Bush goes on a lying campaign

[Thomas Veil]

Apparently the White House has tired of all the recent setbacks and is seeking to go on the offensive:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.

White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.

The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.

They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.Link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/08/Bush.retaliates/index.html)

Sounds like desperation to me. Frankly, I don't know what they hope to accomplish by repeating old lies more loudly and more often. Josef Goebbels' philosophy aside, I just don't think people believe the talking points anymore.

Personally, I relish seeing what they plan to trot out. I have a feeling it'll be ineffective and Harry Reid & co. will have a lot of fun with it.

[zimv20]

yeah, sounds like they're really feeling it. what they're risking is keeping in the forefront of everyone's minds that the iraq intelligence was indeed wrong. w/ the way things are going, i'd think they'd want to change the subject.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Another Spin campaign, I wonder what the new spin slogan will be?................ Dont pay attention to that man behind the curtain?

I have to admit i have never seen a President Spin so much, Iam still waiting for more spin on torture and secret prisons. A very solid foundation to build a police state i must say. 911 = Iraq still works in the red states.:rolleyes:

[rdowns]

I think this cartoon sums up recent events well, even though it is from a local Long Island paper.

[Thanatoast]

Yeah, desperate, but maybe sly enough to pull it off. If they pull out those quotes from (gullible, which-way-is-the-wind-blowing) Democrats, they'll muddy up the waters enough to save their asses from the worst of it.

[mactastic]

Yeah, desperate, but maybe sly enough to pull it off. If they pull out those quotes from (gullible, which-way-is-the-wind-blowing) Democrats, they'll muddy up the waters enough to save their asses from the worst of it.
Not if evidence is being talked about in either a Libby trial or a Senate 'Phase 2' investigation that the WH only passed along evidence that supported their viewpoint. And that's a distinct possibility at this point.

[zimv20]

Not if evidence is being talked about in either a Libby trial
it does sound like they're going court... link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/politics/09libby.html?hp&ex=1131512400&en=a1a4725d4f6c23c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Libby Establishes a Fund to Help Pay Legal Bills

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is establishing a fund to help pay for his legal defense in the C.I.A. leak case, and associates of Mr. Libby have begun soliciting money from his friends and Republican donors, lawyers and people who have been contacted about the fund said on Tuesday.

Barbara Comstock, a Republican communications strategist who has been hired to work with Mr. Libby's defense team, has pulled together a list of potential contributors and has been in touch with some of them in the last week, providing an address in Washington for sending checks, the people said.

and my favorite bit...

"We're certainly establishing a legal defense fund," Mr. Jeffress said, "and we'll do everything we can to make it successful, because he's not a wealthy man."

also:

But in establishing the fund, Mr. Libby is opening himself to questions. Legal and campaign finance specialists said he could face scrutiny about whether any financial assistance he might receive from allies of President Bush and Mr. Cheney was going to finance a defense strategy intended in part to minimize harm to the administration.

[mactastic]

Yeah, I'd love to see the list of names supporting the defense of a man accused of outing a CIA agent... I don't suppose it will be made public in it's entirety.

I'd wager it would contain some of our most vocally patriotic Americans...

[solvs]

The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty
Yeah, cuz that's much better. I don't really care who supported it, and what happened to get us into it. What really pisses me off is what we did when we got there, and the fact that we're still there losing troops proves we didn't do such a good job. Though, the administration lying about why we were going and their cronies trumpeting the lie long after we knew it was is also on my list of stuff that pisses me off.

But yeah, Dems are wishy-washy. They should have gone with Dean. A little nutty, but at least he would have been a discernible voice.

[Thomas Veil]

"We're certainly establishing a legal defense fund," Mr. Jeffress said, "and we'll do everything we can to make it successful, because he's not a wealthy man."This, this is why we need to raise the minumum wage! The poor man. He was the aide to the Vice President of the United States, and apparently he made but a pittance. :(

[Thanatoast]

Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics of His Strategy in Iraq
Published: November 11, 2005

President Bush lashed out today at critics of his Iraq policy, accusing them of trying to rewrite history about the decision to go to war and saying their criticism is undercutting American forces in battle.

President Bush challenged a new round of accusations by Democrats that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said in a Veterans Day speech in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Bush delivered his aggressive and unusually long speech as part of an effort to shore up his credibility as he faces growing public skepticism about Iraq and accusations by Democrats and others that he led the nation into war on false pretenses.

more... (http://nytimes.com/2005/11/11/international/middleeast/11cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1131771600&en=80f33f18ca70c64d&ei=5094&partner=homepage)Somebody please save us from this jerk-off...

[Thomas Veil]

He's just following the basic precept of his administration: screw up royally, and never ever take responsibility for it.

[tristan]

It's the "Believe the Lie" strategy. Just repeat a lie over and over again until people start to believe it's true. McCain has a black baby. Kerry didn't deserve his medals. Clinton did something wrong in Whitewater and Travelgate. Social security reform will save social security. Etc etc.

[Dont Hurt Me]

It's the "Believe the Lie" strategy. Just repeat a lie over and over again until people start to believe it's true. McCain has a black baby. Kerry didn't deserve his medals. Clinton did something wrong in Whitewater and Travelgate. Social security reform will save social security. Etc etc.This is the current administration,just repeat the mantra over and over and over and soon people will take it as truth. Why is this president going to Mongolia???:rolleyes: To get away from the homeland ?:cool:

[solvs]

Why is this president going to Mongolia???
Bush, standing atop the Great Wall: "Mr. Jiang Zemin, tear down this wall." :rolleyes:

[Advance The Man]

Looks like another red/blue opinion.

