Tired of W. Bush, vol. 2

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by max, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Well, even if I were to accept that definition of lie, no one in this thread has shown the intention. And they're using a ridiculous definition of "misleading". If I say:

    "The single handed forehand is a fundamentally better stroke than the double handed forehand.", is that a lie?

    Using their definition of misleading, it is misleading, since there are advantages and disadvantages, and I've left out "essential qualifiers". Would it be intentionally misleading? Well, I do know some advantages and disadvantages... Hence, using your definition of "lie", and their definition of "misleading", that statement would be a lie. Yet no reasonable person would consider that statement a lie.
     
  2. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    "The single handed forehand is a fundamentally better stroke than the double handed forehand.", is that a lie?

    Thank God, we are back to tennis!
     
  3. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Good. I'm glad to hear that the Japanese are paying for our protection. If they weren't socialists maybe, they could afford their own viable military. Now if only the South Koreans would do the same. Yea pull out of Germany and go somewhere useful like say...Iraq. As for treaties, Phil, I guess just for the minute we'll pretend that Saddam wasn't breaking ceasefire agreements and UN resolutions.

    It is hilarious that u mentioned Afganistan, Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan. Two of which, you guys laughed at Bush for naming among the Axis of Evil and three became nuclear under the liberal administration of Dirty Uncle Bill the P*e*r*v*e*r*t and all the other Bush critics. Like I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. U libs left Bush with a nuclear Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea.

    U anti-war guys are going to have to do alot more cutting and pasteing to turn Hussein into a harmless fuzzball. How does cutting and pasteing turn portable chem labs into icecream trucks. I'll bet you could cut and paste Iraqi envoys into Africa to buy chick peas and onions instead of uranium. It's not a problem to me that you fool yourselves. Remember, Niger's other exports are peas and onions and livestock. U can use that too cut and paste Joe Wilson's claims into real info.
     
  4. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Mucat, I loved that episode. Where is your post going though. Did you see anywhere that I posted we should attack everyone. Under your premise, I assume you have an underlying premise, we can't attack unless attacked first, please correct me if I am wrong. In my opinion, we are in WWIII

    Or like Phil, throw out some straw men. Phil says let's attack N. Korea. I wonder If he would really like to see us at war with China or if he really believes we could attack N. Korea. Here's another straw man, Phil wants to attack, Pakistan.

    This is a serious question for you Mucat, when did you come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist threat? When exactly did he stop funding terrorism? Just curious, was Saddam the only leader within Bush's Axis of Evil that wasn't a threat to us?

    Hey Phil, ah what in the hell does this mean?

    Phil said, "If you're calling me an "appeaser" than you are about as far off the mark as you can get-and for you that's very far. The US should take the fight to the agressor-always. But, dumbasses that the Bushwipes are, they attacked a country that posed little threat to it. Why aren't YOU calling for an all out invasion of N. Korea? Why aren't you, the classic fatass armchair general, decrying the criminal WASTE of military resources in Iraq that could have been used in other places-i.e. pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Western Europe?"

    Now I can hold my head high knowing I forced out of Phil the internet equivalent of a liberal shriek. So Phil, of all them places you mentioned Western Europe is more of a threat than Iraq was? Huh?
     
  5. mucat

    mucat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,073
    Location:
    king size donut bed
    You did say
    I think it is a bit paranoia to attack someone becase he COULD do you harm.

    Saddam Hussein was NOT a terrorist threat, it has been prove many times over now, search on the internet. Actually, both Saddam Hussien and Bin Laden was funded by the US until they both were out of control.

    I think no one disagree with Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but the disagreement is on how to deal with him.

    Axis of Evil?? You can't take it serious, right? It is more a propaganda than anything.
     
  6. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Now you're just being petty and splitting hairs. Misleading statements are, in my book, LIES. It's pretty hard for even a Bushwipe to defend the moron, even staring at overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but you'll keep trying, won't you?
     
  7. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Japan has one of the largest military budgets in the world, and its military is among the most technically sophisticated. And when and how did Saddam break the cease fire? There are about 8 or 9 other factual errors in your short post, so I'm not going to waste time with this. If you pull this stuff out of your arse, as you often do, then you have no credibility on this issue-nothing you say holds water, if you're making it up. In short, you don't know shiate. But, as long as you're being fed your information by Rush or Bill O'Reilly or whatever idiot you listen to, FACTS don't make much of a difference, now do they.
     
