Jump to content

Bush lied about Iraq! Hold the phones.


Recommended Posts

Okay, folks know how I feel about the Washington Post. Generally I consider it one of those liberal newspapers that in unfairly critical about Bush, Republicans and conservatives in general.

 

I may have to rethink my conclusions after reading a recent column, the link for which is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

 

I would encourage, no make that almost demand, every person that is upset with Republicans because of their convictions that Bush lied about Iraq to read the attached link. I fully realize that the article will be summarily dismissed by the Bush haters, by the close minded, far left hacks that refuse to believe (although the fact that the column appeared in the Washington Post makes that much more difficult) that Bush's decision and conclusions about Hussein and Iraq could have been supported by intelligence, but rather want to believe that Bush lied to support their beliefs about Bush, but for those of you willing to actually look at issues with open minds so that you can be more informed citizens and more informed voters (which we should all aspire to be) the attached column may cause you to rethink what you believe about Bush.

 

Read the column and give it some serious critical thought. Look at what Rockefeller says about Bush lieing and compare it with the information in the actual report. Ask yourself honestly, which party is being deceitful to the American public? It's not Republicans and Bush, it's the likes of Rockefeller and some other Democrats that are the ones being dishonest for their own political gain. Honestly, while I was glad to read this column on one hand because it supported what I have felt about Bush for a long time, on the other hand, I am so thoroughly disgusted with Rockefeller that it makes me almost sick. We've been deceived all right, but its been Democrats trying to deceive you and me so they can win the WH and more seats in Congress. They have shamed themselves beyond imagine.

 

Some one has lied about Iraq all right, but it wasn't Bush and the report confirms it, at least if this columnist is correct.

 

And writing for the Washington Post, no one in their right mind should think the columnist was giving Bush the benefit of any doubt. Not even close. If this writer can see Rockefeller's deceit, we all should be able to see it. And adding additional weight to this column is the fact that the column is written by the EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR!

 

I'm willing to rethink my conclusions about the Washington Post. Are you willing to rethink your conclusions that Bush lied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

 

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

 

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

 

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

 

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."[/Quote]

 

 

Hmmm, how about that? :sssh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred Hiatt, the EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR OF THE WASHINGTON POST! is a hack.

 

From the LA Times:

 

The report largely exonerates Bush administration officials for some of their prewar assertions, including claims that Baghdad had stockpiles of illegal chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing a nuclear bomb. Even though those claims were subsequently proved wildly inaccurate, the report notes, they were largely consistent with U.S. intelligence at the time.

 

But the report says the Bush administration veered away from its own intelligence community's conclusions in two key areas: Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda and the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after a U.S. invasion.

 

Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership. But the report concludes that such assertions "were not substantiated by the intelligence" being shown to senior officials at the time.

Claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, for example, were dubious from the beginning and subsequently discounted. The idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda hinged on intelligence from a source who soon was discredited.

 

Bush officials strayed even further from the evidence in suggesting that Hussein was prepared to provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda terrorist groups -- a linchpin in the case for war.

 

In October 2002, for example, Bush warned in a key speech in Cincinnati that "secretly, and without fingerprints, [Hussein] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The threat was repeated frequently in the run-up to war but was "contradicted by available intelligence information," the committee says.

 

On post-war prospects, the report contrasts the rosy scenarios conjured by Cheney and others with more sober intelligence warnings that were being presented to senior officials.

Cheney's prediction that U.S. forces would "be greeted as liberators" was at odds with reports from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which warned nearly a year earlier that invading U.S. forces would face serious resistance from "the Baathists, the jihadists and Arab nationalists who oppose any U.S. occupation of Iraq."

 

Bush lied... I generally find it to be conservatives who make the 'politician's mouth is moving' joke, so I don't see why it's that hard to swallow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to do a little more research on Hiatt... not exactly a beloved figure on the left.

 

By the way, want to talk about the actual issue? Bush lied. I'll be back to read your response after class.

Edited by Hearsay
Re-posting problem material
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intel substantiated the things everyone already knew, like chemical weapons, but on nuclear weapons and WMD in general you'll notice that there's that qualifier of "generally" substantiated, and on other important things like terrorists links and the post-war ground realities they lied.

Edited by Hearsay
Re-posting problem material
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that I am not and never have been a "W" fan. That being said, I don't really think that "W" is smart enough to lie. I've always thought that there were people, Cheney, Rove, etc, etc, who were telling him what to do and what to say. And since I think that, I have to think that he truly thought and still thinks that what he said and did was right.

