NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush the Pitiful
By Paul Craig Roberts

People are beginning to feel sorry for President George W. Bush. And with good reason.

A new poll by Harris Interactive (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13028) published in the Financial Times reveals that our traditional European allies regard the United States as a much greater threat to world stability than Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

In European opinion, the axis-of-evil is Bush’s America.

Almost twice as many British, whose Prime Minister Tony Blair is complicit in Bush’s war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, see the US as the greatest threat to world stability than see Iran as the danger. In Spain three times more people regard the US as the threat than see Iran as the threat. Only in Italy does Iran edge out the US as the greatest perceived threat, a result no doubt due to the propaganda that spews from the media empire of Silvio Berlusconi, the Rupert Murdoch of Italy.

Another reason to feel sorry for Bush is because he is regarded by his own political party and his own Attorney General as a war criminal. Republicans recognize that Bush has committed felonies by violating the US War Crimes Act of 1996 (legislation aimed at the likes of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic). Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and the Republican Congress have produced draft legislation that aims to protect Bush (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060918&s=brecher) retroactively by gutting the 1996 War Crimes Act. Republicans hope to quietly pass this unconstitutional legislation before they are defeated in the November elections.

The fact that retroactive law is prohibited by the US Constitution adds to Bush’s shame.

Bush is also pitied because a large majority of Americans no longer believe (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13008) in the single over-riding cause of Bush’s presidency – the "war on terror." A recent Ipsos-Public Affairs poll released by the Associated Press shows that 60 percent of Americans believe that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has created more terrorism and that Americans are less safe as a result of invading Iraq.

Talking heads on television now discuss whether Bush is an idiot. The frequency of such discussions is likely to increase as Bush makes such declarations as "the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century."

Bush evokes more pity, because he has lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the Kurds in the north have replaced the Iraqi flag with the Kurdish flag. The rest of Iraq is governed by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias. The US puppet government is powerless and dares not leave its US protected fortified bunker.

On September 5, the dominant Shiite political alliance prepared legislation that would divide Iraq into Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite autonomous regions.

So much for "democracy in Iraq."

Apparently, no one has told Bush that he is spending American lives and money on a cause that the Iraqis themselves have abandoned.

Bush still crows about his defeat of the Taliban. Those of us who have served in the government at high levels wonder every day about Bush’s daily briefing. Does he get one? Who gives it to him? I think Bush’s briefing must come from Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, and William Kristol. Where else could he get such bogus information?

Perhaps Bush’s wife or one of his daughters could smuggle him a copy of the recent report on Afghanistan by the Senlis Council (http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/014_publication/full_report/chapter_01), a security and development policy group that closely monitors the situation in Afghanistan.

According to this report, "Afghanistan is spiraling into uncontrollable violence." The Taliban have regained control over half of the country:

"Despite the international community’s concerted five-year focus on military operations, the security situation in Afghanistan is worse than in 2001. The Taliban now have a strong grip on the southern half of the country. Afghans perceive that the US and NATO troops in southern and eastern Afghanistan are being defeated by the Taliban. The legitimacy of the international community’s presence in Afghanistan is undermined by its incapacity to protect the Afghan population.”

Bush was betrayed by the neoconservatives he appointed, protected, and promoted. Public opinion polls in the Arab and Muslim world show that Bush’s invasions, aggressive stance toward Syria and Iran, and unconditional support for Israeli aggression have created a powerful Islamic political movement that experts say will sweep away the corrupt governments allied with the United States (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060905/us_nm/sept11_mideast_dc).

The ignorant actions of Bush the Pitiful have marginalized moderate Arabs and destroyed America’s standing both in Muslim lands and the wider world.

Bush has defeated no one, but he has destroyed American’s reputation and his own.

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts173.html)

Neocons: Still think Bush's phony "War on Terror" is making us safer?