  8. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Western Europe is where Mohammed Atta and about a half dozen or more of the other hijackers actually planned 9/11. Western Europe has given "homes" to numerous terrorists. MORE TERRORISTS based in W. Europe have attacked the USA than Saddam-in fact, Saddam NEVER ATTACKED the USA. In July 57 people were killed by terrorists in London...in W. Europe. Last year around 200 people were killed by terrorists in Madrid, in W. Europe. I did not, ANYWHERE, say that we should "attack" Europe. What we should do is work closely with W. European security services, and, if need be, run our own covert ops inside of W. Europe. We should devote a lot more resources to that terrorist breeding groiund. W. Europe has treated terrorists with kid gloves and it's come back to bite the US. N. Korea isn't a staw man and I would not recommend attacking them, but it's an example of our chickenshiate and chicken hawk administration that it attacks some third world crap hole that can't do much of anything, and does absolutely nothing about Kim Jong Il-someone who WOULD sell nukes to terrorists for cash. Someone has their priorities all messed up.

    You calling me a "liberal" is fine with me, because your definition of a lib is someone who is more knowledgable than you on ALL the issues, and does not swallow-hook, line and sinker-the garbage that the administration has spewed these last 5 years, as you have, Jerk. So, if I'm a lib by your definition, it's just confirmation from you that your still a misinformed patsy and I'm not a dumbass (as if I need confirmation of that).
     
  9. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Hillarious. I never said that about you. I'm not a liberal. I don't need to call people names like that to validate my existense. Why so defensive? Is that what they called you in school?

    Funny, how when you mentioned Atta and western europe, you conveniently forgot that the same sources placing Atta in western europe also claim he met with Iraqi intellegence. Perhaps the checz are lying. Hmmm.

    Are you still pretending that Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Ok just for clarification and I am not saying you are anti-semetic but answer this: Was it not terrorism when he paid off terrorists to blow Israelis? He paid them openly. Was it not terrorism or atleast an act of war putting out a hit on Bush's father? When he sent scuds crashing into Israel was that not terrorism? Come on. If he could openly support terrorist groups, what makes you think he wasn't supporting them secretly?

    Can you cut and paste away his terrorist safe houses?
     
  10. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I didn't SAY you called me a dumbass-read the post again. Hussein's intell people may very well have met with Atta-Hussein kept his options open, but so what. He also met with the CIA during the 80's, and Don Rumsfeld, and bin Laden may have met with US intelligence-what does a MEETING prove?

    Saddam is a low life, murdereing piece of filth, and if you want to call him a terrorist for what he did to his people, fine by me, but he was not active in carrying out attacks on the West-never. He may have considered it or even planned it at one time, but he was no dummy. Just a bad gambler. He didn't pay off terrorists to blow up Israelis-suicide bombers do not do what they do for profit. He paid off their FAMILIES after the terrorists died. So do the Saudis, our so-called allies. Are they "terrorists"-I would say probably more so than Saddam. You're trying to make Saddam out to be the center of terrorism, when the fact is, we should have been going after al-Qaeda (and Hizzballah) all along, and not wasting valuable time and resources on a LONG-TERM, maybe VERY long-term occupation of Iraq, where all we're doing is promoting MORE terrorists to join the cause. Think about this strategically, please. Take your stinking Bushwipe blinders off and THINK how the US could have BEST combatted terrorists...if you have a brain, you will conclude that attacking Iraq should have been WAY down on the priorities list.

    I don't have a problem with military attacks, launched at the RIGHT countries. But the Bush administration felt that an easy military victory over a terribly depleted army could, somehow, substitute for the very difficult and long-term job of working in the shadows to defeat terrorists. They made a horrible miscalculation, and have been lying and covering up that fact ever since.
     
  11. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Then your book is, unique. A misleading statement cannot be a lie in anyones book if the speaker was not intending to mislead.

    "overwhelming evidence".

    LOL

    You haven't even provided one statement that was a lie.
     
  12. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    You haven't provided anything. I know he lied as do millions of people, and a good part of Congress-if you can't understand what you're reading, that's your shortcoming, not mine. Proving it to YOU doesn't mean diddly, because you can't, as Jack said, handle the truth. He's done what he's done, and we'll all pay for it, but if there's a Hell, and Bush does believe in sort of thing, he's gonna fry.
     
  13. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    You seem to be confused again. If you make the charge, it's your job to provide the evidence. You haven't. Just saying "I know he lied" isn't evidence. The fact that some number of people believe a thing doesn't make it so.

    What exactly to you expect me to provide? Proof that he didn't lie?
     
  14. dickbarney

    dickbarney New User

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    48
    On Veterans Day, a AWOL National Guardsman rich boy whose daddy pulled strings to get him into the Guard attacked a Vietnam War veteran and holder of a Silver Star and Purple Heart because the veteran had made a vote based on the false information given to him by that same AWOL Guardsman administration.

    This administration is based on faith, not facts. The general American public has started to see damage and dangers of ignoring facts as reflected in Mr Bush's rating for honesty.
     
