation???   this link is not PROOF that anything was fabricated by the Bush administration.  all this is is a bunch of conspiracy theorist talking points.  it is not PROOF of anything.  It's "Michael Moore journalism".  nothing more.

and my proof that Hillary and the Democrats had to be part of the fabrication?  Democrats were on all of the committees to make the decision to go to war.  Hillary had been following Sadaam for longer than GWB had at the time.  She was on the committees.  It was as much her decision as anyone else's on those committees. In fact she was one of the most outspoken advocates.

The Bush administration said nothing different about Sadaam than the Clinton administration did.  They all said the same exact things regarding Sadaam and his willingness and ability to get WMD's and use them.

And you're not reading my posts.  or you're simply ignoring them.  I have said over and over again that I can agree with the opinion that it was a fabricated war.  but your opinion that ZERO democrats had ANYTHING to do with it is simply ridiculous.  It's like you're on their payroll.  Everyone was for it.  The fact that Democrats try to distance themselves from it is simply them trying to prey upon the ignorance of the voters to get votes.  

You can't sit here and lambast a Republican politician on his history of voting on bills and then when I show you Hillary voting yes on the Patriot Act and the vote to use the American armed forces against Iraq say "Well she was tricked by the Republicans".  It's just stupid.  I simply refuse to let you have it both ways.

Now if you were steadfast on your belief that anyone voting YES on the use of US forces on Iraq is an idiot and a conspirator I would respect that opinion.  It at least makes some sense.  Any other opinion is just conspiracy theory garbage with ZERO evidence.

feel free to point out one thing on that timeline that is not true

btw - you declared on page 2 of this thread that I "have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration." so you clearly have no issue with the concept that the Bush Administration fabricated the grounds to go to war but you'd just like to make Hilary part of it too.

So go ahead and tell me how Hilary was involved in the phony yellow cake and aluminum tubes nonsense ?

Or you can just give it up because I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here

We all know many many Dems signed on to the war as did the general public

We also know who banged the drums for war, phonied up the justification, etc..

[240 is Back]

yup.  he sure did.

Have you watched that movie?   I watched it.  he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11.  He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock.  He's a fat greasy hypocrite. 
 

but blaming bush for 9/11?   No.
Do you have a link to that?   Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther?  Nope.  Accusing Bush of 9/11?  nope.  Sorry, that part isn't true. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Have you watched that movie?   I watched it.  he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11.  He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock.  He's a fat greasy hypocrite.  
 

but blaming bush for 9/11?   No.
Do you have a link to that?   Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther?  Nope.  Accusing Bush of 9/11?  nope.  Sorry, that part isn't true.  

I don't think so. Moore is a sneak, so he's about clouding issues rather than clearing them. That's why his work is so jumbled and completely without flow. He does that intentionally, no question in my mind at this point.

Like Ken Burns, his work can't be trusted. Those are guys that big-media interest will have you to pay attention to, because they want to have first shot at making you think a certain way about a subject. That's what it's all about.

[240 is Back]

I don't think so. Moore is a sneak, so he's about clouding issues rather than clearing them. That's why his work is so jumbled and completely without flow. He does that intentionally, no question in my mind at this point.

Like Ken Burns, his work can't be trusted. Those are guys that big-media interest will have you to pay attention to, because they want to have first shot at making you think a certain way about a subject. That's what it's all about.

i remember him being the hated voice of the left when the American Sniper movie came out.
All these repubs were seeing the movie (even though it starred obamacare activist Bradley) and even buying tickets if they weren't going.

and yes, Moore owned stock in the studio that put out the movie.

he's a sneaky one, he has a way to troll both sides into eating right out of his hand.

[Jack T. Cross]

i remember him being the hated voice of the left when the American Sniper movie came out.
All these repubs were seeing the movie (even though it starred obamacare activist Bradley) and even buying tickets if they weren't going.

and yes, Moore owned stock in the studio that put out the movie.

he's a sneaky one, he has a way to troll both sides into eating right out of his hand.

