Study: False Statements Preceded War

Onceler said:
The main point, once again, flying at a very comfortable altitude above your head....
Click to expand...

Actually it is sailing over your head my friend. The point of the argument is the non-stop chant of "Bush lied". Yet, if that were the case, then the Dems were lying right along side of him. Yet not one of you is claiming that. You all continue to ignore the fact that they had a similar.... "Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is dangerous" chant going on. The only disagreement was the need to go to war.

The Dems had the same intel as Bush. They had the contrarian intel as well. (it is required that the Senate and House intel committees receive the intel so as to ensure the President doesn't do exactly what you are chanting he did) Yet they did not come out and say... "we now believe Saddam doesn't have WMDs" or that "we are no longer sure Saddam has WMDs".

Again, Bush had contrarian intel. He had to make a decision on which to use. He did. It turns out he used the wrong intel. Did his desire to go to war with Saddam effect his decision on which to use?.... probably. But that again doesn't change the fact that our leaders in both parties thought he had WMDs.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually it is sailing over your head my friend. The point of the argument is the non-stop chant of "Bush lied". Yet, if that were the case, then the Dems were lying right along side of him. Yet not one of you is claiming that. You all continue to ignore the fact that they had a similar.... "Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is dangerous" chant going on. The only disagreement was the need to go to war.

The Dems had the same intel as Bush. They had the contrarian intel as well. (it is required that the Senate and House intel committees receive the intel so as to ensure the President doesn't do exactly what you are chanting he did) Yet they did not come out and say... "we now believe Saddam doesn't have WMDs" or that "we are no longer sure Saddam has WMDs".

Again, Bush had contrarian intel. He had to make a decision on which to use. He did. It turns out he used the wrong intel. Did his desire to go to war with Saddam effect his decision on which to use?.... probably. But that again doesn't change the fact that our leaders in both parties thought he had WMDs.
Click to expand...


Superfreak - The intel committees did not have all of the same intelligence that the president had. They did have the NIE, but not the daily briefings and updates that the president receives.
 
Dungheap said:
Superfreak - The intel committees did not have all of the same intelligence that the president had. They did have the NIE, but not the daily briefings and updates that the president receives.
Click to expand...


I'd also add that the member of congress that had the NIE were prohibited from speaking publicly about it because of classification concerns. Not surprisingly, the contrarian information was all contained in the classified portions.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually it is sailing over your head my friend. The point of the argument is the non-stop chant of "Bush lied". Yet, if that were the case, then the Dems were lying right along side of him. Yet not one of you is claiming that. You all continue to ignore the fact that they had a similar.... "Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is dangerous" chant going on. The only disagreement was the need to go to war.

The Dems had the same intel as Bush. They had the contrarian intel as well. (it is required that the Senate and House intel committees receive the intel so as to ensure the President doesn't do exactly what you are chanting he did) Yet they did not come out and say... "we now believe Saddam doesn't have WMDs" or that "we are no longer sure Saddam has WMDs".

Again, Bush had contrarian intel. He had to make a decision on which to use. He did. It turns out he used the wrong intel. Did his desire to go to war with Saddam effect his decision on which to use?.... probably. But that again doesn't change the fact that our leaders in both parties thought he had WMDs.
Click to expand...


Truly, truly pathetic. You are ignoring entirely the most important aspect of this: how the intel was used. Bush clearly cherrypicked to make a CASE FOR WAR.

How do you keep missing that? Dems & others talked about WMD's, and the need to disarm Saddam...but most favored continued, enforced inspections, which Hans Blix said as late as March of '03 were WORKING.

Bush cherrypicked to make a case for war, and it worked, and now we're in a total mess, as we have been for over 4 years. How can you be so dismissive of that? There is no "well, the Dems did it, too." No one besides the admin was pushing for war.

What a hack...
 
Superfreak said:
Actually it is sailing over your head my friend. The point of the argument is the non-stop chant of "Bush lied". Yet, if that were the case, then the Dems were lying right along side of him. Yet not one of you is claiming that. You all continue to ignore the fact that they had a similar.... "Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is dangerous" chant going on. The only disagreement was the need to go to war.

The Dems had the same intel as Bush. They had the contrarian intel as well. (it is required that the Senate and House intel committees receive the intel so as to ensure the President doesn't do exactly what you are chanting he did) Yet they did not come out and say... "we now believe Saddam doesn't have WMDs" or that "we are no longer sure Saddam has WMDs".

Again, Bush had contrarian intel. He had to make a decision on which to use. He did. It turns out he used the wrong intel. Did his desire to go to war with Saddam effect his decision on which to use?.... probably. But that again doesn't change the fact that our leaders in both parties thought he had WMDs.
Click to expand...


"The Dems had the same intel as Bush. They had the contrarian intel as well."


"Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress"

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005

A congressional report – by the Non-partisan Congressinal Research Service - made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
Superfreak - The intel committees did not have all of the same intelligence that the president had. They did have the NIE, but not the daily briefings and updates that the president receives.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? It is my understanding that they receive the same intel as the President. I do not know if it is a daily update, but I do believe they get all the same details as the President.
 
Onceler said:
Truly, truly pathetic. You are ignoring entirely the most important aspect of this: how the intel was used. Bush clearly cherrypicked to make a CASE FOR WAR.

How do you keep missing that? Dems & others talked about WMD's, and the need to disarm Saddam...but most favored continued, enforced inspections, which Hans Blix said as late as March of '03 were WORKING.

