0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 06:11 am
Quote:
Body Count in Baghdad Nearly Triples
Morgue's Revised Toll for August Undermines Claims by Leaders of Steep Drop in Violence

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 8, 2006; Page A12

BAGHDAD, Sept. 7 -- Baghdad's morgue almost tripled its count for violent deaths in Iraq's capital during August from 550 to 1,536, authorities said Thursday, appearing to erase most of what U.S. generals and Iraqi leaders had touted as evidence of progress in a major security operation to restore order in the capital.

Separately, the Health Ministry confirmed Thursday that it planned to construct two new branch morgues in Baghdad and add doctors and refrigerator units to raise capacity to as many as 250 corpses a day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700768.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 01:33 pm
Another one of Bush's lies that our conservative friends still cling to. And where was the Bush administration getting this information? From paid Chalabi informants that the CIA said were unreliable.
\
Gen Zinni;
Quote:
Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt.


But the Bush administration didn't care about reliability. They would take any information, no matter how unreliable or false it may be if it would give them excuse to invade Iraq. On top of that they ignored all information that showed Saddam Hussein not having WMD or close ties with Al Qaeda.
For those lies thousands of Americans have died and thousands more will die in the future.

Quote:
Senate Report Finds No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties
By JIM ABRAMS, AP

WASHINGTON (Sept. 8) - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe - contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time - that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.
9/8/2006 12:44:22

How do we know Bush lied? Beause Zarqawi's camp was in NE Iraq on the Iranian border. Saddam was not allowed to sent planes or troops into that area. It was outside of his control. Bush knew that. But Bush never told that to the American public. He used a living Zarqawi to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was protecting Al Qaeda operatives. Bush could have taken Zarqawi out but he didn't. He, Bush, did more to protect Zarqawi than Saddam Hussein.

Remember what Bush knew;
Quote:
At the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was an undercover officer in the CIA whose mission had been to gather intelligence about WMDs in Iraq. She was the operations manager of the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit in the clandestine service of the CIA. This unit desperately tried to obtain evidence to back up the Bush administration's assertions about Saddam's WMDs, yet it found no such evidence.

No evidence of WMD.

Bush said Saddam was a threat to the region. A lie. Gen. Zinni said;
Quote:
We bombed him almost at will. No one in the region felt threatened by Saddam. No one in the region denied us our ability to conduct sanctions. Many countries joined us in sanctions enforcement, in the no-fly zones, and in the maritime intercept operations where we attempted to intercept his oil and gas smuggling.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 04:11 pm
Quote:
The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe -- contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time -- that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."


Link

BUSH is a LIAR. BUSH is a LIAR. How many more years of war must this country endure to pay for Bush's lies?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 05:14 pm
Torturing The Truth

CBS' Meyer: President Bush Has Lied And Continues To Do So

Quote:
The president also told Ms. Couric that one of the things he felt badly about from his tenure was Abu Ghraib. Now Abu Ghraib was where torture was photographed and then shown to the world. Similar torture was carried out, we learned, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

But, "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."

What is being tortured here is the truth.

The president's statement here is beyond doublespeak and above spin. It's untrue, it's egregious. The Pentagon's backhanded, long-delayed and uncourageous acknowledgment that torture was used also repudiated what the president has been telling citizens for years. We've been lied to and we are still being lied to. By the president.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 10:48 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
Torturing The Truth

CBS' Meyer: President Bush Has Lied And Continues To Do So

Quote:
The president also told Ms. Couric that one of the things he felt badly about from his tenure was Abu Ghraib. Now Abu Ghraib was where torture was photographed and then shown to the world. Similar torture was carried out, we learned, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

But, "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."

What is being tortured here is the truth.

The president's statement here is beyond doublespeak and above spin. It's untrue, it's egregious. The Pentagon's backhanded, long-delayed and uncourageous acknowledgment that torture was used also repudiated what the president has been telling citizens for years. We've been lied to and we are still being lied to. By the president.

It is our policy not to torture prisoners. The fact that a few bad apples broke the rules, as happens in each and every war, is hardly Mr. Bush's fault.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 11:14 pm
I bet those secret CIA prisons are full of wholesome Geneva-Convention-recognizin' folk.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 12:38 am
candidone1 wrote:
I bet those secret CIA prisons are full of wholesome Geneva-Convention-recognizin' folk.

Your confidence in your government is touching. If you have evidence, then by all means present it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 05:36 am
Bush is still saying the same old lies and our A2K conservatives still believe him.

Quote:
Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 8, 7:48 PM ET

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.

"Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden," Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI.


The report also faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Liar LIAR LIAR

Aug. 21 was three weeks ago and in spite of this intelligence report Bush is still rolling out the same old lies.


Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq.

They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.

Republicans said the document, which compares prewar intelligence with post-invasion findings on Iraq's weapons and on terrorist groups, broke little new ground. And they said Democrats were distorting it for political purposes.

A previous report in 2004 made clear the intelligence agencies' "massive failures," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a member of the committee. "Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.

It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.

The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee.

Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.

They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the mistakes of prewar intelligence have long been known and "the additional views of the committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase had been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how far the committee should delve into the question of whether policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to ask for an investigation into the amount of information remaining classified. He said, "I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability."

