Bush says he shared ALL the intel with the house and senate before the war?
it is possible that Bush himself never saw any more than he shared, that just tells me he was "out of the loop" too, cuz i find it hard to believe the white house shared all of the intel...
the worst part is the same thing i was angry about during the '04 election. calling people unpatriotic and cowards....
how can we get a win out of this?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
one good thing about the dems yelling "pull out" is that the Iraq govt may in fact get off their arses and actually get their troops into shape...
it is difficult to tell exactly why they are being so slow tho....
the problem is? even if they manage to get their own country in order (which i am skeptical about for starters) they still have a national defense to consider..Iran has been at war with them for a long time.. so we will still have to provide "defense services" for the foreseeable future....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion and I am really not happy to say this this will most likly bring down Mr. Bush, the democrats would never push for withdrawl if the polls were not so negative on Bush and his policy not only domestic but international. But after all he did spell out his plans for the domestic economy and one knew how his internationl policy would go almost from the get go most of the world did not like him and our image was tarnished. He also is not believed anymore and most of the world community does not trust him. Cheny has the smell of draft dodger on him and Mr. Bush as a evader of duty while being a flag waver. This is not what most Americans want for leadership. If Mr. Bush wants to third party character assination of others as a cheap shot and political game just remeber the old saying what goes around comes around
IP: Logged |
posted
So it's ok for the Democrats to say this war is based on a lie when they saw the same information and said the same things, but it's wrong when Bush points this out?
One BAD thing about the Dems yelling to get out is that it provides the example that the insurgency is a success and that killing more US troops will not only speed things along but it will prevent them from interfering in the future.
This in turn leads to increased terrorist attacks as the Arab world sees that this type of action does get the response of withdrawel.
If you want to defeat fanatics, you have to defeat them so badly they get it through their thick skulls that they cannot win. Unfortunately, this is not being done in Iraq now, was not done in Iraq 15 years ago and is not likely to be done anytime in the near future. It seems we cannot learn from past mistakes.
IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say it was ok I stated my opinion why they said it and that speaks for it self. like I said if the opinion polls read different they would have said nothing just the same way if the sittuation was the reversed.Mr Bushes duty to this country and mr. Chenny also speaks for itself if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.
IP: Logged |
posted
the policy strategists who said send in 300,000 troops were set aside... the fools who who thought iraq would be a cakewalk have spent our future very poorly.....
now we have to pay up.... how much is this gonna cost again? the first figures thrown out were about 70 billion? more deception....
the intel presented to the senate and congress was what? exactly? if not selected carefully to make the case for war? there is plenty of intell NOW PUBLICLY available that shows the intel chosen was KNOWN by many to be bad and that the intel was carefully selected from a larger set to make the case for war.... how many people knew is the real question....
it's very easy to find the current policy makers public statements calling for this war as far back as '98......
if they really thought iraq was so dangerous how come they didn't take this war seriousdly enough to WIN it outright?
oh yeah that's right, we did.... "mission accomplished"....
"bring it on".....
who is the really confused "chosen one" in all of this?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
How, may I ask, is it possible to believe Bush when he claims the Congress got all the same information on Iraq, pre-invasion, that the Administration did, when we have seen absolute proof that he lied to Congress and to the public back then?
At least three separate US intellegence agencies told him that any information to the effect that Saddam had any WMDs or that Al Queida was in any way associated with Saddam were suspect at best and their own assessments were that Saddam neither had WMDs nor association with Al Queida. Those insignificant bits of superfluous data were NOT supplied to Congress before they voted to give him power to use force.
Face it: BUSH LIED!
Moreover, he is habitually a liar and always has been.
Is there anyone in the Bush II Administration that wasn't a draft dodger?
IP: Logged |
posted
Your question is misleading. Bush's team had access to the raw intel.
Most everyone else was given summary reports from various sources that had been cherry-picked to support the war agenda.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: So it's ok for the Democrats to say this war is based on a lie when they saw the same information and said the same things, but it's wrong when Bush points this out?
You must excuse some who post here, in that, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they still believe:
a) Bush is a "compassionate conservative".
b) Bush is compasionate.
c) Bush is a conservative.
d) Bush is honest.
e) Bush knows enough about the things he says are true to be either honest or dishonest.
f) Bush has any hope of understanding what it is like not being born into vast wealth or that if he could understand he would waste his valuable time considering serfs.
