Study: False Statements Preceded War

The video includes a large number of quotes that were made by people who were provided the cooked reports that were prepared under the direction of Doug Feith in Don Rumsfeld's DoD. The statement by Bush that the Senate committee found no evidence that intelligence reports were changed to fit the political agenda is not truthful. The committee did find evidence. The committee report concluded that the evidence they turned up was insufficient to prove wrong doing.

Wasn't the committee convened and disbanded under Republican leadership?

And where, oh, where are the missing emails? Oh where, oh, where could they beeeee?

hehe after reading the article, i'm reminded of an altruism i read somewhere on the 'vine one day..

how can you tell if qeorge w. bush is lying?

his lips are moving.

seems to have turned out to be fairly accurate..

That's no politician, that's our president. sigh...

Where are the democrats, Obama and Hillary? Unlike Kucinich who does not appease and lie for fascist, zionist policies, and has demanded impeachment hearing, and does not put nuclear aggression on the table, like the U.S. and Nato, based on lies, and the double standard, all three branches of government, not just Bush, have capitulated to both these criminal policies and domestic police state. Obama and Hillary should have been disqualified for their complicity in these failure, and NBC/MSNBC and the corporate media should have marginalized all partisan, warmongering hacks, including themselves, from participating in these phony debates.

We need a new 911 commission, and independent prosecutor, war crimes tribunal, and impeachment immediately.

We need a new 911 commission, and independent prosecutor, war crimes tribunal, and impeachment immediately.

I second that, Eric!

Tracie Ivy:

Thanks, and we need a commission that works in conjunction with an independent prosecutor, that gets to the bottom of these crimes, and hands over evidence to him for immediate indictments.

No. Some liberal already beat you to it a long time ago.

I don't have an ignore list. I don't think they exist.

I don't need a troupe to collapse your comment, ts. You personal attacks are obvious to everyone.

congrats Bodhi-

your gang is loyal!

:-)

How does one go about collapsing a comment? I can still read the comment. What is the point?

to collapse you call your friends and get all of them to report the comment with the ! button..

its a fun game to get the conservative coalition gang to show up and block vote.

you can tell when they do it because the story will suddenly be clipped to the locked group called the conservative coalition

Oh. I'm conservative and must have missed that memo.

I would like to second tschreck's "duh."

(Mainly because he beat me to it.)

Oh. I'm conservative and must have missed that memo.

it seems that you may be new around here, no worries, they will invite you in once they trust you..

Maybe. Or your comment did in fact warrant reporting, but hey that's just me talking.

check out the big brain on brett..

can you spell set up.

tschreck, Bodhi1 will be the first to tell you that I don't hold him in terribly high regard. But the fact is that calling him an idiot is schoolyard namecalling. Doing so not only poisons the well, but also allows your opponent to take the high ground. It's not productive.

Grow up.

Belarius

you are right. it was wrong to call bodhi on his childish comment.. but look at the bright side..

now there is one hella set of server logs that can easily correlate the coalition gang block voting.

its so easy to set up their predictable actions its not even fun anymore.

I don't think you guys give tschreck enough credit. Look at the groups this article is clipped to. Do you honestly think the Conservative Coalition clipped this article to discuss it's merits? I recently wrote this article indirectly calling Bush an idiot. The Conservative Coalition and the Right Wingers were so impressed by it they clipped it to their (locked and private) groups. On my article, all hell ensued... Those of you out there that doubt that there's a concerted effort by the right to attack those on the left need to wake up and smell the napalm.
The "Gangs of Newsvine" are real.

I give him enough credit. :)

Look at the groups this article is clipped to. Do you honestly think the Conservative Coalition clipped this article to discuss it's merits?

I clipped the article to the group, Jim. And since you asked me why so nicely, I'll tell you. It involves politics. It involves President Bush. It involves accusations of impropriety. I expected there to be a serious moonbat response to this article and I wanted to bring it to the attention of the group to get their input also.

Is it bad for me to clip things now? Does that make it "gang" activity? No on both counts.

Calvin,

all you seem intent on doing is provoking others into engaging you in counterproductive behavior.

Many thanks for adding your comment to explain what happens when Newsviners resort to the above. I see many examples of similar provocation - I daresay there will be more on this thread. Occasionally, a comment in question gets collapsed showing that the community is working. But there are still many instances where nothing beyond just a mere collapse is what happens, giving rise to perpetrators continuing to provoke and inflame.

Calvin,

now there is one hella set of server logs that can easily correlate the coalition gang block voting.

I guess it's just easier to go after the whistle-blower than it is to punish a group who is OBVIOUSLY gaming the system...

For what it's worth, I suspect that if there had been issues, they'll be addressed as they were looking into it last week. The solution might not be what some would like to see, but it's not really up to us to provide the solution, or the punishment.

I'm content to sit back and let someone else deal with it -- and content that it was finally looked into.

That's good enough for me.

Wonderful news, Calvin!

I knew I liked it here and am glad there's at least one place on the net where rules are more than something to appease the attorneys. Free speech is best exemplified with civility towards those you disagree with.

I like to think that I am civil in my disagreements, but I can't say tschreck didn't make me grin with that one. But, it was an obvious violation, and rules is rules.

I certainly hope he comes back after a week, I enjoy his comments.

I disagree you **** ******* **** *** ****** **** son of a ***** **** *****.

Prepare for a thorough and systematic pruning of the Vine.

Will that coincide with a ceremonial crowning of lauhal and Viki as the Spaminators?

Prepare for a thorough and systematic pruning of the Vine.

Looks more like cherry-picking...

Jim brings up an interesting point, Calvin.

Should a group owner be able to clip my (or anyone else's) original article to a private group? If I can't join the discussion that I created because of the privacy setting, I don't really want my content there. This is especially problematic if the group has a poor reputation, or if the group has a name I don't want my content to be associated with. (For example, using the group name as a way to flag content, much like the "propaganda" group was doing.)

Thinking this out a bit further:

Something as simple as a setting for "clipped content" would be good, and in my settings:

Aritcles and Seeds can be clipped to:

[x] User Columns

[x] Private Groups

[x] Public Groups

Then, I could choose which of those I want to leave on.

Better yet -- this could be content specific: I could make these choices for every individual article I seed or write in the "new article" or "seed article" dialogue boxes. So, the default would be "all on" and I could turn one or all of the options off each time I seed or write something.

