Another Bush lie has been exposed

[aps]

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.

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/

Tsk tsk

 

[aps]

Here is the Washington Post link to the graphic that they did showing the timeline of what the evidence showed and what the administration was claiming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/12/GR2006041200165.html

 

[GPS_Flex]

Another “Bush lied” thread? *YAWN*

 

[aps]

Another “Bush lied” thread? *YAWN*

LOL I would do the same thing if I knew that the president I voted for was on a downward slide. Hang in there.

Other than that, do you have anything substantive to add to this thread? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[tecoyah]

Another “Bush lied” thread? *YAWN*

Yeah....it is getting rather tiresome hearing about this stuff on a regular basis.....you would think, he would eventually find something to be honest about.

 

[MSgt]

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]

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.

He remains uncontested? How so in this circumstance? There is documentation stating a different conclusion than he and those in his administration are asserting.

 

[MSgt]

He remains uncontested? How so in this circumstance? There is documentation stating a different conclusion than he and those in his administration are asserting.

.....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]

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

Ahem... A quote 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 the Left's desperate obssession with stirring up anti-Bush hysteria over totally understandable situations.

 

[aps]

.....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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

.....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.

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]

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.

LOL Now why doesn't this surprise me? Why would I ever expect you to have any sort of objective opinion on a set of facts or for you to say something without attempting to insult ME.

What is your response to this part of the article:

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 nine experts determined this unanimously. It was AFTER this report that the US obtained information that debated this finding. But I am sure your resposne will be further insults to me, which don't bother me in the least.

 

[aps]

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.

First, have you ever seen me defend Clinton for his perjury? If so, post it because you won't find it. Second, "felony-ridden career." You want to talk about partisan? Look in the mirror, aquapub.

 

[tecoyah]

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]

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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

Like I said, if you read the whole report, you can see that there is nothing to hold him accountable for.

 

[aps]

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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

An anti-Bush fanatic who where's blinders thinks I've lost credibility for not buying into their trumped up "scandals" (i.e., conspiracy theories and transparent distortions of gray area events)?

Biting my nails...

What ever will I do with myself?



:roll:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

At some point soon, the balance re the Bush Admin and Iraq will reach the two to one ratio. Right now we're just under that, something like 60-65% agin and 35-40% fer.

The Dems and the GOP get their bread buttered on the same side. Once we hit the 2 to 1 ratio surely a politician will suddenly find his or her balls.

Everything goes great until it doesn't.

 

[aquapub]

What is your response to this part of the article:

My response? The only thing the article can confirm is that it can't confirm any of this beyond anonymous interviews...not very compelling.

I have been through this game (the media reassures us that some unnamed source villifying Bush is reliable, then years later, it turns out to be bunk...after the damage was done) too many times.

After the kind of crap we learned about Valerie Plame's husband and the veracity of his accusations (which we were being asked to take his word for), and so many other situations like that, there's no way I'm going to trust the "objective" media's "unnamed sources" anymore.

Besides, as the media loves to do, the information that reveals what a gray area issue this is was buried deep in the text, near the end of the article, hence the reason I posted it.

 

[aps]

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.

Sorry, you are wrong, aquapub. But keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better.

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.

Nixon was.

 

[aquapub]

1) Sorry, you are wrong, aquapub. But keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better.



2) Nixon was.

1) You seem rather certain. It's not worth looking up. I will take your word for it. If you truly didn't defend him for what he did, then I will nix that whole part of the argument, but I have read tons of posts defending him here from many of the same people who now crucify Bush. If you are not one of them, I apologize.

2) That's totally arguable, but also off-topic. If you didn't ever defend Clinton, then all of this is moot.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What about Grant and Harding?

 

[MSgt]

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.

Aps, you big silly,

It's not important, because it is of no consequence. There's an old military maxim..."Never let your Company get bogged down by a sniper." It has nothing to do with "blind" loyalty as this implies that a person agrees no matter what. I do not. I simply see the big picture and refuse to get bogged down by simple political or partisan savvy.

It is natural to isolate "Iraq" and "Iran" and "Afghanistan" and "the Tali-Ban" and "Syria" and "Al-Queda" and "Kudhafi" and "Khomeini" and "Beirut" and "Sudan" and "Somalia" and "Pakistan" and "Bin Laden" and "Zarqawi" and "Hamas" and "the PLO" and "Hezbollah" and "Saudi Arabia" and "a skyjacking here" and a "kidnapping there" and "the Munich tragedy" and "the Baathist Party" and etc...... We can isolate these events, places, people, and organizations all day and have discussions about them, but until we face the fact that they are connected very deeply through common threads, we are wasting our time and only setting up our next American victims to this backwards and diseased culture.

Supporting political transformations in distant regions has never been easy or inexpensive. But when free nations have persevered, these efforts have paid dividends that justified the investment. After World War II, the U.S. and its allies helped Germany and Japan become engines of postwar economic prosperity and vital democratic allies in the Cold War. The rebuilding of South Korea enabled that country to emerge as an Asian leader.

The success of Iraq is vitally important to this region. In the broader Middle East, the absence of freedom, accountable systems of government and social and economic progress contributed to creating an environment in which extremism and terrorism developed and thrived. The effects of the dysfunctional politics of the region were visited upon the U.S. on 9/11.

Many great nations have faced moments of crisis in which leaders and communities have to come together or allow their nation to fail. Iraqi leaders have navigated this period of crisis thus far. The U.S. needs to remain a steadfast partner and help catalyze progress as needed. If we do so, Iraq will succeed and become the foundation of the transformation of the wider Middle East.

As I continue to state, the "War on Terror" is not simply about an old man hiding in the Afghani/Pakistani mountains and a handful of terrorists. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.


....and by the way. You do not know all of the facts about the WMD.