Bush continues to mislead

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

source

The piece goes on to say

Quote:

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

Notice the disconnect between what Bush said and what the investigations actually were empowered to do. There has NOT been an investigation of whether the WH manipulated intelligence but the WH is rewriting history and acting as if such an investigation already concluded they didn't.

Quote:

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.

The RW talking points seem to be full of holes. The Congress didn't have access to ALL the information that WH did.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,207 • Replies: 52

No top replies

When you are speaking to your base you tell them whatever they already believe to be true.

0 Replies

The New Pentagon Papers
A High-Ranking Military Officer Reveals how Defense Department Extremists Suppressed Information and Twisted the Truth to Drive the Country to War

by Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

When you are speaking to your base you tell them whatever they already believe to be true.

So, the base doesn't necessarily need to be told the objective truth?

0 Replies

If he told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then he should be shouting it from the rooftops.

Instead, he's saying "they wanted to go to war too."

What a putz.

0 Replies

Flashback: Senate told Saddam had WMDs and a fleet of UAVs capable of hitting the East Coast
Senator Ben Nelson:
I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9166

0 Replies

It is entirely possible to state two true statements that add up to a lie.

1. Saddam has UAVs. (Possibly true at the time, I suppose.)
2. UAVs can be launched from ships to attack the U.S.

The listener would be lead to the conclusion that Saddam could launch UAVs from ships, but that isn't what was said.

This is typical of the crap I've heard from this administration.

0 Replies

More narrow minded assinine liberal crap.

0 Replies

And you're also being very whiney too...

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

More narrow minded assinine liberal crap.

Do you want to point to specifics Sturgis? Or is the peanut gallery all your are capable of?

Bush's statements on Nov 11th were not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They were the same misleading junk that he has always done, tying to things together to give false impressions. The Washington Post called him on it. I pointed it out. Do you want to point out the errors in the Post piece or can you not do that?

0 Replies

I love you Mr. President
It's automatic, you got my vote
I'm not one bit hesitant
It's as sure as an Iraqi will cut someone's throat
You may have lied about WMD
And sent troops to Iraq without a plan
Then changed the mission to set Iraq free
It doesn't matter 'cause You Da Man
You're tough and strong
And never back down
You can't help it if you are always wrong
It doesn't matter if WMD is ever found
You invade and kill
Your policy not quite sound
As the world watched
Exploit the military for a thrill
In a war you obviously botched
Everyday more Iraqis lift a gun instead of the Qur'an
But I don't care 'cause You Da Man
I have no job, I have no life
The only fun I have is watching the Iraqi's strife
It doesn't matter that you don't know what to do
As long as you walk tough
And on the Iraqis turn the screw
For me that's enough
I support the war, through thick and thin
Unless of course the Democrats win

(Elwood Clyde Walken Jr.)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Sturgis wrote:
More narrow minded assinine liberal crap.

Do you want to point to specifics Sturgis? Or is the peanut gallery all your are capable of?

Bush's statements on Nov 11th were not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They were the same misleading junk that he has always done, tying to things together to give false impressions. The Washington Post called him on it. I pointed it out. Do you want to point out the errors in the Post piece or can you not do that?

It is senseless to even debate any of this around here because all people want is to do Republican bashing. When facts (I mean REAL facts, not some communist rags alleged facts) are presented nobody around here wants to see them. I have presented at times but the antagonistic attitude which permeates and pervades here makes it essentially a wasted effort. As the song title went it would be 'One sided conversations with a narrow minded wall' in this case with several narrow minded walls.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is senseless to even debate any of this around here because all people want is to do Republican bashing. When facts (I mean REAL facts, not some communist rags alleged facts) are presented nobody around here wants to see them. I have presented at times but the antagonistic attitude which permeates and pervades here makes it essentially a wasted effort. As the song title went it would be 'One sided conversations with a narrow minded wall' in this case with several narrow minded walls.

That would be, no, I can't.

Joe(happy to help)Nation

0 Replies

I rest my case.

0 Replies

What case Sturgis?

All you did was call the Post a "communist rag."

Did the President NOT make the statement in his speech on Nov 11th? It is posted on the WH website exactly as quoted by the Post.

Did Silberman NOT say

Quote:

Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.

Did the Senate actually investigate how the WH used intelligence? According to Senator Roberts they haven't completed Phase 2 yet. Are you calling Senator Roberts a liar?

Which facts are innaccurate Sturgis?

There has not been a committee that has looked into whether the WH cherry picked intelligence. Can you name the one that did?

0 Replies

Sturgis, perhaps you can direct me to a source that shows where all 100 Senators had access to the President's daily briefs on Iraq and contradicts the statement from the Post.

0 Replies

A) I did not call the Washington Post a communist rag...at least not directly. Go back and realize my mention of communist rags did not directly name the Washington Post as one of them.

B)Why bother saying anything since you have already made up your mind and no matter what anyone says or does you will stand firm in your beliefs which is clearly your right just as it is my right to say that I find you and several others to be wrong.

0 Replies

The original post in this thread is from the Washington Post. You have not refuted it. You only whined about "Communist rags" not giving real facts. I can only assume you are referring to the ONLY newspaper mentioned here.

It seems you can't state much of anything other than a childish game of "I'm right and I don't have to show you any evidence." Tell us what is wrong in the Post story.

0 Replies

Sorry parados I am not whining as much as you might want me to be.

0 Replies

And if you took the time and READ what I wrote then you would know what I had said.

0 Replies

Bush continues to mislead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know