Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If it was proven that he lied, could Mr Bush be impeached for thiis war?

Please provide us evidence. Then we'll see.

We've been waiting about 5 years now for evidence of these supposed "lies" and haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If it was proven that he lied, could Mr Bush be impeached for thiis war?

Please provide us evidence. Then we'll see.

We've been waiting about 5 years now for evidence of these supposed "lies" and haven't seen anything yet.

[*] Why won't you answer his question Pabster?

[*] I would like to see Pabster, Corbett, JD50, and other supporters address my post above.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yeahup, Clinton didn't use that intel to go to war in Iraq. Instead he gave us stories about 100,000 in mass graves to send us into a different war. Did we find mass graves? Supposedly, but not anywhere close what Clinton claimed, just like we found WMDs, but not the stockpiles Bush claimed.

Do we still have soldiers in Bosnia?

But nobody cared when Clinton lied and people died. Instead we have gits like Harvey who make excuses and seems to believe that capitalized and bolded words, repeated over and over again like some loon banging his head against the padded cell, are the pinnacle of debate on internet forums.

:roll:

Americans didn't die and the mission was successful unlike Iraq.

Yet only 36% of the US public supported Bill's excellent adventure. Isn't public support the primary determining factor for going to war? Reading some of the replies in this forum you'd think that to be the sole determining factor.

And of course the mission was a success. We had troops there for 10 friggin years and we still didn't catch some of the biggest offenders in Bosnia.

Heck of a job, Billsie. :thumbsup:

lmao at spinning Bosnia = Iraq and Clinton intel = Bush intel. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!

Good job at replying with nothing of any substance.

Many of the same people that scream "BUSH LIED" give Clinton a pass for his same sort of alleged lies. (Hint: It's never been proven that either lied, but no doubt you and others will continue to ignore that.) A minority of the public supported going into Bosnia before we even went, despite Clinton's overblown claims meant to build public support. However, I was in that minority and supported the mission in Bosnia just like I do now with Iraq. That's why I don't feel duplicitous in the matter and that's why you are, because you allow your partisan hack blinders to affect your viewpoint on the subject. Your moronic O'Reilly comment demonstrates that very clearly. So if you want to try to convince yourself my comments come from some talking head that I've rarely even seen and don't particularly care for, go right ahead. It sure wouldn't be the first stupid assumption and incorrect knee-jerk accusation made against me in here and undoubtedly won't be the last either.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
Your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of are guilty of the MURDER of every American troop who has died in their war of LIES and of TREASON for shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

If you still want to contend the Bushwhackos didn't lie, either disprove every one of the above, or STFU.

I love how the "Bush lied" crowd always posts every quote from republicans on the lead up to the war, and not a single quote from a democrat. Completely exposes agenda.

Could that be because your REPUBLICAN TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal are the ones who stovepiped their bogus, manufactured "intel," started their lies and spread them through Congress to the American people and actually started a fscking WAR that, as of 11/3/07 6:14 pm EDT has cost the lives of 3,849 American troops, left tens of thousands more Americans wounded, disabled and scarred for life and squandered trillions of dollars of current and future debt?

First, you denied that the Admin had lied. Then, you pissed and moaned that I didn't give you examples, even though they're all over P&N and easy enough to find in both current and archived threads, even with the crippled forum search engine. You said:

Originally posted by: Corbett
Harvey, I searched and all I found was:

"war of lies"
"bush crime family"
"illegal and immoral war"
"treason"
"who's watching over you"
"foad putz"

Of course, those were just more of YOUR lies. You've got the gist of it, which means you know what I've posted, but it's pretty clear you did NOT search those out and quote me because so many of them are not accurate quotes.

Obviously, either you're too reading challenged to get the meaning behind what I actually said, or you're one of the Bushwhackos' sycophant liars.

Then, when I do post an extensive, documented list of Bushwhacko LIES, you dissemble, distract and divert attention from those LIES by trying to spread the blame to Democrats.

Give up! The war in Iraq was a REPUBLICAN fiasco started by a group of REPUBLICAN TRAITORS and MURDERERS and aided and abetted by a REPUBLICAN majority in Congress.

You're dead ass wrong on the facts. Got anymore lies you want to spread? :roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Baloo
This is the same intel we were told shortly after the war began was questionable. In fact, GWB was informed of that before he bagan posturing to Iraq, and still he invaded.

The war was not started over phony inteligence - that more bushit. It's all about oil, money and power. The phony story given to the public has nothing to do with it, and never did, and never will.

