Study: False Statements Preceded War

Onceler said:
Damo & Super - would you classify a deliberate attempt to stack the evidence & mislead the American people as "lying"?
Click to expand...
I would. However, opinion is what you wind up with using this. You have to be able to prove what they knew and when they knew it, it is unreliable to assume that because it was listed as an opinion it was taken as seriously as other intel and that they were deliberately and knowingly saying that there was something there that wasn't. I mean, crap. Were all those other people before Bush was in office attempting to use "scare tactics"? And to what aim?

Heck, I was the one saying, "These 'WMD' are not all that 'Mass' capable as they are making out." While everybody else was arguing about whether or not they were there.

Sarin is just not deadly enough without the means to deliver it constantly. Imagine if it were really all that deadly when the Japanese terrorists released it in the subway why were there so few deaths?

Point being, whether or not they were there was pointless. They weren't deadly enough to be used reliably as a terrorist weapon. Especially when it is so much cheaper and hard to detect to make an IED as well as more efficacious in attacks.
 
Desh said:
I dont understand what you want?
Click to expand...

He wants the love of his life, George W. Bush, to be absolved of all wrongdoing for lying to get us into a long, costly war, and for most of the blame to go to Dems who "said there were WMD's too, dammit!"
 
They KNEW that their Iraqi source had been downgraded by the CIA as unreliable but went with his statements as "sources tell us". It was one source and he proved to be a liar and THEY KNEW IT before the SOTU speech.
 
In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

There is no doubt they KNEW they were spreading falsehoods
 
"I would. However, opinion is what you wind up with using this"

Sure; the opinion of British intel, Colin Powell's aide, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clark, the Downing Street Memo, Paul Wolfowicz and anyone who saw that 2003 State of the Union speech, among others.

Good call.
 
Onceler said:
"I would. However, opinion is what you wind up with using this"

Sure; the opinion of British intel, Colin Powell's aide, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clark, the Downing Street Memo, Paul Wolfowicz and anyone who saw that 2003 State of the Union speech, among others.

Good call.
Click to expand...
I still think it is pointless because even if the 'WMD' were there, they were unlikely to ever be a terrorist weapon for the reasons I previously expounded and spoke of before we ever went to war.

I thought it was generally baseless regardless of 'WMD'.
 
Socrtease said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier.... The Senate and House Intel committees are privy to the same intel. They can request briefings to provide the more sensitive areas that are not included in the paper reports they receive. If this was so "cherry picked" by Bush.... why were the Dems talking the same talking points? Were they all misleading us? Are they ALL liars? Or are we going to continue to play the game that says it was all Bush?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Take a look down towards the bottom at Hillary's comments.... from October 2002. (SHE also makes a connection to Al Queda.... though also points out Saddam had no part in 9/11)

Next take a look at Kerry's comments from January 2003. HE states Saddam needs to be disarmed as well. Yet why does this "study" not show the "false statements" of Kerry, Clinton and company???? Partisan bullshit anyone?

The DIFFERENCE is in the respective individuals faith in the UN. Obviously from their comments, both thought the UN capable of finding a backbone after 12 years and suddenly being able to solve the issue. Bush did not share that view.... though he did give a little window dressing "extra time" for the UN from October 2002 to March 2003. (mainly because we had to build up troop presence anyway)

Ultimately the difference is settled by the CIC. He went with his point of view on the UN and Saddam. Just as previous Presidents have done when confronted with decisions like this. If there is disagreement, then someone has to make the final call. As President that responsibility lies with Bush.

He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data. He made a judgement call. He was wrong. That does not make him a liar (on this issue).... and to call him such, when members of the opposing party were saying very similar comments is partisan hackery.

All of the above does not change the following...

1) The war was ill-timed

2) Bush was wrong about the WMDs

3) Bush completely mismanaged critical aspects of this war that resulted in a nightmare scenario, that while recently seeing improvements, still remains a long way from being resolved.
 
Onceler said:
"I would. However, opinion is what you wind up with using this"

Sure; the opinion of British intel, Colin Powell's aide, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clark, the Downing Street Memo, Paul Wolfowicz and anyone who saw that 2003 State of the Union speech, among others.

Good call.
Click to expand...

The same British intel that stated Saddam was buying the yellow cake? A claim that to my knowledge they still claim to be accurate?
 
Superfreak: can you really say with a straight face that Bush did not cherrypick intelligence to make a case for war?
 
Superfreak said:
The same British intel that stated Saddam was buying the yellow cake? A claim that to my knowledge they still claim to be accurate?
Click to expand...

How may people need to say "the intel was fixed around a the policy" until you believe it?

