Liar in Chief

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Liar in Chief
by georgia10
Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 06:56:00 AM PDT

Quote:

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. [...]

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. [...] I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it. link

"The world" is safer for it. "The world" excludes the Iraqis who are dying by the dozens each day. "The world" excludes America which, with every bullet and every bomb, creates more recruits for Al Qaeda. This President wanted war. He wanted to provoke Saddam into starting war, even though Saddam didn't take the bait and offered to surrender and have full inspections. This President wanted war, and he used a steady stream of lies start that war to quench his bloodlust.

The new Downing Street Memo isn't so new. Like previous documents, such as the original Downing Street Memo that stated flat out the evidence for war was being fixed around the policy of regime change, this document has been around in the foreign press and the blogosphere for a while. (See dkos diary on it here,). Nearly two months have passed since the newest memo came to public light. Its contents reiterate what dozens of official documents before it proved: Bush and Blair were hellbent on launching a war which they knew was in violation of international law. They were determined to lie and deceive the world into thinking Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, that he was an imminent threat. Prior to the meeting described in the document (which took place January 2003) the RAF and US military already were implementing a plan to provoke Saddam, doubling the rates of aerial bombings in Iraq during 2002 in an attempt to make Saddam respond. Apparently, this wasn't working fast enough. As this new document details, Bush and Blair decided to step up the provocation. They debated painting an American plane with U.N. colors to goad Saddam into firing it down. They talked of assassination. They conspired to manipulate evidence, to lie in their public statements to their people, to commit a war of aggression in violation of the public trust and the laws of the war.

This document confirms what a hundreds of previous pieces of evidence confirm: the President is a liar. When he told us on March 6, 2003 that "I've not made up our mind about military action," he lied. When he told us two days before Shock & Awe "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he lied. When he told us that Saddam "abosolutely" had a banned weapons program, he lied. Whenever George W. Bush opened his mouth to talk about Iraq from Sept. 11, 2001 on, he lied. He lied and he lies to this very day.

It's no surprise with this new document floating around for a couple months that Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Cover-Up Committee Pat Roberts has been scrambling to finish the whitewash into pre-war intelligence. After over two years of stonewalling and missed deadlines and statements that such an investigation is pointless, he suddenly has declared that the investigation into whether the administration lied is almost over. Yet he has stated that Phase II of the investigation did not include an analysis of whether the administration twisted intelligence to lead us into war.

Nearly five months have passed since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid stood on the Senate floor and proclaimed that "America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought this country to war." This newest document brings a new urgency to that call for truth. How many more Downing Street documents do we need before we hold this President accountable for a failed war of aggression? What can we do to show the American people that all the bloodshed on their TV screens is the result of a dangerously incompetent and manipulative President?

Shut down the Senate, Senator Reid. Shut. It. Down.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 648 • Replies: 14

No top replies

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

0 Replies

Old news, but bring it up as much as you like. Say, have you heard about Abu Gharib?

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Old news, but bring it up as much as you like. Say, have you heard about Abu Gharib?

Abu Gharib, eh? Has Bush learned to pronounce yet? People are still dying and billons of dollars are still being spent on Iraq. I wish it were old news. Unfortunately, it ain't, pal.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

paull wrote:
Old news, but bring it up as much as you like. Say, have you heard about Abu Gharib?

Abu Gharib, eh? Has Bush learned to pronounce yet? People are still dying and billons of dollars are still being spent on Iraq. I wish it were old news. Unfortunately, it ain't, pal.

Please give an example of one of the lies and some evidence that it was a lie.

I understand perfectly (from experience) that you can't support any of your opinions, never even try, and will just come back with some personal remark.

However, I enjoy making the point that you call Bush a liar with no ability to provide a particle of evidence that it's so.

0 Replies

Please play Brandon's favorite game.

0 Replies

Nope.

It is a stupid game.

0 Replies

Agreed.

