Thread: When Will Conservatives Accept The Fact That Bush Lied?

LIE # 1:

Bush: "The regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

Bush's statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Referring to the first interrogation report on al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA took note that the Libyan terrorist could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," a DIA report concluded. In fact, in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information. By then, the United States and its coalition partners had invaded Iraq. Here's proof:

Newly Released Data Undercut Prewar Claims

Report: 9/11-Iraq link refuted immediately - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Linking 9/11 and Iraq - Hardball with Chris Matthews - MSNBC.com

LIE # 2:

Bush: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam Hussein) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Bush's statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

USATODAY.com - Speculation, fact hard to separate in story of Iraq's 'nuclear' tubes

LIE # 3:

Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush's statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious".

A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles:

NY Times Advertisement

CBS News | Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious | July 11, 2003*06:48:35

Iraq Survey Group concluded that:

"ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ap4.html#sect4

LIE # 4:

Bush: "After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."

Bush's statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

No Hard WMD Proof, '02 Report Said, As Bush Admin. Pushed Weapons Claims, Defense Intelligence Was Skeptical - CBS News

LIE # 5:

Bush: "You remember when Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons? They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

Bush also said: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth."

Bush's statements were misleading because he claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

US weapons inspectors concluded that: "ISG judged the mobile units were impractical for biological agent production and almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ap6_annxD.html

Colin Powell admitted that the claim concerning mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq was false:

Powell: Iraq lab intelligence 'wrong' - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Here are more lies:

President George Bush - Inaccurate and Misleading Statements about Iraq

If he lied then why has impeachment proceedings to get rid of him not been impliminted? All Nixon did was set up a makeshift burglary and lied and look what happened to him. They obviously have no evidence of it or he is innocent and has acted in the best interest of the country accordingly.

David, impeachement hearings HAVE been suggested, and are facing a vote within couple of months.

Waiting a few months or until 2008.... Please impeach him

Why must my wing of the political spectrum continue this stupid spectacle? We aren't going to impeach him, its to close to 2008 and the last thing we need right now is a government without a head. this is why the Democrats continue to lose elections, our base feels the need to hover on the fringes with the Impeach Bush, 9/11 Conspiracy, and 2000 election fraud crowds. If you really want to make change, get off your lazy asses in 2008 and support our candidate rather than bitching and whining about how bad he is. Had the base of our party spent as much time helping Kerry as they did bitching about his primary victory - he probably would have won in a landslide. It's time we came to grip with a few simple facts:

1) Sometimes religious extremists of middle eastern countries comitt acts of terrorism. The fact it happens under a president you don't like doesn't mean its a massive conspiracy. Besides, we all know Bush nor any of his constituants are intellectual enough to mastermind a conspiracy of this magnitude.

2) Gore lost Florida, not because of disenfranchisment or faulty ballots, but because some people didn't know what this (---->O) meant. It sucks, but it's reality and it's time we got moving on from it. It shouldn't have been so close in the first place.

3) Bush is an idiot. He can't balance the budget, he can't manage a ware, he's terrible at campaigning his messages to the people. However, you can't impeach a man for being an imbecile...I know we are are still peeved about Clinton, but theres no need to get vengeful.

So folks, lets please give people a reason to take our party seriosuly. For America's sake?

I fail to see how not taking action will get people to take our side of the political spectrum more seriously, Private Joker.

The fact of the matter is that the current president has done many, many things that even just individually would normally warrant an impeachment trial. I see no reason for him to be allowed to continue his reign, and I especially think that "Oh well he's an idiot and 2008 is only a few years away" is a poor reason for letting him stay in office and enjoy his pension after he's through.

It shouldn't matter what party you're in. His actions have been as hateful and deceitful as it gets, and I would respect Republicans more if they'd back the movement to put somebody else in.

To be fair, I actually can think of a reason to be at least hesitant about him leaving office: if he's impeached, we'll have Cheney as president. Of course, we should just impeach him, too. We shouldn't be so afraid of the impeachment process anyway; it's there to be used.

Originally Posted by Private Joker

Why must my wing of the political spectrum continue this stupid spectacle? We aren't going to impeach him, its to close to 2008 and the last thing we need right now is a government without a head. this is why the Democrats continue to lose elections, our base feels the need to hover on the fringes with the Impeach Bush, 9/11 Conspiracy, and 2000 election fraud crowds. If you really want to make change, get off your lazy asses in 2008 and support our candidate rather than bitching and whining about how bad he is. Had the base of our party spent as much time helping Kerry as they did bitching about his primary victory - he probably would have won in a landslide. It's time we came to grip with a few simple facts:

1) Sometimes religious extremists of middle eastern countries comitt acts of terrorism. The fact it happens under a president you don't like doesn't mean its a massive conspiracy. Besides, we all know Bush nor any of his constituants are intellectual enough to mastermind a conspiracy of this magnitude.

2) Gore lost Florida, not because of disenfranchisment or faulty ballots, but because some people didn't know what this (---->O) meant. It sucks, but it's reality and it's time we got moving on from it. It shouldn't have been so close in the first place.

3) Bush is an idiot. He can't balance the budget, he can't manage a ware, he's terrible at campaigning his messages to the people. However, you can't impeach a man for being an imbecile...I know we are are still peeved about Clinton, but theres no need to get vengeful.

So folks, lets please give people a reason to take our party seriosuly. For America's sake?

Unfortunately it looks like the Democrats will have to play dirty like the Republicans do. Seriously, I watched every single debate between Bush and Kerry and Kerry won every single one of those debates, hands down. Bush couldn't answer anything seriously, he looked and acted like a buffoon. Kerry gave straight, intelligence answers.
The Democrats will have to employ groups to slander the Republicans, to lie about them, to put fear in the hearts and minds of Americans. And to have more influential rich corporate executives behind them to rig certain voting factions that could sway the elections.

He has not committed any impeachable crimes. Just because you don't like a president does not mean you can impeach him.

Correction...he has yet to be indicted or convicted of impeachable crimes. Big difference! ~inkster

Originally Posted by Alias

He has not committed any impeachable crimes. Just because you don't like a president does not mean you can impeach him.

And you seriously think that "lying about having sex under oath" was worth the taxpayer's money and the country's time to impeach Clinton? You do realize how much the Republicans, righties, conservatives, right-wing, the GOP, (whatever you want to call them), hated Clinton while he was in office, don't you?