'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

[Big Don]

[SIZE=+2]'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Washington Post Story[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Excerpt:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17
[/SIZE]
Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
(((END EXCERPT)))
substantiated by intelligence information...

 

[Bester]

Ah yes, that same high quality, up to date, and reliable "intelligence" that has shown us where those WMD are, helped us to eliminate Osama, quickly allowed us to recover unharmed countless hostages like Eugene Armstrong and Nick Berg.

Great intellegence there Donny. I wouldn't trust these morons to tell me the way to Walmart if we were standing in the Walmart parking lot, next to a sign that said "Walmart 10 feet" andd a big ****ing arrow pointing in the direction of said same Walmart.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Actually, we did have reliable intellegnce that Iraq at one point had WMDs. The problem is, we knew they had them in the early 90's. We didn't know if they still had them, and if so, what and how much. How do we know they had them? Two reasons:
1, We GAVE THEM WMDS!!!!!
2, We WATCHED them USE them against the Kurds in the north of there own country and against Iran.

 

[Bester]

Even I know you don't plan a trip cross country using 20 year old maps. I would certainly hope that those who plan for war, would use more recent information. Maybe something from the last few months maybe.

 

[CuongNhuka]

The problem is that the war really had nothing to do with WMDs. It had nothing to do with a dictorial state. In my Gov. class the teacher mentioned some source (I cann't remember if it was from the CIA World Fact Book or something associated with the UN), it ranked countries by degree of Democracy v Dictorial-ness. Pre-war was not the biggest, or the baddest. That would be Mynamar or North Korea (they were in a tie). North Korea is making nukes. And they admitted it too! Keep in mind a WMD includes more then nukes. It includes biological and chemical weapons, and a few other things. We gave Hussien various chemical agents and nerve gases.
So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade. We also had a bigger justifcation to invade Saudi Arabi (7 of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, and we're pretty sure a good deal of funding came from there also). Well, we could use the fact that they had WMDs as a justifaction to invade. And by saying "we have reasonable intellgence" they can get away with saying (in reality) "we know they did have them, we think they might still have one or two, besides, why else wouldn't they let us in?"

 

[Bester]

Thank you. :asian:

 

[Big Don]

Even I know you don't plan a trip cross country using 20 year old maps. I would certainly hope that those who plan for war, would use more recent information. Maybe something from the last few months maybe.

Uh, you do realize part of the Cease Fire agreement after Saddam's forces were kicked out of Kuwait was that He (Saddam) would allow UN inspectors to verify he had no more chemical and biological weapons, and that for over a decade he defied that, expelling the inspectors, etc, and THAT is one reason among many stated that he had to be removed from power.

 

[Bester]

Uh huh. I seem to recall reading that the UN inspectors said he was clean at the time just prior to the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
This article concerns the Iraqi government's use, possession, and alleged intention of acquiring more types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. During his reign of several decades, he was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against civilians and in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the 1991 Gulf War he also engaged in a decade-long confrontation with the United Nations and its weapons inspectors, which ended in the 2003 invasion by the United States.

The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections by the U.N. restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[1] but hadn't turned up any evidence of actual WMDs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of WMDs were found, leading to accusations that the United States, its President George W. Bush in particular, had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weaponized WMDs and weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq's chemical weapons program did indeed cease production after 1991. The Iraq Survey Group found indications that Saddam intended to resume WMD activities if and when military sanctions were lifted.[2]

 

[Big Don]

The problem is that the war really had nothing to do with WMDs. It had nothing to do with a dictorial state. In my Gov. class the teacher mentioned some source (I cann't remember if it was from the CIA World Fact Book or something associated with the UN), it ranked countries by degree of Democracy v Dictorial-ness. Pre-war was not the biggest, or the baddest. That would be Mynamar or North Korea (they were in a tie). North Korea is making nukes. And they admitted it too! Keep in mind a WMD includes more then nukes. It includes biological and chemical weapons, and a few other things. We gave Hussien various chemical agents and nerve gases.

Sold, not gave

So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade.

Um, why then aren't we taking any of that oil if that is what we invaded for?

We also had a bigger justifcation to invade Saudi Arabi (7 of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, and we're pretty sure a good deal of funding came from there also).

Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi, but, don't let that interrupt your display of ignorance

Well, we could use the fact that they had WMDs as a justifaction to invade. And by saying "we have reasonable intellgence" they can get away with saying (in reality) "we know they did have them, we think they might still have one or two, besides, why else wouldn't they let us in?"

Did you read the link in the OP? EVERY ASSERTION MADE by the Bush administration was

Substantiated by intelligence information.

.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

faulty intellegence?

 

[jlhummel]

What if bush wasnt lied to but lead by the nose to do what the inteligence community and others wanted him to do? What if he was given and lead to do what others knew he would do if he was given the information and the needed reasons for invading Iraq? The comittees that over see the information given to the president have both republicans and democrats on them.

 

[Twin Fist]

So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade.

oh please tell me you are not trotting out THAT one.

Listen up.

Saddam told the UN he had the WMD's and would use them if we invaded

Interviews with Saddams Military have proven that Saddam told THEM he had WMD's and would use them if we invaded

when someone tells the police he has a gun, the police act as if he does.

think about it for a second, son..........

 

[elder999]

EVERY ASSERTION MADE by the Bush administration was .

Yeah, but all that intelligence was "qualified." USed words like "likelihood." Was even, at times, negatively qualified, as in "We doubt it." He and his fellows used it and asserted it as truth, knowing that it might not be. Legally, that's lying, and constitutes fraud. Of course, had Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as everyone was guessing, assuming, taking for granted, the point would be moot. As it is, since no WMD's were found, those assertions proved to be unfounded, and based on information that should not have been asserted as truth-whatever the whole world believed. In short, Bush and Co. had reason to believe that what they were saying might be true, and maybe even most likely was true, but they also had reason-in the form of that same intelligence-to believe that it might not be. To present it as fact, when in fact they did not know it to be fact, is, and always was, lying.

