And you want the person these people would vote for to run your country?
ha
Daims said the most grievous crime committed by Bush and Cheney was perjury — lying to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq.
Where is the evidence that Bush or Cheney lied. I hate to bring up this old topic that has been proven false over and over and over again, but obviously liberals are not smart enough to understand the word lie.
You could make a point that we did find weapons, and Saddam admitted himself that he wanted to start his nuclear program back up...so you can argue that Bush wasn't even wrong.
But, for the sake of argument, Bush is wrong. That doesn't make him a liar. Do I have to list all the Democrats and other world leaders who said the exact same things Bush said.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Brattleboro to vote on arresting Bush, Cheney
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
I also supported Bush when he told us the WMD story. So, it's my fault now?
You don't go to a war based on faulty intelligence. It's a very very serious business and that's where Bush-Cheney made the blunder. It's like giving someone 'death sentence' - you better make sure that you have the 'full' details before taking his life. There is no room for error.
The 'loyalists' like you will never get this. It's all about party talking points dictated by your 'talk show' masters, correct?
Oh my!!!
No, its based on my logical brain and the understanding of the word lie.
And cut the talk show host bullshit
What would you accept as proof that Bush/Cheney manipulated the evidence in order to support their push to war?
It seems like there is nothing that would convince you that they mislead the nation in order to gain support for war, even though it has happened in the past.
from the washington post January 23, 2008:
The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know, or at least suspect, what they were saying was not supported by the facts.
keep fooling yourself, game, about the fine point of what the "meaning of 'is' is" or what is "a lie."
even your sissy liberal report has to use phrases like "or atleast suspect"
No shit idiot...they are given report after report after meeting after meeting.
The entire world thought the same thing, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry and all the rest.
The problem, Game, is that the Bush administration kept the excuplatory evidence to themselves. They didn't share with Congress that, for example, the aluminum tubes were most certainly not for enriching uranium, and instead told Congres they were. They did not tell Congress that everyone who'd ever met "Curveball" thought he was lying through his teeth and instead passed on Curveball's tales as if they were hard fact.
And so on.
I would be more than happy to give Bush and Cheney and the rest of that war machine the benefit of the doubt except for two things:
1. They deliberately withheld evidence that undermined their public statements not just from the people but from the Congress that had to vote on a war resolution.
2. A significant chunk of the White House staff making these war plans had been anxious to eliminate Saddam Hussein for the better part of a decade leading up to the Iraq War, and had shown a single-minded determination to make Iraq the central front in a new war for American hegemony.
And no, that is not my irrational Bush Derrangement Syndrome. It is directly from the history of the Project for a New American Century, which for most of the 1990s was agitating for another Iraq War and featured Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Armitage, Bolton, and more. Their names are signed to letters and demands for exactly this war years before they were a part of an administration that facilitated it.
Do I think Bush ought to personally be held for war crimes? No. But I do think we need a full and open accounting of exactly what transpired between January 20, 2001 and March 20, 2003, including who really knew what when,
American,
You are a Democrat talking point fool. You are speaking in partisan hindsight. At the time the decision was made to take out Iraq, All major Democrats said Saddam had WMD. Not only that, Saddam was violating the cease fire by shooting at coalition planes.
But, that doesn't further your liberal agenda. You just have to continue the usual nutberger lies.
Are you going to say 9/11 was a Bush inside job, too?
Realism,
I would not accept anything from you, Think Progress, or any other Liberal website you cut and pasted from.
Anonymous,
Quoting from a George Soros funded propaganda organ is not proof of anything but your blind allegiance to a Anti-American agenda.
Keep getting technical about the word 'lie' and dig urself deeper.
Even if Bush comes forward admitting how he pushed for war, it would not convince you. Instead, you might call it another 'liberal' conspiracy! So...
PCD,
Seriously, when do you say something other than 'Sean Hannity' talking points?
Is it wrong to hold Bush accountable for Iraq war? I supported him based on what he told us before going to war. As it turns out, he didn't fully disclose all the stuff they knew. That's where I find it very disturbing.
Stop calling names just because we have a different opinion - Being a blind 'loyalist' doesn't make you any smarter, dude!
pcdummy, keep it up, keep shoveling your same old excrement.
democrats only said what they were told by the white house. contrary to apparent current wing-nut "wisdom", the democrats did not have their own independent intelligence agency.
only a very few nuts still claim 911 was an inside job.
sorry pcdummy if the truth seems to be liberal. and i don't care if saddam himself funded the study. if the study cites actual facts, and it does, then it counts. you could discount the list by half and you still have over 400 administration lies.
