Study: False statements preceded war

[HAL 9000 96]

Everyone has a stake but nobody wants to ante up the responsibility. Is intelligence gathering THAT bad in our country?

I doubt not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Exactly...

Deductive logic, reasoning, or just plain old thinking should yield an obvious answer here. 900+ lies people...

You sound like your trying to convince when all you do is show yourself as a crackpot. Go spread your hate somewhere else. Maybe a "Bush is behind 9/11" blog? That is where you belong.

There's always another one with the "paint by numbers" rhetoric. Ironically enough the only folks who seem "full of hate" are the ones making the accusation.

[HAL 9000 96]

Exactly...

Deductive logic, reasoning, or just plain old thinking should yield an obvious answer here. 900+ lies people...

You sound like your trying to convince when all you do is show yourself as a crackpot. Go spread your hate somewhere else. Maybe a "Bush is behind 9/11" blog? That is where you belong.

Show me that is exactly what I do, beyond despising a liar, and then I'll pay for the webhosting fees myself.

[Peikko 1,575]

Mr Smith?

I see no hatred but then that's one of those devices isn't it?

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

[William33 110]

Please ratchet down the personal attacks a notch.

[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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

Burden or seeking out particular interests to "defend"????? Again, its all about who to ask and getting oneself away from polarizing thoughts.

Asking that among a divided nation is like trying to find the number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

Thanks for taking ownership of someone else's day-old insult Perhaps you think that being lumped in with some sort of deranged tin foil hat crowd is a reasonable response to what I wrote...

As I say the European perspective on this war is rather different to the "debate" that took place in the US. I have the advantage of seeing it both ways as I moved out here not long after the war started - but not before I saw the UK Prime Minister and members of his cabinet hauled over the coals on TV and in Parliament, not before stories broke in the European media about "predetermined war policies" and exaggerated justifications in favor of unilateral invasion, and not before I saw massive anti-war demonstrations in several European cities.

You guys might want to dismiss all that out of hand for being inconvenient to your recollection of events. All I can say is that it proves what people say about ignorance. It really is bliss.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Number 6

[Dan J 277]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

Because everything the us does benefits the rest of the world. If anything, our actions in Iraq have created problems for the rest of the world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

Because everything the us does benefits the rest of the world. If anything, our actions in Iraq have created problems for the rest of the world.

It certainly has done that, not forgetting the problems its caused for us too.

People have a hard-on for "the surge", but the fact remains that Iraq has a long way to go before it can stand on its own and maintain a stable government and all the institutions that go along with it. Improvements in the security conditions have to be met by similar political improvements.

[HAL 9000 96]

So... warhawks and pullouts aside, how many more years of occupation are we looking at over there in order to come full cycle in Iraq?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?

The truth is we should have told the idiots in Europe to Go F&*K themselves and done the right thing all by ourselves. After all we pay the price and bear every burden for the rest of the world anyways. So you pi$$ off!

Stale. Like 3 week old bread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So... warhawks and pullouts aside, how many more years of occupation are we looking at over there in order to come full cycle in Iraq?

That's really the $200 billion question...

[HAL 9000 96]

Also... how many more years of guaranteed "war on terror" do we have to put up with? I reckon more than what the next President will have to term thanks to the creation of new enemies abroad...