Bush Lied?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
the war in Iraq is a MESS. It is not the fairy-tale that the Bush administration thought it would be. Don't compare this war to other wars, we live in a completely different time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/international/middleeast/17SOLD.html?hp
Divided Mission in Iraq Tempers Views of G.I.'s

"I think Bush is a good man, but over here, it's not as easy as he makes it sound," said Specialist Matthew DeGregorio, 35, a reservist in civil affairs charged with persuading Iraqis to work on projects with the Americans. "Nobody buys the fact that it's so easy."

"To be honest, I'd say there are things that need to be worked out," he added. "I'd say they need even more men in the entire country. I think it goes back to the cuts in the military. I think they're leaning too heavily on the National Guard and the Reserves."

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Rule #3!

reminds me of americas top model when one of the girls started singing when the argument got too heated for her

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Well, ya gotta remember that the folks he gives a "pass" to have the big "D" in front of their name(s). They are also still kinda sensative to the fact that Mr. Clinton's "legacy" is so far just the quote........"It depends upon what your definition of the word is, is." Well, either that or the fact that he never had sex with her, when, after cigars and other acts not to be described here were being acted out. Yeah, that's "old stuff" to them, meaning "we don't want to go there cause it doesn't fit our agenda currently."
It's amazing how transparent these people are. :shocked:

It's amazing what drinking Kool-Aid can do to the human mind.

You see, Buz2b, you just put your foot squarely in your mouth.

Go ahead and search the archived messages up here and you'll find me in strong support of the war on Iraq last year. I fell for the deception but now mine eyes have seen the truth!

Funny, it didn't taste like Kool-Aid?! And once again you fail to see the point if it doesn't fit your agenda. Remember the (at least I thiink it was) point of the thread; to point out what these people have said before, compared to now? I did not say anything about YOUR support or non support but if the shoe fits......! I was making the same point that CkG was making and is still valid; folks such as yourself are refusing to understand/see the truth. If you feel Bush lied then why aren't you making the same "holier-than-thou" damning statements about them? And no, you don't get to exclude some comments for BS reasons either. That's just another tactic to do what you seem to like to do; avoid a direct answer to anything not flattering to your side of the argument.

 

[conjur]

The old comments are worthless as intelligence has changed greatly since then. The inspections that were going on in 2002 and 2003 show that. The fact that Chalabi and his cohorts fabricated data has been shown. The fact that the CIA knew the data used by the administration was dubious, at best, was known at the time the current adminstration made its claims. However, the information that this administration put out did not take that into account but, rather, spewed forth deceptive information.

 

[kage69]

Rule #4 - Dubya and his fan boys ignore all facts contradicting their deluded view of reality

:thumbsup:


And here I thought the young-Earth creationists held the market on selective reasoning and flat-out bullsh!t. The level of self-imposed ignorance is astounding!

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: conjur
The old comments are worthless as intelligence has changed greatly since then. The inspections that were going on in 2002 and 2003 show that. The fact that Chalabi and his cohorts fabricated data has been shown. The fact that the CIA knew the data used by the administration was dubious, at best, was known at the time the current adminstration made its claims. However, the information that this administration put out did not take that into account but, rather, spewed forth deceptive information.

The first 7 quotes were pre-2000, the next 12 go from 2001 to 2003; the lead up to the war and the very time frame when the decision was made to go to war. Those "inspections" were not anything close to legitimate; just a shell game (pardon the pun) by the Iraqi government. If the information was so "dubious, at best" then why the quotes running through 2003; including the last one by John Forandagainst Kerry in 2003? By your logic then, all those folks, including him, were just "spewing forth deceptive information." Again, using your logic, then why aren't you spouting off about them lying? Remember, they were given the same information/intel in the months leading up to the start of the war. That is why they voted to support the President and that is why they were making those statements. And if you think that the information obtained from "Chalabi and his cohorts" (your words) was the only information relied upon, you really do have a low level of trust in the checks and balances built into your own govenment; no matter who is at the helm. Besides, it wasn't just the current administration making claims; it was also (if you read them) Hillary Rotten Clinton John Forandagainst Kerry, and others during that same pre-war time period.
Heck, this is a waste of time, although a humorous one. There are some folks that just don't like facts unless they support their agenda. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Still pulling up quotes based on old intelligence data (like nothing new was learned after 1998?

