Bush lied??

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Further, Stephen_and_Jinky, stop posting that "torture" bullcrap. Just because our troops did not let some guys sleep at night, let some dogs bark at them, stacked them in a naked pyramid, and pretended to drown them, does not constitute torture.

Go back and read my post. Our own State Dept. condemning clearly defined techniques towards prisoners by other countries. That makes us hypocrits in the least sense, and in the worse sense shows that we are in fact doing things to these detainees that we acknowledge as wrong.

You don't have to feel like you need to defend the entire military as it isn't an attack on the military. These kinds of decisions are made at a much higher level (Rumsfield). While I think that for the most part, our military believes it is doing a noble thing, I disagree with the reasons for why we are there in the first place. This is about the politicians playing toy soldiers, but with real lives.

[PsychoKat 0]

If you had paid attention in class I said that 500 chemical warheads, 300 fueled, were found in Iraq which is TRUE per a DoD press release a few months ago that NONE of the networks carried.

I do think the condition those were found in is quite important here. Media outlets have a tendancy to overdrmatize things so people will pay more attention to them, so I instead went to the DoD website for my information. If one were not to read the part regarding the condition of these the conclusion would be that yes they were making and stockpiling WMD preparing for attack. But the condition they were found in changes that perspective, instead it appears they weren't currently stockpiling them, they just forgot about them somewhere.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For Ual777...

Wake up and smell the coffee...

Lies regarding Guantanamo Detainees

These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill. (President Bush 06/20/05)

These detainees are dangerous enemy combatants . . . They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces. (Scott McClellan 06/21/05)

The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They're terrorists. They're bomb makers. They're facilitators of terror. They're members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban....We've let go those that we've deemed not to be a continuing threat. But the 520-some that are there now are serious, deadly threats to the United States. (Vice President Cheney 06/23/05)

These are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker. (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 06/27/05)

The Fact Jack

Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following:

1. A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).

2. Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.

3. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.

4. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.

5. Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.

6. Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps. Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan.

7. The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.

8. At least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants. One perplexed attorney, whose client does not want public attention, learned that the man was no longer considered an enemy combatant only by reading a footnote in a Justice Department motion asking a federal judge to put a slew of habeas corpus cases on hold. The attorney doesn't know why the man is still in Cuba.

[ual777 0]

If you had paid attention in class I said that 500 chemical warheads, 300 fueled, were found in Iraq which is TRUE per a DoD press release a few months ago that NONE of the networks carried.

I do think the condition those were found in is quite important here. Media outlets have a tendancy to overdrmatize things so people will pay more attention to them, so I instead went to the DoD website for my information. If one were not to read the part regarding the condition of these the conclusion would be that yes they were making and stockpiling WMD preparing for attack. But the condition they were found in changes that perspective, instead it appears they weren't currently stockpiling them, they just forgot about them somewhere.

The point is that they had them at all. Fox News didn't even report this story for more than about half a day.

I don't care if the warheads were old, new, or whatever. The point is that they were there, and its kind of hard to forget about 300 fueled, WMDs ESPECIALLY for a control freak like Saddam.

Oh, and Psychokat, you have to read in between the lines on the report. It states, "would be VERY valuable to terrorists and insurgents." What better way to offload some chemical shells than to give them to a terrorist group?

Edited September 2, 2006 by ual777

[Fandango 1,440]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show the world opinion of Iraq and WMDs before Bush even stepped into the White House.

Check it out....an oldie, but goody. And facts don't change

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Same bs, different day.

The WMD 'treasure trove' Ual777 mentioned was indeed, according to the report comprised of decaying materials dating back to the 1980s. All well and good, but this is not evidence of a growing research, design and production programme, which is what was claimed. The evidence presented that this was the case turned out to be exaggerated, inaccurate or totally falsified.

A lot of chaos and violence, but still no smoking gun to justify the initial claims.

Edited September 2, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

How can you tell when a politician is lieing?

Their lips move!

ahhh... geez... I crack myself up

[yogib37 3]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show the world opinion of Iraq and WMDs before Bush even stepped into the White House.

Check it out....an oldie, but goody. And facts don't change

Well that is just a put together smear from the GOP's.

Bush lied many times not just about Iraq.

Lets not forget this.. Who was the the Vice Pres. when the US sold the WMD's to IRAQ? Hmmm I do remember it was Regan and Pappa BUSH..

But I dont remember anything.. The GOP Cover up They lied before Clition was in Office.

Who first Invaded and had a fail attemp in Iraq? Sr. Bush...

GWB just had his private agenda of raking oil and control of the Middle East. Just Read and search for PNAC.

