P
Philip_P
Guest
A very good point.
- Status
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Did Bush lie?
No, I don’t think so.
But, if anyone out there is interested in some books that would provide sources for further research, here are a few to begin with.
No, I don’t think so.
But, if anyone out there is interested in some books that would provide sources for further research, here are a few to begin with.
- “Disinformation” - subtitle: “22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror” - by Richard Miniter.
- “Countdown to Terror” - subtitle: “The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America… and How the CIA Has Ignored It.” by Congressman Curt Weldon (Vice-chairman, House Armed Services Committee)
- “The West’s Last Chance” - subtitle: “Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?” - by Tony Blankley
- “They Just Don’t Get It” - subtitle: “How Washington Is Still Compromising Your Safety - And What You Can Do About It” - by Colonel David Hunt (US Army, retired).
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I just found this on-line. I had called my Senators and they routed me to the Senate Committee and they blew me off. So I went on line and here it is:
Here is the “Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments”.
The full report is 30 MB, 524 pages. The entire report is available right here:
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9ldk8yyZNr0J:www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html+gpo+senate+intelligence+report&hl=en
The report contains 34 “sections”. Eighteen have Roman Numerals.
There are appendices and all sorts of things.
I urge people to read it on line. It is free.
Of special interest: the section describing Niger and an assessement of the efforts by Iraq to purchase yellowcake (enriched Uranium) are described in the second chapter – right up front. The report states that it only takes 10 tons of yellow cake to make a nuclear weapon (after enrichment and manufacturing). The chapter bears close reading and even after all the redacting (blacking out), it appears that Iraq was seeking either 500 tons or 500 tons per year. There is also a suggestion of an issue that perhaps 1000 tons possibly might be unaccounted for. The report is badly written; there are typos. In places you have to read between the lines. In a sense, it is imprecise and wordy. But you get a sense that there is more to the story than meets the eye. – it is 48 pages long. Read it.
Here is the “Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments”.
The full report is 30 MB, 524 pages. The entire report is available right here:
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9ldk8yyZNr0J:www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html+gpo+senate+intelligence+report&hl=en
The report contains 34 “sections”. Eighteen have Roman Numerals.
There are appendices and all sorts of things.
I urge people to read it on line. It is free.
Of special interest: the section describing Niger and an assessement of the efforts by Iraq to purchase yellowcake (enriched Uranium) are described in the second chapter – right up front. The report states that it only takes 10 tons of yellow cake to make a nuclear weapon (after enrichment and manufacturing). The chapter bears close reading and even after all the redacting (blacking out), it appears that Iraq was seeking either 500 tons or 500 tons per year. There is also a suggestion of an issue that perhaps 1000 tons possibly might be unaccounted for. The report is badly written; there are typos. In places you have to read between the lines. In a sense, it is imprecise and wordy. But you get a sense that there is more to the story than meets the eye. – it is 48 pages long. Read it.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Read my previous answer about why they do not bother responding to every baseless charge. As far as the lie that nothing has been found, you can look for yourself if you choose to. I have seen it all and really do not feel like doing the homework for you but here are a couple of sources to get you started:LOL!
I wonder why the President or Vice President made no mention of all this. Maybe the MSM is hiding it from them, too.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml
Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, and you can find detailed information in New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter’s book, “Disinformation”.
You will find the accounts of our trops finding (among other things):
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas (actual USE of a chemical weapon against our troops!!!
• Found: Over 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin.
You can dismiss the sources and ignore the truth but that will not make it go away.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Sorry, but if you pay any attention at all to Bush and how he operates it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that he cares nothing about the polls. That is one of the biggest complaints his supporters have about him. They wish he would have starting responding to all the nonsense before so many people were apparantly fooled into believing any of it because they heard it so much and never heard any response to it until last week.
2
2shelbys
Guest
That would be nice. Opinions and plans have to change as the available information changes. But there are a lot of examples of politicians saying different things to different audiences depending on what they thought that particular audience wanted to hear and making statements that clearly opposed their voting history. Kerry was constantly doing both of these things. That does need to be addressed.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Baseless charge?
Bush, Cheney, Blair, and the rest, haven’t thought once to say ‘look guys, you were wrong, we did find WMD in Iraq’?!?!Err, yes, ok.
Mike
E
estesbob
Guest
NO-
2
2shelbys
Guest
Mike,Baseless charge?
Err, yes, ok.