You do realize that in 1998 the UN was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam? You cant be so naive to think Saddam did that so he could have his last words with the WMD before blowing them up on his own accord can you?

Give me a break, even you cant tell me you think Saddam did anything like that.

 

[Codec]

Of importance, how many have quoted the Niger connection? That was the statement that attracted so much attention and controversy within and without the administration. BTW, not that it will matter to some in here, but Powell has recently stated that the intelligence on WMDs was deliberately misleading.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
Of importance, how many have quoted the Niger connection? That was the statement that attracted so much attention and controversy within and without the administration. BTW, not that it will matter to some in here, but Powell has recently stated that the intelligence on WMDs was deliberately misleading.

Point out this statement (in context) where he said that.

 

[Codec]

From the NYTimes:

'But on Sunday, Mr. Powell argued that the C.I.A. itself was misled, and that in turn he was, too. "Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out not to be accurate," Mr. Powell said, going farther than he did on April 2 when he conceded that the intelligence was not "that solid."

On Sunday, Mr. Powell hinted at widespread reports of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the most critical information about the labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Mr. Powell said in the interview, broadcast from Jordan. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."'


Looks like we were all lied to. Some wanted to check the lies, and some just found them too convenient.

 

[TrentSteel]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As I recall, the UN inspectors were in Iraq asking for more time before we went to war because they were being allowed to inspect and finding nothing much in violation. Don't forget the war was begun to start the New American Century, not to find WMD. WMD was just the excuse the neocons picked because it was the one that would sell. They had to start the war before further evidence that there were no weapons or loose the fear that could stampeed the people. The war is about conquest not weapons. The Bush people are clinically insane. They have done irreparable harm to our fine nation and they are traitors to everything that made us great. Those who support them are traitors too, or fools.

I didn't think anyone here knew anything about the Project for the New American Century, or would dare utter its name. Funny how it's something that people choose to overlook or have simply never even heard of, particularly because it is THE foundation of 21st century American politics. Also funny how no one has commented on it since you posted it.

Or maybe no one wanted to bring attention to it for fear of undermining their own arguments. Speaking of black and white, some of you might want to investigate it a bit further. It's chilling.

EDIT: It works best when it's under wraps, so it actually makes sense that it's largely unknown.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TrentSteel

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As I recall, the UN inspectors were in Iraq asking for more time before we went to war because they were being allowed to inspect and finding nothing much in violation. Don't forget the war was begun to start the New American Century, not to find WMD. WMD was just the excuse the neocons picked because it was the one that would sell. They had to start the war before further evidence that there were no weapons or loose the fear that could stampeed the people. The war is about conquest not weapons. The Bush people are clinically insane. They have done irreparable harm to our fine nation and they are traitors to everything that made us great. Those who support them are traitors too, or fools.

I didn't think anyone here knew anything about the Project for the New American Century, or would dare utter its name. Funny how it's something that people choose to overlook or have simply never even heard of, particularly because it is THE foundation of 21st century American politics. Also funny how no one has commented on it since you posted it.

Or maybe no one wanted to bring attention to it for fear of undermining their own arguments. Speaking of black and white, some of you might want to investigate it a bit further. It's chilling.

EDIT: It works best when it's under wraps, so it actually makes sense that it's largely unknown.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1022866&arctab=arc&highlight_key=y&keyword1=pnac

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1023130&arctab=arc&highlight_key=y&keyword1=pnac

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1030006&arctab=arc&highlight_key=y&keyword1=pnac

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1045026&arctab=arc&highlight_key=y&keyword1=pnac

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Well, ya gotta remember that the folks he gives a "pass" to have the big "D" in front of their name(s). They are also still kinda sensative to the fact that Mr. Clinton's "legacy" is so far just the quote........"It depends upon what your definition of the word is, is." Well, either that or the fact that he never had sex with her, when, after cigars and other acts not to be described here were being acted out. Yeah, that's "old stuff" to them, meaning "we don't want to go there cause it doesn't fit our agenda currently."
It's amazing how transparent these people are. :shocked:

It's amazing what drinking Kool-Aid can do to the human mind.

You see, Buz2b, you just put your foot squarely in your mouth.

Go ahead and search the archived messages up here and you'll find me in strong support of the war on Iraq last year. I fell for the deception but now mine eyes have seen the truth!

