Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nakhui on February 08, 2004, 02:09:42 PM
-
Here is some open source information regarding what the US Intel agencies told the White House and then what the White House told Congress and the American public.
The original CIA and other US Intel reports are historical record immutable, unspinable, and are now being reviewed by several investigations.
Was the US Intel reports totally off or did the Policy makers and Political Agenda's at the White House believe only what they wanted to believe?
This is just the tip of the hyperbole ice burg which the White House manifactured.
Read and decide for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20194-2004Feb6.html?nav=most_emailed
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.
In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed.
Iraq "is a grave and gathering danger," Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. At the White House two weeks later -- after referring to a British government report that Iraq could launch "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order" is given -- he went on to say, "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX -- nerve gas -- or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
Three weeks later, on the day the NIE was delivered to Congress, Bush told lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden that Iraq's current course was "a threat of unique urgency."
On Thursday, summarizing the NIE's conclusions, Tenet said: "They never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told senators last week that caveats often fall by the wayside "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain. At the top, he said, "you read the headlines, you read the summary, you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Administration supporters say Bush, Vice President Cheney and others were simply extrapolating from the comprehensive intelligence provided by Tenet's intelligence community. Critics say Bush and his Cabinet had already decided to go to war, regardless of what the intelligence efforts found.
The controversy, arising during the Democratic presidential primary campaign, has taken on a partisan hue. Some Democrats, however, say they perceived GOP partisanship earlier, when Republicans advocated an invasion of Iraq before the 2002 congressional elections. Bush said on Sept.13, 2002, that he did not think he could explain to voters the position of some Democrats who said Congress should wait for the United Nations to authorize the use of force before giving the president the authority he wanted.
Now that extended efforts to find weapons of mass destruction have proved futile, some are asking why Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used unequivocal rhetoric to describe the threat from Iraq when the intelligence on the subject was much more nuanced and subjective.
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.
In the same speech, Cheney raised the specter that Hussein would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, a prospect invoked often in the weeks to come. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
It would be more than a month later that a declassified portion of the NIE would show that U.S. intelligence analysts had forecast that Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists only if Iraq were invaded and he faced annihilation.
"The probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low," a senior CIA official told the Senate intelligence committee during a classified briefing on the estimate on Oct. 2, 2002. The CIA released a partial transcript five days later after committee Democrats complained that a published "white paper" on Iraq's weapons had not given the public a fair reading of what the classified NIE contained.
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney said of Hussein on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.
Such absolute certainty, however, did not appear in the estimate. Tenet said Thursday that the controversy has yet to be cleared up.
On Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The October estimate contained no similar language.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld described an immediate threat from biological weapons. Hussein, he said, could deploy "sleeper cells armed with biological weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or connection to the attacks."
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Tenet's "provisional bottom line" on biological weapons, he said Thursday, is that research and development efforts were underway in Iraq "that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place -- and just as clearly -- we have not yet found biological weapons."
-
congress gets the same intel as the white house, so whats your point?
and why did the UN pass 1441?
-
Originally posted by john9001
and why did the UN pass 1441?
To verify that Iraq had destroyed it's WMD.
-
and they were in the middle of doing so when we told them to pull the inspectors! oh snap!
-
Originally posted by john9001
congress gets the same intel as the white house
Now there's a huge misconception.
That's blatantly not true.
Not every Congressman has the same level of security clearance.
The President claimed to have addition intel which many members of congress were not allowed to have orig source. They had to take his word for it that this information represented Iraq had STOCK PILES of WMD ready to use on the USA with in 45 minutes.
That particular phase and wording did not come from the CIA NIH reports. The President represented that he had intelligence from addition source - in one case GCHQ.
If the situation were so black and white, the President would not need to go on Meet the Press to defend him self. He could just point at the reports as direct references.
Having him point to a reference in the CIA report that could be resonablely interpreted as saying Iraq had STOCK PILES that could be used against the USA in 45 minutes would settle the matter immediately.
This could information could be given to a bi-partison committee for review and they could issue an immediate report confirming the matter.
He doesn't, because he can't, because it is not in any intel report.
No not even in the GCHQ report.
And his stories are not consistent, his reason for war is not very much embellished, and he's not using the same directness as he did before.
Run the interview through a voice analyzer and any one familar with this technique will come to the conclusion that the President was being evasive in his answers.
-
your hatred for boosh has clouded your thinking, nothing i can say will change that, you hear what you want to hear, you remember what you want to remember.
boosh never said the US could be attacked in 45 min, someone else said saddam could launch a chem attack in the middle east in 45 min.
how do you explane the msg that the US troops interceped from iraq HQ to iraq troops to use chem weapons during the US advance on Bagdad?
vote for kerry , like you he twists the truth to suit his own purpose.
