Study: False statements preceded war

[Mags 112]

Less of the "twaddle" talk, more niceness please.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Less of the "twaddle" talk, more niceness please.

You should make an ad hominem filter.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry, but what's 'not nice' about twaddle? I guess one isn't allowed to point out posts that do nothing to further the argument but are put there just to detract from the genuine arguments that are taking place? Next time I'll just bring out the popcorn smile after all, that's not offensive or provocative at all is it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this topic has had enough semantic obfuscation and twisting of legal definitions from the folks running the show. That it still continues in public discussions about the subject is rather unfortunate.

There are real arguments left unanswered, ignored, and generally undiscussed - things that caused massive uproar in other countries. Moving here its like the protests never took place - and many people seem to operate under this assumption that they have some sort of God given moral superiority to remake the world as they see fit.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

[Ban Hammer 14,267]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

[Peikko 1,575]

What you seem to be trying to get us to swallow is that Bush can be absolved from his responsibilities because he doesn't personally read everything he puts his signature to. That's disingenuous at best. We all know that the man at the top relies on aides and other administrative staff in order to be able to handle the quantities of paperwork that are required to make decisions. However, he would have been given the gist of the information and he and his cronies would have made decisions on how to use the information. Bottom line, he's the president and he has ultimate responsibility for the decisions. It's simply not good enough to now turn around and say...but he couldn't know every last bit of information.

[Ban Hammer 14,267]

What you seem to be trying to get us to swallow is that Bush can be absolved from his responsibilities because he doesn't personally read everything he puts his signature to. That's disingenuous at best. We all know that the man at the top relies on aides and other administrative staff in order to be able to handle the quantities of paperwork that are required to make decisions. However, he would have been given the gist of the information and he and his cronies would have made decisions on how to use the information. Bottom line, he's the president and he has ultimate responsibility for the decisions. It's simply not good enough to now turn around and say...but he couldn't know every last bit of information.

not talking about that am i?

[HAL 9000 96]

When Clinton sends off 3,000 plus soldiers to die in Iraq we'll talk in cartoons. That should steam you up but then again, "Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares." Otherwise the joke about what is reality and what is a lie will continue to stare directly at you Gary.

But take it directly from the mouth of the liar:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

WMDs... I remember when a leader was held accountable for what came out of his mouth.

Dude, your so reachin in your back pocket. Let it go

Reaching to Mr. Bush himself. That can't be farther from the truth... errr, I mean lie.

BTW... State of the Union, 2003. Do the math.

Gary,He BAILED OUT! MaMa called him to bed.

The left wing promises have always been EMPTY. Hopefully someday the dissappointments of the past will ring in their heads.It truly must be a biotch to be soooooo dependant on a dream that comes from a false PROMISE and the disappointment that follows only brings more false HOPE.Following never pays, no matter what you are promised! Are you RICH YET?

Mama treat me good last night...

Edited January 24, 2008 by maviwaro

[HAL 9000 96]

When Clinton sends off 3,000 plus soldiers to die in Iraq we'll talk in cartoons. That should steam you up but then again, "Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares." Otherwise the joke about what is reality and what is a lie will continue to stare directly at you Gary.

But take it directly from the mouth of the liar:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

WMDs... I remember when a leader was held accountable for what came out of his mouth.

so what you are saying is bush should have researched and verified all of the intel he was going to cite. right

Heck, maybe the State of the Union Speech is not important enough to make sure you have your facts right. Or maybe he believed the American public was stupid enough to believe whatever came out of his mouth...

[HAL 9000 96]

Not the point that was made. Still we can all stick to our preconceived illusions.

Are you talking to me? Cos it really is the meat and potatoes of things. For x amt of years now, that's all I've heard. Truth be told, I didn't even vote for Bush, and I was mad as hell that he got in. But at the end of the day, to focus on 'Bush lied ppl died' is disingenuous....Bush didn't defy Congress and go to war on his own...the whole gov't put us there. And if ppl were honest and acknowledged the fact that years leading up to the war, years without Bush, our politicians were chanting the same battle cry...well, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

That vid I posted....one of the last things that Bush said is v poignant to me....our soldiers should know that the people who sent them to war still stand behind that....instead of somehow 'pulling the wool over the eyes of many Americans' by putting the onus solely on Bush. Honestly, when ppl start with this mantra...it makes me wonder how intelligent they could be to totally ignore the facts and the documented proof of what actually went on, instead of churning out some bullsh!t that they were fed by the liberal politicians DESPITE what one could actually SEE providing (s)he actually opens his eyes.

There are none so blind as those who do not see....

I prefer to look at it a little more based in reality- not in such black and white terms. Should Congress have not supported such a bold move by Mr Bush, things would have been much more different, American public aside.

Nevertheless, if you look carefully enough back through the postings, beyond the niner naner of hate-this-hate-that, you would actually find quite clear and concise posts that spread blame around enough to see that 1) we're talking of Bush as head of government and thusly responsible for his subordinates and 2) blame is assigned based on exposure to the actual truth. One can only imagine who'd have the audacity to authorize the truth be clouded in misrepresentations.

900 plus, if you refer back to the original OP article.

In my opinion politicians are all capable of the same skill at lying. What is at hand, however, on this particular topic, is how our soldiers have died in the name of WMDs that never were.

Lest we mention the 100+ thousand either dead or severely affected civilians in that part of the world that are a direct result of this stupidity. But apparently those are not worthy of mention or care for some. That's another topic and just as pathetic as sending our friends and family in uniform to a waste of a war.

[HAL 9000 96]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

No, he gets a daily briefing, pretty much every day, where he can come to an intelligent decision as to what course of action to take.

Don't bring down our intelligence gatherers.

Wasn't there a trend of intelligence folks leaving their jobs right after all these lies started to become public mantra. I remember interviews on the radio from ex-analysts about how their data was cherry-picked, manipulated, and filtered to suit the needs of the present administration.

[Ban Hammer 14,267]

so what you are saying is bush should have researched and verified all of the intel he was going to cite. right

Heck, maybe the State of the Union Speech is not important enough to make sure you have your facts right. Or maybe he believed the American public was stupid enough to believe whatever came out of his mouth...

i'm sure he wrote that too.

[HAL 9000 96]

Who knows dude...

[Ban Hammer 14,267]

No, he gets a daily briefing, pretty much every day, where he can come to an intelligent decision as to what course of action to take.

Don't bring down our intelligence gatherers.

Wasn't there a trend of intelligence folks leaving their jobs right after all these lies started to become public mantra. I remember interviews on the radio from ex-analysts about how their data was cherry-picked, manipulated, and filtered to suit the needs of the present administration.

i'm quiet aware of all of how intel work is done. it's what i did in the military for 20 years.