THIS INVASION WAS PLANED SINCE 1997 by Many High ranking GOP's like cheny and others Rumsfeild also

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder if they were so certain about Iraq's possession of WMD's, because Donald Rumsfeld had kept the receipts. His wallet must be bulging after all this time.

[KarenCee 3]

People complain about the flag on your avatar - doesn't seem to stop you

If I find complain reasonable I correct myself and apologize.

Flag whining - racism and bigotry..

Flying a flag that results in whining about supposed racism and bigotry...instigator. Which seems to be what you're doing...and enjoying the results from what I can see.

[Fandango 1,440]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show the world opinion of Iraq and WMDs before Bush even stepped into the White House.

Check it out....an oldie, but goody. And facts don't change

Well that is just a put together smear from the GOP's.

Bush lied many times not just about Iraq.

Lets not forget this.. Who was the the Vice Pres. when the US sold the WMD's to IRAQ? Hmmm I do remember it was Regan and Pappa BUSH..

But I dont remember anything.. The GOP Cover up They lied before Clition was in Office.

Who first Invaded and had a fail attemp in Iraq? Sr. Bush...

GWB just had his private agenda of raking oil and control of the Middle East. Just Read and search for PNAC.

THIS INVASION WAS PLANED SINCE 1997 by Many High ranking GOP's like cheny and others Rumsfeild also

Don't cloud the issue....the statements were made. As I said, facts don't change. Now while you're certainly free to selectively ignore them, that doesn't change the point that they were made. And there's also plenty of written, verifiable facts....such as some Democrat Congressmen (including Kerry) who sent a letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq because they were a threat to the US. And how the foreign policy (under Clinton) towards Iraq changed to 'regime change'. Yet nothing was ever done.

You can't say this is GWB's war and then say it was planned by the GOP since 1997, all the while ignoring the facts that many a democrat supported an Iraq invasion long before Deubya was Prez....Way to straddle that fence Look at the whole pic, not what is popular opinion. REsearch for yourself. REsearch how many prominant Democrats commended Dubya in writing for the war on Iraq like a year after we invaded them. Look at other world leader's statements in the years before Bush. Look at how most people say Bush is a gormless idiot...yet capable of 'convincing the world of a lie' lol...one which would include him mastering time travel.

Then and only then can you be a truly independant thinker instead of regurgitating half truths all the while looking like a sheep who's bought into the Liberal Lie Machine....There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see

[Mirorgate 0]

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

mmmm.... the shinies

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Don't cloud the issue....the statements were made. As I said, facts don't change. Now while you're certainly free to selectively ignore them, that doesn't change the point that they were made. And there's also plenty of written, verifiable facts....such as some Democrat Congressmen (including Kerry) who sent a letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq because they were a threat to the US. And how the foreign policy (under Clinton) towards Iraq changed to 'regime change'. Yet nothing was ever done.

You can't say this is GWB's war and then say it was planned by the GOP since 1997, all the while ignoring the facts that many a democrat supported an Iraq invasion long before Deubya was Prez....Way to straddle that fence Look at the whole pic, not what is popular opinion. REsearch for yourself. REsearch how many prominant Democrats commended Dubya in writing for the war on Iraq like a year after we invaded them. Look at other world leader's statements in the years before Bush. Look at how most people say Bush is a gormless idiot...yet capable of 'convincing the world of a lie' lol...one which would include him mastering time travel.

Then and only then can you be a truly independant thinker instead of regurgitating half truths all the while looking like a sheep who's bought into the Liberal Lie Machine....There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see

I think you're right in so far that like 9/11 the Iraq war cannot be pinned to either party exclusively. Both parties are to blame, and to disband either side from responsibility is like blaming the democrats for everything that is wrong with this country.

That said, historically the party in power has had to live with the fact that their failures as well as their successes are attributed to them rather than circumstance or bipartisan actions. Since the Iraq war happened under Bush's watch (fact: Clinton did not invade Iraq) and, more importantly, the government, through Cheney's and Rumsfeld's separate attempts to tweak intelligence reports to their goals, furthered the push to go to war, Bush will inevitably be remembered as being responsible for the mess Iraq has turned into. And rightly so.

Further, Stephen_and_Jinky, stop posting that "torture" bullcrap. Just because our troops did not let some guys sleep at night, let some dogs bark at them, stacked them in a naked pyramid, and pretended to drown them, does not constitute torture.

Torture is drilling holes in a person. Torture is attaching electrodes to testicles and nipples. Torture is executing someone's family in front of them in order to get information. Torture, is mutilating someone's body so badly that it has to be identified through DNA testing.

The funny part is, either Saddam or the terrorist scum over there did or currenty practice these methods with stunning regularity.

To add the cherry to this little pie, captured terrorists in Iraq are NOT subject to Geneva convention protections because THEY ARE NOT IN UNIFORM, AND THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAWS OF WAR. I say, juice them for information, and if they did something: firing squad.