  15. DblFault

    DblFault New User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Does it bother you at all that this "Vietnam war veteran" requested that he be put in for the Purple Hearts - becauuse his commanders did not think he deserved them? That his "injuries" did not even require medical attention? That his "kill" in Vietnam was achieved by shooting a fleeing teenager in the back? That he brought his own film camera to Vietnam and had himself filmed as he 're-enacted' scenes for the camera - all so he could use it in campaign commercials when he returned home? All of the above is documented in his records which he refused to release in their entirety until after the campaign. Does the word 'fraud' come to mind?
     
  16. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    The Downing Street Memo

    ..

    The Downing Street memo was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1 2005, during the last days of the UK's general election campaign. The memo was named by the Times after the official residence of the UK Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street in London ("Downing Street" is a metonym for the Prime Minister's office.) The Memo went largely unremarked in the US press at first but was heavily covered in progressive blogs such as those on Daily Kos, in particular because of a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken. As this issue began to be covered by American media, two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October congressional vote permitting the invasion'

    -Wikipedia.org, free encyclodepia online
    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

    [..]

    “Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by photocopying the original and returning the original document to the source. The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly, were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office”

    -Wikipedia.org, free encyclodepia online
    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

    [..]

    “On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war. Roberts is also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran. In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia." and concludes the article with a more heated call for impeachment: "The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush's impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon."

    - Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the treasury in the Reagan Administration
    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

    [..]

    The formal Resolution of Inquiry request was written by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz.

    MEMORANDUM
    To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
    From: John C. Bonifaz
    Date: May 22, 2005
    RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

    The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

    Link: http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/memo_bush_impeachable_offenses_526.htm

    [..]

    US Officials involved in the 4.23.02 secret meetings:
    George W. Bush, U.S. President
    Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
    Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
    Colin Powell, Secretary of State
    Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel
    Michael V. Hayden, Director - National Security Agency Director (NSA), Chief - Central Security Service (CSS)
    Gen. Richard Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    George Tenet, Head of CIA
    Andrew Card, Chief of Staff
    Dan Bartlett, Communications Director, Counselor to the President

    UK/British Officials involved in the 4.23.02 secret meetings:
    Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister
    David Manning, Foreign Policy Advisor
    Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary
    Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary
    Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General
    Sir Richard Wilson, Cabinet Secretary
    John Scarlett, Chair - Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)
    Francis Richards Director - Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
    Sir Richard Dearlove / "C" Director of SIS (MI6) Foreign Intelligence Service
    Jonathan Powell, Chief of Staff
    Sally Morgan, Director - Political & Government Relations
    Alastair Campbell, Director of Communications & Strategy
    Matthew Rycroft, Foreign Policy Aide To David Manning

    Link: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/related.html#officials

    --------------------------------------------------------

    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

    DAVID MANNING
    From: Matthew Rycroft
    Date: 23 July 2002
    S 195 /02

    cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

    “C" reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    [continued]

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. “

    Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
    Link: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
    Link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Note: "C" is the nick name for Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of SIS (MI6) Foreign Intelligence Service
    - Jack
     
  17. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    It doesn't matter...I'm not the dumb one here. We're in a mess, domestically and internationally, and if you think that the president's been ENTIRELY truthful throughout all this bumbling, stumbling idiocy of a presidency, and has NEVER told an untruth, than you're dumber than dog doody. I'm done with your sorry ass.
     
  18. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Doesn't bother me...whatever he did or didn't do over there...at least HE WAS THERE...in the shiate, in combat, in one of the most dangerous jobs there was in Vietnam. That's more than anyone can say for our president, who managed to go AWOL from a champagne NG unit that his Daddy got him into, ahead of THOUSANDS on the waiting list. Also, Kerry won a Silver Star and BELIEVE ME, junior officers in the Navy CANNOT "award themselves" silver stars.

    In 2000 the Bushwipes also slammed and slandered John McCain, a decorated Naval aviator who flew many, many combat missions in Vietnam before being shot down and imprisoned by the NVA for over 5 years. There's really no boundries that this sleazy administration won't cross.
     
  19. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    What Bush has done along w. his 'good ole boys' is repugnant by any moraled persons standards, and what happened today w. Murtha speaks volumes I think..If people cant connect the dots....well..they just cant connect dots..exerpt below
    <snip>
    Hawkish Democrat Calls for Iraq Pullout


    Email this Story

    Nov 17, 7:37 PM (ET)

    By LIZ SIDOTI

    (AP) Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. gestures during a Capitol Hill news conference, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005 to...
    Full Image



    WASHINGTON (AP) - One of Congress' most hawkish and influential Democrats called Thursday for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, sparking bitter and personal salvos from both sides in a growing Capitol Hill uproar over President Bush's war policies.

    "It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Korean War and Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."

    The comments by the Pennsylvania lawmaker, who has spent three decades in the House, hold particular weight because he is close to many military commanders and has enormous credibility with his colleagues on defense issues. He voted for the war in 2002, and remains the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

    "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
    <end snip>
     
  20. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    So you didn't have the evidence all along. Perhaps next time you can save everyones time by not making baseless accusations.
     