IP: Logged |
posted
What three US intelligence agencies came out prior to the invasion and told Bush that there were no WMD's?
Bush never made the arguement that Iraq was associated with Al Quaida. He said Iraq was involved with terrorism which it was.
The Senate has already investigated these charges and found them to be unsubstantiated. In other words BUSH DIDN'T LIE or make up intelligence to justify the war.
Face it, Bush didn't lie, if he did, you can't prove it.
IP: Logged |
Providing references and information to those that refuse to face facts is not a part of my job description (specially after I have done so over and over and they couldn't manage to understand or simply refused).
"Bush never made the arguement that Iraq was associated with Al Quaida." The hell he didn't! Are you deaf along with being narrow minded?
"He said Iraq was involved with terrorism which it was." He surely did and he was lying.
"The Senate has already investigated these charges and found them to be unsubstantiated." They did not say they had found them to be "unsubstanciated" What they said was that they had no information substantiating them. Of course they didn't, because the White House refused to provide the information. (Of course, you didn't bother to remember that, did you?) The senate "appointed" a committee that had a majority membership of republicans that refused to investigate the facts and wrote a report that "fit" the lies of the Administration..
"In other words BUSH DIDN'T LIE or make up intelligence to justify the war." Hahahaha. Was it a rough trip riding in that old wagon full of cabbages?
No one can prove anything to you because you are not capable of the logic necessary to follow the argument and you are not willing to gather the information with which to be logical. FAT RUSH THE DOPER IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Neither is Fox News.
IP: Logged |
posted
this is at the whitehousedotgov... i don't provede links there because it is a site that all Americans should be familiar with and visit regularly... they even post Bush's "mispeakings" and grammatical errors without "editing" them
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary October 7, 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat Remarks by the President on Iraq Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal Cincinnati, Ohio
video screen capture multimedia
President's Remarks video image view audio image listen
Fact sheeten Español
8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming......
.... And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.....
...... We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted.
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud
it's an interesting speech... looking back at it? one can pick thru it and find about a dozen "untrue" statements....
Bush may have actually believed what he was saying, when he quoted intel sources, but that doesn't change the fact that quite a few people working around him knew he was telling "untruths"... one final quote from the speech... i just can't resist this one.... because this one is a whopper, and remember? Bush told the UN inspectors to leave so he could start Shock and Awe.....
I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)
i hope this will not require ,militiary action... that, i think, could easily be called a lie....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'd say thats dead on dusty....
one good thing about the dems yelling "pull out" is that the Iraq govt may in fact get off their arses and actually get their troops into shape...
it is difficult to tell exactly why they are being so slow tho....
the problem is? even if they manage to get their own country in order (which i am skeptical about for starters) they still have a national defense to consider..Iran has been at war with them for a long time.. so we will still have to provide "defense services" for the foreseeable future....
Ohhh I wouldn't worry about Iran for much longer.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
I didn't think you would post support for your position. Main reason, you can't. Secondary reason, it's much easier to throw insults and call names.
Glassman,
I should have said Bush never said Al Qaida was working with Iraq on 9/11. You are correct that he made associations with Iraq, which they did, although in a limited manner.
I'm missing the "untrue" statements you see in Bush's remarks. I guess because I'm not looking for them as you are. They were rebuilding facilities, as far as all intelligence sources and UN records, Hussein did continue to have chemical and biological weapons. Iraq and Al Qaida do share the US as a common enemy.
You want to play monday morning quarterback and pick and choose on who you want to believe is telling the truth from a bunch of very unreliable individuals. I continue to look at the overall picture and what was known or suspected at the time of the attack.
I don't call having a hope of not requireing military action a lie either. If the UN had acted as Bush wanted, it is doubtfull that military action would have been required. They however, specifically France, Russia, and Germany gave Hussein all the proof he required that the UN would not act, the United States would not attack and he could continue on his merry way.
IP: Logged |
I didn't think you would post support for your position. Main reason, you can't. Secondary reason, it's much easier to throw insults and call names.
Glassman,
I should have said Bush never said Al Qaida was working with Iraq on 9/11. You are correct that he made associations with Iraq, which they did, although in a limited manner.