Why are people bringing up Clinton? He does not have anything to do with information that came from the White house after January, 2000. And yes, I mean "from" the White house, not "to" the White House.

Links? I mean, not opinion pieces, but facts?

Why isnt the US profiting from the oil then? More BS claims to fuel hatred.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
[*] Why won't you answer his question Pabster?

I did. And I'm still awaiting the "evidence"...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Baloo
This is the same intel we were told shortly after the war began was questionable. In fact, GWB was informed of that before he bagan posturing to Iraq, and still he invaded.

The war was not started over phony inteligence - that more bushit. It's all about oil, money and power. The phony story given to the public has nothing to do with it, and never did, and never will.

Why are people bringing up Clinton? He does not have anything to do with information that came from the White house after January, 2000. And yes, I mean "from" the White house, not "to" the White House.

Links? I mean, not opinion pieces, but facts?

Why isnt the US profiting from the oil then? More BS claims to fuel hatred.

So, your argument is that because the US is not now profiting from the oil, it had nothing to do with the reason? Ya, right.

It's just a sand fetish that makes the US intervene in the region, not the oil.

Just a few answers to your simple question:

1. The US ended Iraqi contracts with our enemies/competitors.

2. It gave the US an increased voice in controlling the oil.

3. You forget that not everything went as planned - remember, for example, Chalabi, who was going to be put in charge - the right had a lot of economic policies ready to put in.

4. Some argue that the purpose with the oil now is to prevent its being on the market, to inflate oil prices with less supply (e.g., Greg Palast).

5. Certainly the long-term prospects have improved, and this fits into a larger middle-eastern 'plan' for the other oil too.

6. There were other reasons along with oil. You need to consider them as well.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If it was proven that he lied, could Mr Bush be impeached for thiis war?

I'll take the bait.

If Bush lied to take us into war, and it was PROVEN to be so, then yes, I would support impeachment. Now please post solid proof, and not just quotes like Harvey did of statements based on false intel.

 

[GrGr]

Ah yes. I recall hearing about this guy ages ago.

German intelligence laughed their arses off about this guy. They couldn't believe that the US took this alcoholic conman seriously... Alcoholic conman? Wait a minute...

Corbett, you can chose to be obsitanate about this issue all you want. It does not matter whatsoever if the Bush administration believed they had a cause to invade Iraq. The rest of humanity that lives in the real world know they did not have a cause. Starting a war is no little matter. You don't kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people and go, oops I made a wee error. The Bush administration are war criminals. Paranoia is not an excuse that lets them off the hook. Bush started a war of aggression, and probably should be hung for his crimes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If it was proven that he lied, could Mr Bush be impeached for thiis war?

I'll take the bait.

If Bush lied to take us into war, and it was PROVEN to be so, then yes, I would support impeachment. Now please post solid proof, and not just quotes like Harvey did of statements based on false intel.

Take the bait, my ass! I'll start by AGAIN pointing out YOUR lie.

Originally posted by: Corbett
Harvey, I searched and all I found was:

"war of lies"
"bush crime family"
"illegal and immoral war"
"treason"
"who's watching over you"
"foad putz"

That post in this thread is a lie. I never used the words, "Bush crime family," and the correct question is Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

The precise accuracy isn't important, but the fact that you said, I searched and all I found was... is a LIE. You didn't search anything. If you had, you would have found several of my posts with lists of Bushwhacko lies, and you would have quoted me correctly.

Now, moving on to YOUR lies about the Bushwhacko LIES in my previous post. See the last four quotes in my previous post, starting with Scott McClellan's quote from Jan. 31, 2004:

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

In the following quote, Scott McClellan directly contradicts his own words, followed a week later by Dan Bartlett and several months later by Ari Fleischer.

Exactly how many times over how many years do you think these TRAITORS can tel LIE, after LIE, after LIE, after LIE about as many crucial issues as they have lied about and expect us to believe it was all "bad intel."

At this point, you have lost all credibility. Get the fuck over it! Your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal are TRAITORS and MURDRERS, and none of your baseless denials are going to change that.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Bush started a war of aggression, and probably should be hung for his crimes.

I'd rather sentence him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzles, Rice and the whole traitorous crew to a fate they'd understand. Give them extended, all expenses paid vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes for the exciting waterboard ride.

It isn't torture because Bushie said so. :roll:

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The precise accuracy isn't important, but the fact that you said, I searched and all I found was... is a LIE.