Mike
Why not? They also have not pointed out that:
Joe Wilson is lying when he tells the press that Iraq was not attempting to secure uranium because his own report cited the proof not only that they were doing so but how much they wanted per month,
The Democrats are lying when they say they were misled because they saw the exact same intelligence and came to the exact same decision (even before Bush was President) about military action,
That ABC faked or used faked documents about his service in the A.N.G.,
That the Downing street memo is a proven fraud and that the reporter who was the source says he only kept a copy and destroyed the original. HAHAHA. Who would destroy the proof of something so important if it was real?
That the press claim that Iraq is in chaos is bogus when 95% of the country has been calm since the fall of Saddam and the terrorists are only active in a handful of cities,
I could go on and on but why bother? It is obvious that Bush does not care one bit about polls and that he knows that in the end, when this whole thing is finished, his accusers will end up looking profoundly foolish and deceitful. Also, the charge is undeniably baseless no matter what Bush and Blair say because as has been said and proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER we have found illegal weapons and we have video, photo, and audio proof that they were hiding and transporting huge amounts of something they knew they were not supposed to have to Syria.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I’ll bet you didn’t see some of the attacks on Blair from members of the public in the runup to our May election. No sane person would take the attacks he took if he could have turned around and said ‘no, wait, you’re wrong, there were WMD’.
Mike
2
2shelbys
Guest
You are right, I am not as familiar with events over there but it could not be any worse the the constant hammering Bush has taken from the press here (essentially the Democrat Propaganda Ministry) since the day after he was first elected in 2000 and he did not respond to any of it until last week. It is not necessarily a matter of sanity but possibly a matter of resolve.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Peoples’ absolute determination to believe what they want to believe is clearly on display here.
2shelbys:
2shelbys:
2shelbys:
2shelbys:
Also, it wasn’t a reporter, but a deputy in the British Foreign Office who was the source of the Downing Street memo. You should try to get your facts straight, or better, produce one fact, to support your statements.
2shelbys:
2shelbys:
I’m really incredulous that anyone would so sincerely take as fact some of the statements you’ve made here.
Now if there’s an ounce of truth in that statement, you’d think Patrick Fitzgerald would have pointed that out.
Not exactly true. The Democrats never had access to the Presidential Daily Briefing reports, and many of those contained the phony intel on which Bush based his decision to go to war.
It was CBS, but still, this has nothing to do with this thread.
“A proven fraud”?? Funny, but you haven’t produced the proof of the “proven fraud”.
Also, it wasn’t a reporter, but a deputy in the British Foreign Office who was the source of the Downing Street memo. You should try to get your facts straight, or better, produce one fact, to support your statements.
In that case, can we bring the troops home yet? Also, 95% of NYC was unaffected by the 9/11 attack. Guess you thought the coverage of 9/11 was too negative, too.
Huge amounts of something? LOL! Was that in the Congressional Authorization? We’re invading Iraq because we believe they’re transporting “huge amounts of something” to Syria?
I’m really incredulous that anyone would so sincerely take as fact some of the statements you’ve made here.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Patrick Fitzgerald did not bring it up because it had absolutely no bearing on the investigation at hand. It was his responsibility to determine whether or not a covert agent’s identity had been exposed and nothing more. Whether or not Wilson was lying to the press about his report was outside the scope of his investigation…
If that was true then why were the Clinton administration, John Kerry, Ted (the hero of Chappaquiddik) Kennedy, and most of the other Democrats pressing for action long before Bush was even in the picture as a candidate?
That is what I thought but the last time I posted it as CBS several people jumped on me saying it was ABC. In the context of my point it had everything to do with this discussion.
I thought everyone knew about them being fake and that was exactly why the Democrats never tried to exploit the story and it died a quick death. It was exposed as a fake the same week it was released and it was Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith who produced the documents and claimed they were genuine only to later admit that they were “retyped” copies and that he had destroyed the originals. If you believe him it is you who is “believing what you want to believe” and it is you who need to get your facts straight or produce even one fact to support your statements.
Talk about something that has no bearing on the topic at hand!
Laugh all you want, it was in Powell’s UN briefing and was supported, as I said, by video, photo, and audio evidence. I (and others) have posted a link to the complete briefing with all of the evidence on many threads over and over. You can look it up just as easily as we did.