-
lol john. your blind loyalty for buch clouds your vision. why would they order the troops to use wmds. when they obviously didnt have any. think man! if your a crazy dictator in the mideast surrounded by countrys that hate you. Of course you bluff that you have wmds. Or else the iranians would have pounded iraq into the ground years ago.
-
I'd like to play poker with you Frogm4n.. bring lots of money you'll need it.
If you were being arrested by the police,.... and they pointed their guns at your head telling you to comply with their demands, would you bluff you were armed?
That's pretty much what you say SH did, and it is no wonder the police opened fire.
-
Originally posted by john9001
boosh never said the US could be attacked in 45 min, someone else said saddam could launch a chem attack in the middle east in 45 min.
Ain't selective memory wonderful? Bush said it in his radio address to the nation.
"The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year. "
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
.. according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.
-
Did they edit in the british government during that part of the speech? Or did Bush read it?
-
Originally posted by john9001
boosh never said the US could be attacked in 45 min, someone else said saddam could launch a chem attack in the middle east in 45 min.
Hatred? I've never said I hate Bush.
I've said he's a liar - there's a difference.
My point has always been he did not tell the American people and the Congress the truth about his justification for the Iraqi War.
As for the 45 minute statement - Bush and Powel have claimed this repeatedly, in his arguements before the Congress, and in countless press conferences, and official reports from the White House.
Where have you been - You obviously have no clue.
This is why Republican congressmen are up-set over Bush also.
http://cshink.com/WMD_within_45min.htm
http://us.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/21/bush.intl.reax/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2954036.stm
http://cshink.com/WMD_within_45min.htm
-
"..according to (choose one):
a) the British government!
b) my hour long call to the Psychic Friends Network.
c) ex-Pres Clinton!! He made me do it! :mad:
c) what we figured was easier. Iraq a was beaten sixth rate military force that even Chile could have whipped the shinola out of. Attacking the real source of terrorism, countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria or North Korea, would have been a LOT tougher.
Desperate excuses seem to be "the tune" lately. So different from a year ago when the US administration touted "facts" and so many on this boared berated others that did not buy in to the party line. Lots of blame and finger pointing now. The same way other people do with guns. They blame guns and the manufacturers for armed assault and robberies instead of the people that use them.
Bush, Cheney, Powell & Co, Inc. pulled the trigger and invaded Iraq because that is what they wanted to do. Not because they were "tricked" or because of any "faulty" intellegence. They eagerly and expiditiously went to war and coughed up a whole litenay of facts to justify it to those who'd beleive them. And as things went along they adopted new reasons as best they could.
And now they are telling the public to trust them as the investigation gets to the bottom of things in 2005.
lol. what a joke (not really but I can't take it seriously that they think the US public should wait till AFTER elections for that)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Horn
.. according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading is fundamental, even to lemmings like yourself. BUSH SAID IT IN THE RADIO ADDRESS.
Is he the source of it? No, no more than he was the source for those intelligence reports on all the WMD.
The point, which is eluding you, is that Bush said it in order to create the sense of urgency needed to kick off his war.
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
The point, which is eluding you, is that Bush said it in order to create the sense of urgency needed to kick off his war.
h
..which turned out to be true (the urgency) other than the WMD claim (unless of course you failed to see the mass graves and potential for terrorist activity in that country.)
-
When you write a research paper and quote sources you are responsible for their legitimacy. Now if you want to say that the president is less responisble for his actions then a typical college or high school student then go ahead.
-
There were no terrorist in Iraqi pre-invasion.. Or do you have links Rip?
Mass-graves are urgent?? They are dead.. How much urgency is needed for dead folk?
-
Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa? ;)
I might add, I found this article to have some truth about it:
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.
Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.
The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
Sending a Message
Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.
Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking.
"We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March.
The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.
Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.
But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to. (Remember my post about being a brilliant tactical decision? ;) ) [[/i]
That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.
Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.
Source MSN
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa? ;)
china and north korea were violating and NKorea is filling mass graves as we speak. Why dont we invade?
Saddam lost power in his country in 91, and with it were the mass graves and wmds.
You cannot justify the war based on old mass graves while you ignore mass graves being filled at this moment around the world.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
china and north korea were violating and NKorea is filling mass graves as we speak. Why dont we invade?
Saddam lost power in his country in 91, and with it were the mass graves and wmds.
You cannot justify the war based on old mass graves while you ignore mass graves being filled at this moment around the world.