Have you read the testimony from Powell's aide? Have you read the Downing Street memo? Have you read the text from Bush's 2003 State of the Union, which contains a blatant lie that I keep pointing out, but which you keep ignoring?

How can anyone conclude that Bush did not cherrypick the intel to make a case for war?

You're like Dixie now. You have crossed that line. You are a complete, unmitigated partisan hack. I'll expect your "I love Bush in blue jeans" thread any ol' day now.

Congrats....
 
LMAO..............@ el Beefy

Beefy said:
I'm nowhere near the left, except on social issues.

I'm actually pretty far right on foreign policy issues.

Would you consider Pat Buchanan to be a part of this nebulous "left" you describe?

Anyhow, its pretty clear to anyone who can take their mouth off of W's ass long enough to see for themselves, that this war was sold on pure bullshit.

FYI, worshipping a failed republican does not a "Conservative" make.

Remember that.
Click to expand...



Beefy you haven't even mastered true employment...yet you criticize others who have...back to the sun and fun and lotsa mai tais...:cof1:
 
Onceler said:
He wants the love of his life, George W. Bush, to be absolved of all wrongdoing for lying to get us into a long, costly war, and for most of the blame to go to Dems who "said there were WMD's too, dammit!"
Click to expand...

Right, because that is what I said. What a partisan hack you have become. I never "absolved" Bush from anything. I simply think it retarded for those on the left to continue with this little charade that Bush tricked them. I do not want "most of the blame" going to the Dems. I just want you to actually be HONEST for a moment and recognize they were saying the same types of things that you call Bush a liar for. Yet, they are somehow absolved by you because they are a part of the jackass party.

So in conclusion.... fuck off you little partisan hack. Because no matter how much I criticize Bush, you always come back to ignorant comments like you made above.

I notice you do not address the fact that your beloved Dems were making the same statements that you found so abhoring when Bush and Co made them. Oh thats right, because the Dems in DC are a bunch of complete morons and were tricked by the genius of Bush.
 
Onceler said:
How may people need to say "the intel was fixed around a the policy" until you believe it?

Have you read the testimony from Powell's aide? Have you read the Downing Street memo? Have you read the text from Bush's 2003 State of the Union, which contains a blatant lie that I keep pointing out, but which you keep ignoring?

How can anyone conclude that Bush did not cherrypick the intel to make a case for war?

You're like Dixie now. You have crossed that line. You are a complete, unmitigated partisan hack. I'll expect your "I love Bush in blue jeans" thread any ol' day now.

Congrats....
Click to expand...

And you are like Toby.....

Have you read anything I have posted? NO, you continue with your ignorant diatribe about Bush, yet fail to address why it is that your Dem leaders came to similar conclusions.

You continually ACT as though Bush was able to prevent the Intel committees from receiving the contradictory intel. Yet that is not the case.

I hold them all accountable for their actions. I have stated where Bush fucked up. You, the true partisan hack, refuse to acknowledge your precious little Dems fucked up as well.
 
Onceler said:
How may people need to say "the intel was fixed around a the policy" until you believe it?

Have you read the testimony from Powell's aide? Have you read the Downing Street memo? Have you read the text from Bush's 2003 State of the Union, which contains a blatant lie that I keep pointing out, but which you keep ignoring?

How can anyone conclude that Bush did not cherrypick the intel to make a case for war?

You're like Dixie now. You have crossed that line. You are a complete, unmitigated partisan hack. I'll expect your "I love Bush in blue jeans" thread any ol' day now.

Congrats....
Click to expand...


How can anyone conclude that Bush did not cherrypick the intel to make a case for war? You're like Dixie now. You have crossed that line.


- TYLER DRUMHELLER, Bush’s top CIA officer in Europe: “charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq. “

-PAUL R. PILLAR, Bush’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East: accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

-RICHARD DEARLOVE, British MI6 Intelligence Chief: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

-PAUL O’NEIL, Secretary of Treasury, member of National Security Council: "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction..."For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap,"

-GREG THEILMAN, Bush’s Director of Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, U.S. State Department: “I’m afraid i think the American public was seriously misled.”

-GENERAL ANTHONY ZINNI: CentCom Commander, and Bush’s Middle East Envoy: “In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "…I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

-FLYNT LEVERETT, Dubya’s former senior director, National Security Council: “"Those Americans (in Iraq) are dying because this administration screwed up…The Bush administration heard what they wanted to hear. They were not willing to face reality and were not willing to pay the price for resources for their ambition”

-LT. COLONEL KAREN KWIATKOWSKI, senior analyst, Rummy's Pentagon Office of Special Projects: "the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq..."
Click to expand...
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

The congress was not given the same Intel Bush had access to.

Bush lied to them also.



Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23

A congressional report 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.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top