Proof of Bush's Lies

[doctorwho]

Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

1. I don't see where it says Bush and Blair knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Every intelligence agency around the world had information that there was WMD in Iraq, regardless of the fact that Inspectors had yet to find any in the months before the war or after.

My bad. The articles stated, "The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted." I interpreted "unconventional weapons" as WMD's.

2. Considering all the things that Saddam was still in violation of, thats probably true, unless Saddam solved those problems and or left the country. But everyone knew this at the time.

Yes, but Bush had basically delcared war on Saddam and Iraq well before he truly had reason. Saddam committed many UN violations, but even the UN disagreed with the U.S. on starting a war!! Yet, per this article, Bush didn't care what the UN thought. That says a lot.

3. The planes are already on a UN mission and its illegal for Saddam to fire at the planes. I don't see how painting the planes with UN markers makes any difference.

My understanding is that if Saddam fired on a UN plane (even a fake one) - where were on a UN mission, then that justifies going to war. In other words, Bush was essentially going to taunt Saddam until he broke. It's like a bully, picking on a little kid in the playground until one day that little kid finally snaps and fights back - but it's the little kid who gets in trouble for fighting, not the bully! So don't lose focus - Bush wanted to do this so he could provoke an attack and thereby justify a war. He wanted to trick the world.

Is the Memo considered to be an actual transcript of what was said or is it just a general summery?

Well, the Yahoo article is a summary, but it's giving quotes from the real NY Times article, which apparently quotes directly from the memo.

 

[trevster2k]

Funny how the world talks about democracy yet the very institution which allows every country in the world to have a say isn't a democracy since 5 countries have veto power. Hmm, and many times these 5 countries act against the wishes of the majority.

And yeah, Bush and his cronies had to SELL the war to the US which is why we have 3-5 reasons for the war now.

 

[Dreadsox]

So which is worse then, Clinton using his position of power for sex or Bush using his position of power to propogate American imperialism to the point of national self-destruction?

They are two separate problems in and of themselves.

I fail to see how or why one would equate them with each other, unless one was trying to make a political attack on one party or the other.

Clinton was impeached by Democrats and Republicans. He won the trial as he should have.



Bush did what he thought was the correct thing to do for the country. I think he went about it the wrong way. I think the problems that we have today in Iraq are largely because they did not handle themselves correctly leading up to the war. I still think the war was the right thing to do in this case.

I made my case for war here and do not have the time to articluate it here now. Summary version.

We created an enemy because of the 1st Gulf War. Our presence in the region brought the eyes of Al-Qaeda upon us.

We could not leave because Saddam was in power for 12 years violating UN resolutions.

We had to remove him and change the face of the middle east so that hopefully we can leave there in the next ten years.

This administration did not have the intestinal fortutude to present the truthful case on the issue to the American public, so they presented the case that people could most relate to after 9/11, WMD.

Impeachable, no, dishonest, possibly.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

1. I don't see where it says Bush and Blair knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Every intelligence agency around the world had information that there was WMD in Iraq, regardless of the fact that Inspectors had yet to find any in the months before the war or after.

True....

The French, Russian, and GERMAN intelligence all said that he had the stuff.

German intelligence put him at aquiring nucelar capabilities by 2007.

The fact is, as I hypothesized in this forum, just before the war broke, that the Iraqi governement was pretending to have the stuff.

[Q]2. Considering all the things that Saddam was still in violation of, thats probably true, unless Saddam solved those problems and or left the country. But everyone knew this at the time.[/Q]

Considering that the UN, because of the corruption with the food for oil program, was never going to do anything, it is no wonder that he kept violating resolution after resolution for 14 years.

 

[redsox04]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Actually, the fact that Clinton lied under oath is a big deal BUT it was about a consensual act between two adults which made it totally ridiculous. And looking back on it from a outside POV, it looks remarkably bizarre to see how much Clinton had to go through over a BJ.

The difference is that Clinton made his mistake with an act of sex that didn't hurt anyone.

...all they could come up with was some sexual indiscretions and inconclusive evidence on Whitewater.

I think we may have forgotten what the impeachment was predicated on: "Clinton had previously been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, most notably in regard to a relationship with singer and former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers and an encounter with Arkansas state employee Paula Jones in a Little Rock hotel room in which Jones claimed that Clinton had exposed himself to her. These affairs occurred during Clinton's term as Arkansas governor. Lewinsky's name actually surfaced during legal proceedings connected to the latter matter, when Jones' lawyers sought corroborating evidence of Clinton's conduct to substantiate Jones' allegations. Clinton denied having sexual intercourse with Lewinsky while under oath."