  21. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I POSTED the evidence, as did others. Short of a sworn confession from George Bush, you're not going to believe anything you read, or else poo poo it. It ALL comes down to lies. I don't have to "prove" anything else to the likes of YOU. The "evidence" is in how screwed up everything this administration has done, and their pathetic attempts to cover it or shift blame. You're as deluded as the rest of the sheep. Bush is a totally honest man who has run the cleanest and most high minded administration in our history...do you REALLY believe that? Are you really that DUMB? Most of my republican friends, who are REAL republicans and not just Bushwhipe fellators, soured on this guy long ago-not on their party-but the man and his corrupt administration.
     
  22. lude popper

    lude popper Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Key West!
    They are out to reverse all the great social programs extending back to the New Deal. They are out to destory the very freedom, mobility and democracy that gave birth to this country's greatest institution, The American Middle Class. They stole two elections. They represent a narrow band of far right fanatics whose legislation seeks entry into our wombs and bedrooms; they represent corporations over individuals. They are waging war against women, gays, minorities, civil rights and the rapidly growing ranks of disadvantaged citizens. They fool people with an unholy mixture of relgious and patriotic dogma. They stole two elections. They invent wars for political ends while hardworking americans go without adequate health care, housing and education. They use the bible and the gun to convince impoverished rural americans to vote against their economic interests. They are dangerous.
     
  23. lcw

    lcw Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    Even if your statement is correct, who said it is our business to fight terrorists who attack Israel? What's in it for us to loose over 2000 American kids and billions of dollars. I for one am sick of the ME and it's problems. Let's bring our kids home and let the idiots kill one another till there is no one left to kill.
     
  24. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Give that man a cigar! Nail on the head.
     
  25. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613

    I asked for one statement and the proof. That's all you require to show a lie, one statement. You cut and pasted seven from some random webpage, without bothering to check any of them. I examined the first one. The quote of President Bush was incorrect, the statement wasn't even a statement which could be true or false per se, and the "proof" didn't even address what President Bush had said in the incorrect quote.

    Please post one statement and the proof.

    I can believe the evidence if you provide it, but up till now, you seem to have had difficulty in even providing an accurate quote of the statement you think President Bush made which was a lie, let alone providing proof that the statement was a lie.
     
  26. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    I started this thread; here's something from Thursday's Chicago Tribune:

    Illinois incomes sinking. Paychecks shrink more than $6,000 Since 1999. Illinois' median family inocme has dropped dramatically over the last six years, a sharper decline than in every other state except for Michigan, a new report reveals. The result is that household incomes here---adjusted for inflation---have fallen back to about where they were in 1989.

    So much for our Harvard MBA president! And in today's paper, our president, the great advocate of democracy, greets Vladimir Putin in South Korea, saying "Hey Vladimir. How are you? Looking good." And Bush asked Putin if he wanted to talk to reporters, Putin declines, and Bush says, "OK, me neither."

    I just see less leadership here, a gang from Texas good at hard campaigning but not cognizant of how complicated the overall situation is and how important it is to care for the whole country and not just your political camp.
     
  27. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Got a link for that article?
     
  28. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    No I don't, that came from the front page, not a website.
     
  29. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Point 1 and some refs

    ..

    “THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you all for coming, please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad to be back in Pennsylvania and I'm proud to be the first sitting President to visit Monroe County. (Applause.) I'm especially pleased to see so many military veterans with us today. Those who have risked their lives for our freedom have the respect and gratitude of our nation on Veterans Day and on every day.

    [ skip to paragraph 56 ]

    “And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

    --George W Bush,
    Veterans Day Speech,
    Nov. 2005, Tobyhanna Pennsylvania
    White House Website, Speech Archives
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html


    [..].......................................


    Point 1

    1. This is patently false.

    2. Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading,

    3. Or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.”

    4. Or that the White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.
    [added to point 1 on Nov 20 at 2:11 pm EST]

    5.The Bush administration was not merely a recipient of intelligence, but also a participant in the decisions regarding what intelligence on Iraq would be emphasized and disseminated.

    6. It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House". I assert The President is deliberately misleading the public because he knows (among other things) Congress does not have access to his Presidential Daily Brief, A top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States.
    [this statement was re-worded just for the sake of being more specific on Nov 22 at 3:11 pm EST]


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
    http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511150010

    237 false, and/or misleading statements on Iraq can be found here:
    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
    MINORITY STAFF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
    MARCH 16, 2004
    http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

    Additional refernces found on post #129, 130 & 131

    [..].............................................



    Reference for point 1, top of #129

    “Shortly after leading Democrats pushed for the completion of a congressional investigation into the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, White House officials responded that such scrutiny of their handling of the intelligence is unwarranted because both the White House and Congress possessed the same flawed reports and came to the same incorrect conclusions. Numerous conservative media figures have since echoed this argument. But the claim that the administration and Congress saw the same intelligence ignores several important facts.