I agree Brian. I wouldn't want my article clipped anywhere (here, at least) where I cannot see the discussion and defend my points.

Also, I have someone following me about the Vine and calling me a "troll" and making all sorts of off-topic, trolling remarks, yet he is still doing it, but tschreck is banned for a week for that same behavior? I know staff can't be everywhere, but the comments were reported by at least 2 people.

I'm really not sure what the problem is. Those same people can discuss the article privately using a number of other mediums. I think it is actually a good system.

Re: Calvin,

Don't you want others to hold themselves to a similar standard?

Well yes, I do... which is exactly why I'm speaking up now, and why I expect you to address the more alarming fact that there is a group of people on NV who are obviously gaming the system.

The problem is not tschreck, the problem is block voting.

Those same people can discuss the article privately using a number of other mediums.

Of course they can -- but doing it in other ways (private email, a response article) wouldn't involve adding a tab to my article which says "hate groups" (for example) with a privacy lock on it. In essence, they're taking my commentary, adding their own home to it and creating a private discussion in which I'm not allowed to participate.

Members of that group have chosen to not allow me to view their discussions -- so I think it's only right that we not be expected to allow them to glom onto our content. Frankly, I'd feel like I was crossing a line of etiquette if I clipped someone's original content into a private group I was a member of. It seems a bit rude, first of all -- and beyond that, I certainly understand why people would want control over it on an article by article basis.

Now, when I write about (say) Macworld -- this doesn't really bother me at all. (Or enough that I would choose to prevent people from clipping to private groups, anyway.) But if I write an article about something a bit more controversial, say abortion rights or extremist views on religion -- I would want a bit more control over where the content is displayed, and what "group" tabs appear on the article.

Also, I have someone following me about the Vine and calling me a "troll" and making all sorts of off-topic, trolling remarks,

Jones Girl, in addition to the ! on the comments there is a button at the top of the page that lets you report bugs and behavior. If you are being stalked the staff does care but they probably get 10,000 standard reports every day about spam etc so it would help to flag it as something above and beyond a normal ! comment.

Calvin:

Yeah, I suppose that generally addresses my problem. In short, if it's private, there's no point in people knowing that it's been clipped to the group, and I definitely don't want to know when my content is being discussed without my participation, especially if the groups goals run counter to the goals of my article.

Alternatively, (and I'm not sure how feasible this is, implementation wise), if your article is clipped to a private group the author could be given permission to view only that conversation in the private group.

I have trepidation about private, hidden groups and forums (fora?) on sites as the wondering seems to only breed negative ideas about the private group. A site I frequent was nearly torn apart by the use of private forums.

I guess, Calvin, it just seems that if Mr.XYZ authors something here (or seeds it) that he should have access to any discussion of it on the site itself, even if that discussion is in a private group as it is his article and ideas being discussed. Of course there is no control over people posting it elsewhere (though it would be wonderful if some feature could show that someone is doing this), but it just seems that if it is here, the author should be able to see discussion his words generate.

Just my $.02, as I said, I've been burned by private forums so my opinion of them isn't that great; I like sunshine on things as much as possible and to minimize potential rumors that can hurt a community. Just as an example, the Conservative Coalition. Chances are they aren't doing anything like what people say they are, but lack of sunshine and proof makes people suspect the worst.

OK, that's all I have to say, thanks for reading :)

Second that motion.

Triple that motion and provide the vote that seals it.

So, you contend that Bush and his entire administration were merely stupid, and not liars? Interesting theory.

Because Bush has such a history of openness and truth that we should give him a break, now?

An incorrect statement is made in on of two ways ... the statement maker either knows the statement was incorrect, or did not know.

If you know the statement is incorrect it is a lie.

If you don't know the statement is incorrect, then you don't know if the statement is correct either. And if you want to start a war you should have your facts damn straight.

So which is it, lies or incompetence?

Or the statement maker believes to the best of his ability that the statement is correct at the time the statement is made.

Bohdi's comment is correct, in my mind in a major way.

Unless you believe that Bush did not believe what he said, then you should not attribute bad motives to his statements. The question of what evidence exists and who knew it is one that is subject to some debate as well.

For example, did Bush know that he intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11? And if he knew this, did he take steps to make this happen? And if he did, were his acts merely from a one-sided viewpoint or were they criminal and perhaps treasonous?

The depths of the legal position on this one are largely unplumbed because most of this evidence is only anecdotally available. A major question is what the US Supreme Court would do if the question of Executive Privilege came before them. The past is not a good sign of the way such a ruling would go, including the ways in which the Court has approached the Executive and the manner through which the Court members were chosen. Is it likely that we will ever know what happened? Almost certainly it will become better known if and only if a Democrat becomes president. Is this certain? By no means. In fact, I detect a more warm and fuzzy feeling these days among my Republican friends because they believe that their strategy of dividing the Democratic Party up has succeeded through Obama.

We will see. The stakes for Republicans have never been higher IMHO.

Brett-

Sorry, a statement is either correct or incorrect, not "believed to be correct at the time." If the statement maker believes they are correct that does not make a false statement any truer.

My point is we went to war based on statements that were incorrect. Additionally, there was more than enough evidince available to cast doubt on the accuracy of what the American public was told. By the president of the United States. In a hurried effort to go after Saddam. ANd cause our troops to die.

The statement may not be true, but was it known to be false when it was said, or did they know it was false and said it anyway?

So, you contend that Bush and his entire administration were merely stupid, and not liars?

I've spoken to a number of conservatives in the last year (both moderate and less so), and the consensus among them is that Bush was at worst incompetent, and never actually malicious. So yes, that's what many Republicans have decided. The rapidly spreading "I don't recall" amnesia in this administration has helped shore up this image. After all, it's better to be inept than corrupt.

The thing is, it's easy to find cases where the administration is, at the very least, wildly overstating its case.

On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment."

Even if the administration can only be accused of ineptitude, it's still ineptitude on a scale that constitutes gross negligence.

After 9/11, we were told by officials vested with an aura of confidence that they knew the nature of the enemy, the extent of his reach, the facilities he used, and the threat he posed. That they turned out to be wrong on every one of these points is not merely incompetence. It required a kind of intellectual laziness that should have disqualified them from office in the first place: an unwillingness to question their own conclusions. Perhaps they were lying (and many now believe), but frankly, I'm not comforted by having to decide whether my leaders are compulsive liars or delusional.