And before anyone pro-Bush screams, "Leftist!" perhaps they should review the credentials of the article's author. Paul Craig Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute; former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal; former contributing editor for National Review; was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration; and is now a prominent paleolibertarian. Hardly a die-hard lefty, as most neocons would claim.

Wait until economic crissis hits, recession is on its way and when it happens say bye bye to neocons!

It may happen sooner than we think, Todays Lucky Number: http://www.etherzone.com/2006/raim090806.shtml

True. I live in Europe and even the conservatists and right wings here dont like Bush. I'm not saying anything, but the Iraq war was damn suspicious. They attacked for liberating the people. And indeed they are now very happy, there's still attacks made against US militaries and there was a suspicious large amount of Oil the US of A now controls

Hey, I haven't seen America take a drop of this Oil. Guess that little fact gets bypassed in the news. How can it be a war for oil if we don't take any?

Hey, I haven't seen America take a drop of this Oil. Guess that little fact gets bypassed in the news. How can it be a war for oil if we don't take any?

Shh. They don't believe that the Iraqi government and Iraqi companies control the oil - they have the unfounded belief that Bush controls the oil.

I can't help it if they are completely stupid, and completely uninformed.

Hey, I haven't seen America take a drop of this Oil. Guess that little fact gets bypassed in the news. How can it be a war for oil if we don't take any?

The new more liberal Iraqi government will now allow multinationals to go harvest their oil. I'm not saying that this is the truth or anything. Though it is suspicious and in general most of the people I know believe this was the main reason for the attack on Iraq.

Though it is suspicious and in general most of the people I know believe this was the main reason for the attack on Iraq.

Then most of the people you know are pretty stupid.

Then most of the people you know are pretty stupid.

If that's the case that probably include me too. I am not entirely sure any war is made with "noble" intend. Wether it's the oil. or something else.

Then most of the people you know are pretty stupid.

That's right, we invaded because Saddam was bed buddies with Al Qaeda, helped perpetrate 9/11, was accumulating WMDs, and was an urgent threat to the region and the world. Thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes:

That's right, we invaded because Saddam was bed buddies with Al Qaeda, helped perpetrate 9/11, was accumulating WMDs, and was an urgent threat to the region and the world. Thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes:

If you read the 9/11 Commission report, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was the opinion of the CIA, and not Bush, that al-Qaeda had been making practical arrangements with Iraq.

I guess you're saying that since the British intelligence and US intelligence agencies had informed Bush that this was going on, he should ignore it altogether. After all, we pay taxes for the CIA to gather intelligence, just so we can ignore it.

If they get it wrong, is it their fault, or the President's? In what way can he know that the CIA is wrong? And if you're so smart that you know when the CIA is right, and when it is wrong, what other prognostications can we expect from you, so we can see your mighty predictive powers at work?

Anyone with half a brain knew Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection. And FYI, Bush was itching for war with Iraq long before 9/11.

Anyone with half a brain knew Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection. And FYI, Bush was itching for war with Iraq long before 9/11.

On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21 (page 128 of the entire report)

If you read the 9/11 Commission report, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was the opinion of the CIA, and not Bush, that al-Qaeda had been making practical arrangements with Iraq.

I guess you're saying that since the British intelligence and US intelligence agencies had informed Bush that this was going on, he should ignore it altogether. After all, we pay taxes for the CIA to gather intelligence, just so we can ignore it.

If they get it wrong, is it their fault, or the President's? In what way can he know that the CIA is wrong? And if you're so smart that you know when the CIA is right, and when it is wrong, what other prognostications can we expect from you, so we can see your mighty predictive powers at work?

This would be the same CIA that during the Cold War fed loads of crap about Russia to the president knowing it was propagada that they made up?

On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21 (page 128 of the entire report)


So, someone thought that Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weapons were connected. During 1998.

Clarke was a high ranking official originally in whose administration? In 1998?

Still doesn't justify the war. And waging such a costly, destructive, controversial war without triple-checking the evidence to make sure Iraq was actually a threat was pretty fucking stupid. Instead, Bush jumped on the flimsiest of "evidence" and rushed into war as quickly as possible.