    1. Taking into account assessments such as the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), the White House typically has access to more intelligence than does Congress -- and indeed, this was the case with prewar intelligence on Iraq.

    2. The Bush administration began making claims about the Iraqi threat months before Congress received any substantial intelligence analysis.

    3. The administration received information directly from alternative intelligence sources, specifically the since-discredited Office of Special Plans and Iraqi National Congress.”
    --Media Matters

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Briefing
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006


    [..]..........................................



    Reference for point 1, top of #129

    SENATOR JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) : “I mean, one of things that they -- that Chairman Roberts likes to do is to try to point out that there were a lot of Democrats who voted for the -- going to the United Nations, and if that didn't work, going to the war. And then people say, "Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had." And I'm here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief, we don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don't release their -- an administration which tends not to release -- not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others -- they control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't get that they have. “

    -- Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee
    http://rockefeller.senate.gov/
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006


    [..]............................................



    Reference for point 1, top of #129

    Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), who served as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made this point during an appearance on the October 8, 2004, edition of CNN's American Morning:

    BILL HEMMER: [CNN ANCHOR] Back to the first question and your first answer.Senator Kerry had access to the same intelligence. And again, he voted for the war.

    BOB KERREY: That isn't true. The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress -- we believe these would be used for centrifuges, didn't deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.
    -- Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Ex-Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman

    Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE)
    Former Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman
    Senate Years of Service: 1989-2001
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_kerrey.htm
    http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000146
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/08/ltm.01.html


    [..]


    Note to our visitors: We have two public officials here in the states with similar last names, Former Senator Bob Kerrey, and Senator John Kerry.
    -Jack
     
  30. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Continued...

    ..

    Reference for Point 1, top of #129

    The Downing Street memo was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1 2005, during the last days of the UK's general election campaign. The memo was named by the Times after the official residence of the UK Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street in London ("Downing Street" is a metonym for the Prime Minister's office.) The Memo went largely unremarked in the US press at first but was heavily covered in progressive blogs such as those on Daily Kos, in particular because of a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken. As this issue began to be covered by American media, two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October congressional vote permitting the invasion”

    -Wikipedia.org, free encyclodepia online
    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

    [..]

    “Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by photocopying the original and returning the original document to the source. The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly, were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office”

    -Wikipedia.org, free encyclodepia online
    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

    [..]

    The formal Resolution of Inquiry request was written by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz.

    MEMORANDUM
    To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
    From: John C. Bonifaz
    Date: May 22, 2005

    RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

    The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

    Link: http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/memo_bush_impeachable_offenses_526.htm

    [..]

    US Officials involved in the 4.23.02 secret meetings:
    George W. Bush, U.S. President
    Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
    Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
    Colin Powell, Secretary of State
    Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel
    Michael V. Hayden, Director - National Security Agency Director (NSA), Chief - Central Security Service (CSS)
    Gen. Richard Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    George Tenet, Head of CIA
    Andrew Card, Chief of Staff
    Dan Bartlett, Communications Director, Counselor to the President

    Link: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/related.html#officials


    --------------------------------------------------------


    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

    DAVID MANNING
    From: Matthew Rycroft
    Date: 23 July 2002
    S 195 /02

    cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

    “C" reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    [continued]

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. “

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
    http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/


    ------------------------------------------------------


    Note: "C" is the nick name for Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of SIS (MI6) Foreign Intelligence Service
    - Jack
     
  31. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    continued...

    .

    Reference for Point 1, top of #129

    " The President's Daily Briefing (PDB) is a top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States.

    [..]

    The PDB came under increased public awareness during testimony in front of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was convened in 2004 to analyze the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States of America. On April 8, 2004, after testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the Commission renewed calls for the declassification of a PDB from August 6, 2001, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. Two days later, the White House complied, and released the document with minimal redactions."

    - Wikipedia, free online encyclodepia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Briefing

    -Jack
     
  32. tonyjh63

    tonyjh63 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    166
  33. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Chicago Jack, I have one comment. How will that crap help win the war against Islamic extremists. How did all that cutting and pasting prove that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist. Why don't you spend more time reading something more useful, like say, Green Eggs and Ham. Of course Bush is the real terrorist, we all know that, no need for so much cutting and pasting. I don't know why we didn't shock and awe Alaska they have oil. We could also attack the Gulf of Mexico, there is oil there as well.