Yeah, he poses as a representative of some "side", so others will feel they can safely draw certain conclusions based on his work. Then he makes a hundred-hour "documentary" centered around 15 minutes of skits, so everyone gets spun around and turned dizzy trying to watch it.

I don't necessarily know what his game is, but I can't appreciate it.

[bears]

Have you watched that movie?   I watched it.  he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11.  He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock.  He's a fat greasy hypocrite. 
 

but blaming bush for 9/11?   No.
Do you have a link to that?   Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther?  Nope.  Accusing Bush of 9/11?  nope.  Sorry, that part isn't true. 

sorry but I saw it too.  and yes that was exactly what he was implying.  he just made sure that he technically did not directly accuse GWB or the Bush family of planning 9/11 but everything he said in that documentary implied that was the case.

but you're right he never technically directly accused them.  he just put a bunch of random factoids (most of which were just plain false) together that painted that picture and let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions.  And he knew exactly what the conclusions a normal person would make after seeing that piece of garbage.

and to put it into perspective, I really liked "Bowling for Columbine".  I thought that, with the exception of his ambush of an elderly and slow Charlton Heston, was a great documentary that made some very poignant points about guns in America.  More importantly the difference between guns in America and other countries. 

[bears]

feel free to point out one thing on that timeline that is not true

btw - you declared on page 2 of this thread that I "have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration." so you clearly have no issue with the concept that the Bush Administration fabricated the grounds to go to war but you'd just like to make Hilary part of it too.
So go ahead and tell me how Hilary was involved in the phony yellow cake and aluminum tubes nonsense ?

Or you can just give it up because I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here

We all know many many Dems signed on to the war as did the general public

We also know who banged the drums for war, phonied up the justification, etc..

like i said before I don't have a dog in this fight.  you do.  If there was a conspiracy, the fact that you want to only accuse "Republicans" of it makes no sense.  I need a set of FACTS that lead to a conclusion.  And no the link you sent me was a list of factoids, some taken in context and some taken out of context.  I'm sure brighter minds than i would make mincemeat out of that timeline.  Of all the things Hillary, Lieberman, Reid, Edwards, Gore, etc., said and signed leading up to the War in Iraq, you cannot sit there and tell me that they were just simply tricked by the Republicans and made those statements and signed those bills because they were some sort of victim.  It's just ridiculous and doesn't make sense to anyone other than snot nosed college kids who love conspiracy theories and watch too many movies.

[bears]

also you've all precluded yourselves from ever mentioning a presidential candidate's record on bills that they signed in order to form an opinion on said candidate.  because you've all made it abundantly clear that you just don't simply care how anyone voted on anything.  if they are a democrat you don't care what they signed or what they said about the bill because you will forgive all as long as they follow your religious (yes I say religious) devotion their party over that of the country they serve.

all the democrats that signed the patriot ACT and the right to use armed forces against Iraq - ABSOLVED.  they were tricked into voting that way. 

then next election rolls around and you'll all dissect every single bill the Republican candidate signed and its implications because you want to make sure everyone's informed about how this candidate voted right?

ridiculous.

so when next election rolls around and I start to see all of the analysis of the different bills and who voted on what.  I don't want to hear it.

[Dos Equis]

also you've all precluded yourselves from ever mentioning a presidential candidate's record on bills that they signed in order to form an opinion on said candidate.  because you've all made it abundantly clear that you just don't simply care how anyone voted on anything.  if they are a democrat you don't care what they signed or what they said about the bill because you will forgive all as long as they follow your religious (yes I say religious) devotion their party over that of the country they serve.

all the democrats that signed the patriot ACT and the right to use armed forces against Iraq - ABSOLVED.  they were tricked into voting that way. 

then next election rolls around and you'll all dissect every single bill the Republican candidate signed and its implications because you want to make sure everyone's informed about how this candidate voted right?

ridiculous.

so when next election rolls around and I start to see all of the analysis of the different bills and who voted on what.  I don't want to hear it.

Good luck with that whole rational thought process you're using.

And why the heck is this a story?  The media is all over this stuff lately.