The feeling is VERY mutual.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Excuse me, but I find this fascinating. Joe Wilson was lying in his report? Iraq really was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger, but Wilson said it was not? Seems to me just about anyone who knows how to read would be able to get to the bottom of that. How come it escaped the attention of the President, Vice President, and Scott McClellan? And what about the media? Do you honestly believe the media would attempt to cover up the fact that Wilson lied in his report, if that is in fact what happened?
Colin Powell admits himself that he’s still trying to live down that infamous briefing. I don’t need to look up that hash of bogus intelligence, thanks.
It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”
2
2shelbys
Guest
You really have not kept up with this have you? No, he did not lie IN his report, he has been lying ABOUT it. The report clearly states that there was credible evidence of Iraq’s attempts to secure uranium but he has been telling the press otherwise in the apparant belief that the contents of the report would not be made public. He also did not count on an independent British inquiry, the Butler Report, confirming the fact that negotiations were going on. So you see, it did not “escape the attention of the President, Vice President, and Scott McClellan”, they read it and acted on it. And your assertion that the press would not cover the butt of someone saying damaging things about Bush is just mind boggling. You are here in the US aren’t you? You do watch the news and/or read newspapers? I can not imagine anyone missing the media’s common agenda of destroying Bush.
People always take those two sections of his comments out of context the way you are. If you read the entire statement you find that his regrets have nothing to do with what was presented but with the fact that the CIA did not inform him that there were some among them who thought that SOME of the sources might be questionable. He never recanted on the validity of the videos, photos, and audio recordings he presented and he stated emphatically that he still supported the decision to resort to military action. Please read your sources in their entirety and quote them completely because this has been gone over ad nauseum on these forums.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, he takes a hammering, but I’ve not seen it get personal, in-his-face, the way it did with Blair in the run-up to the election in May.
And, when ‘he responded to it last week’, why do you think he didn’t include ‘we’ve found WMD! When everyone says we haven’t, they’re wrong!’ as part of his response?
Mike
S
shockerfan
Guest
In order to say Bush lied, and not violate the 8th commandmant of “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”, one must have a reasonable amount of evidence that Bush knew the intelligence was wrong before he made the case to the American people.
People can argue that he was wrong, but you have a lot of work to do to prove he lied.
People get very confused about the definition of a lie. Those who oppose Bush equate being wrong with lying. Does a meteorologist lie when his forecast is wrong? If your little old aunt says she will visit you for dinner on Friday, but dies in a car accident on Thursday, did she lie about visiting you?
It is quite easy for me to see that given Saddam’s history of lies and obfuscation, and his past history of actually using WMDs, and given the intel reports from several countries, its not a stretch to see how Bush came to his decision. If you don’t like the decision, thats fine, argue that he was wrong. But if you are going to accuse him of lying, you owe him the same standards that you would hold anyone else to when it comes to an accusation of lying. Just because he is a president you don’t support, does not mean our Catholic Christian principles no longer apply.
People can argue that he was wrong, but you have a lot of work to do to prove he lied.
People get very confused about the definition of a lie. Those who oppose Bush equate being wrong with lying. Does a meteorologist lie when his forecast is wrong? If your little old aunt says she will visit you for dinner on Friday, but dies in a car accident on Thursday, did she lie about visiting you?
It is quite easy for me to see that given Saddam’s history of lies and obfuscation, and his past history of actually using WMDs, and given the intel reports from several countries, its not a stretch to see how Bush came to his decision. If you don’t like the decision, thats fine, argue that he was wrong. But if you are going to accuse him of lying, you owe him the same standards that you would hold anyone else to when it comes to an accusation of lying. Just because he is a president you don’t support, does not mean our Catholic Christian principles no longer apply.
L
Lance
Guest
Who said, “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” ?
Who said, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”?
It was not George Bush or even a Republican.
It was (1)Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 and (2)Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
If Bush lied so did they.
Who said, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”?
It was not George Bush or even a Republican.
It was (1)Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 and (2)Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
If Bush lied so did they.
M
MikeWM
Guest
We already know the intelligence was a disaster (and I continue to wonder why more people don’t seem to care all that much about this).
Between those dates and the start of the invasion, Hans Blix reported on the mission he had been sent to do. Unfortunately he was ignored.
Mike
M
mlchance
Guest
Yeah, but their Democrats opposed to the Bush administration, and, therefore, are excused of all things, including being stridently in favor of making it easier for women to kill their children.
Let’s sum up the pro-Bush lied argument:
Bush lied! Soldiers died!
Halliburton!
No blood for oil!
Other example can be found here.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status