Did Bush Lie? Google it.

[Roger1]

Just found this at michellemalkin.com Thought it was pretty interesting.


DID BUSH LIE? GOOGLE IT
By Bryan Preston · November 15, 2005 08:21 AM
The Bush administration is finally and concertedly pushing back against the Deaniac Democrat lie that President Bush somehow lied us into war in Iraq. The president has delivered two speeches in the past few days that take direct aim at those Democrats who voted in favor of the war but now claim that the administration duped them into that vote by lying about the intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD. All of this is to the good, and it's long past being about time the administration did this. A majority of the country now sees President Bush as a dishonest man; the "Bush LIED" meme and the administration's lack of a robust self-defense against it are two big reasons why.

The tragedy of the situation is that the administration could prove beyond doubt that it didn't lie its way into war just by promoting a simple Google search. Take a look at this graphic.


You can either go to Google and plug in the search string in that graphic, or you can just click on the graphic. Google will take you back in time to 1998, the last time prior to the invasion that the US and Saddam Hussein had a major confrontation. The Google search string Clinton Iraq 1998 will bring up 3.5 million hits about that conflict, during which pretty much every prominent Democrat expressed his or her belief that Saddam had or was developing WMD and was a threat because of it.

No one believed then or since that any US action including Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 completely destroyed Saddam's WMD programs. So if the Democrats believed in those weapons back then, why are they claiming to have been fooled by Bush into believing in them in 2002 and 2003? Well, it's obviously politics at work--the leftwing base of the Democrat party has pulled even its national security hawks to the left, where conspiracy theories rule. And the biggest conspiracy theory that the left loves concerns the war, and how Bush LIED us into it.

So Google it. Prove for yourself that he didn't, and indeed couldn't have. Tell your wavering friends to Google Clinton Iraq 1998. If you have Bush-hating friends, make them do that search and then watch their world crumble around them.

By the way, my latest column for TechCentralStation is on this very topic.

[crdean1]

Yeah, libs/dems/some media outlets like to preach the "Bush Lied" rethoric. Of course they will say anything, true or untrue, to try and discredit the Bush administration. I don't buy it. Before Bush, even Clinton was saying that Saddam needed to be disarmed, he just didn't have the gall to do it.

Take for instance John Edwards, who was on the senate intelligence committee, and voted for the war based on the evidence...

Surely they are not so naive as to think that Saddam was going to just leave all of the WMD's in his trunk and say, "hey, they're in here."

I guess Bush just made up the "evidence" back when he was governor, showed it to his Dad, and then they roped Clinton into believing it and everyone now is caught up in the brainchild of the idea that was governor GW Bush's in the first place.

Only problem is, most dems/libs wouldn't say that Bush has enough brains to be behind a scheme this grande, yet they accuse him of it.

[Advance The Man]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Above link, Clinton gives another warning about Iraq's WMD's.

Yeah, libs/dems/some media outlets like to preach the "Bush Lied" rethoric. Of course they will say anything, true or untrue, to try and discredit the Bush administration. I don't buy it. Before Bush, even Clinton was saying that Saddam needed to be disarmed, he just didn't have the gall to do it.

Take for instance John Edwards, who was on the senate intelligence committee, and voted for the war based on the evidence...

Surely they are not so naive as to think that Saddam was going to just leave all of the WMD's in his trunk and say, "hey, they're in here."

I guess Bush just made up the "evidence" back when he was governor, showed it to his Dad, and then they roped Clinton into believing it and everyone now is caught up in the brainchild of the idea that was governor GW Bush's in the first place.

Only problem is, most dems/libs wouldn't say that Bush has enough brains to be behind a scheme this grande, yet they accuse him of it.

[IJ Reilly]

Did I see a point go sailing by? No, I didn't think so.

Obligatory...













:rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush didnt lie, what he did was stretch the truth, what he did was spin things. I head him a million times tell me about those WMDs Iraq had. Where did they go? I heard yellow cake was being bought for nukes but that turned out to be false, though Cheney and his men did out the agent who checked into this for Our Country. Thanks you big Dick! Libby is protecting this Dick thats why he has been indicted.
Blair over in the UK had a meeting with Bush before 911 and he was talking of Iraq then....................
Bush was looking for any excuse to go into Iraq and 911 gave it to him.
He was stretching,spinning intelligence and we now have 2,000 dead,15,000 limbless,300+ Billion of American Taxpayer money spent and a President & Republican Congress who want to stay in Iraq and wont even give a time for getting out though again there isnt any WMDs.

[Advance The Man]

Did I see a point go sailing by? No, I didn't think so.

Obligatory...


:)

You don't see the point? Well here it is. Democrats are slamming President Bush that he lied on WMD intelligence. These same democrats were saying the same thing years ago before Bush was in office and during the time Bush has been in office. Once Democrats realized that year in and year out they get beat at the polls, they created lies that Bush misled and created intelligence (the same intelligence the Democrats including Clinton relied on). I will say this, the Democrats plan of lies is working. It has decimated Bush in the polls. Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.

Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(

[IJ Reilly]

You don't see the point? Well here it is. Democrats are slamming President Bush that he lied on WMD intelligence. These same democrats were saying the same thing years ago before Bush was in office and during the time Bush has been in office. Once Democrats realized that year in and year out they get beat at the polls, they created lies that Bush misled and created intelligence (the same intelligence the Democrats including Clinton relied on). I will say this, the Democrats plan of lies is working. It has decimated Bush in the polls. Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.

Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(

All debunked in another thread, in detail.

[emw]

People would be naive to believe that the democrats were so stupid as to be "lied to" about this stuff - they knew all they needed to know, and felt at the time it would be political suicide to vote against "fighting terrorism." Now they're attempting to shift the blame to a lame duck president with a low approval rating, thinking it will somehow bolster their chances at the polls in the future. I'm sick of both parties at this point.

The general American public, however, has an attention span of about 13 minutes. Referencing materials from the Clinton administration is about as useful as relating this war to the Revolution.

When it's all said and done, Bush was president when we went to war, a war which has become largely unpopular among not only in the US, but the world, and that's all that matters. Did he lie? Who cares? We're there, no WMDs were ever found, and now soldiers are dying fighting a battle we don't know how to end.

The general public is going to hear what they want to hear, now just as they did 2 1/2 years ago when we first went to war. And with body bags piling up on Iraqi soil, they want to hear why this thing failed. If what they hear is "Bush lied" then so be it. Research is dead. Rhetoric is king.

[Roger1]

I'm not really trying to make very many points here, other than I only occasionally see an opposing viewpoint in this forum. So I thought it would be interesting to post something a little different today.

BTW, here's a little more info on WMD's in Iraq (it's an oldie but goodie).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

[mactastic]

So was Rumsfeld telling the truth when he said "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Was he telling the ****ing truth then?

Oh and as to Malkin's 'point' -- if you Google 'miserable failure' does that prove anything?

[Roger1]

Oh and as to Malkin's 'point' -- if you Google 'miserable failure' does that prove anything?


Don't know. I'll have to save it for my next thread- Maybe I'll try to start one over there. :p

[Sayhey]

All debunked in another thread, in detail.

Why do I get the feeling that some here don't like to deal with the specific facts of recent history so they avoid them by jumping to a new thread. Advance the Man and crdean1 try reading the contents of "Bush goes on a lying campaign" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=160729) and try responding to the facts instead of relying on talking points.

[mactastic]

Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.
I see you have resorted to calling the public stupid because they don't agree with you. Wasn't that the rallying cry of the right just one year ago? "Don't call the country stupid for voting for Bush, you'll just dig your own hole deeper."

Heh.
Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(Oh and your goggles are clear?
:p

[leekohler]

Why do I get the feeling that some here don't like to deal with the specific facts of recent history so they avoid them by jumping to a new thread. Advance the Man and crdean1 try reading the contents of "Bush goes on a lying campaign" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=160729) and try responding to the facts instead of relying on talking points.

Beat me to it!

[IJ Reilly]

When it's all said and done, Bush was president when we went to war, a war which has become largely unpopular among not only in the US, but the world, and that's all that matters. Did he lie? Who cares? We're there, no WMDs were ever found, and now soldiers are dying fighting a battle we don't know how to end.

I agree with this point. I think we tend to forget that, ultimately, the main issue here is that this president and no other person led the nation to war. He is responsible for making this decision, and its consequences. It's a measure of the growing public dissatisfaction with the justifications for the war, the preparations for the war, the way it's been conducted, and its outcomes, that the Republicans are lashing back, trying (vainly, I believe) to spread the blame around. This IMO is the most shameful aspect of this entire episode, surpassing in some ways even the dissembling which preceded it. But sadly it is true to form for this president to evade responsibility and accountability, and even more unfortunate that some people are so anxious to let him get away with it.

[zimv20]

Just found this at michellemalkin.com Thought it was pretty interesting.
link, please!

[crdean1]

Why do I get the feeling that some here don't like to deal with the specific facts of recent history so they avoid them by jumping to a new thread. Advance the Man and crdean1 try reading the contents of "Bush goes on a lying campaign" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=160729) and try responding to the facts instead of relying on talking points.

Oops, sorry about that Sayhey, I forgot, you're not supposed to post your opinion in follow up to a thread topic here in the political forum. Instead you are supposed to post "blogs" and "editorials" as fact, right? :)

Edit: and roger, you should have posted the link, live and learn.

[emw]

link, please!http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003890.htm

I can tell you'll love to peruse the site for some leisurely evening reading.

[Thanatoast]

Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.

[Lau]

Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.

Well said.

[skunk]

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?There is, of course, a completely different standard of proof required when voicing one's opinions to when one is contemplating war.
Piss off.A little immoderate, but I share the general gist of your sentiment.

[crdean1]

Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.

Like I said earlier, Clinton lacked the balls to do what Bush knew he had to....or there would be a higher chance for more 9/11's. I don't agree with the way the war has been managed, I believe we could have saved many troops' lives if this war had been better managed. That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists, and I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists. It's all Bush's fault.

Piss off yourself.:p

Edit: O.k. Sorry about the last part...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
LOL! thats funny for me and i voted for this Neocon first time around! I get the feeling this administration played everyone,Congress,and the American people. Was Saddam worth 300 billion and 2,000 thousands lives? Nope!

[Thomas Veil]

Did I see a point go sailing by?No, but you did see the truth sailing over their heads.

Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.Exactly!

Who was that guy who did the final weapons inspection report a couple of years ago? (Not Hans Blix.) He described in detail how Saddam did have a "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" weapons program that he was planning to use against Iran, but he dumped everything when the pressure of inspections got too hot for him. And that's the point. International pressure was doing the job.

[emw]

That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terroristsIf by "uncovered" you mean "encouraged the development of" then I'd agree.