I'm missing the "untrue" statements you see in Bush's remarks. I guess because I'm not looking for them as you are. They were rebuilding facilities, as far as all intelligence sources and UN records, Hussein did continue to have chemical and biological weapons. Iraq and Al Qaida do share the US as a common enemy.
You want to play monday morning quarterback and pick and choose on who you want to believe is telling the truth from a bunch of very unreliable individuals. I continue to look at the overall picture and what was known or suspected at the time of the attack.
I don't call having a hope of not requireing military action a lie either. If the UN had acted as Bush wanted, it is doubtfull that military action would have been required. They however, specifically France, Russia, and Germany gave Hussein all the proof he required that the UN would not act, the United States would not attack and he could continue on his merry way.
Of course I can, but I don't waste my time on you for a simple reason. Look at what Glass supplied and how you still deny the truth. You cannot be logical or honest.
posted
I think the average folks are just plain "Numb, fed-up and stupified" by the meltdown...
Again, I like to use my Area as an example..
At the local store, the local paper is as always selling out, while the so-called big papers are going back to the venders in record amounts..
People are aware, they just will not discuss or show any desire to comment...And that is very un-usual around here..We always atleast joke about Politics,,,,now,,,,nothing...
I think people just want the hole thing over...But I don't think,,, "people know what it is,, they want over....Sorry ass situation.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'd say thats dead on dusty....
one good thing about the dems yelling "pull out" is that the Iraq govt may in fact get off their arses and actually get their troops into shape...
it is difficult to tell exactly why they are being so slow tho....
the problem is? even if they manage to get their own country in order (which i am skeptical about for starters) they still have a national defense to consider..Iran has been at war with them for a long time.. so we will still have to provide "defense services" for the foreseeable future....
The good thing about all the democommies yelling "pull out" is that when forced to vote on it they say "UMMMM nevermind" and shrink away. I don't want to hear $hit from the democommies anymore about getting out of Iraq... they had their chance to get us out of there and they shrank like the cowards they are. It's time for them to shut the hell up and let the grown ups take care of things. All they have done is encourage our enemies. That is treason.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
Then don't listen. That way you won't hear the republicans saying it too.
It's time for you Party line hacks to stop the insulting and name calling.
[B]No one ever said "Pull out". That stupid notion is comming only from Republican Party Line BS. Treason is secret "weapons for oil" deals and illegal financing of Contras with illegal funds gotten by selling US secrets and weapons to enemy nations.
Exactly which party was in the White house when we deserted Lebanon and "pulled out" after the Barracks bombing? Cut and run? Yep, it sure was.
IP: Logged |
posted
How about that congress...Can't do anything on either side but point fingers and insult each other. The only thing they agree on is giving themselves yet another raise in time for christmas.
quote:Originally posted by pandora: How about that congress...Can't do anything on either side but point fingers and insult each other. The only thing they agree on is giving themselves yet another raise in time for christmas.
I say...fire them all!
that was my argument last election... Fire them all and start with Bush, it stunk that Kerry was our only other option, and, i was not a Kerry supporter, i just wanted Bush fired for leading US down into this abyss...
do i think the dems have any better answers? NO!
the only thing that i saw electing Kerry as a possible HOPE for? bringing the rest of the world back to the table...
in case you guys haven't noticed? our coalition of the willing is shrinking fast.....
we are gonna end up footing the whole bill, and the only resolution i see in sight is to just take Iraq completely... or walk away completely...
oil money from Iraq has now become the only possible "rescue" from the financial hole Bush has dug for US.... NO, i don't like the idea, but inthe end? survival is the only option, and In My Opinion? that's the only long-term survival strategy left... Bush and Cheney went "all in" at the big poker table... now we get to sweat the cards...
