Bingo: Bush, Iraq, and Flip Flopping. Stupid Dub finally caught on lying

[adlep]

Presidential Letter

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document,
I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

And what do we have here?
Bush Disputes al Qaida-Saddam 9/11 Panel Coclusion

Bush one year latter:

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

Never?
What about the letter, the letter. Look up....Quick burn it and tell them it is the CIA's fault...

 

[adlep]

And to clarify:
(planned, authorized, committed) == orchestrated

 

[Ryan]

Hey n00b - it's already been posted. Go back to OT, you're behind the curve - can be found in this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1332497&enterthread=y

 

[adlep]

No, it hasn't...
This specifc article, with Bush's response has been posted on Yahoo 1 hour and 30 minutes ago...

 

[cash1220]

?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

 

[kage69]

Well, the Repubs were howling for impeachment when Clinton lied - I look forward to thier support for impeaching our latest lying bastard.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: cash1220
?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

Here:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So he is making the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, otherwise this entire sentence should not be there.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: cash1220
?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

Here:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So he is making the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, otherwise this entire sentence should not be there.

the letter says including which is not the same thing as equals.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If there was any relationship between the terroists and Iraq, that could be considered to be aiding.

Bush is not stating that Iraq was not involved. Note the two negatives.

Also, this is based on information obtained after the fact.

At the time, based on Iraqs trackrecord, the conclusion was not that large of a leap.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: cash1220
?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

Here:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So he is making the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, otherwise this entire sentence should not be there.

the letter says including which is not the same thing as equals.

Now technically that's true, but to form that position in the first place one would have to ignore the content of the rest of the letter, which deals specifically, and only with Iraq. The letter doesn't flat-out say that Iraq participated in 9/11, however it invokes the terrorist attack as a justification nonetheless. Otherwise it would not be included in the first place.

The fact that the letter is retracting his promise to thoroughly pursue a diplomatic solution so early on in the game (exactly 1 day after the date saddam was supposed to step down over trumped up weapons charges), is disgusting. It shows clearly that diplomacy was never the intent of the administration.

I am curious, however, as to the contents of the enclosed document. I have a very strong feeling it's some evidence of the existance of weapons, chopped up and sanitized for neocon aproval.

 

[MonkeyK]

I certianly don't personally disagree. I'm just saying this isn't a cut and dried case proving GWB lied. The letter can be clearly construed as:
-I have been granted authority to use force against Iraq
-Iraq poses a threat to the US
-The UN is not making sure that Iraq is cleaning up its act
-Iraq is linked to terrorism (not necessarily 9-11)

I do, however believe that the administration has been misleading. I am not skilled enough at making the case, so I just interject my comments where others try to make or break a case.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If a pol was to be impeached for lying, then we would not have a government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If a pol was to be impeached for lying, then we would not have a government.

Yes we would, just not the sh!t one we got now.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A pol can not get elected without misleading the majority of the polulation that they claim to respresent.

OR

They are so naive to believe they have the clout to reshape halls of power into one for the poeple, by the people

Now, if the average citizen had the power to force a recall when a mis-truth was proved to be deliberate, then we would have an effective governemnt.

Otherwise it will considered just be like the movie absent of malice

 

[chess9]

It all depends on what the meaning of "IS" is.

Bwuahahahahaha!

Oh, sheezh, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Bush is a dolt and a liar.

-Robert

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: cash1220
?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

Here:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So he is making the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, otherwise this entire sentence should not be there.

the letter says including which is not the same thing as equals.

Why are we all having such difficult time reading. From what I can obtain from the letter, he claims that military action in Iraq satisfies TWO conditions (meaning BOTH). Those conditions are (in short):

1) Peaceful negotiation with Iraq will not get anything done.
2) Iraq is a nation that either planned 9-11 or helped terrorist organizations commit 9-11.

So it's pretty clear that Bush believed that Iraq and the terrorists of 9-11 were connected. If anything, Bush is basically evading the question. He's using the term 'orchestrated' as in told the terrorists exactly what to do. So TECHNICALLY, the USA never said that Iraq 'orchestrated' the event. But that's about the same amount of B.S. as saying "I never 'TOLD' him the secret.... I just wrote it down on a piece of paper and handed it to him'.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A pol can not get elected without misleading the majority of the polulation that they claim to respresent.

OR

They are so naive to believe they have the clout to reshape halls of power into one for the poeple, by the people

Now, if the average citizen had the power to force a recall when a mis-truth was proved to be deliberate, then we would have an effective governemnt.

Otherwise it will considered just be like the movie absent of malice

So what's the deal with Bushies claiming he's honest? At best he's an honest idiot but most thinking people do not consider that a positive character trait . . . except for Forrest Gump . . . and at least Forrest had a talent.

