Bush is either a liar or a fool

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Personally, I he's both, but oh well.

[Antares]

Sorry, but anybody calling a camera-drone with a range of 150km and a payload of only 10 kg a threat to the US is a fool.

[Crown]

Just to add to the post;

US President George W Bush has announced an inquiry into pre-war intelligence that said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The BBC Reports.

[Antares]

The only horrible thing about all this is the fact, that nobody will actually feel any consequences. Can the US suddenly leave Iraq even if it was revealed, that the oil was the main reason for war? No ! Nobody would even dare trying.

Like everytime the winners write the history and define good and bad and the US "won" the war and conquered (is nothing more or less IMO) another country, after afganistan.

What's really frightening me is the propaganda machinery of the US which seems to work quite well on the common folks.
The medias were adviced from several official sides to be "pro Iraq war". Anybody who was against it was called a anti-patriotist or even a conspirator with the terrorism or the islamic world.

I have seen many reports how arab people were treated after 9/11 the following two years.

Like the mayor of London said, Bush is a threat to human kind and in my opinion the biggest warmonger since ... uhm... no i better dont say it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Just to add to the post;

US President George W Bush has announced an inquiry into pre-war intelligence that said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The BBC Reports.

Dosen't change the fact that he's a liar or a fool. If he lied then he's just going to blame the whole thing on a patsy using this "offical" investigation to give the "its all his fault, not mine" scheme some aura of credibility.

If he's a fool, an investigation as to who fooled him won't change the fact that he lead the entire nation into war and quagmire based on "erroneous" information.

That being said, of the two I mentioned I think the former is more likely.

[theski]

This is a intelligence failure..... and again here is the list of Dems who also saw all of the evidence and claimed that Iraq had WMDS....

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is backing the Bush administration on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Here are two reports from an interview at a Wednesday breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor:

"[Hillary Clinton] stood by her vote last November for the congressional resolution authorizing the war, and carefully distanced herself from recent charges by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D -Mass.) 'Based on what we knew and believed [about the Iraqi threat], it was merited,' she said of her vote. She said she consulted widely before that vote and found that U.S. intelligence 'from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II was consistent' in concluding that there was 'a continuing presence of biological and chemical weapons programs' in Iraq and that the Iraqis were seeking to develop a nuclear capacity. --Washington Post, 9/24/03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep24.html
"Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and 'the behavior' of his regime 'pointed to a continuing effort' to produce WMD, she added. The senator said she did her own 'due diligence' by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. 'To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence' that Saddam had WMD. --Weekly Standard, 9/24/03 --http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... omFont=YES

Senator Clinton, with her long-standing special access to national intelligence, also was confident of the Iraq-Al Qaeda link:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." --Speech on the Senate floor, October, 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Dick Gephardt, (D-Mo.) made the following statements on Meet the Press on Sept. 28th, 2003:

REP. GEPHARDT: (Showing a videotape from October 2, 2002) In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security. (End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "A unique and dangerous threat." We have not found any such weapons. Were you wrong or misled?

REP. GEPHARDT: Tim, I didn't just take the president's word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Look, after 9/11, we're in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That's my highest responsibility, that's the Congress' highest responsibility, and the president's. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that. --Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03 http://www.msnbc.com/news/973028.asp



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Sen. Ted Kennedy also was aware of the evidence and believed that Iraq had WMDs. The following is from a Kennedy press release issued last October and still on his website: http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stat ... 07621.html It is not possible to reconcile these comments with his slanderous accusations of last week:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ... There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ... In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...
"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. .. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002

Kennedy also wrote at the time, "Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. --9/27/03 http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/index_high.html So what happened, Ted?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. John Kerry also was aware of the evidence and was convinced that Iraq had WMDs. The following is from a speech he gave at Georgetown University in January, 2003: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... erry01.htm

"... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that the Democrats wanted President Clinton to launch a pre-emptive strike five years ago. But nothing happened. Nothing happened until the terrorists attacked us in a more dramatic way than they had in the past, and President Bush emerged as our leader in the war on terrorism. Had he been a Democrat, the people who signed the following letter would be singing his praises. But alas, they're far too partisan for that.

October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. ...

[From the letter attached]

"We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.
"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

full list.... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ ... -9-98.html


http://www.vermontgop.org/wmd_09_03.shtml

or do you need more....

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... nt=article

If you need more just ask.....

[Faram]

Nice article but i think the title on this post is wrong, it should read:

"Bush is a liar and a fool"

[The Kernel]

This is a intelligence failure..... and again here is the list of Dems who also saw all of the evidence and claimed that Iraq had WMDS....

Very nice list. Too bad that Bush sexed up evidence for CONGRESS as well as the international community. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was damn convincing; doesn't mean it wasn't grade A bullshit.