As a conservative, I look at it as the President finally defending the opinion that democrats had before they made it a political issue. Everyone from Clinton, Gore, to current democratic senators agreed that Iraq had wmd's and they agreed to go to war.

Democrats have become revisionists to try to regain the house, senate and White House. And I have to say, it is working. The President appears to be on the defense and opinion polls are way down on him. He has the right approach to attack the revisionists and make them explain why they have flip-flopped on their original opinion. I prefer we work together, win the war on terrorism and get our troops home.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Looks like another red/blue opinion.

As a conservative, I look at it as the President finally defending the opinion that democrats had before they made it a political issue. Everyone from Clinton, Gore, to current democratic senators agreed that Iraq had wmd's and they agreed to go to war.

Democrats have become revisionists to try to regain the house, senate and White House. And I have to say, it is working. The President appears to be on the defense and opinion polls are way down on him. He has the right approach to attack the revisionists and make them explain why they have flip-flopped on their original opinion. I prefer we work together, win the war on terrorism and get our troops home.
The difference is Clinton didnt take us to war in Iraq,,George did after a year of repeating his WMDs line. There wasnt any WMDs? We cant ever win a war on Terrorism as long as extreme Islam is being taught all over this planet. Now how do you get into every extremist mosque? This president took us into Iraq knowing he didnt have diddly squat so here we are. Bin Laden is still free, The Border is still open after 5 years Bush & the Republican Gang. Solution is to boot the Neocons out and do the same to the Democrats if they arent doing the will of the PEOPLE! Its a sad shame that Corporations so clearly run our Govt and Both Party's.
On working together this president has done more to divide people, and is more partisan then any president in recent history. Working together isnt his cup of tea.

[toontra]

I look at it as the President finally defending the opinion that democrats had before they made it a political issue. Everyone from Clinton, Gore, to current democratic senators agreed that Iraq had wmd's and they agreed to go to war.

Democrats have become revisionists to try to regain the house, senate and White House. And I have to say, it is working. The President appears to be on the defense and opinion polls are way down on him. He has the right approach to attack the revisionists and make them explain why they have flip-flopped on their original opinion. I prefer we work together, win the war on terrorism and get our troops home.

With all due respect, that's the kind of nonsense I expect to hear from a neo-con clone. Word for word the Bush & Co party line. And it's wrong in fact & in analysis.

1) The Dems DIDN'T see all the intelligence that Bush, Rumsfeld did.

2) Bush & Co sifted & slanted the intelligence shown to the Dems, Congress , the UN & the public.

3) The Dems didn't start the war when they were in power, Bush did.

Bush is down in the polls because the public have finally seem through his nonsense, nothing to do with Dem "revisionist" smear campaigns. If anyone can be accused of revisionism it is the Bush camp. No longer removing WMD but regime change - no mention of that to the UN by Colin Powell!

[mactastic]

Funny thing is, Clinton et al. thought that Saddam had WMD programs operational prior[i] to 1998 -- when Clinton bombed Iraq [i]and Republicans objected, thereby playing politics with our nation's security.

After 1998 (and the subsequent bombing that the GOP tried to say Clinton was doing to take the spotlight off his impeachment woes) Saddam's programs were never brought back to their pre-1998 levels.

So yes, Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs and he did something about it that didn't involve thousands of US troop deaths. After Clinton left office, Democrats didn't see the same intelligence BushCo. saw. Did Congress get to see the PDBs? Was Congress in general, not to mention Democratic leaders, given the raw data that the WH had access too? Did Congress have an 'Office of Special Plans' to do intelligence analysis? No, no and no. Congress and the American people were given worst-case analysis of Saddam's WMD programs and best-case scenarios of how the war would go. Remember when BushCo mouthpieces were out there poo-pooing the idea that the war would cost $50 billion? Yeah, me too.

The idea that Congress sees all the same data as the President is preposterous. (And growing more ludicrous by the day as more evidence emerges.)

And while you can say that Democrats were convinced Saddam had WMD prior to 1998, they all seemed convinced that Clinton had taken care of the problem for the foreseeable future. Then they all got nervous when Bush and Cheney started to tell us that there was going to be a mushroom cloud over a US city if we didn't go to war in Iraq RIGHT NOW. So while you can fault them for not having a spine, you can't say they were given all the same data as the President.

Remember, the GOP wanted to impeach a sitting president while US troops were in harm's way. They undercut the troops by attacking the President during missions in both Kosovo and Iraq. And now they want to say that one shouldn't do those things? Puhleeze.

[Advance The Man]

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his
capacity to threaten his neighbors.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1998
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[Advance The Man]

So yes, Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs and he did something about it that didn't involve thousands of US troop deaths.

What he did was NOTHING. And that nothing killed many people on 9/11 and has killed over 2,000 of our soldiers. President Bush is left to clean up the terrorism mess that Clinton didn't take care of.

[mactastic]

What he did was NOTHING. And that nothing killed many people on 9/11 and has killed over 2,000 of our soldiers. President Bush is left to clean up the terrorism mess that Clinton didn't take care of.
Oh? So why were there WMD in Iraq in 1998 and none in 2003?

And are you seriously still banging that '9/11 = Iraq' drum?

