0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:05 pm
BernardR wrote:
Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV

Any comments, sir?

Wilson was one of the three independent inquiries. Please address the other two, as well as Tenet's memo to Rice.

Thank you for playing.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:06 pm
Sir- Mr. Just an Observer- I know that it is possible to call President Bush a liar but you cannot call the Associated Press a liar--All they have going for them is their credibility -

Please note:

The Associated Press initially reported on March 1 that federal disaster officials warned Bush and his homeland security chief at the Aug. 28 session that the storm could breach levees. On March 3, The AP moved a clarification that the story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees rather than the levees breaking.



Thank You, sir!!!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:08 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DrewDad,
One question...
What did the British inquiries come up with?

What Bush inquiries?

These were US inquiries, but not, I gather, at the request of the Bush administration. Why attempt to verification, when it might discredit a very nice sound bite?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:11 pm
DrewDad wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
DrewDad,
One question...
What did the British inquiries come up with?

What Bush inquiries?

These were US inquiries, but not, I gather, at the request of the Bush administration. Why attempt to verification, when it might discredit a very nice sound bite?


REad the question again...
I said BRITISH inquiries.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:11 pm
Drew Dad- I am eager to respond to the "other two" independent inquiries but I know of no other independent inquiries.

Do you have a link?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:22 pm
BernardR wrote:
Drew Dad- I am eager to respond to the "other two" independent inquiries but I know of no other independent inquiries.

Do you have a link?

Posted several times, and likely to be posted again.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:26 pm
I am sorry, Drew Dad, I am afraid that either I missed your link or did not see it.

A link-it is easy to spot.

You know--

http://etc.etc.

It usually comes up blue in a post. Did I miss it. Please forgive me if I did or refer me to your post in which you posted it. You know- a link I can click on to find the other two "independent inquiries"
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:27 pm
Wow!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:08 pm
One inquiry:
http://www.alternet.org/story/36183/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:09 pm
One A inauiry:
inquiries about yellow cake from niger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:11 pm
Two inquiry:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p01s04-uspo.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:12 pm
The Italian journalists are "hot on the trail" according to Mr. Imposter's last link.

When they hit paydirt, if they do, I hope it will be posted in the New York Times, the Washington Post and, my local paper, the Bethlehem Cradle.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:13 pm
Two A inquiry.

Which reminds me, isn't Bush's birthday coming up in July? It'd be a great idea for a demonstration--present him with an enormous yellowcake.
Posted by: Nancy Irving on June 28, 2004 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

The FT's description of their basis for saying there really were yellowcake discussion between Iraq and Niger smells to high heaven:

... European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

In other words, anonymous people unknown to the reporters said something that anonymous "European intelligence officials" say they found believable -- even though there's no documentation to back it up, and no proof that any uranium actually moved an inch as a result.

Yeah, right. After all we've been through, anyone who buys this at face value is a fool.

Between this and the similarly proofless statement by Putin last week, not to mention the desperate pushing-back on al-Qaeda links, I get the feeling something really damaging must be about to break.
Posted by: Swopa on June 28, 2004 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:14 pm
Three inquiry.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001477.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:25 pm
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:54 pm
BernardR wrote:
I am sorry, Drew Dad, I am afraid that either I missed your link or did not see it.

No doubt. Feel free to go back to my post. The link is, indeed, highlighted in blue.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 06:57 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
DrewDad,
One question...
What did the British inquiries come up with?

What Bush inquiries?

These were US inquiries, but not, I gather, at the request of the Bush administration. Why attempt to verification, when it might discredit a very nice sound bite?


REad the question again...
I said BRITISH inquiries.

My bad.

The British inquiry into this finding held that there was sufficient evidence to support that Saddam was seeking nuclear material based on two items:

1. Niger's primary export is uranium.
2. An Iraq trade delegation was sent to Niger in 1999 to improve trade.

A veritable smoking gun.



You might also give me some understanding of why this is relevant. Or are you saying that our government should rely on Britain to supply our intelligence estimates?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 07:00 pm
DrewDad, on page 26, wrote:
And there was this.

The Wikipedia article on the Yellowcake forgery wrote:
During the 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."

...

The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[2] However, the Administration has admitted that the claim was "a mistake."

...

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" in Bush's address to the nation, attributing the error to the CIA.[8]

...

...in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. At roughly the same time, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself... He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong"....

...

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asking Hadley to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

...


Still no reply from Brandon...

Three separate US inquiries determined that the British had it wrong, and Bush still chose to quote the British report.

I call that a deliberate attempt to mislead, which makes it a lie.

____________________________________________________________

See Bernard? I can repost, too.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 07:14 pm
DrewDad, The game they play is simple; produce three, and they'll want four; produce four, and they'll want five. No matter how many we produce, they'll continue to ask to produce more "evidence." They're a hopeless lot that no matter how much evidence is produce, they just ignore them to protect their own impossible position of defending this terrorist president that kills people by stretching the truth.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 07:25 pm
Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik.

Recently White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited a Rasmussen poll that found 64% believe the NSA "should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects." Of course, that is exactly what Congress authorized when it created the FISA courts to issue special expedited secret warrants for terrorism suspects. But Bush defied the FISA law and authorized warrantless wiretaps of Americans, which has outraged Americans to the point that a majority believe Congress should consider Bush's impeachment.

"Bush admits he ordered illegal warantless wiretapping, but says it began in response to 9/11 and was limited to a small number of calls to or from Al Qaeda," Fertik said. "But recent reports suggest wiretapping affected a much larger number of Americans, and a report in Friday's Truthout says the wiretapping began before 9/11."

"The upcoming Senate hearings on White House wiretapping could be as dramatic as the Watergate hearings in 1973. A majority of Americans have already believe Congress should look into grounds for impeachment, yet we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in the Corporate Media. If Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping long before the terrorist attack on 9/11, then Americans will realize that George Bush came into office determined to shred the Constitution and take away our rights," Fertik said.

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=12044
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 2.23 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 08:49:11