I'm sure storming into Iraq did much to improve America's image in the minds of those on the fence and subsequently discouraged the recruitment of anti-American "terrorists" and those that remain are now shaking in their sandals hoping we don't come after them too. :rolleyes:

Edit: Forgot this part.

I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terroristsNot created. Encouraged. The ingredients were there, we just stirred them up.

[toontra]

That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists, and I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists. It's all Bush's fault.


OK How long do you intend populating this forum with lies, **** and party propaganda. People like you come and go in the Political forum - go back a couple of years and you'll find several "members" making provocative (flame) posts like yours.

They either get tired of trying to support their (unsupportable) arguments or just leave in a huff. 'macfan' was a notable example, but there were many others, many springing up around election time.

One thing they have in common - unreasonable and unable to substantiate or sustain an argument.

Oh, and on your post:

Your troops didn't "uncover an anthill of terrorists", because one didn't exist (like the WMD), THEY CREATED IT!!!!

[Roger1]

No, but you did see the truth sailing over their heads.

Exactly!

Who was that guy who did the final weapons inspection report a couple of years ago? (Not Hans Blix.) He described in detail how Saddam did have a "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" weapons program that he was planning to use against Iran, but he dumped everything when the pressure of inspections got too hot for him. And that's the point. International pressure was doing the job.

I posted this link earlier. I think its what you want.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...aq.wmd.report/

BTW, since I posted for "both sides of the fence" does this mean I have to go argue with myself? :D

[Sayhey]

Oops, sorry about that Sayhey, I forgot, you're not supposed to post your opinion in follow up to a thread topic here in the political forum. Instead you are supposed to post "blogs" and "editorials" as fact, right? :)


I believe I clearly labeled the sources as what they were. My only point here is that when we get down to the specific facts in question, you seem to move on and not deal with the topic at hand. Now perhaps you can look at the specific examples given and tell us all why they don't show how the Bush administration misled, and lied to us, in order to get this country into this war. Give it a go? or is it back to talking points?

[crdean1]

OK How long do you intend populating this forum with lies, **** and party propaganda. People like you come and go in the Political forum - go back a couple of years and you'll find several "members" making provocative (flame) posts like yours.

They either get tired of trying to support their (unsupportable) arguments or just leave in a huff. 'macfan' was a notable example, but there were many others, many springing up around election time.

One thing they have in common - unreasonable and unable to substantiate or sustain and argument.

Oh, and on your post:

Your troops didn't "uncover an anthill of terrorists", because one didn't exist (like the WMD), THEY CREATED IT!!!!

Thanks for the nice words Toontra, they make me feel real good inside. You're right, I have not been here since, 2/2003, so I guess I don't have a right to be here?

Also, If you will read my posts in line with those before and after, and in the other threads in the political forum for the past few months, I do typically provide links when starting threads, and try to follow the rules and stay on topic, occasionaly moving off topic in response to a post directed to me. Most of the members here treat me well and are very nice, although I tend to disagree on many issues....But that is what makes this forum great. I have also learned a few things.

I would suggest that if you accuse me of am lying, that instead of posting your own (flame) post, please correct me, not with your opinion, but with facts. I would assume that it is people like you that run the others off. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

I'm pretty skeptical that anything can be proven by a pattern returned with a Google search.

That Malkin would put that forth as proof as she says The tragedy of the situation is that the administration could prove beyond doubt that it didn't lie its way into war just by promoting a simple Google search. is just evidence of her complete and utter lack of journalistic integrity. As if it wasn't laid bare already...

Prove beyond doubt? With a Google search? Is she serious?

[emw]

Prove beyond doubt? With a Google search? Is she serious?You've never heard of rose-colored Googles?

[toontra]

I would suggest that if you accuse me of am lying, that instead of posting your own (flame) post, please correct me, not with your opinion, but with facts. I would assume that it is people like you that run the others off. :rolleyes:

That's precisely what I did. Show me ANY evidence that there was an "anthill of terrorism" in Iraq prior to 3/03.

[zimv20]

Who was that guy who did the final weapons inspection report a couple of years ago?
is it scott ritter you're thinking of?

[IJ Reilly]

You've never heard of rose-colored Googles?

N1. :D

[crdean1]

That's precisely what I did. Show me ANY evidence that there was an "anthill of terrorism" in Iraq prior to 3/03.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123289,00.html

Hillary Clinton in 2002 said, "Saddam has given aid and comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." She said that in 2002.

You have John Kerry, who said, "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are a threat. We need to disarm him." He said that in 2003. He said, "Leaving him unfettered with nuclear weapons, with WMD's, is unacceptable. If you don't believe Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, you shouldn't vote for me."

[skunk]

Like I said earlier, Clinton lacked the balls to do what Bush knew he had to....or there would be a higher chance for more 9/11's.9/11:Iraq = no:connection.
That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists, and I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists.Where were they before the invasion? Are most of them not Iraqis? Are your forces occupying their country? Have thousands of innocent Iraqis been killed? If your parents/son/brother/sister were killed in the USA by foreign troops, woud you not fight back with whatever means available against the invaders and their collaborators? Get real: you clearly have created these "terrorists".

[skunk]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123289,00.htmlI fear that excerpts from Hannity do not count as "evidence".

[crdean1]

9/11:Iraq = no:connection.
Where were they before the invasion? Are most of them not Iraqis? Are your forces occupying their country? Have thousands of innocent Iraqis been killed? If your parents/son/brother/sister were killed in the USA by foreign troops, woud you not fight back with whatever means available against the invaders and their collaborators? Get real: you clearly have created these "terrorists".