Read the article I just added to my post for your answers.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Read the article I just added to my post for your answers.
heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...
Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?
I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.
You know telling the truth.
Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.
And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.
Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.
Why is he changing his story day-to-day?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...
Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?
I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.
You know telling the truth.
Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.
And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.
Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.
Why is he changing his story day-to-day?
{Points to previous post :rolleyes: }
Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.
But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.
Tactically speaking...brillant! :) Neighborhood block watch programs are quite effective too. ;)
22 December 2003
After months on the defensive because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, conservatives responsible for the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare were quietly jubilant over the weekend following Libya's climb down over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other significant gestures by Iran and Syria.
-
Man this whole thing is going to ramp up to proportions never seen by mankind in a Presidential election.
The Democrats so hate this man, that the level and rate in which mud will be thrown boggles the mind.
You guys speak of all of this as if it's a simple minded decision like the ones you might make during the course of the day. Many reasons existed for the US actions...add in the wake of 9-11 and that threat fueled a further need for a response.
Listen up....this is the bottom line....if you dislike Bush, he's a liar....if you support him, he did what he had to do.
I still believe he had weapons regardless of what officials tell us....I believe those weapons are either buried or moved.
Was the intel less that what it should be...yup....why? The dems killed the HUMINT back in the Carter days....they were just so taken back by the US forming relationships with bad folks...we got 9-11 along with a decades worth of attacks and no solution offered.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...
Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?
I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.
You know telling the truth.
Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.
And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.
Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.
Why is he changing his story day-to-day?
He's been consistent from day one....and for you to offer up that the US should address China in the same manner as Iraq, shows me either your ignorance of foreign policy or your lack of sincerity.
-
I still believe he had weapons regardless of what officials tell us....I believe those weapons are either buried or moved.
lol, i bet you believe in chemtrails and that the moon landings are fake.
-
Yeah Rip if you take away 534 lives 3,800 causalities 400 billions of dollars, loss of creditability and being made the laughing stock of the entire world, then yes, I’d have to agree, real brilliant.
So when the troops leave and the country breaks out in civil war, Mohammad Sistani becomes the Ayatollah and converts Iraq to fundamental Islam, will you consider the war to be a win or lose?.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Yeah Rip if you take away 534 lives 3,800 causalities 400 billions of dollars, loss of creditability and being made the laughing stock of the entire world, then yes, I’d have to agree, real brilliant.
So when the troops leave and the country breaks out in civil war, Mohammad Sistani becomes the Ayatollah and converts Iraq to fundamental Islam, will you consider the war to be a win or lose?.
A win, because if your pessimistic approach to the future occurs, then we can tactically nuke them back to the 72 virgins. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa? ;)
I might add, I found this article to have some truth about it:
Source MSN
I'm not sure what the first sentence is suppose to mean.
The article has truth to it but its end ideas are all wrong. Invading Iraqi has not helped control terrorism. This is seen to be easily proven by the fact of no terrorist in Iraqi pre-invasion. It seems that the 'terrorist' are growing by the day now in Iraqi, possibly the world.. So the results we are seeing do not fit the ideas of this article, IMO..
Rude, how you gonna blame this on a former president? Come'on man..
What was the guys name that worked in the Presidents cabinet that said he had all kinds of evidence that Bush wanted to goto war from day 1 in office? So much has surfaced about how Bush destorted the facts and rearranged evidence to suit his agenda. How can all this be thrown along the wayside and blame former presidents? geezz
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A win, because if your pessimistic approach to the future occurs, then we can tactically nuke them back to the 72 virgins. :D
wow!
So little learned.. Is there an amount of violence so large that would garrantee no retort?? I think not..
-
Hey...let's have a big ol love in!!!
It's our countries fault that we're hated....we need to change.
VOTE FOR KERRY IN 04!!!!
-
Originally posted by Rude
Hey...let's have a big ol love in!!!
It's our countries fault that we're hated....we need to change.
VOTE FOR KERRY IN 04!!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Whoa! Down boy! Down!
Sit! Stay!
Bush 'betrayed us'
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/gore.bush.ap/index.html
Ok... Gore is motivated by hate.
After all, Laura IS better looking than Tipper.
-
All we need to do is elect Kerry for 4 years and it will straighten out this Country for the next hundred. North Korea is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States. Given to them by Clinton and his Secretary of State Jimmie Carter. Hopefully they just use them for blackmail. This however will lead Japan to immediately go Nuclear
which is going to make the Chinese nervous....you get my drift....
Of course Kerry who is not going to use the military to Pre-empt
can sit back and twiddle his thumbs.....