 

I've often wondered why Colin Powell, one of smartest people in the world, IMO, would have sat there and told the world what he told them if he wasn't lead to believe it to be the truth. I think Powell is so smart he wouldn't have just said what they told him to say. I think he must have read something or have seen something to make he believe what he believed.

 

The one thing That Obama has banked his campaign on is that he didn't vote for the war. This is one of the things that bothers me. When I listened to what was being told to me then I felt we should have gone to war. It wasn't until all the "lies" (if they were in fact lies) came out that I said we shouldn't be there. So if so many people listened and voted to go to war and he didn't, well that make me think that he's , for lack of a better word, chicken.

 

Politics is a funny business, everyone has something different to say and we all hear the same thing but think so differently about so much. I wish there was a truth booth that everyone had to go into before they said anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that I am not and never have been a "W" fan. That being said, I don't really think that "W" is smart enough to lie. I've always thought that there were people, Cheney, Rove, etc, etc, who were telling him what to do and what to say. And since I think that, I have to think that he truly thought and still thinks that what he said and did was right.

 

I've often wondered why Colin Powell, one of smartest people in the world, IMO, would have sat there and told the world what he told them if he wasn't lead to believe it to be the truth. I think Powell is so smart he wouldn't have just said what they told him to say. I think he must have read something or have seen something to make he believe what he believed.

 

The one thing That Obama has banked his campaign on is that he didn't vote for the war. This is one of the things that bothers me. When I listened to what was being told to me then I felt we should have gone to war. It wasn't until all the "lies" (if they were in fact lies) came out that I said we shouldn't be there. So if so many people listened and voted to go to war and he didn't, well that make me think that he's , for lack of a better word, chicken.

 

Politics is a funny business, everyone has something different to say and we all hear the same thing but think so differently about so much. I wish there was a truth booth that everyone had to go into before they said anything.

 

 

Gutless, spineless, and coward all would have worked as well. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intel substantiated the things everyone already knew, like chemical weapons, but on nuclear weapons and WMD in general you'll notice that there's that qualifier of "generally" substantiated, and on other important things like terrorists links and the post-war ground realities they lied.

 

Wrong again. They didn't lie about terrorist links. Intel info on Iraq's support for terrorist groups, other than al Quada, was "substantiated" and as to al Quada, statements linking Iraq's support for terrorists with ties to al Quada were also "substantiated" and I quote from the article which quotes from the report:

 

"But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." "

 

And you will notice that there was no qualifier of "generally" found anywhere in that paragraph.

 

As to your comment about the qualifier "generally", I'm not sure what exactly you would want the President to do. Me, if there is intel info generally substantiating those things and Iraq has refused repeatedly over the course of years to allow us the opportunity to see if that intel was accurate and Iraq refuses to do so, I want my President to take action and to take action now. And I'm more now that ever, dang glad that he did. But that digresses from the point of this thread. The report confirms that there was intel that either substantiated or generally substantiated what Bush told us and what Bush did. Bush was one heck of a lot more accurate than Rockefeller's statement of what the report concluded. There is no substantiation or even general substantiation for what Rockefeller stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to do a little more research on Hiatt... not exactly a beloved figure on the left.

 

By the way, want to talk about the actual issue? Bush lied. I'll be back to read your response after class.

Fact or your opinion? If it's fact where is the proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are my thoughts and I have no links or facts to back them up. I stated in another thread that when we went into Afganastan we would end up in Iraq. As irrational as that sounds I felt Bush had a grudge to settle and wanted proof to go to war. When bosses pressure employees they will at least try and produce what the boss wants, and to me that is what happened here. No facts just my gut feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LN, I greatly respect you and your opinions and the information that you have provided via your link is interesting.

 

Though I have been against the actual war (while still supporting those who serve in it) since day one, I have not been on the "Bush Lied" bandwagon. I do feel like Pres. Bush, many republicans and probably some democrats, used 9/11 as a spring board for the actions taken in Iraq. I found that to be alarming then and still do today. Immediately people started linking the two together. I felt like we went in with the two issues wrapped up in each other, as opposed to them being two separate areas of concern.

 

Bottom line - I think that we jumped the gun, and though our presence there has provided much good (as our presence anywhere probably would), in the end it is going to cost us more (in both money, soldiers lost, and global image) then if we had tried other actions. This is only aggravated more by the meshing together of 9/11 with a perceived threat in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.