Last I checked, your troops were over there as well.

So I guess you would say that we are responsible for the riots in France, the London bombings, Spain bombings, Jordan bombings... I'm not naive to the fact that as a result of this war that there have been many sympathizers for their cause, as would be here if, like you stated, the tables were turned (non-realistic comparison), but I refuse to accept the fact that there were not in fact a huge faction of extremists in the safehaven of Iraq.

As I stated before, I do not agree with the lack of accountability the Bush administration has had with this war, and feel it should have been managed much, much better. I also have two relatives that are marines, one about to go to Iraq, and one who lost one of his best friends recently. I do understand the scale, but they would tell you the same thing.

[zimv20]

I refuse to accept the fact that there were not in fact a huge faction of extremists in the safehaven of Iraq.
best to open your mind, then, because the evidence is mounting against you. heard an interview on NPR last week (sorry, no link) where the interviewer cited examples of iraqis who weren't violent or extremist until the US invaded.

heard another interview (again, no link) where Al-Zachari was credited as saying that the US "fell for the bait" and invaded iraq. he headed to iraq, prior to the invasion, explicitly to use it as a recruiting ground after the invasion. let us note that the bombings in jordan were carried out by iraqis. i don't believe i've previously heard of iraqis blowing things up in other countries.

[crdean1]

I fear that excerpts from Hannity do not count as "evidence".

Funny, I thought you might say that, but if I posted a liberal rant or blog, everyone would love it. Funny, but true.

The quote was from this speech.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[toontra]

I refuse to accept the fact that there were not in fact a huge faction of extremists in the safehaven of Iraq.

You have no way of knowing, let alone proving, that, so you could start your "being rerasonable" phase of this thread by withdrawing your claim about "anthills". Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are only interested in expressing opinion, not fact (not that that's a bar on contributing - along with length of membership here!); I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

[IJ Reilly]

I refuse to accept the fact that there were not in fact a huge faction of extremists in the safehaven of Iraq.

You should refuse to accept things which are not true. The insurgent forces in Iraq today are composed of former Saddam loyalists, foreign jihaddists, and individuals who are disaffected by occupation. None of these conditions existed prior to the invasion. We have created a haven and breeding ground for terrorists within Iraq which did not previously exist.

[Advance The Man]

So what now? What's the plan? Do we withdrawal all troops tonight? Plenty of second guessing, but no plan from the left. btw, Bush didn't lie.

You should refuse to accept things which are not true. The insurgent forces in Iraq today are composed of former Saddam loyalists, foreign jihaddists, and individuals who are disaffected by occupation. None of these conditions existed prior to the invasion. We have created a haven and breeding ground for terrorists within Iraq which did not previously exist.

[zimv20]

So what now? What's the plan? Do we withdrawal all troops tonight? Plenty of second guessing, but no plan from the left.
i don't speak for the whole left, obviously, but my plan was to let blix and his team do their job.

my foresight these days tells me that we're ****ed no matter what we do. did you support the invasion? if so, what's your grand plan? i don't hear much from the right aside from "stay the course," which smacks of denial.

[toontra]

So what now? What's the plan? Do we withdrawal all troops tonight? Plenty of second guessing, but no plan from the left. btw, Bush didn't lie.

If you are not going to contribute to the FACTUAL content of the thread or attempt to substantiate your previous "claims", but simply add a few childish, irrelevant remarks, then you should do as someone suggested before & stop wasting everyone's time.

[IJ Reilly]

i don't speak for the whole left, obviously, but my plan was to let blix and his team do their job.

my foresight these days tells me that we're ****ed no matter what we do. did you support the invasion? if so, what's your grand plan? i don't hear much from the right aside from "stay the course," which smacks of denial.

And don't forget, "Bush didn't lie."

The "nobody else has a plan" charge is also patently untruthful. Several in the Senate (both Democrats and Republicans, as it happens) have proposed frameworks for withdrawing over the coming year, but these ideas have been steadfastly refused by the White House. So it's not like nobody else has a plan, only that these plans are rejected automatically by Bush & co.

[Don't panic]

Like I said earlier, Clinton lacked the balls to do what Bush knew he had to....or there would be a higher chance for more 9/11's. I don't agree with the way the war has been managed, I believe we could have saved many troops' lives if this war had been better managed. That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists, and I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists. It's all Bush's fault.
I can believe people still have the nerve to link iraq to 9/11.
and yes, we without any doubt we "created" the vast majority of those terrorists.
and never at any point terrorism and wmd was more than an excuse to get in there. Yes, for the oil.

[crdean1]

You have no way of knowing, let alone proving, that, so you could start your "being rerasonable" phase of this thread by withdrawing your claim about "anthills". Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are only interested in expressing opinion, not fact (not that that's a bar on contributing - along with length of membership here!); I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

What do you mean by "being reasonable". Do I not have the right to disagree, and share my opinion? The only fact here is that neither one of us knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, but you can't disprove it, and I can't prove it, so it makes for good conversation.

We might have had this same argument about Afghanistan before they attacked us, truth is, we didn't know.

[toontra]

What do you mean by "being reasonable". Do I not have the right to disagree, and share my opinion? The only fact here is that neither one of us knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, but you can't disprove it, and I can't prove it, so it makes for good conversation.

We might have had this same argument about Afghanistan before they attacked us, truth is, we didn't know.

