Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Lt_Ripley

Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

215 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
bogus war.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, :ph34r:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
Tell that to those who bit the dust or are confined to a social security chopper the rest of their days...

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Huh?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect 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 by acidhead43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :P;)

Yeah what lies????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect 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! :P;)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect 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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.