0 Replies

Sorry Roxxxanne, as I have indicated in the past, I prefer the liar currently in office over his predecessor. The thing is with George I never get the feeling that he knows that he may be incorrect whereas with Clinton the dishonesty was right up there flapping around like mad and still he would deny his dishonesty. Hell, even George's harshest critics say he's too stupid to know what he's doing; therefore, he has no idea if he is telling a lie.

Aside from that Roxxxanne, you would do well to keep in mind that the majority of politicians are rear-end covering liars...why should George be excluded from that grouping? (that is, if he indeed has ever lied)

0 Replies

OMFG! The "everybody does it" defense. Lame.

0 Replies

That's a new one. I prefer Bush Lite's lies over another's because they're somehow more earnest?

I prefer his predescessor because 2300 American kids were still alive then, not to mention the Twin Towers still stood tall...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
paull wrote:
Old news, but bring it up as much as you like. Say, have you heard about Abu Gharib?

Abu Gharib, eh? Has Bush learned to pronounce yet? People are still dying and billons of dollars are still being spent on Iraq. I wish it were old news. Unfortunately, it ain't, pal.

Please give an example of one of the lies and some evidence that it was a lie.

I understand perfectly (from experience) that you can't support any of your opinions, never even try, and will just come back with some personal remark.

However, I enjoy making the point that you call Bush a liar with no ability to provide a particle of evidence that it's so.

The following are some statements from Bush compared with the memo. (posted this on another thread)

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/27/mcclellan-on-the-defensive-bushs-public-and-private-iraq-statements-were-fully-consistent/

0 Replies

No duplicity or inconsistency is shown there at all - quite the opposite, in fact. Should a nation seeking to redress the actions of another nation intend to make credible threat of military intervention as means of redress in the event of continued intransigence on the part of a second nation, it is reasonable and prudent that the nation pressing its demands on pain of militaqry intervention should take such steps, from planning all the way through to pre-positioning all assets as would be required to effect that military intervention on a moment's notice - otherwise, the announcement of intention rings as hollow as a UN resolution.

What is clear is that Saddam is the individual who chose war; Bush wasn't bluffing. The March 18th Ultimatum unambiguously reitterated the requirements Saddam had to meet to avoid military intervention. Saddam made his choice, Bush kept his word.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

paull wrote:

Old news, but bring it up as much as you like. Say, have you heard about Abu Gharib?

TODAY'S NEWS

Memo details Bush's resolve to invade Iraq
Don Van Natta Jr., New York Times

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Quote:

London -- In the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second U.N. resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made it clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by the New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second U.N. resolution against Iraq -- which they failed to obtain -- the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, the New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated but manageable. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a U.S. surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Hussein.

These proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Bush's extemporaneous suggestions or whether they were elements of the government's plan.

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which makes it illegal to divulge classified information.

LINK

Bush was determined to make his aggrandized image of himself as a war president happen at the expense of thousands of American lives and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. Provoke a war and become a superhero--with the American people bowing down to worship him and throw flowers at his feet. To fullfill the dreams of the spoiled, self-absorbed brat who was too cowardly to serve himself . . . other people had to die so he could stand on a pedestal of his own making. Hail to the Commander-in-Chief.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

No duplicity or inconsistency is shown there at all - quite the opposite, in fact. Should a nation seeking to redress the actions of another nation intend to make credible threat of military intervention as means of redress in the event of continued intransigence on the part of a second nation, it is reasonable and prudent that the nation pressing its demands on pain of militaqry intervention should take such steps, from planning all the way through to pre-positioning all assets as would be required to effect that military intervention on a moment's notice - otherwise, the announcement of intention rings as hollow as a UN resolution.

What is clear is that Saddam is the individual who chose war; Bush wasn't bluffing. The March 18th Ultimatum unambiguously reitterated the requirements Saddam had to meet to avoid military intervention. Saddam made his choice, Bush kept his word.

I don't see how you could have posted that load of bunk in such a serious tone. But considering the stretches reasoning I have heard from the defenders of the Iraq war both here and from news pundits ect. I shouldn't be too surprised.

0 Replies

Liar in Chief

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know