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

I think we may have forgotten what the impeachment was predicated on: "Clinton had previously been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, most notably in regard to a relationship with singer and former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers and an encounter with Arkansas state employee Paula Jones in a Little Rock hotel room in which Jones claimed that Clinton had exposed himself to her. These affairs occurred during Clinton's term as Arkansas governor. Lewinsky's name actually surfaced during legal proceedings connected to the latter matter, when Jones' lawyers sought corroborating evidence of Clinton's conduct to substantiate Jones' allegations. Clinton denied having sexual intercourse with Lewinsky while under oath."

If those seeking to make a negative political statement acknowledge this, then, there would be no negative political statement.

 

[diamond]

bush
will
skate

 

[BVS]

bush
will
skate

But does this mean anything?

No

But to so many, it doesn't matter.

 

[Irvine511]

bush
will
skate

hey diamond ...

 

[diamond]

hey diamond ...

 

[AliEnvy]

They are two separate problems in and of themselves.

I fail to see how or why one would equate them with each other, unless one was trying to make a political attack on one party or the other.

Clinton was impeached by Democrats and Republicans. He won the trial as he should have.

Oh I know, someone earlier had posed a similar comparison and I thought it was you but didn't go back to look, my bad. The only thing comparable about the 2 situations is that they both lied.

Bush did what he thought was the correct thing to do for the country. I think he went about it the wrong way.

 

[diamond]

he's being taught by the best.

 

[BVS]

Are you trying to say women are liars?

 

[Irvine511]

are you trying to tell me you have nice thighs?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No, diamond just likes Bush's moose knuckle

Isn't that Sarah Hughes?

 

[melon]

http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic60.jpg

dead
sexy

 

[Irvine511]

Bush's moose knuckle

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Uhoh, look out- diamond wil be ing

 

[diamond]

 

[deep]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel John Dean said on Friday that U.S. President George W. Bush's domestic spying program raised more concerns about abuse of power than the Watergate scandal that toppled his boss Richard Nixon.

Dean, who served time in prison for his role in Watergate, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a seemingly futile Democratic bid to censure Bush for the eavesdropping program that is part of his war on terrorism.

"I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious," Dean, whose testimony three decades ago help lead to Nixon's resignation in 1974, said in support of the seldom-used measure to discredit a president.

 

[doctorwho]

Diamond: I know Bush will skate - codpiece or not.

The question, though, is why? Like many U.S. presidents who served two terms (and this goes back to the founding fathers), Bush's second term has been surrounded in controversy and scandal. The difference is that in Clinton's era, it seemed the Republicans were desperate to find something on him. When Whitewater fizzled, they leapt for joy at his lie under oath. Trouble is, the people of the country didn't support our politicians. Clinton had OCEANS of support - with an approval rating soaring in the 70% range (and higher). Most people felt that while he did lie, his lie was of a personal nature - not one of national importance.

In contrast, let's look at Bush's approval rating - one of the lowest ever. His fellow Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from him! Proving Bush lied is a challenge, which is why he's probably not being impeached. But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.

As Bush can't win office any more, I doubt he cares about his approval rating, or the fact that his V.P. was involved in a company that overcharged Iraq in rebuilding, or that his spying was illegal, or that he's costing the lives of thousands. And this was all based on a lie he helped create.

 

[deep]

Bush would have lost the 2004 election if they had not covered up and lied.


Rove, Cheney, Libby are complicit in misleading and lying.

Insulating Bush

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 30, 2006

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

As the 2004 election loomed, the White House was determined to keep the wraps on a potentially damaging memo about Iraq.


Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.

The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue.

But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.

For one, Hadley's review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.

For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon -- even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.

And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration's conduct in the months leading up to war.

"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."

 

[unosdostres14]

But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.

I don't know about that. I'm sure that, even with the President's current approval rating, John Kerry would have found a way to lose.

 

[diamond]

ouch.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Bush would have lost the 2004 election if they had not covered up and lied.


Rove, Cheney, Libby are complicit in misleading and lying.

Sorry, but this is OLD news. All of this came out long before the election. The administration felt despite the warnings that it should be in the State Of The Union Address, and according to British intelligence, this was a sure thing. I don't see a cover up on this issue. If there was real hard evidence that the President lied about something, he would be impeached even with a majority Republican Congress.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Diamond: I know Bush will skate - codpiece or not.