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
All we need to do is elect Kerry for 4 years and it will straighten out this Country for the next hundred. North Korea is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States. Given to them by Clinton and his Secretary of State Jimmie Carter. Hopefully they just use them for blackmail. This however will lead Japan to immediately go Nuclear
which is going to make the Chinese nervous....you get my drift....
Of course Kerry who is not going to use the military to Pre-empt
can sit back and twiddle his thumbs.....
NK is now claiming the Pakistan confession is just an American ruse to allow Bush to declare a pre-emptive war on them.
Re-elect Bush and we'll all be wearing military uniforms marching off to war.... a new war every year! 4 more wars! yeah!
And by gawd why not!
That's just what this country needs!
It's time someone declares War on Canada and stop their terrorist importing of actors (William Shanter, Alec Trebek) and country singers (Shinya Twain) - They're subverting the good moral character and family values of this Gawd dammit fearing White Anglo Saxon Protestant - Jezu Haleilueya - country!
Gawd bless the red, RIGHT and blue!
-
(http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/WeaponsofMassDistraction-X.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/WeaponsofMassDistraction-X.gif)
Let me guess... Iran has STOCK PILES OF....
And look here is a black and white Intel photograph as proof!!
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Let me guess... Iran has STOCK PILES OF....
And look here is a black and white Intel photograph as proof!!
Either way, you'll find out soon enough.
-
Mr. Weaselsan I read your post about 5 times and have to conclude your misinformed.
North Korea is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States.
So?
Given to them by Clinton and his Secretary of State Jimmie Carter.
WHAT!![/size][/i] This is shocking news.. why haven't I read about this?.. wow.. Can you provide us with a news article link on this? or is this your opinion?.
Hopefully they just use them for blackmail.
Blackmail?.. I don’t understand what this means could you explain? ALL countries with nuclear weapons KNOWS what happens to their country if they’re crazy enough to do a preemptive attack on the United States,
Of course Kerry who is not going to use the military to Pre-empt
can sit back and twiddle his thumbs.....
Well thank God for that.
I got to tell ya Weaselsan that was one nutty post. I’m not a big fan of John Kerry I just can’t warm up to him, I would’ve preferred Wes Clark as president as he is real deal smart. But be that as it may it’ll take a new president whomever that’ll be to restore America’s creditability in the world. God forbid we should have a real threat.
Now this is a little sharp, I apologize in advance. All those here on this board who supported Bush’s war, the blood of the 540 troops who gave their lives -- is on your hands. In a sense, you are coconspirators with George Bush and his neocons.
That includes you Toad.
-
LOL you where unaware that Clinton sent a failed pacifist ex-president to North Korea instead of his Secretary of State Madiline not so bright?......AAAAHHHHHH Ignorance is bliss
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Now this is a little sharp, I apologize in advance. All those here on this board who supported Bush’s war, the blood of the 540 troops who gave their lives -- is on your hands. In a sense, you are coconspirators with George Bush and his neocons.
That includes you Toad.
This has been a paid advertisement and the opinions expressed here are not necessarily the opinions or beliefs of this station and its affliates.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Now this is a little sharp, I apologize in advance. All those here on this board who supported Bush’s war, the blood of the 540 troops who gave their lives -- is on your hands. In a sense, you are coconspirators with George Bush and his neocons.
And I will apologize in advance that this hotbed in the middle east will never fully mature into the nuclear threat that may have completely disabled the possibility of exporting oil that helped you type out your response on a PC that requires OIL to produce. And, I apologize for the for the failure of that maturity in the middle east for potentially creating WMD that could have potentially been exported by Muslim extremists to be blown up in the center of Oahu.The blood of MILLIONS of American civilians could have been on your hands, but the U.S. military took that possibility away in one swift action. The 300,000 Iraqi citizens buried in the sand also apologize for doing NOTHING to deserve their fate at the hands of an evil dictator. :rolleyes:
The "Neighborhood Block Watch" is in full effect. Libya cleaned her backyard up. Who's next?
-
Originally posted by Rude
He's been consistent from day one
Indeed. Bush interview statements debunked.
And all sourced as well.
"CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions
PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE HYPE
CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."
FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. [Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]
IGNORING INTELLIGENCE
CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence."
FACT – WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS: Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." [Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03; CBS News, 6/7/03; Knight Ridder, 6/28/03]
IGNORING INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS
CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."
FACT – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]
INFORMING CONGRESS OF INTELLIGENCE CAVEATS
CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at."