Still doesn't justify the war. And waging such a costly, destructive, controversial war without triple-checking the evidence to make sure Iraq was actually a threat was pretty fucking stupid. Instead, Bush jumped on the flimsiest of "evidence" and rushed into war as quickly as possible.

Gee. The CIA and British intelligence agreed. The previous administration's intelligence specialists agreed (and had been reporting it for years).

George Tenet said it was a "slam-dunk".

Show me, then the secret intelligence that you had in 1998 (when the Clinton adminstration believed there was a link) and every year up to the invasion, where US and other intelligence agencies were showing a link.

Show me how smart you were then, and what sources you had that proved that all these intelligence agencies were wrong.

Still doesn't justify the war. And waging such a costly, destructive, controversial war without triple-checking the evidence to make sure Iraq was actually a threat was pretty fucking stupid. Instead, Bush jumped on the flimsiest of "evidence" and rushed into war as quickly as possible.

The evidence was strong that he had weapons. When our soldiers went in, they found destroyed computers, documents, missing sscientists, they found evidence that he not only was trying to build WMD's, but that Saddam had them. Why else would he block the UN Weapons Inspectors if he had nothing to hide? While the UN pussy-footed around, he was able to move, destroy, and hide his WMD programs. Instead of reading uber-left anarchist Bush-hating leaflets, try reading facts strait from the source. This war was just, sound, and reasonable, given the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 by an enemy that hides behind women and children while shooting at you, and also slams planes into buildings and suicide bombs marketplaces, and beheads journalists, all to strike fear into the heart of the American people, so they can continue their reign of terror in the Middle East and throughout the world without America interfereing. It's time we finish this fight and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Why don't you join your country and actually stand up for the rights you so fondly use everyday, how about we give other people that chance for once?

The evidence was strong that he had weapons. When our soldiers went in, they found destroyed computers, documents, missing sscientists, they found evidence that he not only was trying to build WMD's, but that Saddam had them. Why else would he block the UN Weapons Inspectors if he had nothing to hide? While the UN pussy-footed around, he was able to move, destroy, and hide his WMD programs. Instead of reading uber-left anarchist Bush-hating leaflets, try reading facts strait from the source. This war was just, sound, and reasonable, given the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 by an enemy that hides behind women and children while shooting at you, and also slams planes into buildings and suicide bombs marketplaces, and beheads journalists, all to strike fear into the heart of the American people, so they can continue their reign of terror in the Middle East and throughout the world without America interfereing. It's time we finish this fight and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Why don't you join your country and actually stand up for the rights you so fondly use everyday, how about we give other people that chance for once?
The evidence was shit that he had weapons. That you still swallow this four years later is proof that your critical thinking skills are lacking.

And DK, I find it funny that every time this comes up, you point to one passage--the same passage--from a report that's hundreds of pages long. Ever stop to think that that portion of the indictment was simply wrong? It happens, you know. Prosecutors make mistakes, and it's pretty fucking clear that this one made one.

Insurgents (Sunnis) in Iraq, militias loyal to powerful and influential preachers (Shia), and murdering criminals (?) are in control of Iraq regardless what American generals say. American troops should have secured Baghdad (the capital city of Iraq) but no one dares to move from one zone of Baghdad to another (several different and sometimes opposing groups of militias control these districts). American troops are being relocated from Afghanistan and into Iraq (so much for hunting Bin Laden) and this probably explains the increasing level of attacks by the Taliban (thinking maybe NATO is not as equipped as the Americans). Iran is probably playing in some role in Iraq (against America), considering how American troops are in two countries that surround Iran and how Western nations (especially America) are threatening Iran to stop its nuclear research. America is loosing willing allies to participate in its war in Iraq, so I wonder how the American administration will clean this mess it created? As for feeling pity for Bush, that’s nonsense, this man and his hawks are to be blamed for misguiding (intentionally) American citizens into a wrongful war and ruining America’s reputation and its accountability. Bush possibly created more Bin Ladens around the world making America more unsafe. Hundreds of thousands of civilians (Iraqis) and more than two thousand of American troops have perished in this war that was unnecessary.