Wrong. YOU made a claim (unprovoked) that Iraq had "anthills" of terrorists. Therefore the onus is entirely on YOU to substantiate that. Get it!

BTW, I've just realised what really ****es me off is people trotting out the same old nonsense well after the time it has already been debunked. What's worse than lying? Knowingly repeating a lie in the hope that if you repeat it often enough some c**p will stick, somewhere, somehow.

[vniow]

Anthills of terrorists. (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2005-11-15T152623Z_01_FLE555575_RTRUKOC_0_US-INDIA-ANTS.xml)

[Sayhey]

btw, Bush didn't lie.

btw, he lied about the nuclear threat. He lied about the ties to al Qaeda. These were the two central parts of his overall lie that Iraq was a danger to the US and therefore the UN inspections could not be used to verify if Saddam had any left over chemical and biological weapons. He lied to the American people. He lied to Congress. He lied to the UN and to the world. Now if you want to debate each specific - fine, but a mantra of "Bush didn't lie" won't cut it.

[crdean1]

Wrong. YOU made a claim (unprovoked) that Iraq had "anthills" of terrorists. Therefore the onus is entirely on YOU to substantiate that. Get it!

Yes, I also posted two links in which others, including a United States Senator, made the same generally the same claim, but you didn't mention anything about that. Why are you so stuck on this?

Someone just made the claim that we invaded iraq for oil, unprovoked and unsupported, but that's probably cool with you, right. Lay off dude.

Edit: I really don't mean that in an offensive way, but it seems that most of your posts in this particular thread have to do with criticizing others, not providing adequate statements that refute what others are saying. Are you like the Political Forum Police or something?

[toontra]

Edit: I really don't mean that in an offensive way, but it seems that most of your posts in this particular thread have to do with criticizing others, not providing adequate statements that refute what others are saying. Are you like the Political Forum Police or something?

See the above edit to my last post. I get (overly) heated when I hear people repeating claims which have already been examined and discredited.

[skunk]

So what now? What's the plan?It would be nice to know a plan exists at all.
Do we withdrawal all troops tonight? Plenty of second guessing, but no plan from the left.Have you got a solution - apart from killing everybody in Iraq? I think the only solution is to convene a UNSC meeting, consult widely, eat humble pie, and find a mutually acceptable form of UN guarantee for Iraq. This is the only way to restore the prestige of the UN Charter, which has been so shabbily treated of late. Set up an independent reconstruction fund to repair and manage the infrastructure, to be paid for largely by those whose ordnance destroyed the infrastructure in the first place.
btw, Bush didn't lie.He was certainly "economical with the truth".

[skunk]

So I guess you would say that we are responsible for the riots in France, the London bombings, Spain bombings, Jordan bombings... Why would I say that? The governments in those countries are perfectly capable of cocking things up on their own.

[Sayhey]

OK, Advance the Man and crdean1, let's try this from another angle. Here is a story in the New York Times that cites evidence that the Bush administration knew that testimony from an al Qaeda captive was probably all lies, but continued to use the testimony as proof to justify the war.

Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

The newly declassified portions of the document were made available by Senator Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Mr. Libi's statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration's misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Mr. Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, on the use of prewar intelligence.New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) emphasis added

So now please tell me how knowing something one says is based on lies in order to justify the war doesn't amount to lying? We can go on to other examples after this.

[Thanatoast]

Sorry about my crappy attitude, but it bugs me when Bush supporters hold up "A" as justification, while conveniently dismissing "B", "C" and "D". For example:

A: Bush is a great President for fighting terrorism.

but

B: his methods include torture and denial of civil rights

C: he has yet to put forth a strategy for victory - I'm willing to argue that with any takers

D: His actions have proven disastrous - for International Law, for the US budget, in the fight to reduce terror, for protecting the environment, for keeping church and state separate, and on and on.

And for someone on the first page who said Bush had the balls to go into Iraq, my retort is thus: Clinton had the brains to stay out of it, and I bet he got more blowjobs, too.

[Thomas Veil]

is it scott ritter you're thinking of?No, although I've seen him in documentaries about WMD. Scott Ritter is cool. He's very knowledgeable, and he doesn't take no b.s. off nobody.

I posted this link earlier. I think its what you want.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...aq.wmd.report/Well, that link is gone, but I did find another one. The man I was thinking of was Charles Duelfer (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html).

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future....

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."So we were keeping Saddam weapons-free by simple pressure (and a few selective attacks in the no-fly zone).

Bush screwed all that up, and it cost us over 2,000 American lives, turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, and keeps us from dealing with genuine problems like Iran and...well, some guy named bin Laden.

[solvs]

How does the fact that Dems jumped on the bandwagon and lack ideas/focus change the fact that Bush screwed up? I don't really care if he lied either. It doesn't matter. He screwed up, all there is to it, and continues to do so. If we had been in and out and won, we wouldn't be having this argument. But we're still there, and things are not improving. The left may not have any good ideas, or the right may just not be listening, but the right are the ones who got us in to this mess and they don't seem to have any ways to get us out. And yet dissent is bad, even though the right criticized Clinton and continues to do so. Yet somehow, no matter how bad things get, Bush can do no wrong and it's always someone else's fault. I'm no fan of Kerry, nor Clinton, but that doesn't mean I have to like Bush. My eyes are open, and I don't like what I see.

