Lacking biolabs, trailers carried case for war
White House pushed Iraq bioweapons claim despite evidence to contrary
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement. . . .
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories. . . . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/
GPS_Flex said:Another “Bush lied” thread? *YAWN*
GPS_Flex said:Another “Bush lied” thread? *YAWN*
GySgt said:Isn't it funny how Bush continues to have "lies exposed," yet he remains uncontested? What does this telll us about these so called "lies?":roll:
Political exxagerations and partisan embellishments. I guess it's only fair. Repuiblicans were acting like jack-asses with Clinton.
aps said:He remains uncontested? How so in this circumstance? There is documentation stating a different conclusion than he and those in his administration are asserting.
aps said:So remember when Bush was claiming that they found WMDs (biological weapons) in Iraq soon after the fall in Iraq? Well, it appears he knew that wasn't true. The man is losing credibility every day. There he was in 2000 claiming he would restore integrity to the White House. My opinion is--he has failed miserably in that mission.
Tsk tsk
GySgt said:.....aaaaaand what do you think will come of it? If made into a quest, all Presidents can be shown to have lied or withheld information from time to time. One doesn't lead the free world by declaring all information at all times to eager ears.
GySgt said:.....aaaaaand what do you think will come of it? If made into a quest, all Presidents can be shown to have lied or withheld information from time to time. One doesn't lead the free world by declaring all information at all times to eager ears.
aquapub said:Ahem... Aquote from your link...
"Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified."
Funny how when you get into the details of it, the Truth about things like this has less to do with Bush being some Disney Villain trying to stretch evidence, lying to the American people, and more to do with your neurotic obssession to stir up anti-Bush hysteria over totally understandable situations.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement. . .
aquapub said:How ironic that the Left's legal standards of facts and evidence for impeachment drop to the floor once a Republican president is even accused (of which this is not a compelling example) of lying to (gasp) protect the American people (how dare he)...
This would be as opposed to the liberal president who Aps defends...the guy who commited perjury to cover up his felony-ridden career. Where were these "anybody says it, we must take it for gospel" standards when an ACTUAL habitual liar was ACTUALLY abusing the White House just out of being a sleazeball?
This kind of manufactured outrage is phony and partisan.
aps said:I think his credibility will be further shot, if that's even possible anymore. Nothing may come of it, but people will see more evidence on how he manipulated intelligence to get us into a war we had no business starting with more than 2300 soldiers dead as a result. Even after we were in there, he was lying to us. Maybe you're able to dismiss this, but others who are willing to be critical of this president, as opposed to blindly following him, won't be able to. But keep telling yourself this isn't important. Maybe you'll even start to believe it.
tecoyah said:Likely....nothing will come of it, just as has happened in the past. The power structure we have right now is not one that places the needed checks in place , and thus there is no entity with the motivation to hold Bush accountable.....this is simple reality. Does this mean we should refrain from pointing out these deficiencies when they come to light....I would hope not.
It is however, Fascinating to watch the erosion of credibility take its toll on the party that put this man in power, as it is a creaping cancer eating away at political capital in the party. I dont know where it will lead, whether the party will split, ar continue to lend support, fall apart of just ignore what is happening.....it will be a fun ride.....for some.
aquapub said:Only partisan fanatics obssessed with stretching anything and everything Bush says into some villainous lie accept the long chain of frivolous "examples" you have provided as true, ergo, his credibility is not in trouble in the first place to normal, reasonable people.
aps said:1) First, have you ever seen me defend Clinton for his perjury? If so, post it because you won't find it.
2) Second, "felony-ridden career." You want to talk about partisan? Look in the mirror, aquapub.
aps said:aquapub, you are worse than I thought, and you have lost even more credibility in my eyes. Unlike you, I am capable of criticizing people within my own party. You, however, are not, which tells me that you have zero capability of weighing evidence.
aps said:What is your response to this part of the article:
aquapub said:1) I am fairly certain I've seen you (on multiple occasions) ridicule and downplay the scandal as a Republican stunt. Where was your anal, unreasonable legal strictness then? What? Only when someone's lying for nobody's interest but their own is it ok? Give me a break.
2) There is simply no other way to describe his career and be honest...And unlike the basis of this thread, I have ACTUAL examples-dozens of them-FACTUAL ones, not ones that have to be stretched into something they're not-to demonstrate that Clinton was the most corrupt president since Harding.
aps said:1) Sorry, you are wrong, aquapub. But keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better.
2) Nixon was.
aps said:I think his credibility will be further shot, if that's even possible anymore. Nothing may come of it, but people will see more evidence on how he manipulated intelligence to get us into a war we had no business starting with more than 2300 soldiers dead as a result. Even after we were in there, he was lying to us. Maybe you're able to dismiss this, but others who are willing to be critical of this president, as opposed to blindly following him, won't be able to. But keep telling yourself this isn't important. Maybe you'll even start to believe it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?