    Max, have you no local or state representatives? Talk to your local union boss and ask him why all the jobs are moving away and your income is dropping. Perhaps he will also explain how and or why corporations should operate without profits. It is ironic that you as a socialist should complain about the results of the state wide socialist you elected. It is ironic that you hate Bush so much, yet, demand that he and the federal government meddle in you local and state affairs. Whining about the gun lobby huh! I'm sure that if you could just take away more guns the liberal government in Chicago will give you more jobs. What kind of slave mentality do you have anyway? Take away our guns and give us jobs now! Just curious, you ever heard of France? They have exactly what you beg for, move there. You see what it's gotten them. Illinois sounds French anyway. I'd be glad your median income has declined, if people looked at it and blamed the socialists who rightly run your state, you elected them. But they won't. They will blame Bush, just as you have, and elect more socialists.

    lcw, what kind of simplicity is that? U can bury you head in the sand, the world will not go away. Is you suggestion to abandon all of our allies, or just the jewish ones? How about our Iraqi allies? Have the socialists news agencies got you to believing we have no allies within the Iraqi populace? With the Chamberlain party of America spouting their surrender monkey crap, how can the Iraqi people openly support us? Is it having your head in the sand that keeps you from seeing that they and our enemies know what is going on here within our government? Mogadishu didn't work then, will it work now? Do you believe that pretending the rest of the world isn't there, will end the Islamo-fascist war against modern civilization.
     
  34. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Many, many quotes here for you...you just didn't read them. And while you trip all over yourself trying to explain exactly what is or isn't a lie, we're still in Iraq, wasting money and lives. Oh, yeah, no dishonesty in getting us into that...deception, misleading, obfuscation, but nothing dishonest, right? What a tool.
     
  35. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Ok Phil, you win. What would you have done specifically? Will there be no damage to us by cutting and running?
     
  36. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    That's the problem...there WILL be damage to us. I never said we should cut and run. Never. Now that we have CREATED Iraq as a terrorist base, we cannot allow it to just...exist, in peace. We would then, experience the ultimate blowback.

    What would I have DONE, as in, pre-war? Easy, continue to CONTAIN Saddam, and possibly even build garrison bases on Iraq's borders-nothing he could have done about that. We could have avoided all of this by NOT F-C-ING attacking the place to begin with. Bushwipes certainly don't have a solution other than to say we'll be there for 5 or 10 more years. That's not really a SOLUTION. I have an idea for a partial solution, but who the hell am I? If you want to hear it, I'll post it on Sunday or Monday-I'm too tired and lazy to do it now, and anyway, I outlined it completely in an e-mail to a friend, so I'll just cut-and-paste what I wrote him, without having to re-invent the wheel. It's certainly not a brilliant idea, but it's actually more than Dumbsfeld and Bushwipe have come up with.
     
  37. bottle

    bottle Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Their Tennis

    How come no one talked about the Bush family's tennis? They all play, don't they (Walker Cup and all that)? I heard they quit singles and play doubles once they hit forty because of character weakness . VICIOUS gossip, VICIOUS, but the nicest thing I can say in view of the state of this country.
     
  38. lcw

    lcw Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    We had plenty of allies before we started the Iraq war, now we have none except few poor countries who receive money from us. As for Israel, If not for the billions of Dollars we give them, they will never call themselves our allies. That money would be better spend in the Golf coast instead of the West Bank. And what do we get in return? Milions of people in the world hate us because of our blind support for them.
    As for the Iraqis, 46% of them support the insurgent while 80% want us to leave their country. Call it cut and run, abandon or anything you want. Their message is clear, get the hell out of our country.

    Like George Bush and his neo-cons you seem to excel in the sciences of assumptions. He assumed there is WMD and Nukes in Iraq and you assumed I read the socialists news agencies.

    How about you pay a visit to all those armless, jawless, footless, fingerless, testicleless etc boys and girls in Walter Reed and tell them that the President took them to a senseless war based on lies and deception. Better yet, why don’t you contact the thousands of families who lost their beloved ones and tell them their sacrifice was because our Government made the wrong assumption.

    Thank God you are in the minority and the rest of the American public gets it.
    Americans’ appetite for world leadership has waned significantly since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with more than two-fifths saying the United States should mind its own business, according to a major new survey released Thursday.
    Read on:
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10086642/
     
  39. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I've read your post. The quotes you posted don't match the record, and the "proofs" of lies don't even address the quotes you post. I've told you what you need to do to show a lie. You haven't even got to first base yet - providing an accurate quote of the statement you say was a lie.
     
  40. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    I assume the above was meant for Phil, since he and I have been making similar statements regarding Bush admin misleads, I invite you to visit the top of my post #129. The references supporting my singular point (1) are listed below on 130, 131.

    best regards
    -jack
     
  41. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Ok, just finished watching congress. I bet tomorrow all the socialist news media will report that the republicans made personal attacks on a true war hero. Fact is no. Not one personal attack. Mark the time, this is my prediction. Republicans made personal attacks against Murtha. That is what will be reported. It didn't happen. The democrats kept saying it but it ain't true. They have already given the socialist media it's cue. Now let's see who takes their cues straight from the democrat party.

    Bush tricked um again. They voted to stay in Iraq. How do you people vote for these gullible twits?
     