Obviously your sarcasm meter is broken. I didnt search at all. I was joking. I dont need to search because every single one of your posts has one of those catch phrases in it, or some variation of it.

I was egging you on by pointing out the fact that all you do is rehash the same old rants in every thread and it obviously worked.

But its good to know you are quick to jump the gun and call someone a liar for every little thing you take issue with.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Obviously your sarcasm meter is broken. I didnt search at all. I was joking. I dont need to search because every single one of your posts has one of those catch phrases in it, or some variation of it.

Obviously, your REALITY meter is broken. Your intent was to deny the Bushwhacko lies and to discredit my posts with your repeated requests for evidence, so if you're going to say you searched and couldn't find my posts, you'd damned well better search, find my posts and quote them correctly.

Anything less just proves how much of a liar you are. :frown:

I was egging you on and it obviously worked.

Yes, I had to spend a whole two minutes finding my posts to cut and paste.

But its good to know you are quick to jump the gun and call someone a liar for every little thing you take issue with.

I didn't jump any guns. You had to post your lies before there was anything I could quote to show you are, in fact, a LIAR... just like your TRAITOR IN CHIEF.

 

[Corbett]

Since we are calling people names now. Id rather be a liar than an angry old fart who is pissed off about everything and blames it on Bush. You are serisouly a deranged person to go as far as you have about my post which was made in jest. If this is what happens to people when they turn 62 then God help us all.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yeahup, Clinton didn't use that intel to go to war in Iraq. Instead he gave us stories about 100,000 in mass graves to send us into a different war. Did we find mass graves? Supposedly, but not anywhere close what Clinton claimed, just like we found WMDs, but not the stockpiles Bush claimed.

Do we still have soldiers in Bosnia?

But nobody cared when Clinton lied and people died. Instead we have gits like Harvey who make excuses and seems to believe that capitalized and bolded words, repeated over and over again like some loon banging his head against the padded cell, are the pinnacle of debate on internet forums.

:roll:

Americans didn't die and the mission was successful unlike Iraq.

Yet only 36% of the US public supported Bill's excellent adventure. Isn't public support the primary determining factor for going to war? Reading some of the replies in this forum you'd think that to be the sole determining factor.

And of course the mission was a success. We had troops there for 10 friggin years and we still didn't catch some of the biggest offenders in Bosnia.

Heck of a job, Billsie. :thumbsup:

lmao at spinning Bosnia = Iraq and Clinton intel = Bush intel. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!

Good job at replying with nothing of any substance.

Many of the same people that scream "BUSH LIED" give Clinton a pass for his same sort of alleged lies. (Hint: It's never been proven that either lied, but no doubt you and others will continue to ignore that.) A minority of the public supported going into Bosnia before we even went, despite Clinton's overblown claims meant to build public support. However, I was in that minority and supported the mission in Bosnia just like I do now with Iraq. That's why I don't feel duplicitous in the matter and that's why you are, because you allow your partisan hack blinders to affect your viewpoint on the subject. Your moronic O'Reilly comment demonstrates that very clearly. So if you want to try to convince yourself my comments come from some talking head that I've rarely even seen and don't particularly care for, go right ahead. It sure wouldn't be the first stupid assumption and incorrect knee-jerk accusation made against me in here and undoubtedly won't be the last either.

I don't think Bush lied, so I'm not one of those guys. I can sort of understand the sentiment that he lied, though honestly, I just think the guy has abhorrently bad judgment. Unlike Clinton, where Bosnia was justified based on the evidence, didn't last nearly as long or cost nearly as much as Iraq, and eventually succeeded.

With Bush, I think he just didn't realize that Tenet was being a political yes-man and not giving an honest assessment on WDM, that Cheney/Libby/Addington were acting with their own presidential agendas in mind ([pressuring intel analysts and making up their own executive powers), that Rumsfeld (like Cheney) had his own agenda WRT WMD, etc. He clearly just didn't have the good judgment to realize that he was being conned, because he's inadequate intellectually, and deep down I think he knows it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yeahup, Clinton didn't use that intel to go to war in Iraq. Instead he gave us stories about 100,000 in mass graves to send us into a different war. Did we find mass graves? Supposedly, but not anywhere close what Clinton claimed, just like we found WMDs, but not the stockpiles Bush claimed.

Do we still have soldiers in Bosnia?

But nobody cared when Clinton lied and people died. Instead we have gits like Harvey who make excuses and seems to believe that capitalized and bolded words, repeated over and over again like some loon banging his head against the padded cell, are the pinnacle of debate on internet forums.