On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21 (page 128 of the entire report)

So, on November 4th, 1988, Bin Laden was charged with a whole list of crimes. Okay. How did the trial go? Was he acquitted? Can you summarise the prosecutions arguments?
Even if he was tried in absentia, which I see no proof of, this would only matter if the prosecution provided evidence that Al-qaeda was allied with Iraq. Again, I see no proof that any evidence was brought forward.

Deep Kimchi, you are asking us to believe that Iraq had ties to Al-qaeda based on the fact that a prosecuting attorney wished to claim that there was a tie. Not on the outcome of a trial. Not on the presentation of evidence. On the word of an attorney who has apparently been unable to prove it.

here's what I found:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
All I found was the indictment. No proof.

So, on November 4th, 1988, Bin Laden was charged with a whole list of crimes. Okay. How did the trial go? Was he acquitted? Can you summarise the prosecutions arguments?
Even if he was tried in absentia, which I see no proof of, this would only matter if the prosecution provided evidence that Al-qaeda was allied with Iraq. Again, I see no proof that any evidence was brought forward.

Deep Kimchi, you are asking us to believe that Iraq had ties to Al-qaeda based on the fact that a prosecuting attorney wished to claim that there was a tie. Not on the outcome of a trial. Not on the presentation of evidence. On the word of an attorney who has apparently been unable to prove it.

here's what I found:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
All I found was the indictment. No proof.

Sorry, he wasn't the only one who believed there was a connection.

We're talking about Clarke, who worked for Clinton. He had access to intelligence.

The same intelligence that Bush was subsequently told about by George Tenet.

The same intelligence that Tenet showed to the Senate.

The same intelligence that they agreed was good.

It may have turned out to be bad intel. But it's certainly not "Bush deceiving" anyone.

Sorry, he wasn't the only one who believed there was a connection.

We're talking about Clarke, who worked for Clinton. He had access to intelligence.

The same intelligence that Bush was subsequently told about by George Tenet.

The same intelligence that Tenet showed to the Senate.

The same intelligence that they agreed was good.

It may have turned out to be bad intel. But it's certainly not "Bush deceiving" anyone.


I can't help wondering... why didn't Clinton react on this oh so reliable and probably truthful information?

I can't help wondering... why didn't Clinton react on this oh so reliable and probably truthful information?

Why don't you ask him?

I believe Sandy Berger said it best.

I mean, did Sandy Berger want to kill Osama, or did he not give a crap, as the upcoming "entertainment" movie from Disney implies?

Sandy's letter to complain about the movie:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/07/berger.iger.pdf

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."

Really? Never fail to support or authorize an operation against Bin Laden OR al Qaeda?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

Well, sounds like Tenet probably made the decision, but Berger, who knew, didn't seem to care. And Pavitt thought the idea to not attack was from Berger.

"The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

So, there WAS an agreement between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq, and Berger was informed of this.

And this:
"On December 4, as news came in about the discoveries in Jordan, National
Security Council (NSC) Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke
wrote Berger,“If George’s [Tenet’s] story about a planned series of UBL attacks
at the Millennium is true, we will need to make some decisions NOW.” He
told us he held several conversations with President Clinton during the crisis.
He suggested threatening reprisals against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the
event of any attacks on U.S. interests, anywhere, by Bin Ladin. He further
proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against
al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan—a proposal not adopted.11"

Wow. So Berger got more proposals to strike at al Qaeda.

Wonder what he thought we should do about that:

"11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.”"

I guess he DID refuse to support attacks on al Qaeda.

Wow. I guess we know now why Sandy was in the National Archives, stuffing potentially incriminating documents into his pants and forgetting where he left them later.