No need to decide whether the senior officials in the first term of the GW Bush White House were compulsive liars or delusional. Some were compulsive liars, some were delusional, some were delusional compulsive liars. I'm certain that any of the folks who remain from the first term are delusional (at this point).

OK, now that Bush has totally destroyed the credibility of the Neo-cons, (wow, that took everyone by surprise), along with the near destruction of the economy, (time will tell), and the wrongful maiming and death of over 3,000 of our best and finest young American men and women in an invasion of the wrong country. They are now, (and rightly so), being ostracized by the GOP and the rest of the country as if they have leprosy, deserving to be the political pariahs that they have become. What will they be renaming themselves next time?

Loyalist, or Noble Aristocracy was what the were during, and just after the revolutionary war, so none of those will do? Hamiltonians, were just as discredited after the war of 1812? The Tory party were just overwhelmed by there own stupidity, greed, bad judgment, and infighting. History remains the same. It's so hard to redefine yourself after every 50 years or so, for screwing up the country, and have to go in hiding only to attempt to reemerge with a new moniker and pretend that you're something new, and not the same old @!$%# ups of Democracy that they always are?

Neo-Neo-con is just not going to fool anyone. They are finished for at least a generation, they just don't know that they are dead yet. But when they return. Libertarians are ripe for the perverting, already on the right and ready to be just as intolerant... I hope we have put safeguards into the Constitution by then, that keeps them from getting any more power in government then the pencil pushers, and bean counters that they are.

But also make sure we watch them close enough so that they don't steal all the pencils and beans. This is what happens when we have business men running anything other then the bureaucratic functions of government. When you run a country like a business, you don't get a Democracy, you get fascism. Conservatives count only the bottom line, Liberals count what really matters, the people.

Dan, unfortunately we do have safeguards in the Constitution. But, they're only as good as our will to ensure justice. Given the lack of general outrage at all this administration has done and the courts abdication of their responsibility to the Constitution, our only hope is enough Americans start paying attention and we through the bums out! My preference would be through impeachment and war crimes trial, but it looks like I'll have to settle for an election (and hope we're still able to manage some semblance of justice there).

When you run a country like a business, you don't get a Democracy, you get fascism

and when you don't run it like a business you get waste, cronyism, defaults, excess taxes, runaway inflation, lost jobs, welfare, poor service, long lines at social agencies, students who riot because someone might fire them if the don't perform...

So we have fascism or corruption as the only alternatives. Which do you prefer?

(Your points did nothing to dispute the assertion that running a country like a business leads to fascism.)

For example, did Bush know that he intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11? And if he knew this, did he take steps to make this happen? And if he did, were his acts merely from a one-sided viewpoint or were they criminal and perhaps treasonous?

According to his own cabinet members.....

President Bush and his senior aides began plotting the invasion of Iraq just days after he took office in January 2001 and not, as the administration has indicated, after terrorists struck against the United States eight months later, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was forced from his post in December 2002.

In an interview scheduled to air tonight on CBS News' "60 Minutes," O'Neill derided what he considered the administration's intent from the start to remove Saddam Hussein by force.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told the news program, according to excerpts released yesterday. "For me, the notion of preemption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Hussein "was a threat to peace and stability before Sept. 11, and even more of a threat after Sept. 11."

President Bush and his senior aides began plotting the invasion of Iraq just days after he took office in January 2001

The documentary "No End in Sight" (I linked a seed to it further down this thread here) starts on this premise.

There is only one thing I can say about this article. I must quote Uncle Rico from the film "Napoleon Dynamite" after Napoleon discovered that the time machine bought online didn't work: "Hell, I coulda told ya that."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

As for the article...well...my mother always told me if you don't have anything nice to say...well... you know the rest. And that's all I have to say about that.

I can't believe that it's naiveté to support Bush & Cheney at this point. Naiveté connotes a sort of passive lack of experience. After 6 years of false, bombastic pronouncements from the White House, a supporter of Bush & Cheney must be quite deliberate in choosing to believe the administration is doing the right thing.

Funny how I knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Funny how Michael Moore knew. Funny how quite a few people called BS before we ever went in. Ah, well, chalk it up to good guessing, I guess.

On second thought, THEY LIED. And for the record, I'm not voting for the Billary's either, and I'm not pleased with the Republican congress of the day or any of the Dems that voted for that crap.

Hindsight?

OK. He WAS wrong. And we've paid plenty in blood and treasure for him to have that privilidge.

And after he realized hew was wrong? Did he say "Ooops, I got it wrong!" and right that wrong somehow? No, he covers it up and makes up a new straw man for the reasoning behind the Iraq war adventure.

What makes this important, as opposed to the other situtions you cite, is our dear losses in this adventure; lives (both military and civilian,) costs, and international loss of faith in the US as a moral leader of a free world.

Funny how I knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

How did you know? Do tell.

Funny how I knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Funny how Michael Moore knew. Funny how quite a few people called BS before we ever went in.

And you were privy to the intelligence reports that the entire world had prior to us removing Saddam? Funny how you have better information than the entire Western World.

Does this study say what happened to the weapons that were documented to be there in 1998? I'm sure it doesn't mention them or perhaps where they actually went.

This isn't Monday morning quarterbacking it's half a decade later quarter backing. Nothing but drivel.

What makes this important, as opposed to the other situtions you cite, is our dear losses in this adventure; lives (both military and civilian,) costs, and international loss of faith in the US as a moral leader of a free world.

What the left fails to realize is that regardless of weapons not found it was still the right decision to topple Saddam. It was legal. It was justified. The United States of America, President Bush, and all the allies that followed us in did everything in accordance with all the UN resolutions against Iraq and Saddam.

How did you know? Do tell.

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps it could have had something to do with, prior to being told there were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" they tried to tell us that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, and THAT was a lie.

And, perhaps the fact that the UN Weapons Inspectors didn't find any ... that might have had something to do with it. I didn't baaaaaaaaaa like a sheep and say, "Whelp, GW says theys there, so they must be there." It didn't exactly take a genius to figure it out. Are you trying to say that back then, when I was walking around saying, "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" that I was wrong? If I was wrong, then where are they? If I was wrong, what's this article about? If I was wrong, what was the UN Report released in 2004 about? No, sir, it was not I who was wrong, it was those who refused to believe the UN Weapons Inspectors when they told us THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

And by the way, there were none there in 1998 either. As the UN Report released in 2004 proved.

