Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 135

Thread: Bush Lied? Not really..

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323

    Bush Lied? Not really..

    [url]http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article614650.ece[/url]


    Interesting column... Not only are we doing well with the new Surge in Iraq... But it really does seem that maybe we did make the right choice in going to Iraq. Stuff it Liberals.!



    [I]In all truth, 'Bush lied' is missing the point
    By Fred Hiatt, Washington Post Columnist

    Published Monday, June 9, 2008 6:01 PM


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WASHINGTON

    Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

    Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

    "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

    There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

    But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

    On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

    On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

    On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

    On weapons of mass destruction overall? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

    As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

    But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaida "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

    In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

    After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

    Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

    Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

    But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

    And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Obama or McCain may well face: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

    For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

    Fred Hiatt is the Washington Post editorial page editor.



    2008 All Rights Reserved St. Petersburg Times
    490 First Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111
    Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
    Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright [/I]

  2. #2
    There is not a serious person in America who, in 2002, knowing what we know now about what Iraq cost and how many lives it would claim, who would decide to go through with it.

    It was a terrible decision.

    We went because we were told (pick one) Iraq had WMDs, it had operational relationships with terrorist groups, oil revenue would pay for the cost, and we would build a model democracy that would in effect start a democratic domino effect in the middle east.

    We did not invade Iraq to expand Iranian influence to where it did not previously exist, create a new division of Al Qaeda and pacify major cities by putting up Berlin Wall-style barricades and imposing martial law. That's how it stands now.

    Now, reasonable people can and will disagree on how to make the best of a bad situation going forward. No reasonable person, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, can argue that this was a good idea in a manner that is remotely convincing.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=24;2579315][url]http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article614650.ece[/url]


    Interesting column... Not only are we doing well with the new Surge in Iraq... But it really does seem that maybe we did make the right choice in going to Iraq. Stuff it Liberals.!



    [I]In all truth, 'Bush lied' is missing the point
    By Fred Hiatt, Washington Post Columnist

    Published Monday, June 9, 2008 6:01 PM


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WASHINGTON

    Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

    Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

    "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

    There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

    But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

    On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

    On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

    On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

    On weapons of mass destruction overall? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

    As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

    But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaida "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

    In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

    After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. … To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

    Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

    Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

    But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

    And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Obama or McCain may well face: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

    For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

    Fred Hiatt is the Washington Post editorial page editor.



    2008 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
    490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
    Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
    Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright [/I][/QUOTE]


    You can post 10,000 separate articles written by 10,000 separate journalists saying going into Iraq was the right move, and I'll post 10,000 morons.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2579361]There is not a serious person in America who, in 2002, knowing what we know now about what Iraq cost and how many lives it would claim, who would decide to go through with it.

    It was a terrible decision.

    We went because we were told (pick one) Iraq had WMDs, it had operational relationships with terrorist groups, oil revenue would pay for the cost, and we would build a model democracy that would in effect start a democratic domino effect in the middle east.

    We did not invade Iraq to expand Iranian influence to where it did not previously exist, create a new division of Al Qaeda and pacify major cities by putting up Berlin Wall-style barricades and imposing martial law. That's how it stands now.

    Now, reasonable people can and will disagree on how to make the best of a bad situation going forward. No reasonable person, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, can argue that this was a good idea in a manner that is remotely convincing.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting to see you avoid the topic of the article so completely.

    The topic is "Did Bush Lie? The answer is No".

    If the article is accurate in it's claims of teh content of Rock-a-fella's report, then a case can indeed be made that Bush did not, in fact, "lie".

    Discussion of the smarts of going to War now, in hindsight, is much easier, and a different discussion altogether.

    This section especially is what gives ME pause:

    [QUOTE]Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

    But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

    And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Obama or McCain may well face: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

    For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaida sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.[/QUOTE]

    In the future, we will run into a situation where we will have to defend ourselves and our Nation. And that future President will have two problems: trusting his intel. And convincing Americans to trust his intel.

