If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] are you for real?


ummm... okay, one time:

the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion.

get it?

the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense.

c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in my first response, i gave THREE examples, which is all i have/had the time or inclination to do... but, you're beggining to understand, so i'll give it one more shot:

Bush's detractors are NOT claiming that he was lying EVERY TIME he made a statement about WMD in iraq; Rather, they accuse the administration of making SPECIFIC statements that they knew to be untrue... here's half-decent link on the subject: here...

An example from the link provided:
[ QUOTE ]
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

and the evidence that seems to indicate that this is a lie:

[ QUOTE ]
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

above is a cited quote, making a specific claim, and a cited peice of evidence disproving that claim. now, that site is guilty of some of the same things that your submission is- see if you can see what's a legit peice of evidence and what's misleading fluff...

SO:

only an idiot would dispute that Saddam did at one time have WMDs, nuclear aspirations, and so on... he USED 'em on the kurds, for example, a fact which is beyond (reasonable) debate. Clinton was telling the truth in '98 (not about his cigar fetish, of course), hell, Bush told the truth about a lot of iraq's shenanigans, but when it came time to find a way to convince the public and the congress that an invasion was justified... there are definitly... irregularities:

Uranium from Niger...
Aluminum tubes...
...and other claims that had been DISPROVED at the time that bush& co. made them.

wheras, ALL of the quotes YOUR submission provided contained NO specifics... other than Bill Clinton's, which was citing iraqi ADMISSIONS. there is a HUGE difference that SHOULD be obvious.... my point:

In order to avoid being a tool of the propagandists and reckless partisans that would rather lead ignorant sheep than have an educated electorate, one must be able to see through the kind of manipulative psudeo-logic that the decievers rely upon to lower the level of discourse and decieve the uninformed. don't be a sheep, be a shepard.

[vulturesrow]

Here is a quote from McCain, who I think most people believe to be honest. In fact McCain in general has been rather critical of the conduct of the Iraq war. On the subject of intel, here is what McCain had to say on Face the Nation.

[ QUOTE ]
SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take that FWIW.

[andyfox]

"I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no."

The two official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, determined that analysts were not pressured, CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find that laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured.

W. Patrick Lang, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section, said, "The senior guys got together and said, 'You guys weren't pressured, right? Right?'"

32 year CIA veteran Richard Kerr, brought out of retirement to lead an investigation of the agency's failures on Iraq WMD was even more blunt about the pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration. In a series of five reports, Kerr found that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration." Kerr bluntly stated that the squeeze came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration:

"Everybody felt pressure. A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions…I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had…"It was a continuing drumbeat: 'how do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?'"

Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who gained prominence with his 2004 anonymous book, Imperial Hubris, backs Kerr's assessment. Scheuer noted the dissent within the CIA over the claims made in the controversial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document critical in the march to war. "I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting," he said. "There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts. There was a great deal of dissent about that [NIE]. No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public."

FWIW.

[hetron]

But not bewcause of some outdated quotes you give below. But because the Dems who probably smelled something fishy didn't have the guts to question bush prior to the invasion of iraq. They were all supposed to get "intel", "proof" of WMD's. Colin Powell was going tho show all of us irrefutable evidence of WMDs. The proof never came. Why? Because it didn't exist. And the Dems, instead of standing their ground and demanding that they were shown the proof ( a la kennedy with the famous pics of soviet rocket launchers in cuba), folded like a bunch of sissies so they could look "tough on defense". Shame on them.

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpted from this link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"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."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

The Dems/Libs were just accepting what they saw and wanted to see because they know they're susceptible to being painted as too soft on foreign policy issues. But consider:

-Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud. The Dems didn't use this scare tactic.


-Bush said we found the WMDs. He was referring to the mobile weapons labs, which, had they been labs, would have been labs, not weapons. Turns out they were trucks which contained equipmentto make hydrogen for weather balloons.

-Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11.

-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.

-Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation.

-The Senate Intelligence Committee released its initial findings on prewar integlligence in July 2005. The committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts, promised that a Phase 2 to determine whether the White House had misled the public would arrive after the presidential election. It still hasn't. Murray Waas reported in the National Journal on that Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby had refused to provide the committee with crucial documents, including Scooter Libby-written pasages from early drafts of Colin Powell's presentation of WMD evidence to the U.N.

-Vice President Cheney, early on, said that American troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Last summer, he said the insurgency was in its last throes.

-In December, 2001, Cheney, on "Meet the Press" said "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link betwen Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When that link was later disproved, Cheney was confronted about his Meet the Press remark by Gloria Borger on CNBC. Three times Cheney told her that he never said it.

-In October, the president announced the foiling of ten Al Qaeda plots. USA Today reported that at least six of the ten "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out."

-In June, President Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. The Washington Post found that only 39 of these convictions had involved terrorism or national security.

-Keith Olbermann recently compiled 13 "coincidences" in which "a political downturn for the administration is followed by a 'terror event'--a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." For example, in 2002, during the fallout from the televised testimony of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, John Ashcroft broadcast via satellite from Russia that the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot" to explode a dirty bomb. What he was actually referring to was the arrest of one person, Jose Padilla, for allegedly exploring such a plan. The arrest had taken place one month earlier.

The Dems might have taken the politically expedient path to war; they might now also be taking what they see as the politically expedient path to electoral success in 2006 and 2008. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but there is very little shame in a politician.

But the Bush admimistration has lied and spun and distorted and misled every step of the way. I don't find this particularly remarkable. What administration of any political stripe in any country hasn't done this when going to war? What is more remarkable is that people are claiming it ain't so.

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent. This administration is very strong on terror issues unless it is not politically expedient.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent.
************************************************** *******
*You mean a "covert" agent that even the press knew she was a CIA agent (NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who works for Tim Russert, Oct 3, 2003).
*You mean a "covert" agent who sends her hubby to Niger for a mission his has no qualifications for.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who values her covert status so much that they don't require her hubby to sign a confidentially agreement for this "secret" mission.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who hubby values her covert status so much that they he writes an Op-Ed for millions of Americans to draw attention to his "secret" mission to Niger.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent that Patrick Fitzgerald could not even find enough evidence to indict anyone for outing her.

LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

[CORed]

Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-9/11 the Americans rallied behind their leadership as one. It was natural. They would have rallied behind Winnie the Pooh if it were prez. There was clearly no way to undo that -- and certainly not through an act that resembles treason!

The president's popularity did not indicate an "approval" about how he was handling things (they hit the Towers on his watch for pete's sakes) but rather a mandate for him to take action as appropriate in order to defend America.

You can't fool all the people all the time. Initially even that "adventure" against Eye-rak seemed the right thing to do - and the people were approving. (Hell, a lot of 'em still think we found WMDs and that Saddam was behind 9/11!)

Soon people saw things different. And so, Dubya's numbers are now in the basement. As appropriate.