It's that simple.

 

[Twin Fist]

no, it isnt

you want it to be, you DREAM of it being that simple, but it isnt.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Um, why then aren't we taking any of that oil if that is what we invaded for?

Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).

 

[Bester]

At the time of the US invasion, a number of respectable individual who were in the know were calling bunk on the "Official" reasons. Those people were shouted down by the WarHawks. They are now being slowly vindicated as "reason" after "reason" is destroyed. The "Blind Patrots" are being shown to be the unthinking fools we've always known them to be.

 

[Kreth]

Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).

I heard a piece on NPR a few weeks ago which stated that futures trading has a lot to do with the spike in gas prices. The rate of increase for gas prices is far outpacing the rate of increase for crude.
And to the OP, DUH! What's your next thread gonna be, Paris Hilton is an untalented skank? :lol:

 

[punisher73]

Yeah, but all that intelligence was "qualified." USed words like "likelihood." Was even, at times, negatively qualified, as in "We doubt it." He and his fellows used it and asserted it as truth, knowing that it might not be. Legally, that's lying, and constitutes fraud. Of course, had Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as everyone was guessing, assuming, taking for granted, the point would be moot. As it is, since no WMD's were found, those assertions proved to be unfounded, and based on information that should not have been asserted as truth-whatever the whole world believed. In short, Bush and Co. had reason to believe that what they were saying might be true, and maybe even most likely was true, but they also had reason-in the form of that same intelligence-to believe that it might not be. To present it as fact, when in fact they did not know it to be fact, is, and always was, lying.

It's that simple.

Let's not rewrite history based on people's views of Bush now. There was an overwhelming belief by the world’s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israeli’s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country. As a reminder, the US Senate (that had the same intel that Bush had and looked at) voted 77-23 in favor of going to war with Iraq--including Hillary Clinton

There are also satellite photos of convoys at weapons facilities that matched the SAME convoys used to transport WMD that the gov't lost track of and don't know where they went. It wasn't until months later that the "inspection team" was allowed to check those sites and THEN conclude there were no WMD there. How hard is it to have a year to hide something? How hard is it to believe that is a possibility when there are audio tapes of Hussein talking about his WMD and how he knew where inspectors would be to hide them and avoid them?

 

[elder999]

Let's not rewrite history based on people's views of Bush now. There was an overwhelming belief by the world’s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israeli’s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country. As a reminder, the US Senate (that had the same intel that Bush had and looked at) voted 77-23 in favor of going to war with Iraq--including Hillary Clinton

There are also satellite photos of convoys at weapons facilities that matched the SAME convoys used to transport WMD that the gov't lost track of and don't know where they went. It wasn't until months later that the "inspection team" was allowed to check those sites and THEN conclude there were no WMD there. How hard is it to have a year to hide something? How hard is it to believe that is a possibility when there are audio tapes of Hussein talking about his WMD and how he knew where inspectors would be to hide them and avoid them?

Not rewrtiting history-Mr. George "Slam Dink" Tenet qualified some of the intel himself-it's the statements that Mr. Bush made that didn't use those quallifications-he didn't say "We think," or even "we have reason to believe." He said "We've learned," or "we have evidence" or simply stated some fo those things as fact.

As for the satellite photos of convoys, and the weapons facilities, most of those were possible "dual use" facilities-insecticide does not necessarily equal nerve gas, though it could. That was known then-the logical assumption was that this was WMD activity. That it wasn't, and that Bush asserted that it was are what constitute lying. Not even saying that he didn't believe himself to be telling the truth, just that for it to legally be lying, he had to also have reason to believe that it might not be, and he did.

 

[thardey]

Oil was part of it, WMD was part of it, intelligence was part of it, and pride was a large part of it, on both sides.

Yes, Saddam was taunting us - even though treaties said such-and-such, and Saddam agreed to this-and-that, he couldn't lose face in front of his people. If he showed weakness by agreeing to be good without a fight, he would have been eaten alive by his own people.

It wasn't so bad with Clinton, because Clinton had nothing to prove by taunting Saddam. Like a powerless disruption in a classroom, Clinton could afford to largely ignore/dismiss Saddam's taunts. But when the son of George Bush got into office, there was a score to settle.

W. was fighting for his family honor. His father was being taunted, provoked, and ridiculed by Saddam by his refusal to "respect" that be had been beaten once, and could be again. I'm not going to say that this attitude is true of all Texans, but it is certainly true of nearly all of my relatives who live in Texas. W. felt the need to respond to those taunts. He took it personally.

But he couldn't use that as a justification for the nation to declare war. He needed something else. For the businessmen, the thought of cheaper oil got their attention, for the peacekeepers, the fear of WMD was enough to keep them quiet, for the religious, the "Evil" of Saddam had to be removed, but in reality, it was a personal vendetta.

That's why, for Bush, the "Mission Accomplished" claim was true. His mission was accomplished. His personal fight with Saddam was won. Now the rest of us who allowed ourselves to get drawn into it are basically on our own, as far as getting out. Since we had a different value placed on what the "mission" is, we don't have a clear picture of how to know when it's finished. For Bush, it is done, the rest is for other people to clean up.

If you want to blame Bush, or faulty intelligence, or the media, or whatever makes you feel better, fine. But I believe that it's our fault for letting this happen, as much as anybody's. Sure, by the time it actually happened, it was too late to stop it, but we had set the precedent, and the policies leading up to this, and we have to take the time to look real hard at what our present actions will teach our children to do in the next generation.

------------
All the above is just my opinion, take it or leave it!