Disgusting Comment by President Bush

[andyfox]

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high and the national interest is too important for the politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

But not too important for Secretary of State Powell to give misleading information to the U.N. Not too important to claim that if we didn't act we'd see a mushroom cloud over America. Not too important to refuse to plan for post-war Iraq.

Apparently the president doesn't consider himself one of "the politicians." It's only those who disagree with him. Their "false charges" are sending the wrong signals to our enemy and our troops.

But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him.

[Beer and Pizza]

Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

[andyfox]

"But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points."

Yup, I'm constantly defending CBS, the NYT, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid on this forum.

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

[MaxPower]

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?
************************************************** *********
I think you are mistaken. I don't think they ever said this. Every major intelligence agency concluded Iraq STILL had stockpiles of WMD. Including the USA, France, Britain, etc...
+++FEEL FREE TO POST A LINK+++ I don't think you can back this up. Did you mistakenly type "not" when you did not mean to?

I would love for any Bush43 hater to answer my questions. And please don't duck these questions by asking a counter question. It is a transparent tactic and shows me you are afraid to answer the questions that I asked.

[ QUOTE ]
Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I think the issue whether Bush distorted and cherry picked the intelligence, and that the House and Senate relied on this intelligence. When Bush says things like "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" and Cheney on Meet the Press says things like "There is no doubt they have weapons of mass destruction" there is good reason to believe they are lying. This is because they didn't find the WMD, and there was considerable doubt. There's also using discredited evidence, 10 year old research papers, etc. There is more than ample evidence pointing towards Bush misleading the US into a war; at the very least it can be debated.

2. I don't give a [censored] about Clinton. I don't like him all that much, and he may have been lying. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't understand why you included this here, as Clinton's opinion on anything (and ironically enough, on terror) is not/has never been seriously considered in any of Bush's policies. I guess you are just banking on everyone that hates Bush loving Clinton and thinking him a paragon of honesty. Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

3. Who knows. He got the same cherry picked and distorted (in my opinion it was, although I guess you can haggle over the definitions of 'cherry picked' and 'distorted' and 'lying on Meet the Press' if you want) intelligence as everyone else. He may have been playing flip flop all along. His stance is that he received distorted/cherry picked intelligence. He also says if he'd known the extent to which Bush was doing this he wouldn't have voted for the war. We'll never know. I don't particularly care either. I was protesting the war when the drums were beating.

4. See numbers 1 and 3.

5. See numbers 1, 3 and 4.

It's not as if Bush shared every single bit of information and intelligence in a completely disinterested manner. Quit making it seem like every bit of information was disclosed to all parties in a completely honest fashion, because it just wasn't.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I think the issue whether Bush distorted and cherry picked the intelligence, and that the House and Senate relied on this intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there have been several reports that have exonerated the Bush administration of pressuring the intelligence people to distort the intelligence. Either way, I don't think the executive branch has a choice in what intelligence they present to the respective committees in Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I don't give a [censored] about Clinton. I don't like him all that much, and he may have been lying. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't understand why you included this here, as Clinton's opinion on anything (and ironically enough, on terror) is not/has never been seriously considered in any of Bush's policies. I guess you are just banking on everyone that hates Bush loving Clinton and thinking him a paragon of honesty. Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
When deciding to got to war with another country that's been attacked by the previous two administrations, would it really be wise to totally dismiss everything the last president has said about Iraq? There was even a bill passed by Congress and signed by Clinton that said that regime change in Iraq is the official policy of the U.S.(Iraq Liberation Act). Surely these actions shouldn't all be thrown out the window because a new guy is in the Oval Office...

[ QUOTE ]
It's not as if Bush shared every single bit of information and intelligence in a completely disinterested manner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously there was an interest as he was making the case for war, but I don't believe Bush has a choice of whether to share info with Congress.

[andyfox]

1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?

Because Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud. Because Bush said we found the WMDs. Because Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11. Because Bush administration officials were prepared to use 9/11 as a pretext for invasion regardless of what the evidence showed as to who was actually responsible for 9/11. And because Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation. The Dems never said or did any of this.

2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

Bill Clinton is a pathological liar. I have been consistent, in the years since I have been posting on 2+2 in both my distaste for Mr. Clinton and in my pointing to incidences of his dishonesty.

3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

I don't know. Mr. Kerry's vote authorizing the use of force without doing his homework was reprehensible. Certainly the current finger-pointing of those who so voted should remind us of that there is plenty of blame to go around.

4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

See answer 3.

5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

See answers 2, 3 and 4, especially 2.

What do you mean Kerry and others didn't do their homework??

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[i]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

[/ QUOTE ]