    If that dual lack of trust causes paralyzation, it could cost (potentially) a hell of alot more lives than 9/11 did.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2579409]Interesting to see you avoid the topic of the article so completely.

    The topic is "Did Bush Lie? The answer is No".

    If the article is accurate in it's claims of teh content of Rock-a-fella's report, then a case can indeed be made that Bush did not, in fact, "lie".

    Discussion of the smarts of going to War now, in hindsight, is much easier, and a different discussion altogether.

    This section especially is what gives ME pause:



    In the future, we will run into a situation where we will have to defend ourselves and our Nation. And that future President will have two problems: trusting his intel. And convincing Americans to trust his intel.

    If that dual lack of trust causes paralyzation, it could cost (potentially) a hell of alot more lives than 9/11 did.[/QUOTE]


    I would hardly call this article --written by Fred Hiatt, a huge booster of the war with his own agenda in making this case-- the final word in that argument.

    That said, it's not the right argument to have at this point. It's undisputed that Bush et al ignored evidence that ran counter to their preconceived thesis about Iraq, some of which was backed by evidence. Is that lying?

    Honestly, who cares? What matters now is that, for whatever reason, a strategic blunder was made, and the pressing issue is how to make the best of it going forward.

    On the latter question, your concern is valid. I'd say that it is an inevitable consequence of preemptive warfare, and will be an issue for any attempt at an unprovoked attack going forward.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2579409]Interesting to see you avoid the topic of the article so completely.

    The topic is "Did Bush Lie? The answer is No".

    If the article is accurate in it's claims of teh content of Rock-a-fella's report, then a case can indeed be made that Bush did not, in fact, "lie".

    Discussion of the smarts of going to War now, in hindsight, is much easier, and a different discussion altogether.

    This section especially is what gives ME pause:



    In the future, we will run into a situation where we will have to defend ourselves and our Nation. And that future President will have two problems: trusting his intel. And convincing Americans to trust his intel.

    If that dual lack of trust causes paralyzation, it could cost (potentially) a hell of alot more lives than 9/11 did.[/QUOTE]
    A mod should merge this thread with the thread Breaking News: Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report. As a matter of fact this article was even copied in that thread.

    It was discussed and yes Bush did lie.

  7. #7
    ah yes... Con men everywhere -- after waiting breathlessly for a few days for some directive to cling to -- are trumpeting the latest bit of pap from the WaPo's war cheerleading op-ed editor, Fred Hiatt... i knew it wouldn't be long before it was posted here...

    Hiatt rests his perspective on the fact that Rockefeller didn't use the word "lie" for a reason. Nevermind that "misrepresented" is simply a nicer way of saying "lied."

    Anyhow, here's a commentary that adequately puts this clown's latest "nothing to see here" sentiment into the proper perspective:

    [COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="4"][B]That Wacky, Wacky Fred Hiatt [/B][/SIZE]
    [I]Posted by Michael Cohen[/I]
    [url]http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/week24/index.html[/url]

    In today's Washington Post, Fred Hiatt has a really aggravating op-ed that relies on the recent Senate Intelligence Report about the the use of pre-war intelligence to actually defend the Bush Administration and it's pre-war hyping of the threat from Iraq. As Hiatt puts it, the report makes clear that Bush did not "lie" to get us into war.

    Now there is a very small kernel of truth here, as Hiatt repeatedly notes that many of the Administration's charges about Iraq's links to terrorism and WMD program were "generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." As I've written at DA before, there was substantial reason to believe that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. (Although it's pretty astounding that Hiatt believes "generally substantiated" is a high enough benchmark for the decision to invade and occupy a country). But the issue is not whether Bush lied; the issue is how he and others depicted urgency of the threat . . . and on this account Hiatt knows full well that the Bush Administration exaggerated and misled the American people.