I'm not going to slam the entire right, as they don't deserve to be insulted just because a few of you go around left bashing. But what the very few of you who still don't get it on the right fail to realize is that going around saying, "Well, so what if we were wrong, we were still right," doesn't make your argument very strong.

The world knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. They declared the invasion illegal. Weapon's inspectors - you know the guys on the ground doing the searches - concluded there were no weapons, furthermore prior to US invasion weapons inspectors were given free and total authority to search where they wanted for however long they wanted in order to prove there were none...and lo and behold shock of all shocks - Bush invaded anyway , even though he could have searched to his hearts content without destabilising a country and killing thousands of civilians.

Did they count how many times President Clinton said the same things? Perhaps Hillary? How about most of Congress? How about most of the Western World for that matter.

How many soldiers or civilians died as a result of Bill or Hillary's alleged "lies?"

Now let us compare your answer to the body count Bush/Cheney have racked up.

I hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but, "No one died when Clinton lied."

kevinb66,

Exactly how do Bill and Hillary Clinton's lies make the Bush lies any more truthful?

And Kevin

"No one died when Clinton lied."

Exactly...

What the left fails to realize is that regardless of weapons not found it was still the right decision to topple Saddam. It was legal. It was justified.

It was also stupid, and wasteful, and a diversion of necessary resources from the struggle in Afghanistan. You can't fight everybody, and if a choice needed to be made the sponsors and protectors of the 9/11 criminals ranked way ahead of Saddam.

In other words, despite its alleged legality and justification, it was manifestly the wrong decision at that time. As I said at the time: when Bush delivered Osama's head on a pike on the top of the Washington Monument, we could talk about his unresolved Daddy issues in Iraq. Not before. If he needed resolution prior to that, I understand that the White House health plan covers psychotherapy.

Here we go again. Clinton did it too. Well, you know, you just put Bush on a level with an impeached president. Thanks for finally admitting Bush is at least as bad as a president who was disgraced. Now let's get on to the matter of impeaching BUSH as well.

I remember that here, in Canada, while Powell did his speeches in front of U.N. and that your government made all these claims about Iraq, almost every media here repeatedly said that there was no Al Qaeda, no WMA, etc. It seems that the US goverment was the only one who didn't know. Why do you think that such a close ally as Canada didn't follow in that war?

Remember France & Germany considered "old Europe" (for not agreeing with Rumsfeld to invade & join the coalition..

but isn't there some type of "evidence" Bush and his administration could point to that even sort of justifies why they might think that perhaps there may be weapons of MD or that Iraq had al-Qaida ties?

This has been rehashed to death. There were weapons in 1998 that are still unaccounted for today. There were, in fact, al Qaeda terrorists being harbored in Iraq prior to the U.S. going in.

The problem is that the left attempts to put words in President Bush's mouth. They try to twist what he says into "Iraq was responsible for 9/11" which President Bush never said or alluded to.

It boils down to given the time and given the information at that time President Bush decided to remove Saddam. We can agree or disagree whether that decision was correct. But to call it illegal is irresponsible.

The "evidence" is what is known as the Nigerian Uranium Forgery, or the Yellowcake incident. You must at least remember Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and the fact that these forgeries were known to be forgeries (by pretty much everyone not trying to come up with a pretense to invade a sovereign nation). There was an active attempt by the Administration at subverting the truth by outing a CIA agent among other things.

There were weapons in 1998 that are still unaccounted for today.

No, there weren't. See my link in 10.6 I think I'll trust the UN over a corrupt administration who LIED us into war.

Bush did say Iraq was responsible for 911, and so did Cheney. The links are out there to prove it. Direct quotes that I'm not going to waste my time digging up, it will be easy enough for you go Google it if you had any desire to hear the real truth. I was paying attention when they said it.

The "evidence" is what is known as the Nigerian Uranium Forgery, or the Yellowcake incident. You must at least remember Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and the fact that these forgeries were known to be forgeries (by pretty much everyone not trying to come up with a pretense to invade a sovereign nation). There was an active attempt by the Administration at subverting the truth by outing a CIA agent among other things.

All of this stuff has also been debunked. The first of which is the outing of a CIA agent. It never occurred as Plame was not a covert agent.

The second can be found at factcheck.org

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

How about that...Joe Wilson provided the information to the CIA that President Bush used in his State of the Union speech. Huh? Go figure. Given this information we definitely know that Joe Wilson lied.

And the forged documents? They're irrelevant too. They weren't even the basis for the "16 words". Furthermore, I don't believe the British government has ever back pedaled on the claim of their intelligence.

Bush did say Iraq was responsible for 911, and so did Cheney. The links are out there to prove it. Direct quotes that I'm not going to waste my time digging up, it will be easy enough for you go Google it if you had any desire to hear the real truth. I was paying attention when they said it.

they call it false memory. In fact, neither Bush nor Cheney ever said Iraq was responsible for 911. In reality (real reality, not your reality) Cheney said on at least three occasions when asked by Tim Russert, and Cheney said explicitly NO. There is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 911.

Funny how I knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Funny how Michael Moore knew.

Funny how full of bullcarp this statement is. You knew before the invasion of March 2003 there were no WMD? How the hell would you know that? What an absurdity. The issue only was, and all the protests were only about, whether inspections should have been allowed to continue or whether there should be an invasion. France, Germany, and Russia were all opposed to an invasion (for financial and trade reasons, it's clear) but they also knew Saddam had WMD. EVERYONE knew and Hussein made no attempt to dissuade anyone. Israel knew he had them. All his Arab neighbors knew. Even his generals in the field knew; they just thought it was the other guy who controlled them. But YOU and Michael Moore knew otherwise? Stop kidding yourself.

No, there weren't. See my link in 10.6 I think I'll trust the UN over a corrupt administration who LIED us into war.

your link is NOT to a UN report. It's to a USAToday article that says two UN diplomats read a UN report that says there were no WMD after 1994, and that report was one year AFTER the invasion.

That was after they were already in Iraq and they didn't need the lie anymore. Spin it how you like, just because they never said, "Saddam Hussein attacked us on 911", they repeatedly put Saddam's name into the same speeches, paragraphs, and sentences with "911". They knew he didn't have anything to do with it, but they were purposefully associating the two in the minds of those who weren't paying attention. Call it what you like, they put the idea out there on purpose to mislead the American people. They knew what they were doing. That's real reality, and if you must see them, I can dig up many a quote for you to peruse.