:roll:

Americans didn't die and the mission was successful unlike Iraq.

Yet only 36% of the US public supported Bill's excellent adventure. Isn't public support the primary determining factor for going to war? Reading some of the replies in this forum you'd think that to be the sole determining factor.

And of course the mission was a success. We had troops there for 10 friggin years and we still didn't catch some of the biggest offenders in Bosnia.

Heck of a job, Billsie. :thumbsup:

lmao at spinning Bosnia = Iraq and Clinton intel = Bush intel. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!

Good job at replying with nothing of any substance.

Many of the same people that scream "BUSH LIED" give Clinton a pass for his same sort of alleged lies. (Hint: It's never been proven that either lied, but no doubt you and others will continue to ignore that.) A minority of the public supported going into Bosnia before we even went, despite Clinton's overblown claims meant to build public support. However, I was in that minority and supported the mission in Bosnia just like I do now with Iraq. That's why I don't feel duplicitous in the matter and that's why you are, because you allow your partisan hack blinders to affect your viewpoint on the subject. Your moronic O'Reilly comment demonstrates that very clearly. So if you want to try to convince yourself my comments come from some talking head that I've rarely even seen and don't particularly care for, go right ahead. It sure wouldn't be the first stupid assumption and incorrect knee-jerk accusation made against me in here and undoubtedly won't be the last either.

I don't think Bush lied, so I'm not one of those guys. I can sort of understand the sentiment that he lied, though honestly, I just think the guy has abhorrently bad judgment. Unlike Clinton, where Bosnia was justified based on the evidence, didn't last nearly as long or cost nearly as much as Iraq, and eventually succeeded.

With Bush, I think he just didn't realize that Tenet was being a political yes-man and not giving an honest assessment on WDM, that Cheney/Libby/Addington were acting with their own presidential agendas in mind ([pressuring intel analysts and making up their own executive powers), that Rumsfeld (like Cheney) had his own agenda WRT WMD, etc. He clearly just didn't have the good judgment to realize that he was being conned, because he's inadequate intellectually, and deep down I think he knows it.

I guess the Congress is just as stupid then. Amazing.

 

[UberNeuman]

I believe that it was known that the Bush administration wanted to get into Iraq when Bush first took office - and 911 gave them the opening they could use to justify this action..

With that they took the information that worked in favor of invading Iraq, ignoring that which cast doubt on WMDs - and pushed even harder, pulling out Hans Blix and his team before they could show the world that the claims of the U.S. were false...

as for the Congress after 911 - some were suckered, like most of the American people - partly out of faith in the President, but mostly out of fear of appearing "un-american..."

so, lose that little chestnut, rightwingers - because you know you'd have been accusing those opposing this war as such - un-american... as you still do now....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I believe that it was known that the Bush administration wanted to get into Iraq when Bush first took office - and 911 gave them the opening they could use to justify this action..

With that they took the information that worked in favor of invading Iraq, ignoring that which cast doubt on WMDs - and pushed even harder, pulling out Hans Blix and his team before they could show the world that the claims of the U.S. were false...

as for the Congress after 911 - some were suckered, like most of the American people - partly out of faith in the President, but mostly out of fear of appearing "un-american..."

so, lose that little chestnut, rightwingers - because you know you'd have been accusing those opposing this war as such - un-american... as you still do now....

The main reason Congress was, as you claim, duped, is because they (Dems AND GOP) didnt read the fucking bill. Most didnt, and have admitted it. It's no ones fualt but their own.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yeahup, Clinton didn't use that intel to go to war in Iraq. Instead he gave us stories about 100,000 in mass graves to send us into a different war. Did we find mass graves? Supposedly, but not anywhere close what Clinton claimed, just like we found WMDs, but not the stockpiles Bush claimed.

Do we still have soldiers in Bosnia?

But nobody cared when Clinton lied and people died. Instead we have gits like Harvey who make excuses and seems to believe that capitalized and bolded words, repeated over and over again like some loon banging his head against the padded cell, are the pinnacle of debate on internet forums.

:roll:

Americans didn't die and the mission was successful unlike Iraq.

Yet only 36% of the US public supported Bill's excellent adventure. Isn't public support the primary determining factor for going to war? Reading some of the replies in this forum you'd think that to be the sole determining factor.

And of course the mission was a success. We had troops there for 10 friggin years and we still didn't catch some of the biggest offenders in Bosnia.

Heck of a job, Billsie. :thumbsup:

lmao at spinning Bosnia = Iraq and Clinton intel = Bush intel. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!