[toontra]

What he did was NOTHING. And that nothing killed many people on 9/11 and has killed over 2,000 of our soldiers.

OK - I've heard enough. You are talking absolute ****. I'm not sure where you came from or what your intentions are in this forum, but repeating proven lies isn't likely to ingratiate you with anyone here, of any persuasion.

Let's get some things straight:

1) Saddam WASN'T responsible for 9/11

2) 2000 US troops are dead BECAUSE YOU INVADED IRAQ.

Excuse me - I don't usually capitalise, but at times like this it's hard to control.

[Sayhey]

At this point I've got to post two articles in response to Bush's "Attack the Democrats" strategy. The first is an editorial from the New York Times, the second is a recent blog by Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly.

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
Published: November 15, 2005
To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history. New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html)

[Sayhey]

Here is the second.November 14, 2005
MANIPULATING INTELLIGENCE....Did the Bush administration mislead the country during the runup to the Iraq war? It's true that they turned out to be wrong about a great many things, but that doesn't answer the question. It merely begs it. Were they sincerely wrong, or did they intentionally manipulate the intelligence they presented to the public in order to mask known weaknesses in their case?

The case for manipulation is pretty strong. It relies on several things, but I think the most important of them has been the discovery that the administration deliberately suppressed dissenting views on some of the most important pieces of evidence that they used to bolster their case for war. For future reference, here's a list of five key dissents about administration claims, all of which were circulated before the war but kept under wraps until after the war:

The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.

What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.

The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.

What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.

The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.

What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.

The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.

What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link.

Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.

The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.

What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.

This is not a comprehensive list, so feel free to add other specific examples of suppressed intelligence in comments.

One final word on this: the issue here is not who was right and who was wrong, or even whether the overall weight of the evidence was sufficient to justify the war. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the White House to present all the evidence pro and con and then use that evidence to make the strongest possible case for war. But that's not what they did. Instead, they suppressed any evidence that might have thrown doubt on their arguments, making it impossible for the public to evaluate what they were saying. In fact, by abusing the classification process to keep these dissents secret, they even made it impossible for senators who knew the truth to say anything about it in public.

This is not the way to market a war. It's certainly not the way to market a war that requires long term support from citizens in a democracy. But that's how they marketed it anyway.

UPDATE: I've removed a note from the first item about al-Libi providing his false information under torture. The linked Newsweek article (here) doesn't unambiguously support that notion, and it's not really germane to the topic of this post anyway.Kevin Drum (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php)

[Sayhey]

Sorry, for the long articles, but I'm glad there are many in the media not allowing Bush to push his line of "rewriting history" without a fight. There are others, of which the column by E.J. Dionne is a great example. His I won't quote in full, but it is worth looking at and remembering the last two years to be clear just who is attempting to rewrite our history. Among Dionne's points he says this,

Bush was not subtle. He said that anyone accusing his administration of having "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people" was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush declared last week. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

You wonder: Did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy by daring to seek the indictment of Scooter Libby on a charge of perjury and obstruction of justice? Must Americans who support our troops desist from any criticism of the use of intelligence by the administration? Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html)

I think the answer to Dionne's last question is an emphatic "NO," and while, in the past, Bush and Karl Rove have been successful in telling the American people that black is white and white is black, there is every indication it won't work this time.

[IJ Reilly]

Die-hard Republicans seem to conveniently forget what brought this issue back to the forefront -- the indictment of I. Lewis Libby.

This entire episode was set in motion by the White House making claims about Saddam's alleged efforts to buy uranium from Africa, a claim George Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address. It would take a very selective memory to not recall that Bush attributed this claim to British intelligence. Why? Because our own intelligence was calling the entire matter into question. In fact, the claim had been removed from previous Bush speeches at the request of the CIA. So how did it find its way back into the State of the Union address, only two months before the U.S. invaded Iraq? Is it because Bush was so determined to tell us the truth?

Second, the administration persisted in claiming a connection between Mohammed Atta and Saddam, touting a supposed meeting between Atta and Iraqi agents in Europe. This they continued to do, despite the fact that the FBI and CIA were saying that Atta was in the U.S. at the time.

Third, and most critically, it was in the end the decision of George W. Bush and no one else to go to war. The Congress gave him that authority, as most congresses will do when asked by the president. It then becomes the responsibility of the president to exercise that authority prudently. This Bush did not do. He kicked out the weapons inspectors, who in time could have told us what we know now about Saddam's actual WMD capacities. He annoyed and frustrated our closest allies.

Congress may have handed Bush the loaded gun, but it was Bush who elected to fire it -- without taking careful aim. Now he is trying to absolve himself of responsibility for these actions. This is shameful. Given what we know now, it is shocking that any American would be anxious to let him skate on this, to allow him to blame others for his mistakes.

[zimv20]

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his
capacity to threaten his neighbors.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1998
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
i believe you've been around here long enough to know the rules -- when making factual claims or reproducing quotes, please provide verifiable links to reputable sources. thank you.

[Thomas Veil]

i believe you've been around here long enough to know the rules -- when making factual claims or reproducing quotes, please provide verifiable links to reputable sources. thank you.Hint: Newsmax and the Washington Times are not considered reputable sources. ;)

[Advance The Man]

i believe you've been around here long enough to know the rules -- when making factual claims or reproducing quotes, please provide verifiable links to reputable sources. thank you.

