Study: False statements preceded war

[GaryC 7]

These are approval polls. To say that 70% of America thinks he lied because of this is just not true.

The original poll I linked (57% say Bush lied about Iraq) is not - also if you read to the bottom of the USA Today article it reads:

•Sixty-two percent say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, the first time that number has topped 60%.

Thinking it was a mistake to send troops in and saying Bush lied are two different things. Show me a poll that says 70% (or whatever percent) thinks that Bush lied.

[HAL 9000 96]

Try rereading the text in the poll articles. They clearly mention... Iraq as a contributing factor.

I make the connection and opinion that Bush is a liar and I do not state that 70% of Americans believe so, I am not telepathic but rather logical. Maybe I should have clarified that with hyphens to spell it out. In my opinion, people that are capable of thought should be capable of making their own judgment, and the record speaks clearer than the smoke being puffed around here. Hence... when I think of Bush, I judge him to be a liar. I hope that those 70% of polled responders whom cite Iraq as a negative factor for Bush probably have their reasons for thinking the way they do.

[kaydee457 13]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Edited January 23, 2008 by kaydee457

[HAL 9000 96]

Prove that statement. He may have been wrong but I doubt the "overwhelming majority of Americans" think he lied. An overwhelming majority of dems maybe. I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman". Is he one insane liar?

An MSNBC/WSJ poll had that number at 57% in 2005 - I don't think it got lower since then

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9981177/

2007:

USA Today disagrees with you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...bush-poll_N.htm

2008:

So does a CNN/ORC poll:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ush-remain-low/

Then again, its all polling. For all we know, the real % of Americans that believe their Commander in Chief is a liar and took us to war based on lies may be even higher.

It seems that Bush, Cheney were determined to Iraq. Cheney even said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD and chemical weapons." It meant that there was proof beyond doubt that Saddam had WMD and chemical weapons. Remember the last president election when Bush-Cheney always linked 9/11 and Iraq, even though 9/11 commission and all reports said clearly that they did not find any link between Iraq and 9/11. In UK, Tony Blair's Labor party lost many seats during the last parliament election and eventually Blair had to transfer power to Gordon Brown. The only reason for Blair's downfall was Iraq war. It is amazing that in USA, still people think that the war was the right thing to do. And Bush's aides tried their best to expose Valerie Plame, since her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson criticized this administration. Is there anyone who said what Clinton said was right? It is 100% wrong.

I have seen a bumper sticker a while ago, "Which is worse? Screwing an intern or screwing a country?"

You see, a politician is apparently and unfortunately given license to deceit in the name of ... ?

[HAL 9000 96]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

[simple_male 1]

It is very clear that they made many false statements.

Please read this AFP News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080123/pl_af...loRC42U5q.s0NUE

Truth was first US casualty in Iraq war: study

Wed Jan 23, 11:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush and his top officials ran roughshod over the truth in the run-up to the Iraq war lying a total of 935 times, a study released Wednesday found.

Bush and his then secretary of state Colin Powell made the most false statements as they sought to drum up support for the March 2003 invasion to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the study alleged.

In a damning report, the Center for Public Integrity found "935 false statements by eight top administration officials that mentioned Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al-Qaeda, on at least 532 separate occasions."

"Bush and seven of his administration's top officials methodically propagated erroneous information over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001," the center said.

"These false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, just prior to congressional consideration of a war resolution and during the critical weeks in early 2003 when the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable presentation to the UN Security Council," the CPI added.

The study calls into question "the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were merely the unwitting victims of bad intelligence," it added in a statement.

The US president was found to have made the most false statements referring a total of 260 times to Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda alleged links to the Baghdad regime.

But then-secretary of state Powell only just lagged behind with 254 false communications, said the study by the center's founder Charles Lewis and researchers.

Charges that late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had stockpiled an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction were the main argument used publicy in parliaments around the world and in the United Nations to justify the US-led invasion.

But after the invasion they turned out to be untrue, when no weapons of mass destruction were found by the invading forces.

Former national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and ex-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz were also fingered in the study, along with former White House press secretaries Ari Fleisher and Scott McClellan.

"This is a report like no other, which calls into question more than 900 false statements that were the underpinnings of the administration's case for war," argued the CPI's Executive Director Bill Buzenberg.

Cheney, for example, on August 26, 2002, in an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, asserted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

"There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Former CIA chief George Tenet later noted Cheney's assertions exceeded his agency's assessments at the time, the report said.

In late September 2002, Bush with a congressional vote approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, insisted in a radio address that the Baghdad regime posed a global threat.

"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," Bush said.

"This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Other administration officials muddied the waters on the alleged relationship between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terror network, the CPI said.

Asked in July 2002 if Iraq had relationships with Al-Qaeda terrorists, Rumsfeld said: "Sure."

Still, an assessment the same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, confirmed by later by CIA chief Tenet, found an absence of any "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda."