Bush and Cheney said explcitly that there was no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 911. You can find any number of examples of this in writing and on TV, in interviews, etc. What Bush said that apparently confused a great many people is that he considered Saddam and Bin Laden part of the same problem. He sees them as the same thing, terrorists or supporters of terrorism. That's what he said. I am not shocked to find that many people thought that meant Bush was saying Saddam had something to do with 911. I never thought that's what he was saying especially since I heard them deny it. I have NEVER found a single person who will admit that they thought Saddam was responsible for 911 because Bush said so. Did you think Bush made the claim?

They knew he didn't have anything to do with it, ...

and that's what they said. Go to Meet the Press, you'll find Cheney saying they had no evidence Saddam was connected to 911.

...but they were purposefully associating the two in the minds of those who weren't paying attention.

not in my mind. Yours?

As I said, they didn't say that until after we were already in Iraq, and they had been called on it. They didn't need that card anymore. Yeah, there are lots of examples, after the fact. I challenge you to find one, just ONE comment by Bush or Cheney between 911 and the invasion of Iraq where either of them admitted that. You won't be able to, because it didn't happen.

Double post. Deleted.

They didn't need that card anymore.

So this is a GAME? Played with CARDS?

I'm sure those who lost loved ones feel much more comforted now...

@ SuperUnspecial in comment #12.2:

Do you mean "Nigerien" Uranium Forgery, or the Yellowcake incident"?

Bush and Cheney said explcitly that there was no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 911.

Only after they'd been caught lying about it. Cheney is still drawing illusory correlations to it for those still blind enough to believe it.

Well, hindsight is 20/20.

Except that for those of us who had the insight to recognize it for what it was from day one, Lies, and did not back down to the fear and join in on the mob think, but refused to put on the blinders of fear and Hate that destroys reason, that Bush crafted for the American people to wear. And were branded as Anti-American, (to put in kindly) for it by the goose steppers. But still we did not back down. I think the country owes an apology to the Dixie Chicks, and to every American who tried to wake you guys up to what was to them, so @!$%#ing obvious. Hind sight, my ass. I was shocked at how easy it was to fool everyone, and Bush is an Idiot. Who shares the blame? YOU. I know that misery loves company but don't put me in your closet of shame. Bush used 9/11 as his tool. Nothing more.

So this is a GAME? Played with CARDS?

It's a game to them, not to me. You're either just going to have to get used to my phraseology or put me on your ignore list. I'm a writer, and I phrase things differently than you might. I'm not the one who sent the troops to die for stupid reasons that weren't in the best interests of the American People. I spoke out against it. So the onus is on them, not me. I can be as colorful or allegorical as I like in my comments, as I have the ace of truth up my sleeve.

... as I have the ace of truth up my sleeve.

cheater, that is so unfair. :)

Kevin,

As writers, we understand the nuance of word choice. I just disagree with your word choice, particularly likening this tragedy to a game.

I think I understand what you meant -- the the the Bush Admin considers it a game -- but as written it seems you give them that out. I don't.

My view is that it demeans all the precious life lost.

We agree to disagree.

Kevin Dicks #12.9

I challenge you to find one, just ONE comment by Bush or Cheney between 911 and the invasion of Iraq where either of them admitted that. You won't be able to, because it didn't happen.

Baloney. I said that every time Cheney was asked whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he said there was no evidence. This is on the record on Meet the Press among other places. Every time he was asked. Then you challenged me as above, and claimed that after the invasion, they didn't have to try convincing everyone there was a connection because playing that card was unnecessary. Wrong. Absolutely untrue. The following is from CBS Face The Nation 03-16-2003 with Bob Schiefer, one week before the invasion. He certainly could have tried convincing everyone of the connection. He didn't, and if Schiefer had asked him directly he would have said, as he always did, there was no evidence of a Saddam 9/11 link:

SCHIEFFER: Should the American people be prepared for terrorist attacks in this country if we do take action against Saddam?

CHENEY: I think that`s clearly a possibility. But remember, we`ve had terror attacks against us without our doing anything militarily. We didn`t do anything in advance of 9/11 and still got hit. We know al Qaeda`s out there, for example, doing everything they can to organize strikes against us. Saddam tried in `91 to organize terrorist attacks and failed dismally. These, I`m sure, will try again. He may be more effective this time around at trying to use terrorist attacks against U.S. interests at various places around the globe and possibly here in the United States itself. So we have to consider that as a possibility.

He is saying that Saddam may be more effective next time attacking US around the world and POSSIBLY even in the US itself. Does this sound to you like he's tying Saddam to 9/11? Of course not.

But one of the things I`m convinced of, Bob, is if you look back at our track record, I think our failure to respond adequately to terror attacks in the past has to some extent encouraged the terrorist organizations.

I think Osama bin Laden, for example, saw that we didn`t really respond effectively to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in `83 or the World Trade Center attack in `93 or the Khobar Towers attack this `96 or the East Africa bombing in `98 or the USS Cole in 2000, a whole series of attacks there where the U.S. didn`t really have an effective response.

And I think he felt he could launch attacks against us with impunity.

He found out different, obviously, that this Bush administration is different than the ones that had gone before. And 9/11 clearly was a significant event. The American people are now prepared to support a more aggressive posture to deal with the threats and to eliminate them before they can be used against the United States.

"to deal with the threats and to eliminate them before they can be used against the United States."

He is saying the reason to invade Iraq is to eliminate threats BEFORE they can be used against the US. Clearly he is not claiming Saddam was tied to 9/11.

What has confused a great number of people including yourself is that Bush and Cheney did indeed want everyone to believe that this, that and the other were all terrorism. Bush said so himself, that he considered Hussein to be no different than Bin Laden as far as terrorist activity. That's what he said, that's what he wanted others to believe i.e. to see them as terrorist threats. But they NEBER said Saddam was connected to 9/11. They said repeatedly they had no evidence for it. This was true before, during and after the war. Saddam/al Qaeda links? Yes, that Cheney still does believe.

faust-132915 #12.13

Only after they'd been caught lying about it. Cheney is still drawing illusory correlations to it for those still blind enough to believe it.