UN requests multinational forces to stay in Iraq through December 31, 2006. Appears the world view is to stay the course...

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/11/un-extends-mandate-of-iraq-force-for.php

or

http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=s/res/1637(2005)and click on your desired language.

[IJ Reilly]

UN requests multinational forces to stay in Iraq through December 31, 2006. Appears the world view is to stay the course...

Actually, just the Security Council, not the entire UN. Also, the resolution does not "request" the multinational forces to stay, but rather gives them permission to remain until the end of next year.

[solvs]

What he did was NOTHING. And that nothing killed many people on 9/11 and has killed over 2,000 of our soldiers. President Bush is left to clean up the terrorism mess that Clinton didn't take care of.
First of all, obviously, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Second, Clinton never stopped bombing Iraq and pretty much disabled them. He also warned Bush of terrorism, and Bush did nothing until after 9/11. And we still haven't gotten Osama (the guy actually responsible) and we're still in Iraq. If Bush had done as good a job as Clinton (who I can't stand BTW), we wouldn't be arguing over this right now.

Oh, and to debunk your theories even further I Was Wrong But So Were You (http://www.slate.com/id/2130295?nav=nw).

[Advance The Man]

So the Security Council (i.e. France, China and Russia) agrees with the United States since they gave them permission. Other countries like Iran, Syria and other UN members not on the Security Council may not have agreed to give permission.

Bottomline is the nonsense that the war is unjust is political. Many countries who have come out against us realize the importance of squashing terrorism. Our own Democrat politicians agreed with it, but are on a smear campaign. They have convinced many liberal voters that Bush lied.

With Bush (finally) fighting back against the true liars (Democrats), he will slowly gain support from the American public.

Actually, just the Security Council, not the entire UN. Also, the resolution does not "request" the multinational forces to stay, but rather gives them permission to remain until the end of next year.

[Advance The Man]

Clinton should of invaded Afghanistan and taken Bin Laden out. He should of given Saddam a choice of unfettered access to see if there were wmd's or not. Instead he bombed them every once in a while to stay in the news. He was a peaceful president at all costs. He didn't want to disrupt his Presidential dinners and parties. Had he done the job, he would of saved thousands of American lives.

First of all, obviously, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Second, Clinton never stopped bombing Iraq and pretty much disabled them. He also warned Bush of terrorism, and Bush did nothing until after 9/11. And we still haven't gotten Osama (the guy actually responsible) and we're still in Iraq. If Bush had done as good a job as Clinton (who I can't stand BTW), we wouldn't be arguing over this right now.

Oh, and to debunk your theories even further I Was Wrong But So Were You (http://www.slate.com/id/2130295?nav=nw).

[skunk]

Clinton should of invaded Afghanistan and taken Bin Laden out.How? There would have been no international support, no airbases, no staging posts.
He should of given Saddam a choice of unfettered access to see if there were wmd's or not. Instead he bombed them every once in a while to stay in the news. He was a peaceful president at all costs. He didn't want to disrupt his Presidential dinners and parties. Had he done the job, he would of saved thousands of American lives.Bush had the same job, didn't he?

[IJ Reilly]

Remember when Clinton launched all those cruise missiles at bin Ladin's camp in Afghanistan? The political reaction was that he was trying to distract us from his Monica problem -- and who was this Osama bin what's-his-name anyway?

[Thomas Veil]

Remember when Clinton launched all those cruise missiles at bin Ladin's camp in Afghanistan? The political reaction was that he was trying to distract us from his Monica problem -- and who was this Osama bin what's-his-name anyway?Yeah. Interesting that all you heard about from the Republicans during the Clinton administration was "Monica Monica Monica"...but you don't hear much about Osama at all.

Guess she must've been a bigger threat to our country.

[Advance The Man]

You guys spin everthing like a top! hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say you are all the same person. ;)

Again, Clinton could of done something about the situation, but did not. Lobbing a few cruise missiles (that didn't hit the intended target of bin Laden) and dropping a few bombs to stay in the news. He blew it. Now Bush has to do the hard work and in the meantime the left attacks him visciously. Well, it's working - but not for long.

[Thanatoast]

You guys spin everthing like a top! hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say you are all the same person. ;)

Again, Clinton could of done something about the situation, but did not. Lobbing a few cruise missiles (that didn't hit the intended target of bin Laden) and dropping a few bombs to stay in the news. He blew it. Now Bush has to do the hard work and in the meantime the left attacks him visciously. Well, it's working - but not for long.Say what!?

A) Clinton *did* do something. He kept inspectors in Iraq and threatened force when necessary. His strategy, not Bush's, kept Iraq WMD-free. Bush has since ****ed up an already disfunctional country.

B) Clinton never intended to hit Osama. He considered it, but figured he didn't have the capital to spend on it because the Republicans were screaming bloody murder about a ****ing blowjob.

C) Bush *was* aiming for Osama, has had four years to find him, has spent $200,000,000,000 in order to get him, and guess what? ****ed it up. No Osama. And thanks to his shenannigans on unilateralism and human rights, no one wants to help us find him.

[Advance The Man]

Here's an excerpt quote from VP Cheney tonight...yes, finally fighting back the lies of the left. It's about time, I've been wondering where my Republican Party has been.

Vice President Dick Cheney: ...In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

And the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn’t afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

Those are facts. ...

[Advance The Man]

My favorite and most direct quote from Vice President Dick Cheney is...