    Take for example, Saddam's supposed reconstituted nuclear program, which the IAEA had long said did not exist and the Rockefeller report says there were substantial disagreements about in the intel community. Even if you buy the most charitable view about the nuclear threat from Iraq does Fred Hiatt (or anyone else for that matter) believe it was appropriate for Bush Administration officials to play up apocalyptic scenarios such as mushroom clouds over American cities? No piece of post-war investigation has ever supported these outlandish and deceptive arguments.

    Or how about the Administration's constant conflation of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as if the two were working in cahoots when every piece of available evidence suggested otherwise? Does Hiatt think it was accidental that more than half the country thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Indeed as the Rockefeller report makes clear:

    [INDENT][I]Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

    Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.[/I][/INDENT]

    Yet, Hiatt has the chutzpah to argue the fault lies not with the Bush Administration for goosing the threat, but in fact is the fault of intelligence community:

    [I][INDENT]But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.[/INDENT][/I]

    This is Grade A BS and worst of all, Fred Hiatt knows it. [B]Hiatt would rather constitute his defense of the Bush Administration around the legalistic issue of whether "Bush lied" while simply ignoring the serial manner in which Bush Administration cherry picked intelligence, ignored areas of disagreement in the intel community, framed the threat from Iraq in worst case possible scenarios, exaggerated the urgency of Iraq's ability to reconstitute a WMD program, made spurious and misleading arguments about Iraq's ties to terrorist groups, ignored other military steps short of invasion and occupation, played on America's fear of another September 11th type attack, cut short UN inspections before they had completed their work . . . and I could go on and on. [/B]

    [B][U]There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration made the decision to go to war in Iraq based on reasons that had little to do with the available intelligence about its WMD program or its ties to terrorists.[/U][/B] And unless Fred Hiatt had been living in a cave for the past five years he is well aware of this.

    I'm sure Fred Hiatt, like many pre-war, advocates would like to absolve themselves of responsibility for supporting a war that went so disastrously wrong. But continuing to mislead Americans about what really went wrong and how we got into Iraq in the first place only continues the cycle of deception and yes . . . lies.[/COLOR]
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-11-2008 at 04:31 PM.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2579443]I would hardly call this article --written by Fred Hiatt, a huge booster of the war with his own agenda in making this case-- the final word in that argument.[/quote]

    But we should take a Democrat-led hand-slapping led by a huge anti-war anti-Republican with his own agenda in mking this case (i.e. Rockerfellar) be the "final word"? And we should just say "Bush Lied" when even Rockerfeller can't really say that?

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2579443]It's undisputed that Bush et al ignored evidence that ran counter to their preconceived thesis about Iraq, some of which was backed by evidence. Is that lying?[/quote]

    Well, seems this article at least IS disputing these claims, and using Rockerfellers own report to do so.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2579443]Honestly, who cares? What matters now is that, for whatever reason, a strategic blunder was made, and the pressing issue is how to make the best of it going forward.[/quote]

    I care. As I said, one day we will have to trust our RPesident to trust our Intelligence services, in a situation where a lack of trust could prove very costly. I'd say thats a good reason to care.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2579443]On the latter question, your concern is valid. I'd say that it is an inevitable consequence of preemptive warfare, and will be an issue for any attempt at an unprovoked attack going forward.[/QUOTE]

    I am glad you see where I am coming from. I am not, in fact, defending the War. I am worried more about the future in this discussion, and how the extremists of both sides can hurt our abillity to react down the road.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,963
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2579467]...one day we will have to trust our President to trust our Intelligence services...[/QUOTE]

    Probably not a good idea....

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2579475]Probably not a good idea....[/QUOTE]

    And that is my concern.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2579452]A mod should merge this thread with the thread Breaking News: Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report. As a matter of fact this article was even copied in that thread.