[theski]

The Kernel wrote:

Too bad that Bush sexed up evidence for CONGRESS as well as the international community

You feel like maybe posting some proof of that claim??

[The Kernel]

You feel like maybe posting some proof of that claim??

Enjoy.

[Joe]

Ah, another member of the "let's completely and totally fucking ignore what David Kay really said" brigade.

[Stravo]

Bush essentially just looked at the camera, shrugged and said "Oopps."

[Durandal]

This is a intelligence failure..... and again here is the list of Dems who also saw all of the evidence and claimed that Iraq had WMDS....

<snip irrelevant attempt to polarize>

I know this may seem hard to believe, but it takes more than "Well the Democrats bought it too!" to silence criticisms of the Bush administration's intelligence failures.

[Dargos]

Take a guess on who is going to pick the people who do the investigation? One hint, he’s sitting in the Oval Office.

[theski]

Durandal wrote:

know this may seem hard to believe, but it takes more than "Well the Democrats bought it too!" to silence criticisms of the Bush administration's intelligence failures.

So before Bush even started to run for election......*cough clinton* he ran the intelligence opperation.....

So where did all of these people before Bush get there INFO

[Gil Hamilton]

I know this may seem hard to believe, but it takes more than "Well the Democrats bought it too!" to silence criticisms of the Bush administration's intelligence failures.

What, didn't you know that "Well, <insert democrat, usually a Clinton> thought so too!" carries equal weight with "Bush is not wrong, because <evidence>"?

[Master of Ossus]

You feel like maybe posting some proof of that claim??

Enjoy.

What a red herring. He asked for proof that Bush actually manipulated the intelligence to play up the threat. You have to do more than simply recount a speech given to the UN in order to show that. BTW, the CIA has stated they faced no pressure from the White House when coming up with their intelligence on the matter.

[Darth Wong]

So where did all of these people before Bush get there INFO

I don't know, but they obviously didn't run around saying it was concrete enough to launch a war over it. Bush did.

[theski]

Darth Wong wrote:

don't know, but they obviously didn't run around saying it was concrete enough to launch a war over it. Bush did.

This is from 1998..... sound like someone else??

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html

[BoredShirtless]

Are you Bush apologists forgetting or ignoring the plagiarised student paper and the forged Niger document? You can't step around the truth that Bush and/or his admin lied, without looking like an idiot. They got caught lying before, David Kay didn't trail blaze.

[theski]

BoredShirtless wrote:

You can't step around the truth that Bush and/or his admin lied, without looking like an idiot. They got caught lying before, David Kay didn't trail blaze.

*points to your title*..... David Kay's last report said it was a intelligence failure Not that BUSH LIED.... Did you even read the \report??

David Kay's report
Intelligence failure helped persuade Bush to invade Iraq

David Kay, the inspector who led the U.S. government's investigation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, raised matters of serious national concern in his comments to reporters over the weekend. Among them:

• The evidence of weapons of mass destruction cited by President Bush and others in leading our nation to war in Iraq was based on inaccurate intelligence, Mr. Kay believes. The difficulty in obtaining accurate information is obvious: It's tough for spies to work in a police state where even suspicion of disloyalty is punished by death. Thus the CIA, he said, relied heavily on information from U.N. weapons inspectors. After the inspectors left in 1998, intelligence analysts increasingly depended on spy satellites, intercepted communications and intelligence developed by exiles, defectors and foreign spies, but had no sources in Iraq to supply or verify information. Yet the CIA failed, Mr. Kay said, to make it clear to U.S. policymakers that its intelligence assessments were based on very limited information.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2 ... 804944.htm

[BoredShirtless]

BoredShirtless wrote:

You can't step around the truth that Bush and/or his admin lied, without looking like an idiot. They got caught lying before, David Kay didn't trail blaze.

*points to your title*..... David Kay's last report said it was a intelligence failure Not that BUSH LIED.... Did you even read the \report??

Yeah I read it. And did it change the fact that Bush told a lie in his 2003 State of Union Speech? Nope. David Kay is pretty much irrelevent to people who weren't brainwashed by the Bush propoganda machine.

[theski]

Hell I even agree that without WMD... We should not have gone ... but You decide with the info that you are given... I think Heads should roll at the CIA for this....

and I hope you didn't mean the "Imminent Threat" line/////


BoredShirtless wrote:

And did it change the fact that Bush told a lie in his 2003 State of Union Speech

[BoredShirtless]

Hell I even agree that without WMD... We should not have gone ... but You decide with the info that you are given... I think Heads should roll at the CIA for this....

and I hope you didn't mean the "Imminent Threat" line/////

No, I meant the "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" lie.

[Joe]

A claim that Her Majesty's Government is standing by to this day, by the way.