Its quite likely that Cia and other intelligence agencies just told high-ups what they wanted to hear, or else you know they might have been labelled as al-queda as many agents were labelled as communist back in those good old days. When those in power decide to have a war they only need to invent some reason to do so its that simple and everyone that goes against that is a traitor to be rid off.

Its quite likely that Cia and other intelligence agencies just told high-ups what they wanted to hear, or else you know they might have been labelled as al-queda as many agents were labelled as communist back in those good old days. When those in power decide to have a war they only need to invent some reason to do so its that simple and everyone that goes against that is a traitor to be rid off.

You can take the tinfoil hat off now.

The CIA was saying the same things to Bush that they said to Clinton.

It's just that during the Clinton years, Sandy Berger was putting the word "No" in the margins of requests to do something.

Sorry, he wasn't the only one who believed there was a connection.

We're talking about Clarke, who worked for Clinton. He had access to intelligence.

He can believe anything he wants. This still shows no proof for a link between Iraq and Al-qaeda. Stop claiming there is one.

The 9/11 report quoted a indictment, and several memos as an indication that some people believed there was a link between the two. It is not proof.

EDIT: So I reread it. It doesn't even claim that, unless you are saying that the New York District Attorney is a member of the CIA.

You can take the tinfoil hat off now.

The CIA was saying the same things to Bush that they said to Clinton.

It's just that during the Clinton years, Sandy Berger was putting the word "No" in the margins of requests to do something.

But I LOVE MY TINFOIL HAT!!!! :D
Just telling ya, if I was a power crazed dictator with a gang of rich elite followers than I would do anything I want and to do anything I want I would make people say whatever I want. Probably adding this lack of character and a pupetteer father with a business undone at a far country and huge partnerships with oil and weapon companies and a dominatrix mistress to whip me at night when Im a naughty boy :eek: now that would be fun until I choked on cookies!

He can believe anything he wants. This still shows no proof for a link between Iraq and Al-qaeda. Stop claiming there is one.

The 9/11 report quoted a indictment, and several memos as an indication that some people believed there was a link between the two. It is not proof.

EDIT: So I reread it. It doesn't even claim that, unless you are saying that the New York District Attorney is a member of the CIA.

He isn't saying there is one. His other posts and this one are showing that those who claimed "Bush lied" are idiots. Bush didn't lie. The intel was wrong, but what Bush said wasn't a lie. His intel sources along with those of foreign governments had concluded that what Bush was saying was true.

It turned out the intel was wrong, but that's very different from telling a lie.

He isn't saying there is one. His other posts and this one are showing that those who claimed "Bush lied" are idiots. Bush didn't lie. The intel was wrong, but what Bush said wasn't a lie. His intel sources along with those of foreign governments had concluded that what Bush was saying was true.

It turned out the intel was wrong, but that's very different from telling a lie.

no its not. he repeatedly repeated something that was proven 100% false while the american political and media elite attacked everyone (....france....) who questioned them; to the point where NATO and the UN were under threat. someone somwehere in the US administration deliberatley started this conspiracy to go to war on a lie and he is the commander in chif who repeated the lies and must take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

the man has failed every test of his leadership. every single last one.

Bush deliberately misled the public...


Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq
Presented by Congressman Henry Waxman
Wednesday 17 March 2004


Background

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration's assertions about the threat posed by Iraq. Prior to the war in Iraq, the President and his advisors repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that jeopardized the security of the United States. The failure to discover these weapons after the war has led to questions about whether the President and his advisors were candid in describing Iraq's threat.

The Report

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

The Database

This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. The search options on the left can be used to find statements by any combination of speaker, subject, keyword, or date.

Methodology

The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.

This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made.

For more information, see the Full Iraq on the Record Methodology:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/methodology.htm

To view the report:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

The USA is a democracy... so Bush (and everything he does) is your falut!