FACT – CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE: The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03; Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 1/6/04; WP, 9/26/03]
CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions
PRE-WAR "IMMINENT THREAT" ASSERTION
CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."
FACT – ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT": The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]
BUSH'S THREAT RHETORIC BEFORE THE WAR
CLAIM: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."
FACT – BUSH MADE FAR MORE DIRE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WAR: While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. [Bush, 11/23/02; Bush; 1/3/03; Bush, 10/28/02; Bush, 10/2/02; Bush, 10/2/02]
SADDAM-AL QAEDA-WMD CONNECTION
CLAIM: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network."
FACT – ASSERTION BELIES PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS: This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. [Source: NIE, 2002; NY Times, 1/29/03; NY Times, 2/6/02; NBC News, 1/26/04]
DAVID KAY'S REPORT
CLAIM: "And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out."
FACT – KAY ACTUALLY SAID WMD HAD BEEN DESTROYED AFTER 1991: David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections." [Kay Testimony, 2004]"
Con't
-
"CLAIM vs. FACT
Investigative Commissions
WMD COMMISSION
CLAIM: "The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried... it's important that this investigation take its time."
FACT – OTHER COMMISSIONS SHOW THAT THE REPORT IS BEING DELAYED FOR POLITICS: Regardless of upcoming Parliamentary elections, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a similar commission to investigate intelligence that will report by July. Additionally, in 1983 after the terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and completed its report within 2 months.
9/11 COMMISSION
CLAIM: "We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton."
FACT – WHITE HOUSE HAS STONEWALLED THE 9/11 COMMISSION: According to the Baltimore Sun, President Bush "opposed the outside inquiry" into September 11th. When Congress forced him to relent, Time Magazine reported he tried to choke its funding, noting, "the White House brushed off a request quietly made by 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean" for adequate funding. Then, the NY Times reported, "President Bush declined to commit the White House to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the independent federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite public threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel." And as the Akron Beacon Journal reported last week, "the 9/11 panel did not receive the speedy cooperation it expected. In a preliminary report last summer, the panel's co-chairmen, Thomas Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, complained about lengthy delays in gaining access to critical documents, federal employees and administration officials. They warned the lack of cooperation would prove damaging, ensuring that a full investigation would take that much longer to complete, if at all." [Source: Baltimore Sun, 6/14/02; Time Magazine, 3/26/03; NY Times, 10/27/03; Akron Beacon Journal 2/2/04]
CLAIM vs. FACT
Economy/Budgetary Priorities
UNEMPLOYMENT
CLAIM: "How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction."
FACT – THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]
JOB CREATION
CLAIM: "There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."
FACT – STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.
TAXES
CLAIM: "But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery."
FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount" while "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]
DEFICIT
CLAIM: "The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years."
FACT – WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATES OMIT INEVITABLE COSTS: The President's proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately "omits a number of likely costs" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $70 billion for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and $50 billion more for war in Iraq. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be "in the range of $500 billion in 2009" – not even near half of what it currently is. [Source: CBPP, 1/16/04; Washington Times, 1/20/04; Reuters, 2/2/04]
STIMULUS
CLAIM: "The economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference."
FACT – STUDY SHOWS TAX CUTS BARELY MADE A DENT: A study by Economy.com attributes only 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent annualized growth in the third quarter to the 2003 tax cut. In other words, the Economy.com analysis suggests that the strength of the economy in the third quarter was not due primarily to the tax cut: Without the tax cut, growth would have still been an impressive 6.3 percent. [Peter Orszag in the New Republic, 11/6/03]
CLAIM vs. FACT
Personal Military Records
RELEASE OF RECORDS
CLAIM: Russert – "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush – "Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000 by the way."
FACT – RECORDS OFF-LIMITS: "[A]s Bush has risen in public life over the last several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages." [Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]
REPORTING FOR DUTY
CLAIM: "I did show up in Alabama."
FACT – UNIT COMMANDER DOESN'T BELIEVE HE SHOWED UP FOR DUTY: The Boston Globe reports that Bush's assigned unit commander, William Turnipseed, and his administrative officer, Kenneth K. Lott, do not believe that Bush reported. In an interview Turnipseed said, "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." [Source: Boston Globe, 5/23/2000]"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24899&content_id={3A110D7F-86AE-4B21-91C3-FE14E64659BE}
-
IT GETS BETTAR TEH MORE YUO SPAM IT!!!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
IT GETS BETTAR TEH MORE YUO SPAM IT!!!
Are you saying theres a new Copy and Paste king? Noooooo!
:rofl :aok
-
Excellent comparison Thrawn.. Nice post!!!