Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-02-2003, 08:28 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:55 PM
anitram,

You can speculate until hell freezes over that Bush lied about something, anything, in order to go to war in Iraq. But right now, there is no evidence that the Bush administration lied or stretched anything.

Only 10% of the people in the poll felt Bush lied about ANYTHING! While people may have a wide definition of what "stretching the truth" means, one thing it is not, is lying.

None of this change the facts on the ground that were reported by the UN INSPECTORS. Saddam had WMD at the end of 1998, FACT! It was up to Saddam to either hand over or show the remains of this WMD when inspectors returned in the fall of 2002. He did neither?

The Bush administrations actions are based on those FACTS! Did Saddam comply with his obligations when the UN inspectors returned in the fall of 2002, NO?

The only one that has lied in this process, or that anyone can factually claim they were "had by", is Saddam.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 08:39 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 01:55 PM
OK - Clinton lied, yes. God forbid he didn't want to go on record saying he got , well you know, but in Bush's case if he acted on what he was told, by his "quote" advisors, in his own adminstration, does that make him any less culpable? I know there was very strong dissention - including Colin Powell, concering going in without strong coalition supportand I'm not trying to say he has done anything wrong - I really hope/think there are/were WMD there. Where they are now is anyone's guess. I'm just saying that if he has invaded a country based on eroneous information, this country is in for some really bad times and it unfourtunately, may have given some rogue nations the wrong idea. Every action has a reaction or something like that. I don't know, I'm really trying not to worry about it, but I can't help it when I keep seeing reports on the solders being killed under the conditions they are left in.
__________________

__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 10:16 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Well, here's just one "stretch" to chew on.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 11:46 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Yes, I read about this. It's one of the reason's I'm so distressed about anything coming out of the White House. I don't trust Ashcroft, at all, and anyone that has anything to do with him and that includes the WH. The blame for no weapons of MD being found is so activily being focused on the various agencies -saying they are sending bogus intelligence reports are just - Bullshit - It's not that I trust the CIA ,NSA etc but I don't believe the reports these agencies are giving have been wrong for decades, It's just now they are getting ignored or turned around. There have been enough whistle blower's to come forward and the rest can't, for fear of reprisals. How can anyone effectively function in the type of enviroment set up by this adminstration. when anything you say and everyting you know - can & will be used aganist you, To take the fall for the actions of this government.
Geez - Im tired, and on vacation.. Why can't I just let it go...
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 12:39 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Re: its interesting sociological discussion time

Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
so then 62% of americans see their president as having done something wrong, to some degree, in rationalizing reasons to go to war.

i really wish this study had gone one step further and asked whether their feelings about his truth telling abilities, in such a serious matter, will weigh heavily on their 04 vote.

either way its obvious clinton picked the wrong subject matter to lie about.
Are you talking about when former President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq to divert attention away from his courtroom lies?

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 12:47 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
Well, here's just one "stretch" to chew on.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.
I may be missing some dates in the middle of this somewhere, but are you saying that the CIA knew in March 2002 that an as-yet unmade claim, which would later be made in January 2003, that Britain learned Saddam recently sought uranium from Africa, was false? I think of "recently" as being within a few months ago; if Britain made this claim sometime just prior to the January 2003 State of the Union, how would the CIA have know nearly a year earlier that it was false? What if Britain leasrned of this in November 2002, several months after the CIA's March 2002 knowledge?

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 01:10 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Hmmm you may be on to something U2 BAMA, *should go into the witness protection program - now* Seroiusly, No one is going to come out of the White House and say "we knew about this". So now look for the WH to blame Britian.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:26 AM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Just east of Brunoville..
Posts: 50
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Will he be impeached over these accquisations or reelected?
America seems to loves victims.

Atticus
__________________
the hand that leads you
is the hand that
will push you away..
Atticus Finch is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 05:09 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Quote:
take a look at that BBC article:
The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.
So.. he says that they used the wmds as a justification for war because of "bureaucratic reasons", what a coincidence, most "facts" they presented at the UN were prooven wrong, the presented lots of untrue things to the Blix team too..
...so i guess if you forget for a moment that this is the bush administration (imagine for example that the french whould have made up something like that) than.. "stretched the truth" is one of the nicer things you would have thought about this.

Remember that - when the Iraq war started - most Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. There you can see what "effective" propaganda can do

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 05:40 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
I may be missing some dates in the middle of this somewhere, but are you saying that the CIA knew in March 2002 that an as-yet unmade claim, which would later be made in January 2003, that Britain learned Saddam recently sought uranium from Africa, was false? I think of "recently" as being within a few months ago; if Britain made this claim sometime just prior to the January 2003 State of the Union, how would the CIA have know nearly a year earlier that it was false? What if Britain learned of this in November 2002, several months after the CIA's March 2002 knowledge?
IIRC, this was a claim that Hussein was trying to acquire uranium in 2000 or 2001 in Nigeria. I don't know why it was mentioned as 'recently' by Bush, it depends on your definition of 'recently', I guess. Basically, the documents 'proving' this transaction were forged, badly. It was apparently almost immediately clear that these documents were false (for example, they were undersigned by a Nigerian minister who was out of office for more than a decade, etc.).

I hope this clears it up a bit.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 09:09 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Re: Re: its interesting sociological discussion time

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


Are you talking about when former President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq to divert attention away from his courtroom lies?

~U2Alabama
no i wasnt but thats definitely fair game.

is it just the office then? that solid mahogany desk make them do stupid stuff?
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:20 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:55 PM
If a piece of information that Bush presented as evidence later turned out not to be true, fine. As long as to the best of Bush's knowledge and his advisors, they thought this was good intelligence at the time, thats fine. Again, there is not proof that anyone lied about any thing here.


What to many people here want to avoid for some reason, is that the majority of the Bush Administrations evidence was based on the UN inspectors report at the end of 1998 after being forced from Iraq.

SADDAM never complied with any of his obligations! Thats a fact! Saddam never accounted for his WMD. It was Saddam's responsibility in the fall of 2002 to either hand over the WMD or show the remains of its destruction. Saddam did neither!

The coalition invasion soon followed for the obvious reasons.

Its as simple as that folks. But if the Dems want to pursue this and have Howard Dean as their Candidate in 2004, that just fine. That will insure that W will win in the largest landslide in US history. As a opponent, Howard Dean is every Republicans dream.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:25 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:55 PM
For the millionth time: UN inspectors were WITHDRAWN from Iraq in 1998. They were not thrown out. They were advised to withdraw because the US planned to bomb sites in Iraq within the next few days.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:36 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 01:55 PM
sting2, I hate to break in on your premature electoral celebration party, but this thread is not about the elections. It's about Bush's administration being perceived as misleaders. The words "credibility gap" ought to be important. Next time Bush wants the world to join him in a war on terror based on "intelligence" data, it will be much less likely that our coalition of the coerced will be able to be assembled so easily.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 04:20 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:55 PM
FizzingWhizzbees,

"For the millionth time: UN inspectors were WITHDRAWN from Iraq in 1998. They were not thrown out. They were advised to withdraw because the US planned to bomb sites in Iraq within the next few days."

For the millionth time, was SADDAM cooperating with the UN inspectors?!?! NO What does the UN ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 say about Saddams failure to cooperate?

Saddams actions preventing the UN inspectors from properly doing their work forces them to leave in order to allow other measures to force Saddam to cooperate. If Saddam had cooperated the inspectors would not of had to leave. Saddams actions forced the UN inspectors to leave.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com