You all talk as if the entire world just came into creation under Bush. For the most part, any problem a president finds himself in is the result of the previous president (or presidents). Bush was only in office for 1 year before 9/11. Do you really beleive he got the extremists pissed off in that time? Let's see, Clinton was in office for the 8 years before that, but you don't beleive he had anything to do with the attack on the US?

What would you have done if you were president when the US was attacked without provocation? Put your heads between your legs and kissed your asses goodbye, more than likley.

WMDs and the Twin Towers aside, Saddam was attempting genocide. He was murdering millions of people. If a single child dissapears here in the US, the Amber alert goes out and the entire country gets up in arms. But a brutal dictator murders millions of people in his own country and the world just sits there saying "as long as it is in his own country, it's ok".:headbang:

The world has reached a point where it needs a global police force. I don't necessarily think the US sould be it, but at the moment it seems like no one else wants the job. No one else even wants to help.

So shut up and quit blaming Bush for a situation created by Clinton!:upyours:

And yes, New Lofeta, we are a democracy. I'll take that with all of it's flaws instead of the next best thing, which I guess is what you have.

Then most of the people you know are pretty stupid.

I think -- rather than "stupid" -- most people are beginning to realize that the United States government is more and more being coopted by corporate interests.

Even the Cult of Godwin (those morons who quote Godwin's Maxim and therefore must be purged from the gene pool for the good of humanity) should be able to tell people that the core of the Nazi movement was the merging of corporation and government.
When governmental policies are decided in the corporate boardroom, then the era of the swastika is upon the world once more.

You all talk as if the entire world just came into creation under Bush. For the most part, any problem a president finds himself in is the result of the previous president (or presidents). Bush was only in office for 1 year before 9/11. Do you really beleive he got the extremists pissed off in that time? Let's see, Clinton was in office for the 8 years before that, but you don't beleive he had anything to do with the attack on the US?

What would you have done if you were president when the US was attacked without provocation? Put your heads between your legs and kissed your asses goodbye, more than likley.

WMDs and the Twin Towers aside, Saddam was attempting genocide. He was murdering millions of people. If a single child dissapears here in the US, the Amber alert goes out and the entire country gets up in arms. But a brutal dictator murders millions of people in his own country and the world just sits there saying "as long as it is in his own country, it's ok".:headbang:

The world has reached a point where it needs a global police force. I don't necessarily think the US sould be it, but at the moment it seems like no one else wants the job. No one else even wants to help.

So shut up and quit blaming Bush for a situation created by Clinton!:upyours:

And yes, New Lofeta, we are a democracy. I'll take that with all of it's flaws instead of the next best thing, which I guess is what you have.

The world needs a global police force? How would you feel if Iran started policing you and said this same sentence? Or if it was Soviets policing America, destroying the central American goverment so that each state declared its independence and started a civil war you... whatever. Thats what you have done. And may I remind you it was America put Saddam in power at the first place to attack Iran to keep them from growing in strenght starting Gulf War? And why? Because Iran is a threat to Israel and why? Because Israel is invading neighbouring countries! This is an invasion war made in the name of lebensraum, a nazi doctrine!!!

I guess you're saying that since the British intelligence and US intelligence agencies had informed Bush that this was going on, he should ignore it altogether. After all, we pay taxes for the CIA to gather intelligence, just so we can ignore it.


The British said what was going on? As far as I know their opinion in July 2002was

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Cthulhu-Mythos;11668256']I think -- rather than "stupid" -- most people are beginning to realize that the United States government is more and more being coopted by corporate interests.

Even the Cult of Godwin (those morons who quote Godwin's Maxim and therefore must be purged from the gene pool for the good of humanity) should be able to tell people that the core of the Nazi movement was the merging of corporation and government.
When governmental policies are decided in the corporate boardroom, then the era of the swastika is upon the world once more.

Godwin. I don't give a damn about your ad hominem bull. You're throwing so much emotive appeal into your argument that it's rough to take you seriously. You and Rumsfeld, in the Godwin boat.

*snip*

*gives Sumamba Buwhan a HUGE cookie*