But how do you argue with someone who still equates Iraq with 9/11? To someone who takes it as a personal attack when you call them on their rhetoric and bs because you aren't respecting their opinion? You don't. Feel free to call liberals on their bs guys, we do it all the time. But if you're going to defend Bush, you'll have to do a lot better than this.

Once again: http://www.slate.com/id/2130295?nav=nw

[Mike Teezie]

snip...Like I said earlier, Clinton lacked the balls to do what Bush knew he had to....snip

So I gather you are into the fact the Bush has the balls to "get the job done" so we don't have to fight them here.

I hear this a lot from right wingers where I live, and it never ceases to bewilder me. Balls?

What balls does it take to sit behind your desk and watch a war on C-Span? I'd say it takes balls to GO to war, as in, your feet in the sand and bullets whizzing by.

The DUB wouldn't know too much about that, now would he?

I know what he doesn't have the stones for. Going to a military funeral. Hasn't been to one thus far.

[crdean1]

I don't disagree that the Bush admin has poorly tried to justify the war, mainly to try and appease opposition.

What I do disagree with is the fact that one man, who was elected by our people, would cook up a scheme to murder thousands of his own troops and Iraqis for kicks.

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.

In Iraq, you had a country that was completely defiant to the UN, and your soil had been attacked by extremeists in the middle east (yes, I understand that Afghanistan is different, but you would be stupid to not start looking at all countries you deem to be terrorist threats). One of the things Bush said early on was that his job was to protect the American people at all costs.

Was he wrong, absolutely, on many levels, I would not vote for him again (well, if Kerry was running I might...), but I don't believe he deliberately invaded with no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

....and yes, this could be considered a talking point...


---

[leekohler]

I don't disagree that the Bush admin has poorly tried to justify the war, mainly to try and appease opposition.

What I do disagree with is the fact that one man, who was elected by our people, would cook up a scheme to murder thousands of his own troops and Iraqis for kicks.

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.

In Iraq, you had a country that was completely defiant to the UN, and your soil had been attacked by extremeists in the middle east (yes, I understand that Afghanistan is different, but you would be stupid to not start looking at all countries you deem to be terrorist threats). One of the things Bush said early on was that his job was to protect the American people at all costs.

Was he wrong, absolutely, on many levels, I would not vote for him again (well, if Kerry was running I might...), but I don't believe he deliberately invaded with no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

....and yes, this could be considered a talking point...


---

Bush and Cheney are, IMO, in office to enrich themselves and their buddies. Follow the shameless money trail of the war (and Katrina for that matter)- it's hard to miss.

[skunk]

I don't disagree that the Bush admin has poorly tried to justify the war, mainly to try and appease opposition.Good so far.
What I do disagree with is the fact that one man, who was elected by our people, would cook up a scheme to murder thousands of his own troops and Iraqis for kicks.

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.Straw Man. Nobody, but nobody, has suggested that he cooked up a scheme for kicks. My view is that he, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co decided, well before 9/11, to go with the PNAC blueprint for sorting out the ME and seizing control of the oilflelds. They uncritically believed, sought out and endorsed whatever intelligence supported this line of action, and disregarded everything else.
In Iraq, you had a country that was completely defiant to the UN, and your soil had been attacked by extremeists in the middle east (yes, I understand that Afghanistan is different, but you would be stupid to not start looking at all countries you deem to be terrorist threats). One of the things Bush said early on was that his job was to protect the American people at all costs.And how does attacking a country which poses no threat protect the American people? By your argument, any state in the same approximate region as one with terrorist sympathies is fair game. Is this how foreign policy should be conducted?

[toontra]

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.---

But all the evidence is stacking up in the direction that Bush & Co, at the very least, misled. Is that as bad as outright lying? I don't know. But the end result was exactly the same - a catastrophic war which, BTW, has done nothing to reduce the rise of terrorism - quite the opposite, and (as has to be repeated as often as the lie it refutes) couldn't begin to avenge 9/11 because the two weren't linked.

Whilst your natural instincts may be to deny that anyone could do such a despicable thing as the neo=cons have allegedly done, try and have a truly impartial look at the evidence. As Sherlock said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

[IJ Reilly]

I don't disagree that the Bush admin has poorly tried to justify the war, mainly to try and appease opposition.

What I do disagree with is the fact that one man, who was elected by our people, would cook up a scheme to murder thousands of his own troops and Iraqis for kicks.

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.

In Iraq, you had a country that was completely defiant to the UN, and your soil had been attacked by extremeists in the middle east (yes, I understand that Afghanistan is different, but you would be stupid to not start looking at all countries you deem to be terrorist threats). One of the things Bush said early on was that his job was to protect the American people at all costs.

Was he wrong, absolutely, on many levels, I would not vote for him again (well, if Kerry was running I might...), but I don't believe he deliberately invaded with no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

....and yes, this could be considered a talking point...


---

The Bush team believed the war would be over quickly, that it could done on the cheap, that the Iraqi people would welcome the invasion, and that reconstruction could be financed from oil revenues. This is why they scheduled the war for the Spring of 2003 instead of waiting another year, during which time they could have worked for more international support, and provided the weapons inspectors another year to discover what they would. It was a cynical political calculus that didn't pay off, if only because Bush was listening exclusively to the most ideologically extreme individuals within his party who believe that it's actually a good thing when the U.S. goes it alone, and to his political advisors, who didn't want to be waging a war in an election year.