Funny, it didn't taste like Kool-Aid?! And once again you fail to see the point if it doesn't fit your agenda. Remember the (at least I thiink it was) point of the thread; to point out what these people have said before, compared to now? I did not say anything about YOUR support or non support but if the shoe fits......! I was making the same point that CkG was making and is still valid; folks such as yourself are refusing to understand/see the truth. If you feel Bush lied then why aren't you making the same "holier-than-thou" damning statements about them? And no, you don't get to exclude some comments for BS reasons either. That's just another tactic to do what you seem to like to do; avoid a direct answer to anything not flattering to your side of the argument.

The '98 Intel may have been correct, in '98. Recall that after the pullout of UN Inspectors, air strikes were extensively used on certain targets considered highly suspect.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Still pulling up quotes based on old intelligence data (like nothing new was learned after 1998?

You do realize that in 1998 the UN was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam? You cant be so naive to think Saddam did that so he could have his last words with the WMD before blowing them up on his own accord can you?

Give me a break, even you cant tell me you think Saddam did anything like that.

They were "pulled out", Saddam didn't "kick them out".

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec
From the NYTimes:

'But on Sunday, Mr. Powell argued that the C.I.A. itself was misled, and that in turn he was, too. "Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out not to be accurate," Mr. Powell said, going farther than he did on April 2 when he conceded that the intelligence was not "that solid."

On Sunday, Mr. Powell hinted at widespread reports of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the most critical information about the labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Mr. Powell said in the interview, broadcast from Jordan. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."'


Looks like we were all lied to. Some wanted to check the lies, and some just found them too convenient.

Just what I thought; out of context. First you make a blank statement that Powell said the intelligence on WMD's deliberately misleading; makiing it seem a blanket statement on all the intelligence. In fact what he said was, "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading,....." He was speaking of one section of the intel there; not the totality of it. That is clear.
Then you make the jump from some of the info and some of the sourcing to Powell making a blanket statement about all the intel on WMD's was deliberately misleading. Nice try and very typical.

 

[conjur]

<ahem>

the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong

 

[Codec]

The truth hurts, doesn't it. I repeated exactly what Powell stated, in context. I guess now he's a liberal, though, right? Keep on spinnin'.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong

Your point? The sourcing of some of the info was inaccurate. That was what was said. Nothing more.

The truth hurts, doesn't it. I repeated exactly what Powell stated, in context. I guess now he's a liberal, though, right? Keep on spinnin'.

You two are like two peas in a pod; what a pair! And NO, you did not state what he said in context. You know it as does anyone else with common sense. I made that point very clear, as did Powell. Get over it. If you can't use facts then you always refer to your rules and repeat, repeat, repeat the BS. Surely someone out there will actually believe it if you do it enough. That's what you count on.
You really should pick a new tactic though; this one is all too predictable and frankly getting old to the point of boring. Maybe James Carville needs to put out some new talking points and strategies for you guys. Oh that's right, he failed before and has become sort of a "talking point joke" hasn't he? Oh well, have fun guys! Unless you can come up with something different, compelling, new or at least in context and/or true there's not a whole lot of point in continuing our little "debate" here. Please post if you do. Otherwise either drop the BS or don't expect much more from me here (I'm sure that would make you happy to no end but I think you see the point).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong

Your point? The sourcing of some of the info was inaccurate. That was what was said. Nothing more.

Nothing more? Well, you certainly put words in that were not there before!

Here, again, is Powell's statement:

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading...."

What's that saying? Hmm...pretty obvious. The sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. That means, ALL sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. BUT, in SOME CASES, it was ALSO deliberately misleading.

Wow...the steps the Bush-God fanbois will take to distort the truth.

 

[conehead433]

Ok maybe a lot of people lied. Dubya was the one who got us in this war based on them.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong

Your point? The sourcing of some of the info was inaccurate. That was what was said. Nothing more.

Nothing more? Well, you certainly put words in that were not there before!

Here, again, is Powell's statement:

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading...."

What's that saying? Hmm...pretty obvious. The sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. That means, ALL sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. BUT, in SOME CASES, it was ALSO deliberately misleading.

Wow...the steps the Bush-God fanbois will take to distort the truth.

