Study: False Statements Preceded War

his promise to catch OBL was just another bush lie it would appear.
i don't think that was even in the lie tally.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you will chastise others for doing what your guy did too?
Click to expand...
Clinton wasn't "my guy" and what he did in the past does not give Bush a pass on letting him and the other leaders of Al Qaeda who planned and pulled off the WTC attack get away without an ass kicking.

As for having him on the run and marginalized, if that were truly the most important thing Bush would not have continued to hunt down Saddam who was responsible for far fewer US deaths and attacks on our soil than Al Qaeda and OBL
 
Socrtease said:
....
As for having him on the run and marginalized, if that were truly the most important thing Bush would not have continued to hunt down Saddam who was responsible for far fewer US deaths and attacks on our soil than Al Qaeda and OBL
Click to expand...

What makes you think that he's not?

Saddam assisted OBL so he had to go.
 
Socrtease said:
YOu know that there is probably enough evidence from this group to begin impeachment procedings but this isn't about a blow job this is about war so a couple little white lies to get us on our way to getting rid of such a bad man like Saddam is ok.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. You have to PROVE that Bush and Co KNEW Saddam did not have WMDs. Not that they turned out to be wrong. The reason the Dems wouldn't impeach is because they have no evidence to support their case. Nor do they have any justification to back why THEY voted to authorize force. They received (via the Senate and House intel commitees) the same damn intel that Bush was using. The same info. So the tired old excuse of "bush tricked us" is not going to fly.

Add in the fact that the Clinton admin was making the same kind of statements about Iraq and Saddam having WMDs and you know why they don't want to bring this up..... given a certain person with the same last name is very likely going to be their nominee.... and oh yeah, she voted to authorize force in Iraq and again in Iran and has not once said she was wrong in doing so.

Clinton was not impeached for a blow job.
 
Superfreak said:
The only way you marginalize Bin Laden is to kill him and all those that stand with him.
Click to expand...
Twice and with fanfare. I'd love to see their faces when they find out the only virgins are 16 year old EMO boys with zits and a flair for hacking.
 
Superfreak said:
The only way you marginalize Bin Laden is to kill him and all those that stand with him.
Click to expand...

false.

Killing bin laden only makes him a martyr. The muslim greviances he represents will live on. Most muslims may not agree with his methods, but a substantial number of them agree with his greivances. And he's inspired an anti-western movement that can't be stopped or killed with missles. It can only be contained, or managed, until we have a different paradigm for our relationship with the muslim world, and the middle east in particular.
 
uscitizen said:
Study: False Statements Preceded War


Jan 22, 9:17 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html
Click to expand...


If this isn't impeachable, I don't know what is.

If stuffing cigars into fat chicks and then lying about it is impeachable, then for this there should be prison time with bubba and his snake.
 
Beefy said:
If this isn't impeachable,
Click to expand...
It isn't.

I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
You don't, to no one's surprise.

Of course, the leftists carefully omit explaining why they believe Bush knew the info was false when it was presented. He didn't, in fact - he went with the strong recommendations of his advisers on both sides of the aisle, the vast majority of whome supported the conclusions at the time, for good reason.

There were literally hundreds of reports saying that Saddam had WMDs, was collaborating with Al Qaeda, etc., and a half dozen saying maybe he didn't. Now the Bush-bashers are screaming that he "knew" the hundreds were wrong and the few were right... again, carefully omitting any explanation of how he could have known.

This has been pointed out to the leftist hysterics many times, of course. Looks like enough time has passed since the BUSH LIED crowd was last smacked down and sent packing, that they think people will have forgotten, and they can bring up all their old, discredited accusations again and pretend they have a legitimate argument. The result is the standard circle jerk we're seeing here, with leftists earnestly telling each other how right they are, and few bothering to re-debunk them for the nth time.

Standard tactic of the left. No wonder they hate the "new media", including the internet... it won't forget what they want it to forget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top