The question, though, is why? Like many U.S. presidents who served two terms (and this goes back to the founding fathers), Bush's second term has been surrounded in controversy and scandal. The difference is that in Clinton's era, it seemed the Republicans were desperate to find something on him. When Whitewater fizzled, they leapt for joy at his lie under oath. Trouble is, the people of the country didn't support our politicians. Clinton had OCEANS of support - with an approval rating soaring in the 70% range (and higher). Most people felt that while he did lie, his lie was of a personal nature - not one of national importance.

In contrast, let's look at Bush's approval rating - one of the lowest ever. His fellow Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from him! Proving Bush lied is a challenge, which is why he's probably not being impeached. But I think the public knows best here. Bush should be glad this is 2006 and not 2004. There's no way he'd win a second term now.

As Bush can't win office any more, I doubt he cares about his approval rating, or the fact that his V.P. was involved in a company that overcharged Iraq in rebuilding, or that his spying was illegal, or that he's costing the lives of thousands. And this was all based on a lie he helped create.

I'd be careful about claiming that Bush's current approval rating is one of the lowest ever. Check out these low approval ratings for these past Presidents:

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952


-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975

-Carter: 28% late June, 1979

-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983

-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992

-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993

-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005


* to date


Source: Gallup polls, 1952-1991; CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, 1992-present.




The President is currently at 38% in the latest Gallup poll, up a percentage point from his November low point and higher than any other Presidents low point since World War II with the exception of Kennedy and Eisenhower.

 

[Irvine511]

The President is currently at 38% in the latest Gallup poll, up a percentage point from his November low point and higher than any other Presidents low point since World War II with the exception of Kennedy and Eisenhower.

and many polls put him much lower, closer to 32%, and we're dealing with an increasingly polarized country, so it would be difficult for a president in this climate, of any party, to fall below 30%, and it's statistically impossible, really to fall below 10%. what's telling is how far Bush has tumbled with independents, and how Republicans are choosing to distance themselves from him for the 2006 elections.

there's much more to all this than Clinton at 37% early in his first term -- i think you make a mistake by comparing overall low-approval ratings and the comparison would be much more accurate were you to compare W with other 2nd term presidents, (and let's note the trumping by certain administration mouthpieces on this board of "Bush is the first president to receive a majority of votes" which would mean that anything below 50% spells disaster) which would put him far, far lower than Reagan and Clinton, and do note that most of those presidents who had poll numbers as bad as Bush were kicked out of office (Bush 1, Carter) or resigned (Nixon) or chose not to see re-election (LBJ).

in sum: this is bad news, and it might be uniquely bad news for a president at this point in his 2nd term *especially* with troops in harms way (there's always a rally-around-the-flag effect that Bush can't seem to hold onto).

 

[diamond]

I511-
How was the movie?

dbs

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

and many polls put him much lower, closer to 32%, and we're dealing with an increasingly polarized country, so it would be difficult for a president in this climate, of any party, to fall below 30%, and it's statistically impossible, really to fall below 10%. what's telling is how far Bush has tumbled with independents, and how Republicans are choosing to distance themselves from him for the 2006 elections.

there's much more to all this than Clinton at 37% early in his first term -- i think you make a mistake by comparing overall low-approval ratings and the comparison would be much more accurate were you to compare W with other 2nd term presidents, (and let's note the trumping by certain administration mouthpieces on this board of "Bush is the first president to receive a majority of votes" which would mean that anything below 50% spells disaster) which would put him far, far lower than Reagan and Clinton, and do note that most of those presidents who had poll numbers as bad as Bush were kicked out of office (Bush 1, Carter) or resigned (Nixon) or chose not to see re-election (LBJ).

in sum: this is bad news, and it might be uniquely bad news for a president at this point in his 2nd term *especially* with troops in harms way (there's always a rally-around-the-flag effect that Bush can't seem to hold onto).

The blanket statements though about how the Presidents low approval numbers have never been seen before are simply false.

What will people say if the Presidents approval ratings rise over the next couple of years? Unemployment continues to fall, and economic growth continues. In addition, things may take a turn for the better in Iraq with the formation of a government, and the Iraqi military taking over more control of the fighting. The Presidents poll numbers have obviously been battered by bad news in Iraq and Katrina. Good news would of course have the opposite effect and his poll numbers would rise. Lets not forget that Bush still has nearly 3 years left in office. Thats a lot of time.

 

[Irvine511]

[BI511-
How was the movie?
[/B]

we didn't see it. we were invited to a BBQ centered around the Final Four (this being DC/NoVA, Mason are very popular, even though they beat my beloved UCONN) and never made the movie.