I don't believe most people are truly that naive. IMHO, Bush (and in particular his political minions) have orchestrated a persistent, multimedia, multimodal campaign to misinform the public. So even when he's caught in a "misrepresentation or not entirely accurate position" blame is deflected to others or they claim it was impossible to "know" the truth before it is proven to be otherwise. It doesn't matter if it's global climate change or WMD . . . the only evidence they support (or even acknowledge) is evidence that supports their policy choices.

I can reasonably understand how the FOXNews viewing public could think WMD was the reason we invaded Iraq in 2003. A year later I can reasonably understand how the FOXNews viewing public could think Iraqi liberation was the reason we invaded. Yet it's difficult to comprehend how Bush can say in Sep 2003 that Saddam and Al Qaeda have no substantive connection while his VP can say they do/did (in 2002-2003 and earlier this week). Furthermore, why would you defend a statement clearly refuted by all of the American intelligence agencies AND the commission appointed by Bush himself?!

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: cash1220
?

where in that letter does it say iraq took part in 9/11?

Here:
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So he is making the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, otherwise this entire sentence should not be there.

the letter says including which is not the same thing as equals.

Why are we all having such difficult time reading. From what I can obtain from the letter, he claims that military action in Iraq satisfies TWO conditions (meaning BOTH). Those conditions are (in short):

1) Peaceful negotiation with Iraq will not get anything done.
2) Iraq is a nation that either planned 9-11 or helped terrorist organizations commit 9-11.

So it's pretty clear that Bush believed that Iraq and the terrorists of 9-11 were connected. If anything, Bush is basically evading the question. He's using the term 'orchestrated' as in told the terrorists exactly what to do. So TECHNICALLY, the USA never said that Iraq 'orchestrated' the event. But that's about the same amount of B.S. as saying "I never 'TOLD' him the secret.... I just wrote it down on a piece of paper and handed it to him'.

I think you are reading what you want into the letter. The second item refers to terrorist organizations
including those involved in 9-11. The letter either says that Iraq was a terrorist organization (however that was defined) or that it helped perpetrate 9-11. Which it says is subject to interpretation.

 

[heartsurgeon]

libs make up facts that aren't in existance, and them use them to attack conservatives.

heck, the facts just don't matter...look at Kerry's statement "i voted before it before i voted against it"

everything they are saying is out of desperation to get back in the game.

Bush never said saddam was involved in 9/11

You are making it up.

The commission findings and Bush's statements are "compatible with each other" according to the chairman of the committee.

this impeachment stuff is hysterical...
i have always thought that libs would go well beyond impeachment, and go for a charge of treason with which they could have Bush executed...

Ted Kennedy sounding the battle cry...
just don't let him drive!!

 

[DealMonkey]

HS: Oh, that letter to Congress linking Saddam and 9/11 ... but, but, but, it depends what one means by the words, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Gotcha.

 

[DealMonkey]

Or wait, it gets better.

Indeed, the commission report said Bin Laden made overtures to Hussein in the mid-1990s while he was in Sudan and again after he went to Afghanistan in 1996. But, the report said, the contacts "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

In addition, two of Bin Laden's most senior associates, interrogated by U.S. authorities, "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq," the report said.

You guys are boring me with your ridiculous assertions in a complete vaccuum of facts. Yawn.

 

[glenn1]

If you continue to beat on the "Bush lied" drum this way for every bit of trivial nonsense that you can possibly twist into an accusation, people are going to be so sick of you that they aren't going to listen even if you do catch him in a bold-faced lie. If I'm anything like the typical undecided (and I probably am), you're beginning to piss us off with this constant Chicken Little act, just as much as Cheney is doing with continued stupid insistence on solid link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

 

[chess9]

HS:

No Bush didn't flat out make the assertion that SH and AQ cooperated to bring off 9-11. What Bush, Cheney, and Powell did do though was much more insidious. They inferred that was the case with loose language.
-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

So I guess even when capture it in writing (e.g. Letter to Congress), that's not good enough? Gotcha.

Originally posted by: glenn1
If you continue to beat on the "Bush lied" drum this way for every bit of trivial nonsense that you can possibly twist into an accusation, people are going to be so sick of you that they aren't going to listen even if you do catch him in a bold-faced lie. If I'm anything like the typical undecided (and I probably am), you're beginning to piss us off with this constant Chicken Little act, just as much as Cheney is doing with continued stupid insistence on solid link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
libs make up facts that aren't in existance, and them use them to attack conservatives.

heck, the facts just don't matter...look at Kerry's statement "i voted before it before i voted against it"

everything they are saying is out of desperation to get back in the game.

Bush never said saddam was involved in 9/11

You are making it up.

The commission findings and Bush's statements are "compatible with each other" according to the chairman of the committee.

this impeachment stuff is hysterical...
i have always thought that libs would go well beyond impeachment, and go for a charge of treason with which they could have Bush executed...

Ted Kennedy sounding the battle cry...
just don't let him drive!!

:laugh:

ROFLMAO!!! Do you believe your own BS? I don't think anyone else does.

Why don't you get a job and find something useful to do with your life.