"The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

Ahhh, finally. And the liberal press will reluctantly report this.

I'd cite it, but it's just coming across the wire on Drudge main page.

Say what!?

A) Clinton *did* do something. He kept inspectors in Iraq and threatened force when necessary. His strategy, not Bush's, kept Iraq WMD-free. Bush has since ****ed up an already disfunctional country.

B) Clinton never intended to hit Osama. He considered it, but figured he didn't have the capital to spend on it because the Republicans were screaming bloody murder about a ****ing blowjob.

C) Bush *was* aiming for Osama, has had four years to find him, has spent $200,000,000,000 in order to get him, and guess what? ****ed it up. No Osama. And thanks to his shenannigans on unilateralism and human rights, no one wants to help us find him.

[Thanatoast]

Those are facts...
Those are facts the way yellowcake was a fact. The Senate voted to authorize the President to make the decision. The decision was a foregone conclusion, but it was still the President's to make. They were allowed access to the cherry-picked, scrubbed and vetted intelligence that the WH handed out. Their conclusions were pre-ordained by the load of BS Bush/Cheney/et al were feeding them.

[blackfox]

AdvancetheMan, with all due respect, your arguments/mention of what a previous President may or may not have done are irrelevant to the issue at hand imo.

They distract from the initial issue being debated - which is whether this Administration is responsible (and should be held as such) for poor judgement and illegal behavior in the execution of their policy towards the ME/Iraq.

This is separate from whether or not you (or myself, or anyone) agree(d) with that policy itself.

It is true that many Democrats agreed that Saddam was a bad man - that does not make them hypocritical by questioning the manner in which we executed a solution to this problem - or the one of terrorism. It does not make republicans or simple citizens hypocrites either. To imply otherwise is irresponsible, incorrect and politically-motivated me thinks...

Speaking of politically-motivated, are the current actions of the Democrats politically-motivated? Well sure, in part at least - it always is in this modern politico-media society. The fact that many in the media (and elsewhere) insist on simplifying people's actions to the binary red-blue politicalization, shows a lack of discernment on both those who put out that tripe, and those who either are unwilling or unable to exercise basic critical-thinking skills. All of the Administrations moves have been (partially) politically-motivated as well - fot the same obvious reasons.

Either think critically - or failing that, at least apply your complaints/standards consistently.

Lastly, because I have respect for a great many (real) Republican principles (as well as Democratic ones), just what kind of republican might you be - if you call the Bush Administration an example of Republican values?

I do not mean to be harsh, and intend no disrespect to you personally sir, but the rhetorical muddying-of-the-waters arguments you have engaged in in this thread are precisely the reason why policy/decisions can no longer be argued on merit and fact. You sir, are part of the problem you so (vocally) lament.

As to the original topic <ahem> I have my opinions, which happen to be that Bush and Co. manipulated intelligence preceding the Iraq invasion. This is supported by a number of sources, some of which have been mentioned in this thread.

Despite this, I reserve final judgement till all the facts are in. I do remember, however, that for better-or-worse, Clinton appointed an Independent Council to investigate his supposed impropreities - should Bush not step-up and do the same?

[AP_piano295]

and you can check all of the Chain mans facts on factcheck.com uhh... I mean factcheck.org

Who's been listening to the white house's newest "facts" no we didnt use incideiary (correct my spelling please) phosphorus bombs in Iraq... ohh wait got that backwards again my bad.

[AP_piano295]

Im sry I cant provide a link for this it was in the paper in cville VA 2 or more years ago but it still amazes me that if this is true it never got much attention. I belive Clinton was actively tracking Osama's movements and activities he even attempted to kill the guy a couple of times. Bush got into office and because this program of tracking one of the worlds most dangerous terrorists was being supported by Clinton the program was immiediately cancelled. 911 might still be just the number you call to get the cops on the line.

Advance man if you want to throw around the word lets get a definition.

Liberal-Unpredjudiced, Unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, permissive, free, free and easy, liberation, indulgent, Advanced, Modern, Forward looking, Flexible, Generous.

yuuup I hate those god damn liberals

[Thomas Veil]

My favorite and most direct quote from Vice President Dick Cheney is...

"The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."Bush and Cheney are getting pretty pathetic. Honestly, their arguments are descending to the level of dogs eating homework. Everybody else is amnesic, spineless or just plain wrong, while they remain pure in heart and purpose. It's their critics who are rewriting history. Riiiiiight.

Honestly, if you still believe this stuff, you're the kind of guy that recently-deposed Nigerian treasury ministers are looking for. ;)

[solvs]

Bush should have invaded Afghanistan and taken Bin Laden out. He should have given Saddam a choice of unfettered access to see if there were wmd's or not. Instead he invaded them. He was a war president at all costs. He didn't want to disrupt his tax cuts and rhetoric about terrorism (and the oil). Had he done the job, he would have saved thousands of American lives.
There, fixed that for ya'. ;)

[pseudobrit]

With Bush (finally) fighting back against the true liars (Democrats)

Holy ****.

[pseudobrit]

You guys spin everthing like a top! hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say you are all the same person. ;)

Megadittoes!!

[pseudobrit]

Clinton could of done something... He blew it. Now Bush has to do the hard work

I'm so glad Bush finally stepped up to the plate like a real man and caught Osama bin Laden, dismantled Al Qaeda and rid the world of terrorists.