They did not listen to anyone who suggested that the war would be a long, costly affair, might spark a civil war within Iraq, would increase terrorism not reduce it, and couldn't be financed with oil revenues. Knowledgeable people, including many Republicans, were saying these things, too -- but the Bush administration simply wasn't listening to them. They did a massive group-think around the neocons. Information that backed up their predispositions was accepted uncritically; information that contradicted it was rejected or treated with suspicion. The uranium from Africa incident is a perfect example of this: U.S. intelligence doubted it; British intelligence thought it might be true. So Bush went with British intelligence, and told that to the American people, as though there was no question about it at all.

So you decide for yourself whether this was a deliberate deception, or simply an inherently flawed decision-making process. Personally, I think it's distinction without much of a difference. Either way, Bush is responsible for it, and his current effort to fob off the blame on his political opponents is lame, to the point of being despicable. Once again, he is demonstrating his startling lack of basic leadership skills, the very same deficit that got us into this mess in the first place.

[xsedrinam]

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
There are still quite of few who haven't forgotten previous promises made by Bush. Pouncing upon Iraq with shock and awe without having addressed number one priorities and promises made to the U.S. people, then waffling on that resolve to the point of dismissing bin Laden as an important target, failure to prove WMD claims, resignation of key Department Heads, on-going revelations of having heeded wrong advice from questionable sources and a defensive "spin" out of the White House have contributed to an all time low in popularity of the current U.S. President. I would think those who would be uncomfortable with the "L" word (Lie), would not be as bothered as some of us by the "N" word (Naive), or the "A" word (Avarice). What would you call it?

[swindmill]

Good article on the subject of "everyone having the same intelligence":

"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials"

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.

[skunk]

Good find. I get very tired of that argument.

[leekohler]

Good find. I get very tired of that argument.

Me too. The words "intelligence and "Bush" should never appear in the same sentence.

[skunk]

Me too. The words "intelligence and "Bush" should never appear in the same sentence.Bush is an oxymoron.

[leekohler]

Bush is an oxymoron.

Delete the "oxy" and it's even more fitting. :)

[xsedrinam]

Delete the "oxy" and it's even more fitting. :)
Kaffee: "My client's a moron, that's not against the law." [A Few Good Men]

[Thanatoast]

Has it really gotten to the point where we're debating whether Bush is stupid or evil?

May the history books keep his legacy.

"George W. Bush began his presidency during, and was a major factor in, the greatest turning point in western civilisation. It was his two terms in office, and their disastrous consequences, which turned the world away from religious extremeism, jingoistic nationalism, and reliance upon military strength as a driver in foreign policy. While Bush himself is regarded as one of the worst US presidents of all times, his enduring legacy of mis-management, "neo-con" philosophy, and near-unilateral invasion of Iraq allowed the nations of the world to see the dangers inherent in radical conservatism and allowing nation-states to act alone in securing peace."

[Don't panic]

Has it really gotten to the point where we're debating whether Bush is stupid or evil? "
what's wrong with "and" ?

May the history books keep his legacy.

"George W. Bush began his presidency during, and was a major factor in, the greatest turning point in western civilisation. It was his two terms in office, and their disastrous consequences, which turned the world away from religious extremeism, jingoistic nationalism, and reliance upon military strength as a driver in foreign policy. While Bush himself is regarded as one of the worst US presidents of all times, his enduring legacy of mis-management, "neo-con" philosophy, and near-unilateral invasion of Iraq allowed the nations of the world to see the dangers inherent in radical conservatism and allowing nation-states to act alone in securing peace."
your optimism is commendable. I hope you're right on the long-term consequences.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Did he Lie or did he just S-T-R-E-T-C-H the truth. I think it was all lies but here is something to think about. Today we have 5 more Americans who will never know tomorrow.:( 5 more families in pain for this War of George's. 5 more of our kids getting killed for nothing. Iraq aint worth it. I think if Nations are going to go to war the first thing we should all do is have those Leaders pushing for it be the first on the battlefield. That would eliminate any more wars wouldnt it.

[FFTT]

When you consider the financial worth of 5-10 years of high priority
military industrial contracts, it's not hard at all to figure out what really went down.

Cheney and Rumsfeld have been calling all the shots from the very beginning.

[pseudobrit]

Did he Lie or did he just S-T-R-E-T-C-H the truth

What's the difference? The intent and outcome are the same (to mislead).

Bill Clinton got impeached because he stretched the truth about a private liason.

The Bush administration led us into an invasion and occupation of an unarmed nation by weaving an huge, intricate web of propaganda, misinformation, speculation and whispered lies and what does he get for his crime?

An army of loyal Limbaugh-fed tools in his "base" who will stand by him by making rhetorical arguments about stupid, insignificant details when the simple truth is that Bush lied to the American people and lied to their faces.

[Sayhey]

I don't disagree that the Bush admin has poorly tried to justify the war, mainly to try and appease opposition.

What I do disagree with is the fact that one man, who was elected by our people, would cook up a scheme to murder thousands of his own troops and Iraqis for kicks.

Saying he was wrong is one thing, one thing I may happen to agree with on many respects, just as he did on Katrina, but everyone saying he lied (knowing the lie would cost him thousands of innocent lives) is what I have a hard time with.

In Iraq, you had a country that was completely defiant to the UN, and your soil had been attacked by extremeists in the middle east (yes, I understand that Afghanistan is different, but you would be stupid to not start looking at all countries you deem to be terrorist threats). One of the things Bush said early on was that his job was to protect the American people at all costs.