Iraq will never have the democracy that Bush "envisions" anyway....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: [QB] Glassman,
I should have said Bush never said Al Qaida was working with Iraq on 9/11. You are correct that he made associations with Iraq, which they did, although in a limited manner.
you should have said?? LOL..
funny, cuz while i was listening to Bush selling the war? a lot of people were listening to the same thing and hearing sadam was involved in 9-11... i heard differently then, and know exactly what the politicians were saying all along... you are correct Bush never said outright that sadam was involved in 9-11, BUT? most of america thought he said that sadam was involved, and Bush KNEW that he was insinuating that and making americans believe that he was saying that... that may not be lying in a technical sense, as in lawyer style, but isn't honest either...
what Cheney was saying? thats a different story entirely, and it appears he was smack in the middle of the intel situation too... so pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....
in Septemeber of '03? polls showed that 70% of americans thought Sadam was directly involved in 911, and going into last falls prez election about 50% still believed..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Right you are Glassman a car salesman's trick of words how eles could 70% of Americans believe that Sadam was the master mind of 9/11 oh well we are thier and we have to make the best of that mess what are we to do just leaving is bad staying is bad looks like America must make a choice and it might be that economics might make it for us one way or the other.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: So it's ok for the Democrats to say this war is based on a lie when they saw the same information and said the same things, but it's wrong when Bush points this out?
Let just say they didn't know the same thing at the same time or they did.
Does that matter?
The folks have been killing folks for years.
IP: Logged |
posted
both parties play the same exact game...they just trade offense and defense (like football teams)....
why did Gore lose? (and he DID lose the election)
he lost because Clinton was playing "swap spit" (and/or other bodily fluids ) with an intern... and for those of you that claim i only see what i want to see? i voted for Bush in that election, and i lived in California at the time where that was very UNpopular.... had quite a few "discussions" with some liberals that fall...lotta fun
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: [QB] Glassman,
I should have said Bush never said Al Qaida was working with Iraq on 9/11. You are correct that he made associations with Iraq, which they did, although in a limited manner.
you should have said?? LOL..
funny, cuz while i was listening to Bush selling the war? a lot of people were listening to the same thing and hearing sadam was involved in 9-11... i heard differently then, and know exactly what the politicians were saying all along... you are correct Bush never said outright that sadam was involved in 9-11, BUT? most of america thought he said that sadam was involved, and Bush KNEW that he was insinuating that and making americans believe that he was saying that... that may not be lying in a technical sense, as in lawyer style, but isn't honest either...
what Cheney was saying? thats a different story entirely, and it appears he was smack in the middle of the intel situation too... so pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....
in Septemeber of '03? polls showed that 70% of americans thought Sadam was directly involved in 911, and going into last falls prez election about 50% still believed..
I'm off to *BE* the wizard...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
I heard the same things you did and never got the impression that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Maybe because I paid closer attention, maybe because I didn't just hear what I wanted to hear.
You ask why I don't accept a lot of the things you post and why I continue to believe things despite your evidence to the contrary.
There was a 10 year build up of intelligence on Iraq where UN inspection teams were attempting to lock down Iraq's WMD program. Then a further 2 years of intel without the UN inspection teams in place. That's 12 years of built up evidence that you opt to disregard when a few individuals step forward after three basic phases occured. The first phase can be called the Iraq bribery for oil program. Suddenly, people start coming forward and saying Iraq has no WMD's, Hussein isn't a bad guy, etc. Why, MONEY. The second phase is the monday morning quarterbacking phase where WMD's were not found in large quantities and that people use this as evidence they never existed. The third phase is the cover your ass phase where individuals notably in the CIA start seeing their careers going down the toilet if they don't come up with SOMETHING to save them.
So we have 12 years of evidence of WMD's. You want to accept the after the fact, CYA, reports as proof otherwise. I don't buy it. It's like taking 100 eye witnesses and accepting the word of only two of them as accurate.
One of the talking heads played a tape the other day which was used by Colin Powell in his presentation to the UN. It was replayed as a reminder. It was a conversation between two highly placed Iraq officials. On it they discussed the coming UN inspections. These were the inspections you have mentioned in the past as not finding anything, the inspections which came immediately prior to the war and after they were allowed in after being prohibited for two years.
The first expressed concerns they would find something. The second repeatedly said they would not, and specifically said the items had all been MOVED. The first again expressed concerns concerning a specific vehicle. The second said that vehicle had been modified and would not arouse suspicion.
There was never any mention of destruction, but of modification and movement, where the UN inspection teams would not find them.
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, I howver remain very concerned with where Iraq's WMD's are. They were not destroyed. Common sense says that had they been destroyed Hussein would have had the UN inspectors right there from the beginning so that his sanctions would have been lifted immediately. Hussein played a shell game, and many in the world bought it hook, line and sinker.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) with an intern...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