I've got an erection just thinking about how manly and masculine Bush is. Clinton was like a total wuss and made me turtle.

[Advance The Man]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president. Instead he's having to fight Clinton's war.

Agreed about Clinton, he was a soft president - he simply blew the opportunity to take out Al Qaeda early on.

I'm so glad Bush finally stepped up to the plate like a real man and caught Osama bin Laden, dismantled Al Qaeda and rid the world of terrorists.

I've got an erection just thinking about how manly and masculine Bush is. Clinton was like a total wuss and made me turtle.

[Advance The Man]

Democrat politicians, look out what you ask for...

House Leadership In Meeting Making Final Decision on Vote...
GOP to Dems: Pull Troops Now? Okay, then let's vote!!!!!
Troop resolution Tonight. 7 p.m. in House, is plan...
Ultimate showdown...

Democrat politicians have been lying for a year and a half that Bush lied about intelligence. Now they get to show the world they don't support democracy, don't support our troops don't support America.

[pseudobrit]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president. Instead he's having to fight Clinton's war.

Yeah, because after the first WTC bombing, Clinton arrested and tried the people who did it and tried to capture kill Osama bin Laden with surgical strikes and covert ops. We know what he really needed to do was invade Afghanistan with a number of troops that was insufficient to accomplish much of anything.

And after Oklahoma City, we simply caught the guys who did it and put them on death row, when now we know we should have invaded Iraq instead.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Democrat politicians, look out what you ask for...

House Leadership In Meeting Making Final Decision on Vote...
GOP to Dems: Pull Troops Now? Okay, then let's vote!!!!!
Troop resolution Tonight. 7 p.m. in House, is plan...
Ultimate showdown...

Democrat politicians have been lying for a year and a half that Bush lied about intelligence. Now they get to show the world they don't support democracy, don't support our troops don't support America.Sounds like another diehard Republican, I suggest to Advance the Man that since you obviously support democracy, our troops and America why dont you go join the Army to Help George and his valiant mission? You wouldnt want folks to think you are a liberal would you? and while at it why not take some of the deferral gang or loudmouths with you like Cheney,Libby,Rove,O'rielly,Hannity and others.......funny how the ones allways crying for War are the ones who have never served and are the farthest away from battle.

[IJ Reilly]

Just what we needed, an emissary from Rush Limbaugh.

Obligatory....















:rolleyes:

[me_94501]

Now Bush has to do the hard work and in the meantime the left attacks him visciously. Well, it's working - but not for long.
You mean like how the right viciously attacked Clinton?

You're right, Clinton could have done more about Bin Laden. But guess what? So could Bush! Instead of focusing our attention on the guy that brought down the WTC, our resources have been horribly splintered. The result? Bin Laden is still out there! Al Quaeda is still out there and still active! (London bombings, Jordan bombings, Bali, etc...). And all the while, much of America's military resources have been directed away from the direct threat (Bin Laden). I just hope and pray we don't get hit while we're looking elsewhere--again.

Am I calling for the immediate withdrawl from Iraq? No. We can't leave it in the current state of disarray.

Besides, the world was a different place in 1998. The United States wasn't stretched nearly as thin then as they are now, both in terms of finances and military resources. We need to focus on today, and today the threat to US security is al Queda; it is not (and was not) Hussein.

[Thomas Veil]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president.Peacetime?

You have heard of the Project for the New American Century, haven't you?

[skunk]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president.Bush is the kind of guy who couldn't survive without someone fighting a war for him.

[Sayhey]

Democrat politicians have been lying for a year and a half that Bush lied about intelligence. Now they get to show the world they don't support democracy, don't support our troops don't support America.

Advance The Man, I've posted two concrete examples of the Bush administration's lies on the topic of the supposed Iraq - al Qaeda connection in the "Did Bush Lie? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161707&page=4) thread and I'm prepared to post more, yet you refuse to respond to these specific examples. Instead we are treated to silly rhetoric like the above. If you're serious about a debate on whether Bush and his administration lied, then let's deal with specifics otherwise all I'm seeing is an endless supply of hot air and Rove talking points.

[Advance The Man]

I've seen no debate. Typically what I see is in the media, the democrat leaders and in this forum is slamming Bush. Calling Bush and Rove a liar, evil and stupid is a weak.

I have provided facts on what liberal democrats said prior to Bush even being elected. Everyone here as far as I can tell has ignored or glossed over the facts. Democrat politicians shared the same opinion as Bush until they made it purely a political issue. The only talking points are the tired record continuously playing here "Bush lied". Clinton could of averted the current height of terrorism by taking it seriously.

Advance The Man, I've posted two concrete examples of the Bush administration's lies on the topic of the supposed Iraq - al Qaeda connection in the "Did Bush Lie? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161707&page=4) thread and I'm prepared to post more, yet you refuse to respond to these specific examples. Instead we are treated to silly rhetoric like the above. If you're serious about a debate on whether Bush and his administration lied, then let's deal with specifics otherwise all I'm seeing is an endless supply of hot air and Rove talking points.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This is about our guys and Gals;) in the line of fire when it should be the iraqi's fighting for Freedom. We have our Freedom but with George's patriot act im not so sure anymore.

[pseudobrit]

Clinton could of averted the current height of terrorism by taking it seriously.

Hahahahahaha! You're taking the piss, right? I mean, seriously, you're just dragging out tired old bags of crap that have been beaten to death a long time ago on this very forum.