  42. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274

    Huh? Don't quite catch yer drift.
    -Jack
     
  43. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    lcw, why would I tell the disabled vets they died for a falsehood. I don't believe it. You guys can get to them when they are down and out, but hey, that's how you operate, I guess.

    lc, who would you nominate to take the role of world leadership. I would suggest u look at the vote that took place about an hour ago that was a resolution to immediately withdraw from Iraq. That vote will tell who agrees with you or not. Challenge for ya lc. I can of think of one, but can you name a democracy that came into existence without American military power behind it?
     
  44. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    We're not talking about "misleads", we're talking about lies. That's what both you and Phil are accusing your President about. In particular, you said your President "lied us into war".

    Now, the statement you are quoting in post #129 is from last week, which can hardly qualify for your statement "lied us into war".

    Because the statement your refer to in #129 is only from last week, the dust hasn't settled in regards to the facts behind this thing, and we haven't had rebuttals from the Republicans yet.

    It might all be about the definition of "access". It might be that the Administration told those Democrat lawmakers that they could have access to any intelligence they wanted to see before the 2002 vote. It might be that no document they asked for before that vote was witheld from them. They may have had access in the sense that they if they asked for any particular intelligence, they got it.

    I'm afraid we'll probably have to wait a few weeks for the rebuttals on this to know the truth...
     
  45. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Morning Deluxe-

    So... we've been locking horns for a week now and I'm willing to concede one of your points. The Bush quote I examined in my post #129-131 is from last week, (the veterans day speech) and does not qualify for "a lie that led to war". You have every right to demand that I provide you with an example to back up that claim I made way back in the early pages of this thread, that the president lied us into war. The definition of a lie that you have presented me is valid, and I agree to those very narrow conditions. I have proven there were hundreds of misleads by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq. I have yet to prove these misleads were intentional. I believe I can do that, and that attempt will forthcoming.

    However, in post #129 I focused on this specific Bush quote because I can prove that the president knows this is patently, 100% false. He knows he is saying something that is not true, at the time he is saying it.

    " That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
    - George W. Bush
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html

    He knows he is stating a lie because he knows, (among other things) that Congress does not have access to the crucial and timely intell found in the Presidential Daily Brief. The usual fall back position for conservatives when catching W in a false statement, is to state "he just does not know" or supply some quotes of Ds saying the same things. He's clearly not the sharpest tack, so he gets quite a bit of leash length out of this. If you try to make that argument in this case, it's a bit awkward. You'd be saying that he does not know he gets a PDB every morning, or that he does not know that Congress does not get his top secret, personal daily briefs, or that the PDB has never contained intell regarding Iraq.

    [..]

    The other layers that fall below that deliberate mislead are:

    - Much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading.

    - According to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.”

    - The White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.


    By the way, that bipartisan commission W mentions is a two parter, Phase One does not deal with whether or not the administration manipulated the evidence. Pressure on the intell community is not the same issue as what you do with the intell when you get it. I'll have more on that later.

    I'm also focusing on this particular Bush quote because it is a key brick in the wall used to protect the President from accusations that "the President lied us into a war" The usual rebuttal being "Congress gets the same intell" is a patently false statement which you have in fact, repeated in this thread. You probably heard that in Ws veterans day speech and assumed it was truthful, no big crime, and I don't hold that against you. No we don't need to wait a week for the rebuttal. A lie is a lie. Having said that, I have one more thing to add.

    [..]

    I'm glad you are here. I've presented these kinds of things before on other boards, and the typical response is "you expect me to read all that socialist media crap?". That kind of thing sort of sets a tone, that's diff to overcome. This was the response I was half expecting from you. You've proven to be a fair referee, a straight shooter, you keep your statements out of the flames. But mostly I appreciate your willingness to closely examine what is presented. I've been blogging political stuff for a while, and you have no idea how rare that is.

    Best regards to you, and take care.
    -Jack
     
  46. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    All presidents have lied. Very few have ever paid a price for those lies. Welcome to reality. I don't need to provide a link for this statement. It's in the history books. The only thing more ridiculous than asserting W does not lie, is the cottage industry the left is making out of the accusations. My only motive for participating in this discussion at all is to hold accountable, public officials, ANY public official responsible for their misleading statements. Politicians will lie as long as they can get away with it. It is our responsibilty alone, the voting public, and no one else, to insure that they pay the price.

    [..]


    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."
    -Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)


    "The enemy of the conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events."
    -John Kenneth Galbraith


    "The most important political office is that of the private citizen."
    -Louis D. Brandeis

    -Jack
     
  47. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    OK. I can wait, but shouldn't people have the evidence before making the accusation?

    Well, as I said in my previous post, I think its too soon to be able to make a judgement on this, since we haven't heard a rebuttal from the Administration yet. It was only last week.

