Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

[IronGhost]

Werll if McClellen was't commiting libel, then he must have been telling the truth.

As for Bush having shared intelligence with Sen's and others -- what a laugh! -- Bush-Cheney shared selected slices of intelligence, and conveniently suppressed anything that did not look good for their bogus case for a bogus war.

So sure, you can say they shared intelligence -- they shared what they wanted to share -- the cherry-picked stuff.

[Dr. D]

Not commit libel, but simply throw in some controversy in the book for marketing purposes.

Bush himself said it, All Senators, representatives and the UN saw and reviwed the same intelligence he saw.

Maybe not . . . . remember that U.S. agents removed 8,000 pages from Iraq's weapons report and even the Secretary General of the U.N. protested the action.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/article...an_interest.php

Sometimes it's what people don't know that leads to bad decisions.

[AROCES]

Werll if McClellen was't commiting libel, then he must have been telling the truth.

As for Bush having shared intelligence with Sen's and others -- what a laugh! -- Bush-Cheney shared selected slices of intelligence, and conveniently suppressed anything that did not look good for their bogus case for a bogus war.

So sure, you can say they shared intelligence -- they shared what they wanted to share -- the cherry-picked stuff.

It was up to the Senators and Representatives to confirm, assess and verfy those reports from it's source.

That is their job in the first place, right?

Edited May 29, 2008 by AROCES

[AROCES]

Maybe not . . . . remember that U.S. agents removed 8,000 pages from Iraq's weapons report and even the Secretary General of the U.N. protested the action.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/article...an_interest.php

Sometimes it's what people don't know that leads to bad decisions.

Says who???

You mean the corrupt Kofi protested? He probably wanted a cut.

[Atheist God]

It was up to the Senators and Representatives to confirm, assess and verfy those reports from it's source.

That is their job in the first place, right?

No because they are puppets.

Intelligent agencies answer only to the top i.e. the White House. Any information the president don't want you to see or anyone else for that matter he can simply cite national security and no one will ever know what they do.

Says who???

You mean the corrupt Kofi protested? He probably wanted a cut.

Kofi was investigated and shown to not be involved in any scandal.

[AROCES]

No because they are puppets.

Intelligent agencies answer only to the top i.e. the White House. Any information the president don't want you to see or anyone else for that matter he can simply cite national security and no one will ever know what they do.

You telling us then those who voted for our troops to go to war never actually verified and confirmed those reports, not even asked the source of it?

Kofi was investigated and shown to not be involved in any scandal.

Sure,

[questionmark]

bogus war.

Tell that to those who bit the dust or are confined to a social security chopper the rest of their days...

[Lt_Ripley]

You telling us then those who voted for our troops to go to war never actually verified and confirmed those reports, not even asked the source of it?

Sure,

it's the truth . sorry it doesn't fit your fantasy bush spoon fed ya.

[IronGhost]

Tell that to those who bit the dust or are confined to a social security chopper the rest of their days...

Huh?

[Bella-Angelique]

I heard a Democrat in DC wants to drag him in for an investigation. Wish I could remember his name but I only caught it in passing.

[questionmark]

Huh?

The war ain't bogus it is ******** real.

[IronGhost]

The war ain't bogus it is ******** real.

Well, jeez, of course I know that. When I use the term bogus, I'm talking about the true motivation for the war, as fantasized by the peculiar NeoCon vision of the world.

[AROCES]

it's the truth . sorry it doesn't fit your fantasy bush spoon fed ya.

So who do you blame for that, Bush or those incompetent who had the final say and approved it?

Edited May 29, 2008 by AROCES

[Atheist God]

You telling us then those who voted for our troops to go to war never actually verified and confirmed those reports, not even asked the source of it?

How can you verify something if you can't have access to it? You can't that's the point.

You can't verify intelligence reports if you don't have access simple as that.

So who do you blame for that, Bush or those incompetent who had the final say and approved it?

You can only expect bad judgment calls when you give people false information.

[AROCES]

How can you verify something if you can't have access to it? You can't that's the point.

You can't verify intelligence reports if you don't have access simple as that.

Then why did they vote for it when you assume that they asked and could not access the source?

Common sense say, unless you access the source you won't vote to send the troops for war, right?

You can only expect bad judgment calls when you give people false information.

Yup, it was false information we all know that now that everyone been receiving all the way back from the

Clinton administration who had warned us about Saddam's WMD together with the UN.