When were they lying about it? Find me a single quote by Cheney, say, where he said Saddam was tied to 9/11.

See #12.18

So, after all that, you can't find one then? One quote from that time period where Cheney or Bush came out and said Saddam had nothing to do with 911? All that stuff you posted didn't provide that one little tiny proof I was looking for. Got it?

"...why I believe the Bush Administration has done the right thing in carrying the war on terror into the heart of terrorism itself. Yes, I know there are legions of liberals, so blinded by their certainty that the Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the presidency that they actually profess to believe that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To them I would say consider this: Syria had ties to Al Qaeda; Jordan had ties to Al Qaeda; Egypt had ties to Al Qaeda; Yemen had ties to Al Qaeda; Somalia had ties to Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia had ties to Al Qaeda; the various Gulf monarchies had ties to Al Qaeda; Iran had ties to Al Qaeda; Pakistan had ties to Al Qaeda; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule had ties to Al Qaeda.

But not Iraq.

That's right, according to Democrat politicians and the liberal Left in America and Europe, only one country in the Middle East, Iraq, a country under the iron-fisted control of an absolute dictator who had reason to hate the American government far more bitterly than any of the leaders of the above nations, and yep, sitting smack dab in the middle of all these other terrorist harboring countries, only America-hating Iraq, was lily white clean according to liberal Democrats when it came to affiliation with Al Qaeda."

Posted on Free Republic 07/28/2007 9:27:11 PM PDT by smoothsailing. July 28, 2007 American Thinker, Not Even a Contest, by Russ Vaughn.

When were they lying about it? Find me a single quote by Cheney, say, where he said Saddam was tied to 9/11.

See #12.18

IV: here is a little about it if you actually care enough about it to read it..

Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

Well, that's is a blatant lie, and the CIA has known this is not true for years, as they have said so. Saddme was a true egocentric despot paranoid. He hated al Qaeda, as he could not share power with anyone and did not even trust them be in his country for a visit. But one example that Cheney and Bush where liars of a magnitude beyond anything we have ever seen in the White House, even beyond that of Nixion in the level of falsehood they would steep to, it is not enough, sometimes when a puppy craps on the rug, you have to rub their noses in it.

Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion

Kevin Dicks #12.20

So, after all that, you can't find one then? One quote from that time period where Cheney or Bush came out and said Saddam had nothing to do with 911?

what the? Try to understand this simple concept. For me to find a QUOTE of what he didn't say requires me to find a question where he was asked "Are you saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11?" Get it? Then he'd have the chance to admit it or deny it. In the absence of anyone asking him the question, all we have are his comments that make it clear he was not connecting Saddam to 9/11. I gave you evidence in #12.18. Got it? What I said was that when he was asked the question he repeatedly said that there was no evidence for it. Okay? BEFORE he was ever asked the question, he merely made whatever statements he made, and NONE of them suggested S. H. had anything to do with 9/11. With terrorism? Yes. He and Bush (and Clintons, and others across the board, and across the world) was definitely connecting Saddam to terrorism. BUT, not to 9/11. When he was asked, he said there was no evidence.

Apparently you and many others have some desire to continue the canard that Bush and Cheney claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11 because so many of you wanted to believe they said it. But they didn't say it. They even denied it. When I point out they denied it, you said: 'sure but that was after the invasion. They didn't deny it before the invasion.' Well, sir, no one asked them. But that did not stop them from making statements that show clearly e.g. #12.18 they were not claiming Saddam was responsible for 9/11, despite your misunderstanding.

Your point would be trivial to prove. Just show me ONE time they were asked whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11 where they said 'Yes' Before or after the invasion. Never happened.

Get it? Got it? Good.

They implied it. They knew what they were doing. That's all we have ever claimed. And I stand by it. They knew that the country believed Saddam was linked to 911, they saw all the same polls that the rest of us (who were paying attention) saw. If they didn't want the country to believe a fallacy, then they would have come out with the truth. They didn't. Period.

So, no, I don't got what you're trying to say, and I never will. I get nauseous when I go on those spinning rides, and I get nauseous when I read things that spin too much.

We are never going to agree on this. You want to think the best of them, for some reason. And to me, they are the most evil people on earth, so neither one of us is going to influence the other with our opinions.

yadda yadda and yadda. If what you say is correct, then how difficult should it be for you to come up with a single example where they were asked: is Saddam responsible for 9/11? and they said 'yes'. Should be simple, but you can't.

If they didn't want the country to believe a fallacy, then they would have come out with the truth. They didn't. Period.

Now those are weasel words if I saw them. You used to claim that Bush and Cheney said Iraq was responsible for attacking us on 9/11, now you come up with this, "if they didn't want the country to believe" nonsense.

How hard to you have to strain to try to ignore the fact that a significant part of the debate was about the right of the US to engage in a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against Iraq? Remember that discussion? Doesn't that tell you something? How could there even be such a discussion about a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if Iraq had already attacked on 9/11? The simplest way to understand this is that you and millions of others of you who took polls believed something no one ever said, and now you weasel your way into 'how come they didn't say it wasn't true'? baloney. I showed you they did say it. They also said, and Cheney especially, that Saddam had links with al Qaeda throughout the '90s. This is borne out by the 9/11 Commission report which documents attempts and success at meetings between al Qaeda and Iraqi intel in Sudan and elsewhere, but they were not MEANINGFUL, or they didn't indicate COOPERATION, they said, 'probably'. But there were LINKS. Three times they tried arranging meetings. Oh, no...Saddam is secular, al Qaeda are fundamentalists, they would never meet. What foolish thinking. Cheney said there were LINKS and everyone should know that there were, in fact, links. But Saddam responsible fro 9/11? he never said it.

yadda yadda and yadda. If what you say is correct, then how difficult should it be for you to come up with a single example where they were asked: is Saddam responsible for 9/11? and they said 'yes'. Should be simple, but you can't.

I never said anyone DID ask them in public. That is the fault of the media.

Concerning the rest of what you wrote ... It's a bunch of hot air. Look, you're never going to see my point, and I'm NEVER going to see yours. I don't agree with any of your arguments, and you don't agree with any of mine. Judging from what you've written, you haven't even understood half of my arguments. You keep going back to the same things I've already refuted, and I'm not going to continue repeating myself. I don't have time to argue with someone who has no intention of changing his mind, and I doubt you do either. So I'd rather spend my energy on people who are willing to find a common ground. I don't have the energy to argue with Bush supporters anymore. Bush is the past, I have to worry about the Future now.