Jay, American, Realisim, Anon,
You couldn’t be more misguided!
As has been stated time and time again, and you so convinetly ignore, is the best intelligence estimate at the time, believed by most everyone in the world is Bush made the correct call!
Jay, you made much of the fact that you feel Bush “withheld contradicting evidence”. I hate to break this to you but there is always contradicting intel, always! One has to sift through the contadicting intel and make the best assessment possible. The mere fact that it existed means nothing, other than it takes a little longer to make a decision.
Anon quotes the Washington Post (that bastion of unbiased reporting). “the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion”. Well, no shit shirlock! Once you’ve looked at all the intel, and come to a conclusion, a good leader tends to try to sway those to his point of view! Nothing unusual here, just good leadership! Do we want a pansy ass hand wringer to go over and over all the differing points of view, without making up his mind, and waiting on the opinion polls to decide how he should react? If so, your idea of a leader differs greatly from my own!
Bush sifted through all the differing intel, and chose that which seemed most realistic, taking into account the opinions of leaders throughout the world, and decided on a decisive course of action, as a real leader should do.
You armchair quarterbacks can play “coulda, shoulda, woulda” all day long. But the fact remain that a real leader doesn’t have that luxury. Not to mention that an American presence in the Middle East is a good thing!.
I’ll leave you with a little story.
There’s a known felon and his felonious family that lives at the end of your street. One day he stands in his front yard and starts yelling ”I’m going to kill all of you!!! We have AK47’s and know how to us them! I hate you! My family hates you! We are going to hunt you down and kill you like the dogs you are! If you come near me, you’ll all die!!!”
Now, should we send in the SWAT team to take care of this lunatic, or should we approach him, hat in hand, wringing our hands, and say “Please mister, we mean you no harm”.?
well done
blamin', funny story...totally irrelevant.
i would rather die in a bomb blast, then be saved by torture
and that is the difference...
conservatives want to protect their country and family...
Your thought process weakens the country and puts everyone's life at risk
Bush sifted through all the differing intel, and chose that which seemed most realistic
But this is not true. He chose that which made the case he wanted to make, not the case that was most realistic. Again, I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if not for a number of disturbing facts: His questions right after 9/11 about whether they could tie it to Iraq (including the infamous "F Saddam, we're taking him out" remarks); Rumsfeld's pressure to tie Saddam to 9/11; the PNAC gang's long-standing desire to take out Iraq ans establish permanent military bases there (did you catch Bush's signing statement this week telling Congress he was going to ignore their order not to establish such bases?); and so on. Perhaps most disturbing is Bush's continued and repeated insistence that he started the war after Saddam refused to let inspectors in--which is just patently false. Yet he repeats the lie every few months, including recently on, I think, his Middle East trip.
Your crazy neighbor story isn't even that funny. But it might be accurate if you added a few sentences: He's not really our neighbor, but lives across town. He stopped yelling a few years ago. When they search his house, they don't actually find any AK47s. Just to start.
Jay,
Thanks for correcting Blamin's "story"!! Good Job!
On the other hand, his story exposed how they all think and see the world...in their own 'twisted' way...leaving important facts behind!!
Jay, can you tell the truth about anything anymore? Do you even know what truth is? It is not a concept, except to brain damaged liberals.
Oh, Jay, you owe apologies to Game and to Dooley. Are you this much of a partisan boor?
It is so sad that hash is more than willing to shill for a Soros bought and paid for shill tank, yet rails about how the GOP are bought and paid for.
Phillip, When you have proof, not anti-american propaganda, I might listen.
American, you are anything but a patriot.
If Bush were half the Nazi you three portray him as, you'd all be up against a wall and have been shot long ago.
Jay,
You have no way of knowing what exactly was known nor the timetable in which the intel was received. It’s pure speculation and conjecture on your part. Your preconceived notions have forced you to what you believe is a well-thought out conclusion. Admittedly, it’s the same with myself.
So what’s a thinking man to do? I say, err on the side of caution when it comes to persons who wish you harm. I chose the side of a leader, you, seem to, chose the side of limp-wristed knee-knockers.
I totally understand your wish to err on the side of sanity, after all, war is insanity, but you have a certain luxury that those responsible for other lives don’t have, that is the comforting blanket of retrospection from the safety of your home. Oh how easy it is to cast disparaging remarks upon those whom have to quickly make decisions that allow, no, enable, us to enjoy that comfy retrospect from the safety of our homes.