These guys are NOT going to tell you anything unless you make them a little uncomfortable.

And SO WHAT if a few Japenese guys were executed for supposidly dunking some heads? I would like to see a reliable source on that one, and even if it did happen, it was an anamoly and not the norm.

I find it really laughable that so many people on here speak so loudly about the military and what they do and don't do well, and the only thing you know is what you see on CNN. Go talk to a Marine or a Soldier and ask him how it really is.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

Your definition of torture is sick, to say the least. By your standards only a few POW's were tortured in North Vietnam, if any.

Torture, by contemporary standards, refers primarily to the psychological damage inflicted on the tortured rather than to physical consequences. The goal of torture is not to hurt someone's body but to get to their psyche, either to extract information or for intimidation purposes. Link

Edited September 2, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Alex+R 0]

Don't cloud the issue....the statements were made. As I said, facts don't change. Now while you're certainly free to selectively ignore them, that doesn't change the point that they were made. And there's also plenty of written, verifiable facts....such as some Democrat Congressmen (including Kerry) who sent a letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq because they were a threat to the US. And how the foreign policy (under Clinton) towards Iraq changed to 'regime change'. Yet nothing was ever done.

You can't say this is GWB's war and then say it was planned by the GOP since 1997, all the while ignoring the facts that many a democrat supported an Iraq invasion long before Deubya was Prez....Way to straddle that fence Look at the whole pic, not what is popular opinion. REsearch for yourself. REsearch how many prominant Democrats commended Dubya in writing for the war on Iraq like a year after we invaded them. Look at other world leader's statements in the years before Bush. Look at how most people say Bush is a gormless idiot...yet capable of 'convincing the world of a lie' lol...one which would include him mastering time travel.

Then and only then can you be a truly independant thinker instead of regurgitating half truths all the while looking like a sheep who's bought into the Liberal Lie Machine....There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see

I think you're right in so far that like 9/11 the Iraq war cannot be pinned to either party exclusively. Both parties are to blame, and to disband either side from responsibility is like blaming the democrats for everything that is wrong with this country.

That said, historically the party in power has had to live with the fact that their failures as well as their successes are attributed to them rather than circumstance or bipartisan actions. Since the Iraq war happened under Bush's watch (fact: Clinton did not invade Iraq) and, more importantly, the government, through Cheney's and Rumsfeld's separate attempts to tweak intelligence reports to their goals, furthered the push to go to war, Bush will inevitably be remembered as being responsible for the mess Iraq has turned into. And rightly so.

Further, Stephen_and_Jinky, stop posting that "torture" bullcrap. Just because our troops did not let some guys sleep at night, let some dogs bark at them, stacked them in a naked pyramid, and pretended to drown them, does not constitute torture.

Torture is drilling holes in a person. Torture is attaching electrodes to testicles and nipples. Torture is executing someone's family in front of them in order to get information. Torture, is mutilating someone's body so badly that it has to be identified through DNA testing.

The funny part is, either Saddam or the terrorist scum over there did or currenty practice these methods with stunning regularity.

To add the cherry to this little pie, captured terrorists in Iraq are NOT subject to Geneva convention protections because THEY ARE NOT IN UNIFORM, AND THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAWS OF WAR. I say, juice them for information, and if they did something: firing squad.

These guys are NOT going to tell you anything unless you make them a little uncomfortable.

And SO WHAT if a few Japenese guys were executed for supposidly dunking some heads? I would like to see a reliable source on that one, and even if it did happen, it was an anamoly and not the norm.

I find it really laughable that so many people on here speak so loudly about the military and what they do and don't do well, and the only thing you know is what you see on CNN. Go talk to a Marine or a Soldier and ask him how it really is.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

Your definition of torture is sick, to say the least. By your standards only a few POW's were tortured in North Vietnam, if any.

Torture, by contemporary standards, refers primarily to the psychological damage inflicted on the tortured rather than to physical consequences. The goal of torture is not to hurt someone's body but to get to their psyche, either to extract information or for intimidation purposes. Link

Glad to see that freaked out someone else as well. Wow. I hope most Americans don't think this way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show the world opinion of Iraq and WMDs before Bush even stepped into the White House.

Check it out....an oldie, but goody. And facts don't change

WMD's? Where, exactly did I mention anything about any belief on WMD's in my post that you quoted? I addressed the lie put forth by Bush that 9/11 and Al-Qaida were linked to Saddam. And I addressed the fact that not Saddam but Bush kept the UN weapons inspectors to do the job they were sent there to do. Saddam didn't kick them out of Iraq nor did he stand in their way at the turn of 2002/2003. Bush called the UN in March of 2003 and told them to pull the guys out before our bombs start falling.