Was he wrong, absolutely, on many levels, I would not vote for him again (well, if Kerry was running I might...), but I don't believe he deliberately invaded with no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

....and yes, this could be considered a talking point...


---

OK, I notice that this is the only "response" to my challenge to crdean1 and Advance the Man, in either thread, to deal with a specific instance of lying by this administration. In post #56 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161707&page=3) I gave the example of the use of known faulty intelligence from a al Qaeda prisoner, now let's deal with another example of the lying by this administration over the supposed "connection" between al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. In this case I would draw your attention to VP Cheney's use of the disproved "meeting in Prague" of Atta and Iraqi intelligence. In order to make this easy, I'm going to reference another blogger, Joshua Micah Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007026.php), because his post lays out the lie in a very succinct way.

Dick Cheney ever try to tell people Saddam might be behind 9/11?

Hmm, let's see ....

Russert: Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
Cheney: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

That's from Meet the Press on December 9th, 2001. And remember, this was a claim that was floated and then rapidly discredited by, among other things, evidence that Atta was in the US at the time of the alleged meeting in Prague. The Czechs themselves eventually gave up on it.

A year later, Cheney was back at it again on Russert's show, for a chat on September 8th, 2002 ...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business.
Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point. We've got...

Then in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on January 9th, 2004 ...

On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we've never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.
Cheney just couldn't help spreading the Atta-in-Prague canard every chance he got and floating what were at best intentionally misleading claims about not being able to confirm one way or another whether Saddam was behind 9/11. Except, that is, when he denied saying anything about an Atta meeting in Prague. Or well ... let's go to Gloria Borger interviewing the veep in June 17th, 2004 ...

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.

BORGER: Well, this report says it didn't happen.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, this report says they haven't found any evidence.

BORGER: That it happened.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.

Did Dick Cheney ever say anything misleading about Saddam and al Qaida and 9/11, anything he knew wasn't true? Face it. It's not even close. Really, it's an indictment of the state of our public discourse that it's even much of a debate at this late moment. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Like I said a couple days ago, let's unpack all the transcripts. Get it all out there. What everybody and anybody said. These guys are just as guilty as sin.

Please note the dates of these interviews of Cheney and how long after this meeting was discredited he continues to push the story.

This is number two in a series of posts I'm going to do that will deal with specific instances of lies by this administration that can be demonstrated and were central to their case for war. Not faulty intelligence, but examples of lying. crdean1 or Advance the Man are you up to discussing something other than rah-rah talking points for the Bushies? Or are you two only going to bury your heads in the sand and refuse to look at facts?

[leekohler]

OK, I notice that this is the only "response" to my challenge to crdean1 and Advance the Man, in either thread, to deal with a specific instance of lying by this administration. In post #56 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161707&page=3) I gave the example of the use of known faulty intelligence from a al Qaeda prisoner, now let's deal with another example of the lying by this administration over the supposed "connection" between al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. In this case I would draw your attention to VP Cheney's use of the disproved "meeting in Prague" of Atta and Iraqi intelligence. In order to make this easy, I'm going to reference another blogger, Joshua Micah Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007026.php), because his post lays out the lie in a very succinct way.



Please note the dates of these interviews of Cheney and how long after this meeting was discredited he continues to push the story.

This is number two in a series of posts I'm going to do that will deal with specific instances of lies by this administration that can be demonstrated and were central to their case for war. Not faulty intelligence, but examples of lying. crdean1 or Advance the Man are you up to discussing something other than rah-rah talking points for the Bushies? Or are you two only going to bury your heads in the sand and refuse to look at facts?

Damn- you're good.

[emw]

Speaking of Cheney (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/cheney/index.html) and spin...

[Thomas Veil]

My view is that he, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co decided, well before 9/11, to go with the PNAC blueprint for sorting out the ME and seizing control of the oilflelds. They uncritically believed, sought out and endorsed whatever intelligence supported this line of action, and disregarded everything else.I'd like to contribute one line linking this quote and the next one, and that is that 9/11 gave Bush & the neocons the perfect excuse to meddle in the Middle East, and Saddam served as the perfect villain. And now, back to our story.

The Bush team believed the war would be over quickly, that it could done on the cheap, that the Iraqi people would welcome the invasion, and that reconstruction could be financed from oil revenues. This is why they scheduled the war for the Spring of 2003 instead of waiting another year, during which time they could have worked for more international support, and provided the weapons inspectors another year to discover what they would. It was a cynical political calculus that didn't pay off, if only because Bush was listening exclusively to the most ideologically extreme individuals within his party who believe that it's actually a good thing when the U.S. goes it alone, and to his political advisors, who didn't want to be waging a war in an election year.

They did not listen to anyone who suggested that the war would be a long, costly affair, might spark a civil war within Iraq, would increase terrorism not reduce it, and couldn't be financed with oil revenues. Knowledgeable people, including many Republicans, were saying these things, too -- but the Bush administration simply wasn't listening to them. They did a massive group-think around the neocons. Information that backed up their predispositions was accepted uncritically; information that contradicted it was rejected or treated with suspicion. The uranium from Africa incident is a perfect example of this: U.S. intelligence doubted it; British intelligence thought it might be true. So Bush went with British intelligence, and told that to the American people, as though there was no question about it at all.skunk and IJ have pretty much summed up how things shook out. I doubt that even half of the 65% of us who disapprove of Bush knows all of those details, but they do know that they were conned.

I wish the skunk/IJ information above could be a top-of-the-page sticky, for those who know nothing other than the "official, approved" version of what happened.