    It was discussed and yes Bush did lie.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, not so much. If he did lie, why isn't every single Democrat writing articles of impeachment right now? They'd prove it and win in a landslide, right? The "Bush Lied!" charge is itself a lie. You all know he didn't lie. This is Monday-Morning QBing of the worst kind. I thought you were above such petty politics, but I guess not. It's not enough for you to think he made a disatrous judgment call in good faith, no, he has to be a liar too. Kind of sad, really....

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579483]Yeah, not so much. If he did lie, why isn't every single Democrat writing articles of impeachment right now? They'd prove it and win in a landslide, right? The "Bush Lied!" charge is itself a lie. You all know he didn't lie. This is Monday-Morning QBing of the worst kind. I thought you were above such petty politics, but I guess not. It's not enough for you to think he made a disatrous judgment call in good faith, no, he has to be a liar too. Kind of sad, really....[/QUOTE]

    lie isn't accurate...

    I definitely think there was some distortion, and some omission..but I don't think it was outright lying....but this isn't just on GWB, but the high ranking members of his administration...there was a lot of shady stuff going on and if someone like Powell (who I consider pretty stand-up) got sick of it, you know something other than poor judgement was going on

    I think Bush is a true believer...and really see himself as some sort of modern day misunderstood hero....

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    The problem is that in 2003, Bush had the choice to:

    A) Finish the war in Afghanistan and crush al Qaeda leadership once and for all
    B) Confront Iran which has a Nuclear program and al Qaeda connection
    C) Confront North Korea which has a Nuclear program
    D) Invade Iraq which did not have a Nuclear or other WMD program or al Qaeda connection

    And Bush made the wrong choice.

    Taking the most Republican-leaning view of the intelligence at the time, Iraq was STILL the least of the 4 threats to the US listed above.

    Whether Bush "lied" is irrelevant now because there is no consequences if he did. There was never a serious effort to impeach him if people believed if he did lie, and the international community lacks the balls to pursue war crimes charges against him (the US attacked a sovereign nation without provocation which is in violation of international law if I'm not mistaken).

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=SMC;2579490]The problem is that in 2003, Bush had the choice to:

    A) Finish the war in Afghanistan and crush al Qaeda leadership once and for all
    B) Confront Iran which has a Nuclear program and al Qaeda connection
    C) Confront North Korea which has a Nuclear program
    D) Invade Iraq which did not have a Nuclear or other WMD program or al Qaeda connection

    And Bush made the wrong choice.

    Taking the most Republican-leaning view of the intelligence at the time, Iraq was STILL the least of the 4 threats to the US listed above.

    Whether Bush "lied" is irrelevant now because there is no consequences if he did. There was never a serious effort to impeach him if people believed if he did lie, and the international community lacks the balls to pursue war crimes charges against him (the US attacked a sovereign nation without provocation which is in violation of international law if I'm not mistaken).[/QUOTE]

    Bus didn't know D as declaratively as you imply, at the time. Also, the invasion of Iraq is most certainly legal under international law. But otherwise, you bring up good and fair and reasonable points....

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,232
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579483]Yeah, not so much. If he did lie, why isn't every single Democrat writing articles of impeachment right now? They'd prove it and win in a landslide, right? The "Bush Lied!" charge is itself a lie. You all know he didn't lie. This is Monday-Morning QBing of the worst kind. I thought you were above such petty politics, but I guess not. It's not enough for you to think he made a disatrous judgment call in good faith, no, he has to be a liar too. Kind of sad, really....[/QUOTE]


    You honestly don't think he was consciously trying to mold the intel to fit his desired course of action? And even if not, can't you see how that seems like a reasonable accusation?

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=SMC;2579490]The problem is that in 2003, Bush had the choice to:

    A) Finish the war in Afghanistan and crush al Qaeda leadership once and for all
    B) Confront Iran which has a Nuclear program and al Qaeda connection
    C) Confront North Korea which has a Nuclear program
    D) Invade Iraq which did not have a Nuclear or other WMD program or al Qaeda connection

    And Bush made the wrong choice.

