I want the truth!

You can't handle the truth~!

C.I.
Try me.

au, Without the consent and approval of this administration for such an investigation, it will go nowhere fast. An example is the 9-11 commission; they are not required to report on their findings until long after this administration is (hopefully)gone. If you have watched any of the 9-11 commission hearings, this administration is sharing nothing new and admitting nothing - or haven't you noticed? That's the truth!

cicerone imposter
I am well aware of that and that is why the question was is it time? There is no question that if it is to happen it will only be after the Bush administration is gone or the ground swell becomes so loud that Bush will have no choice politically. I After all he was pushed into the 9/11 commission. Anyhow it remains on my wish list.

Did you see Frontline last week? Really raises some issues. I'm talking about the John O'Neill program.

Consider that the program came out in early 2002. Americans don't care, Plain, they seem to want to be misled. We pretty much deserve every bad thing that is going to come out of this. The rightards on this board remind me of turkeys standing in the rain, mouths gaping skyward, unable to understand why they are drownig.

hobitbob,
You may be on to something with the idea that Americans want to mislead.

Although I never saw the film myself, my brother told me about a film made by Joan Rivers. She went to an airport and put up signs asking people to save a fictious legislator she called Frank Felone (felony). Rivers wanted to test her theory that people will do anything to appear on television. She was told stories about how signers of the petition grew up with Felone, had voted for him throughout his career, etc. Maybe people just thought bush was popular and wanted to jump on his bandwagon, the same way Rivers found they want to be on television.

Let's see if a ground swell emerges next week, after Woodward's book comes out.

It'll be a ground swell of Bush supporters criticizing Woodward's character.

Denial
Many people have said that we Americans deserve the Pres. and other leaders that we have. I disagree. It is obvious that those who vote are almost split 45/45 between Repubs and Dems. The 10% are the so called swing voters.

I also feel that a large % of Americans don't want the unvarnished truth about how our Govt. really operates and why things are done. Many Americans want to believe that America stands for what is "good" and that the Govt. and it's leaders are "good" people that are mindful of what is "good" for most of the citizens. To find out otherwise would be too depressing and demoralizing.

I agreed, pistoff. It would be like learning that your parents are ax murders are something equally dreadful.

Unnfortunatly, I am one of those who doesn't want to know. As long as the reason is good, I would rather remain in the dark and not know.

Even if I do know, I can't change it, so I might as well live in a happy world, instead of a place littered with suspician and doupt.

I want to know it all. Did Bush know that they werent any WMD in Iraq? Did he lie to get his holy war. Why dident he stay in Afganistan and finish off Al Queda. He has made bad decision after bad decision and blaming the people around him dont cut it. The buck stops at the presidency, he is the one who chose the people in his government. I want to know before the next election so I know who to vote for.

facts
Here are a few things for you to think about!


CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE HYPE

CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim.

[Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]

IGNORING INTELLIGENCE

CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS:

Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." [Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03; CBS News, 6/7/03; Knight Ridder, 6/28/03]

IGNORING INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT - INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq."

On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: WP, 2/15/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]

INFORMING CONGRESS OF INTELLIGENCE CAVEATS

CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at."

FACT - CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE:

The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03; Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 1/6/04; WP, 9/26/03]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR "IMMINENT THREAT" ASSERTION

CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."

FACT - ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT":

The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war - not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is."

Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies - including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]

BUSH'S THREAT RHETORIC BEFORE THE WAR

CLAIM: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."

FACT - BUSH MADE FAR MORE DIRE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WAR: While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. [Bush, 11/23/02; Bush; 1/3/03; Bush, 10/28/02; Bush, 10/2/02; Bush, 10/2/02]

SADDAM-AL QAEDA-WMD CONNECTION

CLAIM: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network."

FACT - ASSERTION BELIES PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS: This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A]

CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. [Source: NIE, 2002; NY Times, 1/29/03; NY Times, 2/6/02; NBC News, 1/26/04]

DAVID KAY'S REPORT

CLAIM: "And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out."

FACT - KAY ACTUALLY SAID WMD HAD BEEN DESTROYED AFTER 1991: David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections." [Kay Testimony, 2004]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Investigative Commissions

WMD COMMISSION

CLAIM: "The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried... it's important that this investigation take its time."

FACT - OTHER COMMISSIONS SHOW THAT THE REPORT IS BEING DELAYED FOR POLITICS: Regardless of upcoming Parliamentary elections, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a similar commission to investigate intelligence that will report by July. Additionally, in 1983 after the terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and completed its report within 2 months.

9/11 COMMISSION

CLAIM: "We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE HAS STONEWALLED THE 9/11 COMMISSION: According to the Baltimore Sun, President Bush "opposed the outside inquiry" into September 11th. When Congress forced him to relent, Time Magazine reported he tried to choke its funding, noting, "the White House brushed off a request quietly made by 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean" for adequate funding. Then, the NY Times reported, "President Bush declined to commit the White House to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the independent federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite public threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel." And as the Akron Beacon Journal reported last week, "the 9/11 panel did not receive the speedy cooperation it expected. In a preliminary report last summer, the panel's co-chairmen,

Thomas Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, complained about lengthy delays in gaining access to critical documents, federal employees and administration officials. They warned the lack of cooperation would prove damaging, ensuring that a full investigation would take that much longer to complete, if at all." [Source: Baltimore Sun, 6/14/02; Time Magazine, 3/26/03; NY Times, 10/27/03; Akron Beacon Journal 2/2/04]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Economy/Budgetary Priorities

UNEMPLOYMENT

CLAIM: "How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction."