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 07:50 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
I bet those secret CIA prisons are full of wholesome Geneva-Convention-recognizin' folk.

Your confidence in your government is touching. If you have evidence, then by all means present it.


It's all perspective, I guess. From where I sit, it's your confidence in your government that's so darn cute.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 08:05 am
Only simpletons pr blind partisans ask to be pointed to specific instances in which it can be proven that Bush lied. The best liars mix a little truth in with their lies. Or lie by innuendo. See Joseph Goebbels.

The simple fact is that the the totality of waht Bush asys is a lie. Any intelligent person who is not a blind person can see this.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 03:48 am
The left wing- stupid as usual--does not know the definition of a lie.

When the lie can be proven in a court of law, then it is a lie.

When Clinton said he did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, to all of us on TV, most of us were skeptical but we HAD NO PROOF HE WAS LYING.

Then the DNA appeared on the dress.

The definition of Lie

Black's Law Dictionary--

A FALSEHOOD UTTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEPTION.


It must be proven that the person KNEW it was a falsehood

and it must be proven that the person uttering it was doing it to deceive!


When Tenet gave President Bush the word that it was a "slam-dunk"(with regard to Iraq having WMD's) would President Bush view his subsequent statement based on that intelligence as a FALSEHOOD!!!?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:40 am
BernardR wrote:
The left wing- stupid as usual--does not know the definition of a lie.

When the lie can be proven in a court of law, then it is a lie.

When Clinton said he did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, to all of us on TV, most of us were skeptical but we HAD NO PROOF HE WAS LYING.

Then the DNA appeared on the dress.

The definition of Lie

Black's Law Dictionary--

A FALSEHOOD UTTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEPTION.


It must be proven that the person KNEW it was a falsehood

and it must be proven that the person uttering it was doing it to deceive!


When Tenet gave President Bush the word that it was a "slam-dunk"(with regard to Iraq having WMD's) would President Bush view his subsequent statement based on that intelligence as a FALSEHOOD!!!?


Just curious and a bit off subject; does anyone know the definition of "sexual intercourse" as defined by law, say federal law? I know laws, for the most part, are or try to be very percise when defining something.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:52 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Only simpletons pr blind partisans ask to be pointed to specific instances in which it can be proven that Bush lied. The best liars mix a little truth in with their lies. Or lie by innuendo. See Joseph Goebbels.

The simple fact is that the the totality of waht Bush asys is a lie. Any intelligent person who is not a blind person can see this.

Then it's awfully odd that you resist so strongly supporting your allegation with an example or too. In the world of debate, asking for someone to support his position isn't considered some kind of bizarre affront. The fact is that you cannot give examples, or you would.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:58 am
A short search came out with a defination in Missouri law:

Quote:
The State of Missouri defines sexual intercourse as penetration of the vagina by the penis. This means that according to Missouri law, rape only occurs if it committed against a woman by a man. According to law, however, both men and women can be victims and perpetrators of sodomy. Remember that these definitions and policies may be different in other states and vary across college campuses
.


source: cache of http://www.cmsu.edu/x91666.xml as retrieved on 3 Sep 2006 20:22:37 GMT (by google)
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:20 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
A short search came out with a defination in Missouri law:

Quote:
The State of Missouri defines sexual intercourse as penetration of the vagina by the penis. This means that according to Missouri law, rape only occurs if it committed against a woman by a man. According to law, however, both men and women can be victims and perpetrators of sodomy. Remember that these definitions and policies may be different in other states and vary across college campuses
.


source: cache of http://www.cmsu.edu/x91666.xml as retrieved on 3 Sep 2006 20:22:37 GMT (by google)


That's Missouri law. But I believe Clinton was subject to federal law. If the federal law is like the Missouri law then Clinton didn't lie when he said he didn't have sex with Monica. Anyway, as far as I can determine, there was no intercourse between the two, or should I say the penetration of the vagina by a presidental penis.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:51 am
Quote:
As one court has stated, "n common parlance the terms 'sexual intercourse' and 'sexual relations' are often used interchangeably." Dictionary definitions make the same point.

For example,

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "sexual relations" as "coitus;"

Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines "sexual relations" as "sexual intercourse; coitus;"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "sexual relations" as "coitus;"

Black's Law Dictionary defines "intercourse" as "sexual relations;" and

Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary defines "sexual relations" as "sexual intercourse; coitus."


http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/120998impeach-wtext.html



It seems if we use the Black Law dictionary definition of "lie" and of "sexual relations" then Clinton didn't lie.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 06:22 am
snood wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
I bet those secret CIA prisons are full of wholesome Geneva-Convention-recognizin' folk.

Your confidence in your government is touching. If you have evidence, then by all means present it.


It's all perspective, I guess. From where I sit, it's your confidence in your government that's so darn cute.

I see you focussed in on the subjective statement, and characteristically overlooked the request for hard evidence.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 06:53 am
Brandon will hang onto the mast until it, too, sinks in the sea.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 06:57 am
It's really fascinating...
I bet as he sinks below the level of his nostrils, he'll be asking for definitive proof of the water.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 07:04 am
At least Brandon actually discusses the subject. The rest of you seem to be discussing Brandon.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 03:40:25