Good job at replying with nothing of any substance.

Many of the same people that scream "BUSH LIED" give Clinton a pass for his same sort of alleged lies. (Hint: It's never been proven that either lied, but no doubt you and others will continue to ignore that.) A minority of the public supported going into Bosnia before we even went, despite Clinton's overblown claims meant to build public support. However, I was in that minority and supported the mission in Bosnia just like I do now with Iraq. That's why I don't feel duplicitous in the matter and that's why you are, because you allow your partisan hack blinders to affect your viewpoint on the subject. Your moronic O'Reilly comment demonstrates that very clearly. So if you want to try to convince yourself my comments come from some talking head that I've rarely even seen and don't particularly care for, go right ahead. It sure wouldn't be the first stupid assumption and incorrect knee-jerk accusation made against me in here and undoubtedly won't be the last either.

I don't think Bush lied, so I'm not one of those guys. I can sort of understand the sentiment that he lied, though honestly, I just think the guy has abhorrently bad judgment. Unlike Clinton, where Bosnia was justified based on the evidence, didn't last nearly as long or cost nearly as much as Iraq, and eventually succeeded.

With Bush, I think he just didn't realize that Tenet was being a political yes-man and not giving an honest assessment on WDM, that Cheney/Libby/Addington were acting with their own presidential agendas in mind ([pressuring intel analysts and making up their own executive powers), that Rumsfeld (like Cheney) had his own agenda WRT WMD, etc. He clearly just didn't have the good judgment to realize that he was being conned, because he's inadequate intellectually, and deep down I think he knows it.

I guess the Congress is just as stupid then. Amazing.

The bill was to give Bush a tool to get the inspectors back in Iraq, not to go to war. Bush said all along it was *NOT* a vote for war, war was last resort, etc.

Not one member of Congress was responsible for Bush breaking his word and using the bill very differently than he said he would - when he ordered the inspectors *out* of Iraq.

That was Bush's choice, and your point is utterly wrong.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Been smoking that Kool-Aid again? :shocked:

3 years of ranting and raving about how Bush lied. Even going so far as to write a song about it, and this is the best you can come up with?

I guess that just shows how petty your entire argument of Bush "lying" to the American people was to beging with.

Corbett, if a friend of yours tells you that some drunk guy with a huge conflict of interest had told him something, but he wouldn't say who, would you then start asking people to risk and lose their lives, based on the information, by spreading the word how you had 'solid info' they could rely on it was accurate?

If you can't see how that's at least incredibly irresponsible, and lying at least in the sense of misrepresenting the solid level of the info... you have issues.

And if you had a huge interests in pushing the point that the info helped with, as Bush had a huge interest in pushing war with Iraq, then it's worse.

Carig, you are the last person to tell someone they have issues. Again, you may be correct that the Bush admin trusted the wrong people for intel; however, that does not come anywhere close to the same thing as lying to Americans to go to war.

In other words, you won't answer what I said.

In other words, based on your previous crazy posts Im not even going to bother with you and your "what ifs" you are always throwing around. Your example doesnt even come close to comparing this situation.

You won't answer the question. You can't prove with argument anything wrong with it, you can only make unsupported claims. As usual, because you're an ideologue.

To asnwer you question...of course I wouldn't. But if I would, that still would not make me a liar.

Care to respond after your whining I wont answer? This is why I didnt want to bother with you in the first place.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I believe that it was known that the Bush administration wanted to get into Iraq when Bush first took office - and 911 gave them the opening they could use to justify this action..

With that they took the information that worked in favor of invading Iraq, ignoring that which cast doubt on WMDs - and pushed even harder, pulling out Hans Blix and his team before they could show the world that the claims of the U.S. were false...

as for the Congress after 911 - some were suckered, like most of the American people - partly out of faith in the President, but mostly out of fear of appearing "un-american..."

so, lose that little chestnut, rightwingers - because you know you'd have been accusing those opposing this war as such - un-american... as you still do now....

The main reason Congress was, as you claim, duped, is because they (Dems AND GOP) didnt read the fucking bill. Most didnt, and have admitted it. It's no ones fualt but their own.

Not even Congress can authorize a breach of the UN charter. If any nations governments were free to do so there would be no such thing as illegal warfare. Bush broke the UN charter by waging aggressive warfare (thereby breaking US law as the US is bound by the UN charter).

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
So I guess the article in this thread proves its not George W Bush who was lying to us, he just had bad intel. Just like most of us conservatives have been saying all along.