There were also links between al Qaida and the US as well as the US and Iraq at one point in time.

Incredulous One:

yadda yadda and yadda. If what you say is correct, then how difficult should it be for you to come up with a single example where they were asked: is Saddam responsible for 9/11? and they said 'yes'. Should be simple, but you can't.

This from the Washington Post article I pointed to at 12.22:

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

There it is. How do you deny that?

The full NBC transcript of that statement changes the spin the the WaPo put on it:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure's not an option. And go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. That's one of the reasons they're putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that's going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything.

Lol, thanks for the advice, but I knew who was getting my vote last year. I already did all my homework. So ... it's playtime for me!

Also, I've already written all my Reps and Senators and signed all the petitions I can. Nothing left to do for me but force the truth on people. lol.

Nothing left to do for me but force the truth on people. lol.

Me too!

you can't force the truth on people. if you try, they won't listen, and to them, it just seems as if you're desperate or anxious for them to listen to you, making them listen or care even less.

Alan, I know. The few Bush supporters that are left will always be Bush supporters. They will write false histories praising him as a great Preisdent and a great man. I just have fun proving them wrong, cause it always gets to the point where they can't dispute what I've said, and they walk away, pretending that they are tired of the conversation. Truth is, the truth will win out. I just have fun doing it. I enjoy it. So, that's reason enough for me.

kevinb66,
LMAO. You need to know the truth before you can tell it. One of us has been walking around since '02 believing there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and one of us hasn't. You can pretend all you like. It won't change the facts.

What was that you were saying about WMD's in '98?

I think this election started aboput two years ago. ;-)

ok, maybe. But does that make it ok?

What really nark's me about this whole debacle is that their was an-holy rush to bomb the crap out of Iraq.

The "rush" to war never happened. It took months, and Saddam had several chances to comply. Not exactly a rush.

Months ... hmmm, perhaps you're right. I mean, we're only talking about war against a country who posed no imminent threat. I guess months was long enough. No reason to bother to get all the facts. It's not like it was some major decision or something. After all, they already had their minds made up. Waiting longer could have turned up the truth that they didn't want anyone to see.

Sounds ligit to me.

beside s that soros funding ended in 02(prior to iraq war, prior to this study)
does evenrything soros donate to mean he controlls?
oviously the study needed money.. do you think gopr's would donate to find out if bush lied?
ok so that leaves liberals.. since the world is black and whiet and there is no such thing as an independant and centrists.
my question is, who could have assocaitions with this group and have it be concidered independant.
and depites it's bias.. and besides attacking the messanger, can people discount the message??

I contend that even if soros did not give money to them 6 years ago, peopel would still scream bias.

ok so soros is the booogy man and it just wouldnt be the same to say funded by the la times huh?

anyway yall have to prove the soros connection a bit better.

JoulesBeef, oviously such good projects need support of like-minded world citizens.

The bias is in focusing on Republican office holders (Bush and Cheney). This bias reveals their anti-Republican, anti-American agenda.

Revealing government contracts "to make institutional power more transparent and accountable," The Center for Public Integrity

published online the major U.S. government contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, revealing Halliburton to be, by far, the largest beneficiary.

Here is a bias, "revealing" that Haliburton was "the largest beneficiary" and not looking at the other side of the equation, that the people of Iraq benefited tremendously from the infrastructure built by Haliburton. The agenda of The Center for Public Integrity is to slander and demean America, its agents, and its foreign policy. This agenda abets and is consistent with both the agenda of George Soros and the agenda of the communists.

I believe you're missing the point. If people had been able to bid on the contracts in order to get the best price for the American people, Halliburton is not the only company who can provide those services. That's the point.

And, liberals are not communists. Calling us communists is a ridiculous claim, and it completely takes away from any point you were trying to make. You throw that word around, but I wonder if you even know what it means.

Thanks, Kevin.

Larry, I also resent being called "Anti-American" if not a republican.

This bias reveals their anti-Republican, anti-American agenda.

Now that's bias.

Exactly. And thank you for understanding what I wrote. I just re-read it and I left out an entire portion of the first sentence. It should have read:

If people had been able to bid on the contracts in order to get the best price for the American people, Halliburton either wouldn't have gotten the contract, or they would have actually been paid a fair price. They are not the only company who can provide those services.

LIBERALS:

The moral inversion on the death penalty: Conservatives want to protect the innocent fetus and kill the guilty murderer, while liberals want to kill the innocent fetus and protect the guilty murderer.

The rise of radical Islam is pretty much the rise of an evil spiritual malignancy. The hate Bush/Christians crowd likes to mock us claiming we are pushing the world toward Armageddon. In typical liberal screwed up thinking they completely fail to see that we are keeping the world from Armageddon by holding back this evil malignancy. Just who stands between today and an Islamic tomorrow? France? Belgium? The Netherlands? Nancy Pelosi? Babies and small children think Mommie vanishes when she walks out of the room. Liberals and leftists think mortal threats vanish when they are in control. Mark [Steyn] is dead on right. If we screw this up and walk away from victory in Iraq the era of America's protectorate role is over. There will be nothing between now and a burka in your future

"Peace Activists" demonstrate where it is safe--in America. Do we see them in Iraq, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, where they could really demonstrate? They favor Human Rights, Democracy, Multi-Culturalism, Diversity, etc., but if we lose to the terrorist it all ends for them. Why don't the Liberals get it ?

AL-QAEDA:
"I know there are legions of liberals, so blinded by their certainty that the Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the presidency that they actually profess to believe that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To them I would say consider this: Syria had ties to Al Qaeda; Jordan had ties to Al Qaeda; Egypt had ties to Al Qaeda; Yemen had ties to Al Qaeda; Somalia had ties to Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia had ties to Al Qaeda; the various Gulf monarchies had ties to Al Qaeda; Iran had ties to Al Qaeda; Pakistan had ties to Al Qaeda; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule had ties to Al Qaeda. But not Iraq.
That's right, according to Democrat politicians and the liberal Left in America and Europe, only one country in the Middle East, Iraq, a country under the iron-fisted control of an absolute dictator who had reason to hate the American government far more bitterly than any of the leaders of the above nations, and yep, sitting smack dab in the middle of all these other terrorist harboring countries, only America-hating Iraq, was lily white clean according to liberal Democrats when it came to affiliation with Al Qaeda." American Thinker, Not Even a Contest, Russ Vaughn. Posted on 07/28/2007 9:27:11 PM PDT by smoothsailing

posted on 01/04/2007 8:11:06 PM PST by kstewskis "Tolerance is what happens when one loses their principals"....Fr. A. Saenz

posted on 04/07/2007 11:04:35 AM PDT by freespirited Resentment, redistribution, and re-education. The three Rs of liberalism.

posted on 07/31/2007 7:28:52 PM PDT by Texas Eagle If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.

[The Xenoturbella, an obscure, worm-like creature retrieved from the depths of the North Atlantic] "does not seem to have a brain, gut or gonads" Sounds to be like the evolutionary ancestors of Democrats. posted on 11/05/2006 8:22:41 PM PST by garjog

Democrats couldn't care less about corruption, lawlessness, deviate perversion or anything else - - for the Democrat "base" of parasites, malcontents, and losers it's all about the "free stuff" that their politicians confiscate from normal, hard-working, taxpaying, traditional American families (Republicans) and "redistribute" to them. Nothing else is on their radar screen. 25 posted on 12/09/2006 8:34:57 PM PST by Lancey Howard

If we screw this up and walk away from victory in Iraq the era of America's protectorate role is over. There will be nothing between now and a burka in your future

So, U.S. forces leave Iraq and, consequently, America becomes a (Muslim) theocracy. How exactly does this happen?

Post 23.2 accuses some nebulous group of (assumedly) scary 'communists' of 'not looking at' how 'the people of Iraq benefited tremendously from the infrastructure built by Haliburton.' Haliburton has been paid upwards of $100 billion dollars and there is less operational infrastracture now than at the end of 'major combat operations' in 2003. Haliburton (or KBR) contracts have been shown to have included construction projects that were ended at the termination of the contract with no useful facilities for the Iraqis.

Vanity Fair's article from November 2007 includes descriptions of some of the corrupt practices at Halliburton subsidiary KBR. I've seen several others documenting failures of commission and omission by the contractor. Where are the articles that describe all the benefits accruing to the people of Iraq consequent to Halliburton projects?

I'm looking for those "sucess stories" myself.

Larry I agree with you - but a lot of this is because the administration leant on the CIA to produce the intelligence they wanted to hear, in many cases from the most non-credible sources. Every disaffected Iraqi in Paris became an expert on Hussein's secret weapons program, it seemed.

Which leads to the following conclusions:

1. It was a huge disservice to the country (I would say treason) on the part of the administration in manipulating intelligence in this way and disseminating what they knew to be dubious or false as if it were proven truth.
2. It was stupidly or negligently naive of representatives on both sides, but especially the Democrats, to go along with this without demanding proof. I remember the Democrats couldn't sign up to show their "loyalty" fast enough by beating the drums of war. Clinton in the front row. I find it despicable that she's now questioning Obama on that point. These same faults existed in the press, as has been pointed out, but at least their excuse is that they're paid to write what their bosses and the public want to hear, and both wanted war.
3. The CIA should be more independent of the Administration and they're not.
4. This should be evidence enough that Bush's statements on Iran cannot be trusted. So get some spine - Democrats and Press!!

All you are saying is that they all lied, including Bush. So we are back to square one. Bush lied.

I find it interesting that those who seek to defend Bush on this often call in the accounts of such people as Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton. I, for one, see them as being on the same team as Bush. Sure, they wear a different letter next to their name, but clearly they have the same agenda as this administration. I've heard Kerry and Clinton both speak so often of 'defending US interests', but I've never heard what those interests are. Hillary has remarked that if she gets elected, then reelected, US forces will still be in Iraq when she leaves. It seems to me that they have a plan for the US whether we like it or not. One thing is certain to me, that just because someone or some country poses a threat, they do not necessarily need to be overthrown or killed. Is this really such a strange notion? That we don't need to kill everyone that is different from us? Or even everyone that is threatening to us? Are we really such cowards? By the logic used here, we should be invading China and Russia. You think we could win that war?
I have no interests in the middle east. None. As far as the oil goes, we only get 15% of it from the region, it could surely be made up elsewhere. So what is the justification for bankrupting our country to fight this endless war? What does victory look like? What is the point of this?

Oh, and about all the evidence. What about the "yellow cake"? George Tenet is recored as telling the president that the intelligence was weak on at least that specific subject. Yet it made it in to the State of the Union address, and with Bush's grave, ominous tone. I so often hear comparisons to Reagan and Truman, what happened to "the buck stops here"?

lets see congress makes statements based on the info bush gave them..
many claimed even powell, that bush claimed to have cooberation for curveballs testimony, which they didnt.
the people listed in the 02 section did not lie, they were lied too as well and simply repeating it.
98 was 5 years of inspection before.. 5 years before republican warhawk and weapons inspector was swiftboated as a liberal for saying saddams wmd program was non existant.

saying he has varous programs, does equate to immenant threat, which is what bush said.
if you remember when clinton bombed, iraq, he stated the future presidnets shouldnt be affraid to bomb him to make sure he doesnt reconstitute his wmd program so we could prevent another gulf war. and the gop screamed wag the dog.

and sorry the 16 words were known to be false, they wer taken out and reput bcak in.. accidently?? i dont buy that for a second. You dont let the president of the US knowningly make false statements in the state of the union address.... unless that is his plan.
the yellow cake had been debunked and yet many cons still say.. it hasnt.. that hoe wilson was simply a liberal plot to make bush look bad. despite the mountains of evidence to the contracy, shoot we even know were the niger letter came from.
It was plain BS.. plain and simple.

Agreed. You gotta draw the line somewhere .... this seems to be a damn good place to start.

Exactly what I was thinking. Now it's time to prosecute these bastards.

(Don't worry, true believers, they'll all be pardoned shortly afterwards) :P

It takes time and a good kick in the head for some people to wake up from the deep and mentally debilitating apathy that many have wooed into. It's not news to me, you and others, who saw it from the start, it is a realization many others who are only now coming around to the truth. A waking up. That while they slept they have been raped and robbed. What is worse? How much more angry are you when you are robbed at gun point, while you are awake, compared to someone you trusted, who sneaks in and takes everything from under your nose?

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!

As do I.