As to my story –
I never claimed it was “funny”, never intended it to be so. But ya see, I don’t give a damn if the lunatic lives next door or across town. I still want the problem taken care of! If any person utters what I believe to be a legitimate threat to the safety of me or mine, then I have every right to expect the “powers that be (PTB)” to take care of that problem. If the PTB can’t or won’t do their constitutional job, then it is up to the man in the mirror to do whatever is necessary to insure the well-being of his family.
That is a leader’s job, just on a larger scale. WTF does it take for you people to realize that? 9/11 wasn’t enough? Don’t hand me that BS about Sadaam not being part of the 9/11 plan, he gave aid and comfort to the enemy. That is enough. “If you can’t take out the head, start with the knees”.
I am disappointed to see Jay fall for this simple logic. The President gets thousands of reports, conflicting data every day. He, along with every single country and intel agency saw their data and all agreed on the same conclusion. It is petty and a partisan attack to take some of the data the President got and say he was hiding something or ignored the signs.
@ PCD: Your talk of 'getting shot' shows your disturbing 'emotional' side. Really hard to reason with you when you are more interested in ugly 'name calling'!
@ Blamin: Going by your logic, we should invade Iran, North Korea and Pakistan immediately? Because, they really do have 'nuclear' programs! Your comments on 'links to 9/11' reminded me of '9/11 internal conspiracy job' nutcases!
Amen, brother,
It just amazes me that so-called intelligent people fall for such shallowness. I guess they have no since of history, no since of the “real” world, no since of the capacity of man to mislead another for his or her own gain.
No American,
You’ve missed the boat as usual.
Iran, North Korea, and “Pakistan” are all legitimate targets, Yes?
But there are dozens of “legitimate targets” through out the world A true leader will pick and choose that which he has a chance of making a difference. Should we invade Pakistan, how about North Korea? Are you suggesting that we should “attack” any and all that are antagonist just because we chose one? Get real! We have the chance to make a small (minisucle) chance to change peoples minds.
Come on man! Do you not know what the situation is “over there:?
"We have the chance to make a small (minisucle) chance to change peoples minds."
blamin', THAT is your rationale for invading iraq?
No, my rationale is:
A) They (Iraq) brook the terms of the armistice
B) We felt threatened.
C) We needed to establish a presence in the cauldron that is the Middle East
D) We needed a base to back up our Afghanistan operations.
E) The Iraqi people support our intentions.
You weenies hate that last one don’t you? You simply can’t stand the fact that the people welcome our efforts. Sit in your lazy chair, sip your white wine while studying your English to French dictionary, grow a pair and shut the hell up.
Blamin writes..."The Iraqi people support our intentions."
More and more I listen to you ...it's getting very clear that you are nothing but a Parrot repeating your master's talking points.
We have sacrificed almost 4000 brave men and women over a 'mistake'! (Not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars!!)Smart people learn quickly and correct their mistakes.
As Bill O'Reilly said - 'Blind Ideology is very dangerous'!! :)
Bush and Cheney acted on data that was *very well known to be false and uncorroborated* within the global intelligence community.
Using this data in any way, is blatant deception, even implied, let alone stated as facts.
The Italian that leaked this was a fraud, and France warned the US and England that the data was false well in advance to Bush appearing in public with this.
Additionally, the other data reference, the intelligence report from Africa (Nigeria?), was also identified by Bush people *one year* before he went on air with the speech, as being false.
They acted with full knowledge that what they were selling was absolutely false.
no games. no remorse. no minced words.
these are publicly accountable facts, and if I lost one family member to this, I would pursue that they pay to the full extent of the law, which in this case is treason.jvofttej
blamin' said,
No, my rationale is:
A) They (Iraq) brook the terms of the armistice
so we invade them?
B) We felt threatened.
are you shittin' me? we felt threatened by a 2-bit dictator whose ass we kicked back to baghdad in 1991? really?
C) We needed to establish a presence in the cauldron that is the Middle East
having israel as an ally and troops in kuwait wasn't enough? and who made us the middle east cops?
D) We needed a base to back up our Afghanistan operations.
what do you call kuwait? we were in afghanistan for over a year before we invaded iraq.
E) The Iraqi people support our intentions.
not by any poll i've ever seen. they resent the imposition of american force. they support our being there for 100 years? i doubt it.
Post a Comment