Why don't you read and/or quote the entire quote from Codec again! He (Powell) was speaking about the reports from a specific engineer, who was tied in with the Iraqi National Congress, which YES, wanted to see the the brutal regime ousted; like probably millions around the world. Were they "coloring" their reports, probably. Do you think we didn't take that into consideration? Give me a break! We're not talking rocket science here.
The quote he and you choose to "pluck" from the entire interview was in (Powell's) direct response to that sourcing and information from that one engineer. Guess your liberal colored glasses missed that part. Either that or Carville is still stuck on the same old "quote anything you can, no matter if it is in context" school of though.
BTW, Bush-God fanbois is a misnomer; I am a person that happens to think that Bush is correct in his current course for this country; no matter how difficult it may seem at this time. So, you can call me a Conservative, a Republican, hell even a "right winger" of sorts. Just don't use the "-God fanbois" tag. Bush isn't God and I'm not a "fanbois". On this point, please take me seriously.

 

[Codec]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
And NO, you did not state what he said in context. You know it as does anyone else with common sense. I made that point very clear, as did Powell. Get over it. If you can't use facts then you always refer to your rules and repeat, repeat, repeat the BS. Surely someone out there will actually believe it if you do it enough. That's what you count on.

Why is it that the idiot fringe of the right and left see conspiracies everywhere and at everytime? BTW, I did not suggest that Powell, Bush, et al, were behind the deliberate misleading. Doesn't it make you a bit angry that they (and we) were duped? That it doesn't speaks volumes. Like I said in the original post, this just won't matter to some in here (like you).

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Codec


Why is it that the idiot fringe of the right and left see conspiracies everywhere and at everytime?

And what part of "facts" don't the "idiot" newer members understand (your words, not mine)? Look, you quoted something out of context. You proved it yourself by posting just enough of the interview to show what he was talking about. That was either a slip up on your part or an honest attempt at the facts. Others can judge; I have my opinion. Be careful though, you're getting close to flaming here.

EDIT: Since you saw fit to edit your post before I finished mine, I will reply.

BTW, I did not suggest that Powell, Bush, et al, were behind the deliberate misleading. Doesn't it make you a bit angry that they (and we) were duped? That it doesn't speaks volumes. Like I said in the original post, this just won't matter to some in here (like you).

First, your post was in direct support of the BS that Bush lied. Second, no one (except you and conjur) is saying they were "duped". Powell stated his concern and dismay that some of the sources were misleading. No one in the current administration has said we were "duped". So no, I am not concerned. You draw conclusions were there are none. Saying that you did not suggest that Powell/Bush, et al, were behind the deliberate misleading is merely trying to hide your liberal leanings; it doesn't work because you're too transparent.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong

Your point? The sourcing of some of the info was inaccurate. That was what was said. Nothing more.

Nothing more? Well, you certainly put words in that were not there before!

Here, again, is Powell's statement:

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading...."

What's that saying? Hmm...pretty obvious. The sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. That means, ALL sourcing was inaccurate and wrong. BUT, in SOME CASES, it was ALSO deliberately misleading.

Wow...the steps the Bush-God fanbois will take to distort the truth.

Why don't you read and/or quote the entire quote from Codec again! He (Powell) was speaking about the reports from a specific engineer, who was tied in with the Iraqi National Congress, which YES, wanted to see the the brutal regime ousted; like probably millions around the world. Were they "coloring" their reports, probably. Do you think we didn't take that into consideration? Give me a break! We're not talking rocket science here.
The quote he and you choose to "pluck" from the entire interview was in (Powell's) direct response to that sourcing and information from that one engineer. Guess your liberal colored glasses missed that part. Either that or Carville is still stuck on the same old "quote anything you can, no matter if it is in context" school of though.
BTW, Bush-God fanbois is a misnomer; I am a person that happens to think that Bush is correct in his current course for this country; no matter how difficult it may seem at this time. So, you can call me a Conservative, a Republican, hell even a "right winger" of sorts. Just don't use the "-God fanbois" tag. Bush isn't God and I'm not a "fanbois". On this point, please take me seriously.

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed.

But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.

While Russert may have mentioned one particular source of intelligence, Powell was referring to the entirety of the intelligence. The "deliberately misleading" apparently referring to "Curve Ball."

And, my statement lumping you into the Bush-God fanbois certainly fits, esp. with your comment:
"I am a person that happens to think that Bush is correct in his current course for this country; no matter how difficult it may seem at this time"

 

[Codec]

Just show where I said all WMD, or chemical, nuclear, and biological WMD, and so on, when quoting Powell. If you can't (and I know you can't, because I didn't), then you mischaracterized what I said, and are guilty of the very "liberalism" you so decry. Good luck with this.