So we should ask CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Zogby, Rasmussen to take a poll where they should ask people, "Do you think President and His staff lied about the Iraq War?"

Edited January 23, 2008 by simple_male

[HAL 9000 96]

True enough... but then again, its numbers these guys want... not necessarily a dose of reality.

A government that answers to its constituency has the obligation to do so in a truthful manner.

Edited January 23, 2008 by maviwaro

[GaryC 7]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

[rebeccajo 14]

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is old news....The fact is that they, Bush, Condy, and Colin were using the best available intellegence at the time.

The premise here is that they intentionally mislead the people, and the world, to go to war. That's absurd.

The fact is that they did not use the best available intelligence but dismissed some of it in favor of testimony by the enemy that furthered their case to go war. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Nothing more needs to be said.

Well if you say nothing more needs to be said then I guess that's the final word on the matter. Closed minds always dominate......

Please listen up everyone. No more input to this thread as "nothing more needs to be said".... :lol

Closed minds? The fact is that Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.

Well, here's where the one needs to appeal to ones common sense....." Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.".....

If this were so he would've been Clinton'd, er... I mean impeached long ago. I'm afraid you're guilty of visiting far too many far left web sites and actually mistaking their drivel as "fact"............

You seem to forget that when this first came to light in mid 2005, the Republicans would have had to impeach their President. Fat chance of that happening...

But rhetoric aside, here's the substance of what we're talking about:

In Feb 2002, the DIA issued an evaluation of testimony obtained from said Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi as follows:

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

DIA letter

Yet despite this evaluation by our own intelligence services, Bush and his administration officials went around the country well into 2003 claiming that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush in Cincinnati on 7 October 2002

He knew better as he learned 8 months prior that this particular testimony was not credible. At the very least, that caveat should have been offered. But then, such caveat would have weakened the case for the war he so desperately wanted.

[simple_male 1]

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

I saw a bumper sticker a while ago:

"Which is worse, screwing an intern or screwing a country?"

Edited January 23, 2008 by simple_male

[yogib37 3]

This is old news....The fact is that they, Bush, Condy, and Colin were using the best available intellegence at the time.

The premise here is that they intentionally mislead the people, and the world, to go to war. That's absurd.

The fact is that they did not use the best available intelligence but dismissed some of it in favor of testimony by the enemy that furthered their case to go war. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Nothing more needs to be said.

Well if you say nothing more needs to be said then I guess that's the final word on the matter. Closed minds always dominate......

Please listen up everyone. No more input to this thread as "nothing more needs to be said"....

Closed minds? The fact is that Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.

Well, here's where the one needs to appeal to ones common sense....." Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.".....

If this were so he would've been Clinton'd, er... I mean impeached long ago. I'm afraid you're guilty of visiting far too many far left web sites and actually mistaking their drivel as "fact"............

`

OH come on now,

Bush would of never been impeached. WHY??? Because the Rep. had both House and senate. Most backing BUSH and they would never would of impeach Bush.

Now if GORE or some other Dem. was the Pres. for the last 8 yrs, I bet you the farm, the Rep. would of and would be sucessful at impeachment.

Yogi

[rebeccajo 14]

He lied. He didn't lie. Blah Blah Blah.

At least the daylight is at the end of the tunnel.

Only 362 more days of the Dubbya.

Party at my house 1/20/2009.

[HAL 9000 96]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

I had no idea that public opinion defined the truth, which is what you are saying verbatim.

The record says clearly the opposite to your claim. Prove Bush never said Saddam had WMDs and then I'll call you accurate. But until we find actual traces of WMDs in Iraq, the one sucking their own thumbs will be those that continue to support the current liar in the White House.

If a CSI team is capable of finding DNA in fossilized bone fragments from thousands of years ago, then its not inconceivable to believe that GM or NaI counters can find traces, even in the microCuries, of radioactivity at Saddam's "known" WMD storage houses. Or for that matter, detectable trace metals from WMB devices in desert sands. If satellite detection can see you picking your nose while typing away on VJ, then its also capable of detecting hidden weapons at the time these outrageous claims were being made and promoted by BushCo.

However... were are they now?

There is not enough support to impeach Bush now because Republicans know very well how to make partisan roadblocks an issue. And frankly, I think that most Americans, Democrats in Congress included, probably just want to forget about Bush and the incredible amount of damage caused to our democracy and further on out in the world.

And true... maybe Bush himself, if you now want to continue convincing yourself he never lied, did not speak a lie. Gosh, that's why he has his team of experts surrounding him.

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

Sperm did!!!

He lied. He didn't lie. Blah Blah Blah.

At least the daylight is at the end of the tunnel.

Only 362 more days of the Dubbya.

Party at my house 1/20/2009.

Hook it up!

[rebeccajo 14]

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

Sperm did!!!

Has anybody seen my cigars?