[IJ Reilly]

Just the latest in a long line of trolls...

[skunk]

Now I know how Beowulf must have felt...

[Advance The Man]

I'm not trolling. I am just the only one that appears to have a conservative opinion here in this forum. Look around, seems everyone has an extreme liberal view. That's fine, I have my opinion.


Just the latest in a long line of trolls...

[skunk]

I'm not trolling. I am just the only one that appears to have a conservative opinion here in this forum.Firstly, you're not the only "conservative", though you're presently probably the most "hawkish". And secondly, you're welcome to your opinion as long as you back it up intelligently. If you venture into what you clearly perceive as hostile territory, it would make sense to be prepared to defend your views.

[IJ Reilly]

Several of us have gone to the effort, considerable in some instances, to provide lengthy and detailed justifications for our views, backed with sources. The response has been generic partisan rants that could have come from any given talk radio show, and no effort whatsoever to rebut any of the facts presented. This has been going on for days now. So yes, I'd call it a classic case of trolling.

I would add that ATM has not posted anywhere in the MR forums outside of this board for over three months.

[Thomas Veil]

I don't know if I'd call it trolling, but at this point it has become hopeless. It's clear that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, short of an outright confession by GWB that would convince Advance. The arguments have been put forth and rebutted, and now it's just getting repetitious.

I myself would prefer not to believe that any president of the United States -- and his staff -- could be so hidebound, so stupid, so evil, that they would hatch such a moronic and avaricious plan, actually carry it out at the cost of so many human lives, and then try to cover up their deeds with so many lies. But there it is. It's a shame on the United States, diminishes us before the world, weakens our military (since few potential recruits will ever fully trust a sitting president again), and actually endangers us by encouraging terrorism. It is morally worse than Watergate and Vietnam combined, and it is in practice a disaster.

Yes, to "debate" it over and over with Advance would be pointless, since all he knows is the "official" version, and everyone else -- Bush's own former staff members, the "liberal" media, all of us here, and the majority of the American public -- is wrong.

Time to shut this thread down, methinks.

[FFTT]

I'm pretty damn conservative when it comes to putting honorable men and women in harms way to secure the wealth of corrupt politicians and the military industrial tycoons that profit from all this misery.

Most of the people who can still somehow support the rediculous mismanagement of this adminstration generally have some related
agenda.

What's yours?

[Sayhey]

I've seen no debate. Typically what I see is in the media, the democrat leaders and in this forum is slamming Bush. Calling Bush and Rove a liar, evil and stupid is a weak.

I have provided facts on what liberal democrats said prior to Bush even being elected. Everyone here as far as I can tell has ignored or glossed over the facts. Democrat politicians shared the same opinion as Bush until they made it purely a political issue. The only talking points are the tired record continuously playing here "Bush lied". Clinton could of averted the current height of terrorism by taking it seriously.

I see more of the same.

Did or did not this administration know well before they quit using the false information from al-Libi that the so called connection between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime was ephemeral at best? Did the VP continue to claim a meeting took place between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague when it had been disproved many, many months before? Answer these questions and tell us how this conduct of the Bush administration doesn't constitute lying. Then we can go on to many other examples, but right now your refusal to deal with the real world only goes to show the emptiness of your arguments. If you ever want to be considered anything but a troll here then either be prepared to back up what you say or don't post. Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[.Andy]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president. Instead he's having to fight Clinton's war.
Broken_Keyboard is that you?

[AP_piano295]

Had Clinton had done his job as President - Bush would have been a peace time president. Instead he's having to fight Clinton's war.

Agreed about Clinton, he was a soft president - he simply blew the opportunity to take out Al Qaeda early on.

I understand now Iraq is the center of Al Queda its all so clear those damn liberals were just tricking us into invading Afganistan. Osamas hiding in Iraq so the WMD thing was just Clinton right it had nothing to do with Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. Besides everyone knows you dont have to actually invade a country that is far weaker to discover the presence of weapons, you just wave a big stick and gain to acess for UN inspectors.

[solvs]

Everyone here as far as I can tell has ignored or glossed over the facts.
Wow, pot meet kettle.

Democrat politicians shared the same opinion as Bush until they made it purely a political issue.
Apparently you missed my post where I asked what the suckiness of the Dems has to do with how much Bush has screwed up? You aren't exactly going to find a lot of love for liberals here either, so saying they're somehow worse because they did the same thing Bush did isn't going to work. A lot of us here are Independents, it's just that the neocons are the ones in power right now, and they are the ones making the mistakes. Possibly why there aren't a lot of Conservatives around these boards anymore. Pretty hard to defend. Clinton sucks. We get it. We're not all "extreme liberals" (many of us aren't even American). But we can't blame him for everything that's happening now because that's just lame (rhymes with blame, and game). Bush has been President for ~5 years now. It shouldn't matter what Clinton did or didn't do. The ball is in Bush's court now, and he and his cronies are the ones who keep dropping it.

I don't know why we're even trying to argue with your rhetoric. If you post something worthwhile, we can debate. Keep posting like this, and complaining that we don't tolerate your views, and you won't last long here.

Oh, and DHM is (/was) a Republican ;) so that whole "liberals ranting about Bush being a liar" thing is kinda funny.

[swindmill]

Democrat politicians shared the same opinion as Bush until they made it purely a political issue. The only talking points are the tired record continuously playing here "Bush lied".