Bush cherrypicked to make a case for war, and it worked, and now we're in a total mess, as we have been for over 4 years. How can you be so dismissive of that? There is no "well, the Dems did it, too." No one besides the admin was pushing for war.

What a hack...
Click to expand...

My point that you continue to ignore is that you and other "hacks" continue using the "Bush lied about Saddam having WMDs" chant. Yet your party leaders were saying the same damn thing. You just stated that. Yet not once have I heard any of you "hacks" state that they lied about the WMDs or the threat they said Saddam posed.

Why is that lorax?
 
Bush lied about the imminence of the threat; he lied about Curveball; he lied about the uniformity of the intelligence, and he cherrypicked only that information which would alarm Americans & support a decision that was already made to invade Iraq. Maybe cherrypicking isn't a "lie" by definition, but it is dishonest as hell.

Personally, the kind of President I want is the kind who will bend over backwards to avoid war; the kind that will look for any scrap of info that might point to war being unnecessary, not the opposite. Maybe that's just me.

Your attempts to try to equate the statements of Democrats on WMD's with Bush's coordinated effort to cherrypick & make a case for war are absolutely pathetic. They are 2 different topics. Nothing the Democrats did with the intel that they had equates with what Bush did.
 
Superfreak's whole gig on this board, it to make sure that Democrats share equally in the share of the blame for Iraq, the Bush ecnonomy, government corruption, and a host of other issues.

It's bascially what Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing spin maching do, as well. Virtually noboby is claiming anymore that Bush is anything but an abject failure. The only recourse is too share the blame equally, with the other party.
 
Dungheap said:
You are mistaken:

http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/congress.pdf
Click to expand...

A very informative piece. Thank you for providing it. Have you read it? Because pages 9-13 pretty much cover what Congress does and does not get. The paper also discusses (top of page 9) that Congess (especially the intel committees) has access to briefings which can contain the more sensitive information such as sourcing and methods (that are generally withheld).
 
Onceler said:
Bush lied about the imminence of the threat; he lied about Curveball; he lied about the uniformity of the intelligence, and he cherrypicked only that information which would alarm Americans & support a decision that was already made to invade Iraq. Maybe cherrypicking isn't a "lie" by definition, but it is dishonest as hell.

Personally, the kind of President I want is the kind who will bend over backwards to avoid war; the kind that will look for any scrap of info that might point to war being unnecessary, not the opposite. Maybe that's just me.

Your attempts to try to equate the statements of Democrats on WMD's with Bush's coordinated effort to cherrypick & make a case for war are absolutely pathetic. They are 2 different topics. Nothing the Democrats did with the intel that they had equates with what Bush did.
Click to expand...


Well then, I will make this agreement with you. Tell your idiotic Dem hacks to stop chanting "he lied about the WMDs" and I will stop having to show them why he did nothing different on that topic than the Dems.
 
"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."

This was the original post Lorax. Talking about the "study" that showed Bush "lied about the WMDs". Yes, he stated unequivocally that Saddam had them. Big fucking deal. A lot of people did the same. I believe he and the Dems thought Saddam did indeed possess them. The vast bulk of this "study" is based on his belief that Saddam possessed the WMDs.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, it's quite remarkably well sourced if you bothered to check it out.
Click to expand...
Probably. Most won't have time to. The reality is, it doesn't prove anybody lied. While we may agree that there was exaggeration and hyperbole leading to the invasion of Iraq, this is not "proof" that they lied, just an agreement of opinion.

However the article was not sourced it said "two nonprofit journalism organizations" and didn't bother to inform that the study was paid for by Soros.
 
Damo & Super - would you classify a deliberate attempt to stack the evidence & mislead the American people as "lying"?
 
Superfreak said:
Well then, I will make this agreement with you. Tell your idiotic Dem hacks to stop chanting "he lied about the WMDs" and I will stop having to show them why he did nothing different on that topic than the Dems.
Click to expand...



http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarC...ject_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946


Please read this sample of the study.

In it you will find a statement and then it will be followed by a fact which proves they knew what they were saying was bullshit.
 
Superfreak said:
My point that you continue to ignore is that you and other "hacks" continue using the "Bush lied about Saddam having WMDs" chant. Yet your party leaders were saying the same damn thing. You just stated that. Yet not once have I heard any of you "hacks" state that they lied about the WMDs or the threat they said Saddam posed.

Why is that lorax?
Click to expand...
Bush made sure the intel was cherry picked. If you watch "Why we fight" one of the people in the movie is a retired Lt. Col who worked at the pentagon and she was one of the people that put together info on Saddam. She says right on the film that when they cameout with the info that Saddam was actively seeking WMD's that the report said WAS as in "in the past" and had stopped over a decade before the war. She said she saw the raw data and KNOWS for a fact that the intel was picked through so that ONLY the info that would support a march toward war would be heard by anyone.
 
Superfreak said:
Well then, I will make this agreement with you. Tell your idiotic Dem hacks to stop chanting "he lied about the WMDs" and I will stop having to show them why he did nothing different on that topic than the Dems.
Click to expand...


Your president proactively embarked on a massive sales campaign, to sell a war on exaggerated, false, cherry picked, and misleading information. Information that he had more access to than congress.

The fact that some cowardly demoncrats in congress acted as bobble-heads, and nodded their heads in agreement if a cause for grave concern, but does not alleviate the fact that your president led the charge to sell the war, that the massive public relations campaign was run out of his office, and he AND HE ALONE decided to attack iraq in march 2003.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top