[ninjadude]

You telling us then those who voted for our troops to go to war never actually verified and confirmed those reports, not even asked the source of it?

Pretty much. You're surprised by this?

[ninjadude]

Then why did they vote for it when you assume that they asked and could not access the source?

Because back then, they did not believe that the administration would lie and/or misled them to that incredible degree. I'm sure your snarky comeback will be "what lies". You see we have been over this ground before. Scotties book didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. It is refreshing to hear it from a loyal Bushie.

[acidhead]

Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" is not just a particularly good addition to the ten-foot high stack of rants against Bush's crimes and abuses of power. It's also an argument that state and local prosecutors have the necessary jurisdiction to try Bush for murder and for conspiracy to commit murder, at least once he's out of office.

This is not a scheme based on some harebrained theory that Bush faked the suicide of a former staffer. In fact, this scheme is based on nothing more than universally accepted facts. Bush chose to send US troops into Iraq. He did not do so in self-defense or as a last resort or under an international mandate, but rather went out of his way to concoct false motives for war and to rush its launching. By sending troops into war, Bush was knowingly and needlessly but certainly condemning some of them to death. The Iraqis who killed those soldiers in predictable and legally justifiable defense of their country fall into the legal category of "third-party innocent agent." This does not mean they are innocent, but rather that their actions do nothing to lessen the guilt of George W. Bush as murderer of those soldiers. Bugliosi calls this the "vicarious liability rule of conspiracy." Bugliosi explains:

"In other words, if Bush personally killed an American soldier, he would be guilty of murder. Under the law, he cannot immunize himself from his criminal responsibility by causing a third party to do the killing. He's still responsible. George Bush cannot sit safely in his Oval Office in Washington, D.C., while young American soldiers fighting his war are being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, and wash his hands of all culpability. It's not quite that easy. He could only do this if he did not take this nation into war under false pretenses. If he did, which the evidence overwhelmingly shows, he is criminally responsible for the thousands of American deaths in Iraq." In addition, Bugliosi argues, Bush could be found guilty of murder under the rule of "aiding and abetting," because he instigated the killing of American soldiers by ordering the invasion of Iraq.

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Edited May 30, 2008 by acidhead43

[AROCES]

Pretty much. You're surprised by this?

NO, for for the same people are quick to point fingers at Bush and capitalize on it. And when the smoke cleared it is obvious it's them who did not do their joib and sent our troops to war.

[Dr. D]

Says who???

You mean the corrupt Kofi protested? He probably wanted a cut.

And so we justify the corrupt doctoring of Iraq's official report by attacking Kofi Annan? By reducing the content of the weapons report by more than 70%, the final vote of the U.N. could well have been influenced. This is perhaps one of the most flagrant acts of the abuse of power on record and it is ignored because Kofi Annan protested????

[AROCES]

Because back then, they did not believe that the administration would lie and/or misled them to that incredible degree. I'm sure your snarky comeback will be "what lies". You see we have been over this ground before. Scotties book didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. It is refreshing to hear it from a loyal Bushie.

See how you try to cover up for them and make them look like a victim of Bush?

If the case is as you say, then it is those who approved the war that should be thrown out of office for sending the troops to war without doing their job first and just simply said to Bush, really? alright go attack!

Yeah what lies????

[AROCES]

And so we justify the corrupt doctoring of Iraq's official report by attacking Kofi Annan? By reducing the content of the weapons report by more than 70%, the final vote of the U.N. could well have been influenced. This is perhaps one of the most flagrant acts of the abuse of power on record and it is ignored because Kofi Annan protested????

That is just the way it is, Kofi made the most damage here by dirtying the credibility of the UN.

[acidhead]

See how you try to cover up for them and make them look like a victim of Bush?

If the case is as you say, then it is those who approved the war that should be thrown out of office for sending the troops to war without doing their job first and just simply said to Bush, really? alright go attack!

Yeah what lies????

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

[AROCES]

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Oh really? Then what were those warnings about WMD by Clinton, the UN, US Senators and Representataive about Saddams WMD before Bush even decided to run for the President?

So who started the lies?????

[acidhead]

Oh really? Then what were those warnings about WMD by Clinton, the UN, US Senators and Representataive about Saddams WMD before Bush even decided to run for the President?

So who started the lies?????

you could try slamming your head into your desk..