I know that this was addressed in this thread, or the other one running right now, but you have apparently ignored it. To reiterate, it is abundantly clear that Congress did not have the same access to intelligence as the executive. This is true under all circumstances, not just this war. One reason the executive has such broad powers in foreign policy is precisely because of this fact. The legislature has access to the intelligence given to it by the executive.

[Advance The Man]

I purchased 'ProCare' at my local Apple store. Best money spend. Unlimited one-on-one lessons for the Mac. Very important since Apple to me is so different than PC. I've really enjoyed my PB since knowing how to use it.

I enjoy posting in O/T. This is not the only forum I visit. I also own a Treo 650 and spend a lot of time with their O/T forum which is predominantly political. Over there it is more 50/50 Rep & Dems. Here it literally is me vs everyone. I certainly don't post here often, b/c it is worthless and not fun. I provide proof not only opinion, but all of my posts are attacked for my opinion. Don't feel too sorry for me, I don't care - I'm busy with my business and enjoy my children.

So yes, I'd call it a classic case of trolling.

I would add that ATM has not posted anywhere in the MR forums outside of this board for over three months.

[Sayhey]

I know that this was addressed in this thread, or the other one running right now, but you have apparently ignored it. To reiterate, it is abundantly clear that Congress did not have the same access to intelligence as the executive. This is true under all circumstances, not just this war. One reason the executive has such broad powers in foreign policy is precisely because of this fact. The legislature has access to the intelligence given to it by the executive.

While absolutely true and a valid point, even if we conceded ATM his entire point (something I'm not prepared to do) it doesn't change the facts one bit. Does it matter in determining whether the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence if some Democrats did so also? NO! All the assertions that Congress knew as much as Bush only would matter in determining if any of them lied as well.

This GOP talking point boils down to "you can't blame me, because others said the same thing" not "I didn't lie and here is the proof that what I said wasn't a lie" or "here is the proof I didn't know it was untrue." The fact the Administration is responding by way of not responding to the question gives most people a clue as to their trustworthiness. Evidently ATM is not in that group as everything out of the Bushies mouths is accepted by him as gospel.

[IJ Reilly]

I purchased 'ProCare' at my local Apple store. Best money spend. Unlimited one-on-one lessons for the Mac. Very important since Apple to me is so different than PC. I've really enjoyed my PB since knowing how to use it.

I enjoy posting in O/T. This is not the only forum I visit. I also own a Treo 650 and spend a lot of time with their O/T forum which is predominantly political. Over there it is more 50/50 Rep & Dems. Here it literally is me vs everyone. I certainly don't post here often, b/c it is worthless and not fun. I provide proof not only opinion, but all of my posts are attacked for my opinion. Don't feel too sorry for me, I don't care - I'm busy with my business and enjoy my children.

Clearly, it is not literally you vs. everybody else. Not even figuratively. The place where you don't post isn't here. The place where you don't post is anywhere else on MacRumors, at least not for the last three months. The only place you've posted on MacRumors during that period is in this forum, which you've done copiously -- the one place where you say it is worthless and not fun. So your protestations ring as false and unsupported by facts as your other arguments.

Don't even think that anyone feels sorry for you. Trust me, that isn't the issue.

[zimv20]

hey ATM -- this is for you:

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

and for everyone else:

When a reporter suggested Bush had seemed unenthusiastic in his joint appearance with Hu, the president responded, "Have you ever heard of jet lag?"
very presidential, mr bush.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_re_as/bush_asia)

[belvdr]

hey ATM -- this is for you:

and for everyone else:

very presidential, mr bush.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_re_as/bush_asia)

Regarding that last comment by Bush, now that's honesty. If a Democrat is in office, the Republicans kick and scream the whole time. And vice versa. I guess that's democracy.

Off topic, but did anyone else think ATM, meant "at the moment"? I kept reading and reading, not understanding what people were trying to say, until I figured out that it meant "Advance The Man".

[Thomas Veil]

I thought he was talking about an Auto-Teller Machine.;)

[belvdr]

I thought he was talking about an Auto-Teller Machine.;)

I thought of that, too. :) How about Asynchronous Transfer Mode? Well, maybe not..

[.Andy]

Regarding that last comment by Bush, now that's honesty.
I've heard the air force one economy class meal is terrible too.

[solvs]

I provide proof not only opinion, but all of my posts are attacked for my opinion.
We're not attacking your opinion, we're attacking your methods. That whole "I'm being attacked for my opinion" thing doesn't fly here. There have been many respected Republicans here (as I said, one of the people you're complaining about, DHM, is a Republican), but many of them provide a better response than "it's all the Democrats fault". The only proof you've provided is that the Dems suck. I don't see how that absolves Bush.

We've already provided proof that you are wrong, so I don't know what else to tell you.

[Sayhey]

Want the definitive smack down of Bush and Cheney's pre-war intelligence manipulation and lies? Want to know how it all worked? The best, most comprehensive article I've seen written on the subject is now out, written by the National Journal's (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm) Murray Waas. He has been in the forefront of coverage of the Plame scandal and here he brings it all together in one article. The following is just the start. Do yourselves a favor and take time to read the whole thing.
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
&#169; National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda....

PS - Waas is on Air America right now talking about this story.

[zimv20]

thanks for the link, sayhey.

[skunk]

How much more is needed to bring regime-change about?

[Dont Hurt Me]

How much more is needed to bring regime-change about?
51%:cool: