Redhanded? The White House Deliberately Lied the Nation To War. What Now?

[RiversideGator]

Just because you posted something does not make it a "fact".

[JaguarReign]

NOTE:  Your opinions belong in politics.  But this thread belongs in news.  Your attempt to cover up the revelations that are ongoing in this case are contemptible, incidentally.

There are no new revelations in this, just the same old same old "Bush lied, people died" crap.

wow.  its nice to hear your support of the military dead man.   Just stellar.

Regardless of your opinion of politics, the fact that our young soldiers are dead isnt 'crap'.

Or maybe you thought that the armed forces were for suckers while you were away in Hawaii for college.

Your back hand opinion isnt going to bring a single one of those kids back to their mothers, wives or children.

But even if there werent the dead for you to dishonor like that, it would still be a crisis that a war was waged and then proven to be based on this kind of lie.

First of all, I was a military brat and have had many friends in Iraq. Some in the worst fighting of the war with the Army Rangers. I have heard first hand accounts by soldiers about millions of barrels of chemical weapons found in Iraq that are stockpiled. Plus, other weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Oh, also terror camps were also found in Iraq.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Uh oh sorry but Saddam did have some ties to terrorism. Plus, his gassing of the Kurds is well documented. Plus, many people in the Clinton administration spoke extensively about how dangerous Saddam really was. So, either the Clinton were in on it too or your so called evidence is shakey at best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVFYcxLiRGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gihJ3TpMjA

Oh and one other thing, the men and women in the military volunteered to be in the military, thus they were not forced to go to Iraq. It was what they chose to do.

[JaguarReign]

Another problem with your argument is saying that there are no ties to terrorism. However you can quote certain sources from biased websites on the left that say there is no link between Saddam and al-qaida, but I can quote other biased sources from the right that speak to the contrary.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/more_evidence_of_saddams_links.html

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/iraqis-publish-more-proof-that-links.html

And some not as biased.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-official-testifies-to-links-between-saddam/39631/

Thus, there seems to be just as many people who believe a link does actually exist. I think leftists and rightists are all ridiculous; so, I'll put it this way. It's somewhere in the middle. I believe there is a link but it wasn't strong. There is sufficient evidence that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion to mount up a pretty large contingent force in a hurry. Plus, in that part of the world Al-qaida had their hands in everything; so, to think that they were not in Iraq before the war whether cooperating with Saddam or not, is extremely naive. In addition, you imperialistic claims about the US are unfounded in any sort of logic after WWI.

[JaguarReign]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. You say that everyone agrees that there is no link, but my last post just showed you that not everybody agrees. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

[RiversideGator]

my god you run on about nothing, river.

BTW, your comments make you either a fool or a liar.  Please READ the story before you comment on it.  Or try and confine your idiotic posts to the politics thread where they belong.

Anything except face the facts.  (which by the way, are all contained within the posts and links above.  Stop being so dishonest and lazy and read them for yourself.)

ok.  I reread the article and posts.  Still not persuaded.  Perhaps you are the fool and liar then?   

[RiversideGator]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

Wow.  hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.

You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.

How exactly would you measure 'success'?

If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.

Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.

If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?

What an argument.   Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.

And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.

If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied.  By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).

Just to recap, a lie is:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

So, the elements of a lie are that:
1)  the statement made must be false,
2)  the person making the statement must know this and
3)  the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.

Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong.  This is not the case.  Hence, there was no lie.

[RiversideGator]

WHY do you post River.

Just to hear air escaping your bowels?

This would actually describe your posts.  You love to hear yourself talk.  I, on the other hand, prefer to debunk liberal myths.

You are in direct contradiction to everything that both the government and the proven documentation has to say about it.

Post documentation which proves that Bush lied.  And give me primary sources, not your second hand interpretation.

Your are not a stupid man, just apparently a liar who doesnt care how monstrous the lies you tell are, so long as you don't have to face the prospect that your ideology is wrong.

hahaha..  ok..  More projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You supported this little liar in the White House, and now you are unsuccessfully trying to carry his water.

So, River.  Did Saddam meet with muhammed atta or not?

1)  You still havent proven Bush lied.  See above definition of a "lie".
2)  I have no idea if Saddam met with Atta.  It is established that Saddam supported terrorism generally though.

[JaguarReign]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

Wow.  hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.

You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.

How exactly would you measure 'success'?

If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.

Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.

If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?

What an argument.   Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.

And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.

Common leftist strategy when backed into a corner, take what you want out of my post and throw the rest out. Not surprised. Just because you read a book that says Bush intentially lied, doesn't mean it's right. There are hundreds of books written to the contrary. Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion, the question is whether or not Saddam was cooperating with them or not. If you can't admit that, than there is no need for further debate. It is naive to think otherwise.

[Midway ®]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

Wow.  hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.

You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.

How exactly would you measure 'success'?

If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.

Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.

If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?

What an argument.   Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.

And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.

Common leftist strategy when backed into a corner, take what you want out of my post and throw the rest out. Not surprised. Just because you read a book that says Bush intentially lied, doesn't mean it's right. There are hundreds of books written to the contrary. Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion, the question is whether or not Saddam was cooperating with them or not. If you can't admit that, than there is no need for further debate. It is naive to think otherwise.

Nice, constructing a 30 story tower on quicksand. "Hardly anybody disagrees with the fact that [sic] Al-qaida was in Iraq before the US invasion,"  Almost EVERYBODY disagrees with there being an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion and occupation of that country. So you have built your argument on a basic faulty premise, which is the hallmark of the "dittohead" culture. Suggest you continue to obtain additional "talking points" from your leaders, so as to sound more "plausible".

I think that you may have mistaken this thread for the ESPN discussion group.

[Midway ®]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

Wow.  hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.

You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.

How exactly would you measure 'success'?

If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.

Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.

If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?

What an argument.   Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.

And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.

If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied.  By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).

Just to recap, a lie is:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

So, the elements of a lie are that:
1)  the statement made must be false,
2)  the person making the statement must know this and
3)  the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.

Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong.  This is not the case.  Hence, there was no lie.

I guess that what you are saying is that none of your statements meet the criteria necessary to rise to the standard of being a lie. 

I'm not sure where that leaves you, though. Just my opinion, of course.

[RiversideGator]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/intelligence_07-09-04.html

July 9, 2004, 1:10pm EDT
PANEL CRITICIZES CIA FOR INCORRECT IRAQ INTELLIGENCE

A bipartisan Senate report released Friday found that U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to "group think" assumptions about Iraq that led to incorrect assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report, which was partly edited for security reasons, criticized the intelligence community for numerous failures in their reporting on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found.

The report said conclusions in an October 2002 report on Iraq's weapons programs "either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytical trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters that assessments of Iraq's chemical and biological weapon capabilities and reports that Saddam's regime could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.

Roberts said the intelligence community suffered from "collective group think" when it reached conclusions about Iraq's weapons programs.

"This 'group think' caused the community to interpret ambiguous evidence, such as the procurement of dual-use technology, as conclusive evidence of the existence of WMD programs," he told reporters.

But Roberts added that the problems reached beyond the CIA and other American agencies, calling the Iraq situation "a global intelligence failure."

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, told reporters, "tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

Rockefeller went on to question the Bush administration for using the faulty information to make its case for military action against Iraq.

"The administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war, we would not have authorized that war, with 75 votes, if we knew what we know now," he said.

President Bush relied on U.S. intelligence suggesting that Iraq was aggressively pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs as a key justification for his decision to go to war in 2003.

White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

The report said it found no evidence that administration officials pressured agencies to change their judgments on Iraq weapons programs.

"The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities," it said.

However, Rockefeller said that he thought the report used too narrow a definition of pressure, and said the "cascade of ominous statements" about Iraq, including assertions about its links to al-Qaida, created an "ambiance" that pressured analysts. He also told reporters that the ombudsman of the Central Intelligence Agency cited pressure in the form of "hammering on analysts was greater than he had seen in his 32 years of service."

Over Democratic objections, the committee decided to delay a second report on how the Bush administration used the intelligence until after the presidential election.

"There is a real frustration over what is not in this report ... after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?" Rockefeller asked.

The report accused departing CIA Director George Tenet of skewing advice to top policy-makers and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State and Defense departments.