    Taking the most Republican-leaning view of the intelligence at the time, Iraq was STILL the least of the 4 threats to the US listed above.

    Whether Bush "lied" is irrelevant now because there is no consequences if he did. There was never a serious effort to impeach him if people believed if he did lie, and the international community lacks the balls to pursue war crimes charges against him (the US attacked a sovereign nation without provocation which is in violation of international law if I'm not mistaken).[/QUOTE]


    hysterical....you claim I'm a conservative shill and this is your response??

    the most "Republican-leaning view of intelligence"??? sh!t- I don't need to do any work to dispute the above- I'll just let the let chairman rockefeller do it for me from october '02....

    [I]"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." [/I]

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html[/url]

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,695
    I don't think Bush is smart enough to lie. I think he'd believe anything you tell him. "George, new evidence says that water is, indeed, not wet, but rather it is dry.".

    "Alright, then"

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579483]Yeah, not so much. If he did lie, why isn't every single Democrat writing articles of impeachment right now? They'd prove it and win in a landslide, right? The "Bush Lied!" charge is itself a lie. You all know he didn't lie. This is Monday-Morning QBing of the worst kind. I thought you were above such petty politics, but I guess not. It's not enough for you to think he made a disatrous judgment call in good faith, no, he has to be a liar too. Kind of sad, really....[/QUOTE]

    What's sad is people like you continuing to tell the world it's pitch dark out at noon.

    George Bush and the cabal that pulls his strings has been caught in so many profound lies, not only about Iraq and 9/11, but about domestic policy, that you people truly represent pathological behavior at this point...

    We can cover them one by one, if you like. Do you wanna spin "we will make no distinction between .... blah blah blah?" Because they are, in fact, making a blatant distinction between some nations who "harbor them."

    Would you like to move on to lies about troop levels? Or lies about torture? Or the lies that Congress had all the very same intel that the WH did? Or shall we skip to the ongoing lies about Iran (which have been debunked by the intel report), that the cabal still clings to?

    This isn't an "oops, we made mistakes" scenario that you people try and spin. This is a coordinated, remorseless and ongoing policy of deception. I have a mountain of evidence at my fingertips... Let's get it on.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-11-2008 at 05:03 PM.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2579501]You honestly don't think he was consciously trying to mold the intel to fit his desired course of action? And even if not, can't you see how that seems like a reasonable accusation?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think it seems reasonable to suggest that he lied, which is different from what you are suggesting. Regarding what you suggest, what do you mean by "mold?" What I think happened is that the official policy of the US towards Iraq changed in 1998 from one of sacntions to one of regime change. I think Bush, rightly or wrongly, saw Iraq as our biggest threat outside of AQ and I think that the nature of intelligence is that POTUS' have to weigh risks of action versus risks on inaction based upon intel that is disagreed upon, often passionately, by various internal groups and is never known with certainty. I think Bush, aftre 9/11, had a lower threshold for inaction than he would have before and in good faith thought he was responding to what he viewed was a threat. I think he did see terrorism in a global, broader context than just 9/11 because terror against us and our allies stretched back decades with different outcomes. I think he wanted to remove Saddam who was a rich, powerful, armed supporter of terrorism and a regional threat to the stability of the ME region which is a hotbed of terrorist activity and creation and also of strategic importance to the US.

    Do I think he had a "hard-on" to get Saddam and knew Saddam was no threat and lied through his teeth to make war? No, I think that is a cartoonish, unreasonable opinion to hold.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,232
    [QUOTE=Big L;2579512]I don't think Bush is smart enough to lie. I think he'd believe anything you tell him. "George, new evidence says that water is, indeed, not wet, but rather it is dry.".

    "Alright, then"[/QUOTE]

    Hmm, that's a more convinving arguement that anything else I've seen so far from the Bush apologists. The "Forrest Bush" defense.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us