FACT - THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]

JOB CREATION

CLAIM: "There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."

FACT - STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.

TAXES

CLAIM: "But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery."

FACT - BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount" while "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]

DEFICIT

CLAIM: "The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATES OMIT INEVITABLE COSTS: The President's proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately "omits a number of likely costs" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $70 billion for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and $50 billion more for war in Iraq. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be "in the range of $500 billion in 2009" - not even near half of what it currently is. [Source: CBPP, 1/16/04; Washington Times, 1/20/04; Reuters, 2/2/04]

STIMULUS

CLAIM: "The economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference."

FACT - STUDY SHOWS TAX CUTS BARELY MADE A DENT: A study by Economy.com attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent. [Peter Orszag in the New Republic, 11/6/03]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Personal Military Records

RELEASE OF RECORDS

CLAIM: Russert - "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush - "Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000 by the way."

FACT - RECORDS OFF-LIMITS: "[A]s Bush has risen in public life over the last several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages." [Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]

REPORTING FOR DUTY

CLAIM: "I did show up in Alabama."

FACT - UNIT COMMANDER DOESN'T BELIEVE HE SHOWED UP FOR DUTY: The Boston Globe reports that Bush's assigned unit commander, William Turnipseed, and his administrative officer, Kenneth K. Lott, do not believe that Bush reported. In an interview Turnipseed said, "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
[Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]

http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040208.HTM

pistoff, I fear you have just wasted your time posting the claim/fact comparisons concerning this administration/Bush. These points have been discussed and argued, but the Bush supporters only hear what they want to hear. Factual imprints do not make a dent; it's hopeless.

Time
I didn't post that for the benefit of BushCorpse Zealots.
Of course they are never going to admit to any failures or mistakes just as their Cult Master, will not.

Is congress waking up from their slumber?

Congress focuses on Iraq policy

Wolfowitz, Myers testify Tuesday on Hill

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 Posted: 11:08 AM EDT (1508 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- At hearings Tuesday and Wednesday, the Senate and House armed services committees are hearing about current Iraq operations from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers and State Department Undersecretary Marc Grossman.
During one of the worst months of the yearlong Iraq campaign, members of Congress are finding themselves with more questions and fewer answers.
With the rising death toll and increasing fear that the United States lacks an effective plan for success in Iraq, lawmakers Tuesday start a series of hearings in which some hope to talk about how America got into the dangerous predicament and how it will get out. (U.S. support grows for more troops in Iraq; Interactive: Details from polling results)
It was unclear Monday night how many administration officials will show up at the hearings.
As of Monday, the Pentagon had not agreed to attend another hearing Thursday on how it intends to transfer political power June 30 to an as-yet unnamed Iraqi government.
The hearing was to be the last of a three-day series before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
On Monday, only former officials, an array of think tank witnesses and Grossman had agreed to attend.
Pentagon officials acknowledged Monday that Wolfowitz and Myers would not go to that hearing, but had no immediate comment on why.
Throughout the week's hearings, officials are likely to face questions on what is being done to calm the increased violence in Iraq, whether troop levels are high enough and exactly how the administration intends to work with the United Nations.
U.S. occupation authorities, who long shunned a substantive U.N. role in Iraq, are now counting on it to help devise a plan for forming a new Iraqi government to accept sovereignty on the turnover date.
Democrats probably will focus on mistakes they say got American forces to this point.
Their criticisms include: too few troops sent over in the first place; a lack of planning for postwar operations; unilateral action that has left the United States bearing the bulk of the financial and human toll; and overly optimistic predictions on what it would take to oust Saddam Hussein and build a new democratic government in his place.
"Time is rapidly running out on getting it right in Iraq," Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said recently.
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he remains "steadfastly optimistic," adding, "We'll see our way through this."
But worry about events in Iraq crosses party lines.
The hearings come during the deadliest month in Iraq for U.S. forces since the invasion began -- 100 killed in the increasingly violent insurgency.
Some estimate that more than 1,000 Iraqis have died, including civilians, insurgents and police.
Many lawmakers who visited their districts on the just-ended spring recess faced constituents' questions about Iraq.
Polls are showing an increase in the number of Americans who think troops should come home and a reduction in support for the president's handling of Iraq.
Already, almost six in 10 of those surveyed say he does not have a clear plan for success in Iraq.
Republicans say Bush eased some Americans' concerns with his news conference last week when he pledged to stay the course in Iraq.

Attended an award ceremony Monday: The Union of Concerned Scientists honored Congressman Ed Markey for his environmental work. Markey had tons to say about the WH, Rice (both a liar and naive), truth and the administration which clearly knew there were no WMD in Iraq before launching their attack. It was comforting to me that as I drove along the Mystic River (yeah, that Mystic River which is also the same body of water in "Over the River and through the Woods"), I saw the re-enactment of Paul Revere's Ride. Markey is a sort of Revere.

You asked for the truth; here it is
You asked for the truth; here it is:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23221&highlight=