Intelligence analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

The report said the CIA had no human intelligence sources in Iraq after U.N. inspectors left in 1998. It also reported that U.S. agencies relied too heavily on Iraqi exiles, who were eager to see the United States invade their country, and foreign intelligence services for information, but were unable to check the reliability of such reports.

The panel also found fixing the problems uncovered in their investigation will be difficult because many of them stem from a "broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel."

Uhh Stephen, this article supports my contention that intelligence failures resulted in an overestimate of Saddam's WMD programs and that Bush (and everyone else) relied on this incorrect intelligence.  Thus, there was no lie.  Thanks for helping to prove my point.   

[RiversideGator]

River, there have been 8 direct sourcing links already posted.

You are treading right onto the territory of just appearing donkeylike.

If nothing can convince you, then crawl back into that same cave where you nurse your fantasies that global warming is just a big 'conspiracy'.

The VERY FIRST POST CONTAINS THE INFORMATION THAT BUSH DIRECTED THE CIA TO FORGE A LETTER PROVING ATTA MET WITH SADDAM.

This is a lie.   By its definition.

If you do not know whether or not Saddam met with Atta, what the hell are you weighing in on this conversation for?

Your very first post contains an article about a book which relies on the claims of a crackpot as "proof" that Bush did what you claim he did.  This is not only 4th hand hearsay but it is only credible if you are the sort of person who believes everything negative ever said about Bush (and you are that kind of person).

I said I do not know if Atta met with Saddam because it is unknown.  It is impossible to conclusively prove it one way or the other.  Either way, it does not matter as the 9/11-Saddam connection is not necessary to make a good case for taking down Saddam Hussein.

[RiversideGator]

Attention Jaquar.

Since you are too lazy to either listen to what W. or Cheney have said, even though I took the trouble to post them for your education, or to bother reading what actually happened, which is that the White House ordered a forgery to promote lies, perhaps you can answer this:  Did Saddam meet with Mohamed Atta?

Additionally, I highly doubt that you know the first thing about 'left wingers' and couldnt identify an actual left winger if you saw one.  So please don't try to explain to anyone what a 'typical left wing' anything is.

It makes you sound, if possible, less informed than you would otherwise.

Dont worry Jaguar.  You know you are scoring points on Stephen when he starts to insult you and call you a liar.  This means you are winning the debate and he cannot produce proof to support his political fantasies.   

[RiversideGator]

Conspiracy theories? How convenient coming from such a huge conspiracy theorist himself. Well, all I really agree with wholeheartedly is that Al-qaida was in Iraq before the war. Whether Saddam cooperated with them or not is something I haven't researched enough, but saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism. You are bringing old news that are most likely fabrications or hyperbole because, frankly, the Iraq War is now a success. There is no question about that. The only people who don't believe that are the ones who bow down to and throw rose pedals in front of Obama's feet.

Wow.  hate to say this, but you seriously dont know what the hell you are talking about.

You are clearly not in contact with people in the military if you are repeating bullshit like this.

How exactly would you measure 'success'?

If you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are throwing Rose Petals at Obama, you are totally out to lunch.

Please google the subject before you embarrass yourself further.

If they find out who killed Jon-Benet Ramsey, I suppose you think that we should just drop the charges since its been so long, right?

What an argument.   Im not going to waste any further time discussing this with you btw.

And thanks for giving W. the moral right to Lie.

If by "lie" you mean Bush did something which Stephen does not like, then Bush lied.  By the standard definition however, no such thing happened (at least not that has been proven).

Just to recap, a lie is:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

So, the elements of a lie are that:
1)  the statement made must be false,
2)  the person making the statement must know this and
3)  the statement must be made with an intent to deceive the listeners.

Given the fact that the Clinton administration and the intelligence services of several countries also believed that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs and the fact that some elements of WMDs were found, Bush's statements could not have been lies unless he was privy to information that proved that the above were wrong.  This is not the case.  Hence, there was no lie.

I guess that what you are saying is that none of your statements meet the criteria necessary to rise to the standard of being a lie. 

I'm not sure where that leaves you, though. Just my opinion, of course.

I know where it leaves you.   

[Driven1]

this is clearly national politics bickering at this point.