GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

RIGHT FUCKIN' ON THE MONEY!!!

http://www.altweeklies.com/politics/defining_dissembling/Story?oid=147405

more the cartoon than the story, but it's accurate too.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

...
http://www.altweeklies.com/politics/defining_dissembling/Story?oid=147405
...

So, you're unable to give us a single quote from Bush which is a lie? As I thought. You can go now.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Really? Lies about Yellowcake? I didn't know that, Advocate.

0 Replies

MG wrote:

So, you're unable to give us a single quote from Bush which is a lie?

This one makes me laugh:

GBush wrote:

“The thing that's wrong with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur”

1 Reply

I am very much afraid that Advocate, as usual, has either been reading too much of Michael Moore's books or is delusional. Advocate indicates that President Bush was LYING when he spoke about "Yellowcake". I hope that Advocate is not so partisan as to try to avoid the excellent and non-partisan research done by "Fact Check" but here it is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

•A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
•A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
•Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said " that Iraq sought uranium " is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
************************************************************

I think poor Advocate is trying too hard. Take it easy, Advocate. If you are dead set on pinning down liars, follow the adventures and statements of Barack Hussein Obama. You may find fallow ground there, but you must be careful. President Obama has the unusual facility of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time without seeming to do so. Such great orators are very difficult to pin down.

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

Massagat, I have posted this numerous times as well, but it does not phase the liberals that hate Bush, but I will mention it again. That is that even Valerie Plame apparently admitted in her book that she feared WMD could be used upon our soldiers as they entered Iraq. Yes, the same Valerie Plame also known as Valerie Wilson, that was married to the notorious Joe Wilson that curiously volunteered to go down to Niger and sit around with a few officials drinking tea, then come back and claim that he had gotten all the information to conclude that Iraq did not seek yellowcake, even though his testimony convinced some on the intelligence committee to conclude otherwise, and then the man wrote an oped piece saying Bush lied, when in fact Wilson never even wrote an official report for the CIA with any credible evidence, and apparently he never even told his wife, the same person that was a WMD expert in the CIA that later feared that WMD might be used on our soldiers. If that doesn't all boggle the mind, I don't know what will, but instead we are all supposed to believe Bush made the whole thing up because he hated Saddam Hussein for causing his "daddy" trouble.

When I assess who are the liars here, I have to believe it was people like Wilson and the Democrats in Congress. Even Hillary Clinton said she went and talked to all of the experts and agreed with Bush, before she changed her mind for political purposes, as many other Democrats did as well. Essentially, its called "politics," thats all.

I am waiting for the book by Bush, and we perhaps will learn more about the real truth. It won't come from people like Michael Moore, thats for sure.

0 Replies

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush -- a man still carrying with $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush's famous deck of wanted men -- has been America's secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger). The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, "resettled" Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conduction disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush -- a man still carrying with $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush's famous deck of wanted men -- has been America's secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger). The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, "resettled" Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conduction disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.

In all this talk, you still haven't posted one single quotation by Bush that you claim is a lie. Could it be that you're the dishonest one?

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

MG wrote:
So, you're unable to give us a single quote from Bush which is a lie?

This one makes me laugh:

GBush wrote:
“The thing that's wrong with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur”

Is this adequately sourced - it would surprise me, I know that family and they all speak passable French. Anyway, Iraq and President Bush are both digressions from the looming catastrophe in the Afghanistan / Pakistan region. I hope we can learn from the Russian experience there:

Quote:

Najibullah’s fall from power is a reminder that the fate of the Kabul government is closely tied to what happens in Pakistan. (Najibullah remained in Afghanistan and was killed by the Taliban in 1996.) As much as he was able to compromise and negotiate with his adversaries, he ran up against an even stronger opponent in Pakistan, which offered sanctuary to his enemies and a great deal of funding, weaponry, and logistical support to groups that opposed his rule. The road to Kabul lies through Islamabad -- and these days even more through Peshawar, where the Pashtun insurgency has its base.

The United States, then, must ask itself some hard questions. Is Afghan President Hamid Karzai another Babrak Karmal, who was the Soviet Union’s initial preference as Afghanistan’s leader but who was unable to build a self-supporting regime that permitted his foreign benefactors to go home? Recent statements from Karzai suggesting that Afghanistan will need another five years to take over security and another 15 years of U.S. assistance will not inspire much confidence among U.S. policymakers.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/65674

0 Replies

Bush was caught in lie about the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bushlie.html

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote :

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

********************************************************
HE KNEW? Evidence please!!!

0 Replies

The President knew something hit the tower--
Bush's literal recollection of his personal events that morning. Take a look - "...And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower ..."

"...But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack.' " He clearly states he saw the first plane hit the tower before he entered the classroom. Even if he did not see the first plane hit on TV, like many people have mistaken for themselves, he knew about the plane before he went into the class. After hearing of the second plane. He continued reading to the class.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote :

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

********************************************************
HE KNEW? Evidence please!!!

2 Replies

Advocate indicates that President Bush was LYING when he spoke about "Yellowcake". I hope that Advocate is not so partisan as to try to avoid the excellent and non-partisan research done by "Fact Check" but here it is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

•A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
•A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
•Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said " that Iraq sought uranium " is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
************************************************************

I think poor Advocate is trying too hard. Take it easy, Advocate. If you are dead set on pinning down liars, follow the adventures and statements of Barack Hussein Obama. You may find fallow ground there, but you must be careful. President Obama has the unusual facility of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time without seeming to do so. Such great orators are very difficult to pin down.

1 Reply

Does Advocate think "Fact Check" is corrupt? I think he does because he did not accept the FACT CHECK above.

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

•Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Yes, I recall that Wilson actually did confirm while sitting around drinking tea with officials there that Hussein had in fact sent representatives to Niger to talk about trade between the countries, and given the fact that Niger really had nothing else of much worth to trade besides yellowcake, it seemed to indicate the exact opposite of Wilson's conclusions that Hussein had not sought yellowcake, that perhaps they had been trying to arrange deals with Niger in regard to yellowcake.

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

Advocate wrote :

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

********************************************************
HE KNEW? Evidence please!!!

It is not my job to be your reference librarian. This has been in the news, and even covered in this forum, ad nauseam.

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

Advocate wrote :

Regarding Bush's statement on yellow cake, he knew that the French were relying on forged papers, and also knew, through Wilson's report, that Iraq was not actively seeking yellow cake. If that is not lying, what is?

********************************************************
HE KNEW? Evidence please!!!

0 Replies

"Sixteen Words" controversy in 2003 State of the Union
In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence, known now as the infamous "Sixteen Words",[3] would become a crucial justification of the administration's decision to conduct an invasion of Iraq less than three months later.

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry. [5]

According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.

--Wikipedia.com

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate - you're the online equivalent of a broken record. Please move your repetitive content to some thread not entitled "Afghanistan".

1 Reply

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know