Been smoking that Kool-Aid again? :shocked:

3 years of ranting and raving about how Bush lied. Even going so far as to write a song about it, and this is the best you can come up with?

I guess that just shows how petty your entire argument of Bush "lying" to the American people was to beging with.

Corbett, if a friend of yours tells you that some drunk guy with a huge conflict of interest had told him something, but he wouldn't say who, would you then start asking people to risk and lose their lives, based on the information, by spreading the word how you had 'solid info' they could rely on it was accurate?

If you can't see how that's at least incredibly irresponsible, and lying at least in the sense of misrepresenting the solid level of the info... you have issues.

And if you had a huge interests in pushing the point that the info helped with, as Bush had a huge interest in pushing war with Iraq, then it's worse.

Carig, you are the last person to tell someone they have issues. Again, you may be correct that the Bush admin trusted the wrong people for intel; however, that does not come anywhere close to the same thing as lying to Americans to go to war.

In other words, you won't answer what I said.

In other words, based on your previous crazy posts Im not even going to bother with you and your "what ifs" you are always throwing around. Your example doesnt even come close to comparing this situation.

You won't answer the question. You can't prove with argument anything wrong with it, you can only make unsupported claims. As usual, because you're an ideologue.

To asnwer you question...of course I wouldn't. But if I would, that still would not make me a liar.

Care to respond after your whining I wont answer? This is why I didnt want to bother with you in the first place.

The fig leaf of bad intel doesn't wash. It wasn't only bad intel, the Bushies went out of their way to collect bad intel to create a fig leaf of plausability. No matter that this 'intel' was known to be crap and was shot full of holes and ridiculed internationally and even domestically in the US by some upstanding souls. Paranoia and ulterior motives are no excuses for the murder of thousands of people.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The amazing part of it all is that none of the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion was new, at all- it was just rehashed and re-spun in the wake of 9/11.

Prior to that event, it was suspect, murky, inconclusive at best... afterwards, it was gospel, inscribed on golden tablets brought down from the mount.

The neocon desire to invade Iraq was present and strong long before GWB entered the oval office- all they needed was an excuse, a pretext, some event that could be exploited to make it possible. 9/11 was that event. Conflation of Iraq and 9/11 was skillfully accomplished to make invasion possible. Of course they lied, the lot of them- but it was a "noble lie", right? So that makes it all OK in the minds if the faithful, if they can be said to have minds at all...

It's really nothing new, but rather the mob psychology of the third Reich translated into modern terms, the political science of Leo Strauss, godfather to the neocons.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Care to respond after your whining I wont answer? This is why I didnt want to bother with you in the first place.

The irony.

I would like to see Pabster, Corbett, JD50, and other supporters address my post above.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Corbett
Care to respond after your whining I wont answer? This is why I didnt want to bother with you in the first place.

The irony.

I would like to see Pabster, Corbett, JD50, and other supporters address my post above.

I'm not a GWB supporter, I'm just tired of the whole "GWB is a liar and murderer" bullshit. All you are doing is playing semantics. If you are going to accuse a politician of being a liar and murderer because they said "there is no doubt" when there *might* have been some doubt, then you need to start looking at every single member of congress, and every President that we have ever had. EVERYONE thought that Iraq had WMDs, everyone.

If there were "all of those articles/reports before we attacked that said we can't be certain" when he said this, why wasn't he called on it? Where were all of the Democrats? Why was he given the power to do whatever he wanted to do? If you want to say that the GWB administration over exaggerated, I'll agree with you there. But to call them liars, murderers, and traitors for doing what EVERY politician does is a little far fetched.

Edit - could you provide a link to your quote? I'd like to see the context.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett
Harvey, I searched and all I found was :

"war of lies"
"bush crime family"
"illegal and immoral war"
"treason"
"who's watching over you"
"foad putz"

Search harder. Either you're mouse challenged I guess you didn't listen when your mother told you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind. :shocked: :laugh:

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

Your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of are guilty of the MURDER of every American troop who has died in their war of LIES and of TREASON for shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

If you still want to contend the Bushwhackos didn't lie, either disprove every one of the above, or STFU.

Do you even understand the difference between lying and being wrong? If you did, you would have posted some evidence that they were lying. Now, please post a link showing us that they knew that Iraq did not have WMDs when they made these staments. Either prove it or STFU. You have been called out in just about every single one of your BDS crazed rants, now step away from your DailyKOS talking points and prove that the Bush administration knew that Iraq did not have WMDs.