    I posted you a possible scenario in which your President would not be a liar in statement you quote above. You've responded that Congress doesn't have access to the PDB. Firstly, your President was clearly not talking about Congress as a whole having access, since he talked about a specific set of Democrats that had access. Now, I assume that the PDB is simply a summary of other intelligence, so I think the PDB is a red herring: If those particular Democrats had access to all the intelligence apart from the PDB, then they had access to all the intelligence, since the PDB is just a summary.

    Having re-read the whole speech though, I think I have a better explanation of the statement:

    Look at the statement in context (from your link):

    And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

    Now, who is the person your President is quoting in the above paragraph? John Kerry. Your president is quoting John Kerry in his speech explaining why he was supporting why he was supporting the resolution in congress.

    Now look at the statement just after the John Kerry quotation. Who is your President referring to when he says "...had access to the same intelligence...? Is he saying that those hundred Democrats had access to the same intelligence as your President did, or is he saying that those hundred Democrats had access to the same intelligence that John Kerry did?

    In context, I don't think it is possible to read it in any other way than that those hundred Democrats who voted with John Kerry had access to the same information that John Kerry did.

    I want to focus on your specific allegation: That "Bush" lied us into war.

    Eh? Which post number? Please quote.

    Doesn't the defence get a chance to speak in America?

    Thanks for your kind words. I am an outside observer to your situation, since I am not American. I am keenly interested in politics, but don't blog or post on it. But it came up on this tennis board, so I felt inclined to challenge the accusations...which I'm sure you'll come back to me on ;)
     
  48. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Good evening Deluxe, or perhaps morning in your part of the globe, I believe we were discussing this section of the presidents speech, and my posts # 129-130-131

    “And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

    --George W Bush, Veterans Day Speech, Nov. 2005,
    Tobyhanna Pennsylvania
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html


    Yes, that is correct. Congress does not have access to the PDB, No that was not my complete response. Since you’ve managed to whittle the entire statement, and the following 3 pages of supportive evidence for that statement down to one sentence, I’m tempted to repost the whole darn thing, but I won’t. The complete response was proving, in a number of ways, why the Presidents statement was patently 100% false. Proving that the statement is false/misleading, is job one. I have done that. If you feel I have not proven this, I invite you to challenge the assertion at anytime. Proving that the statement is deliberately misleading is job two. I am focusing on the PDB report alone to prove there is clear intent to mislead.

    [..]..........................................

    I'm focusing on that issue for two reasons. One is to prove the deliberate portion of "deliberate mislead”. He knows he is stating a lie because he knows, (among other things) that Congress does not have access to the crucial and timely intell found in the Presidential Daily Brief. The usual fall back position for conservatives when catching W in a false statement, is to state "he just does not know" or supply some quotes of Dems saying the same things. He's clearly not the knife in the drawer, so he gets quite a bit of leash length out of this. If you try to make that argument in this case, it's a bit awkward. You'd be saying that he does not know he gets a PDB every morning, or that he does not know that Congress does not get his top secret, personal daily briefs, or that the PDB has never contained intell regarding Iraq. We know that last one is false because the one PDB the commission managed to obtain had a very juicy tid bit reagarding terroist threats. Good luck with that one.

    [..]..........................................


    I'm also focusing on this particular Bush quote because it is a key brick in the wall used to protect the President from accusations that "the President lied us into a war". The usual rebuttal being "Congress gets the same intell" is a patently false statement which you have in fact, repeated in this thread. You probably heard that in Ws veterans day speech and assumed it was truthful, no big crime, and I don't hold that against you. No we don't need to wait a week for the rebuttal. A lie is a lie. You’ve asked me in which post it was that you repeated the Presidents deliberately misleading statement.

    See your post # 51

    And your post # 31

    [..]....................................................

    Here was your "possible scenario” cant get a quote box round this one

    Quote: “It might all be about the definition of "access". It might be that the Administration told those Democrat lawmakers that they could have access to any intelligence they wanted to see before the 2002 vote. It might be that no document they asked for before that vote was withheld from them. They may have had access in the sense that they if they asked for any particular intelligence, they got it.”-Deluxe

    None of those options is true, but if you can prove otherwise, then you have my ear. Congress either has access or they don’t. Congress does not have access to the PDB (with a very notable exception that I know of) Not so sure you understand what the PDB is.

    Now I'm SURE you have no idea what the PDB is. Your assumptions are entirely incorrect. You assume the PDB is a merely a summary of other intelligence.


    The President's Daily Briefing (PDB) is a top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States Responsibility for producing the PDB -- which was traditionally held by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) -- was transferred to the new Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, after he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 21, 2005

    [1]. It is intended to provide the president with new international intelligence warranting attention, and analysis of sensitive international situations. The CIA produced the first PDB in 1964, though it had of course produced briefs for the president before.George Tenet considered the PDB so sensitive that in July 2000 he took the position with the National Archives and Records Administration that none of them could be released for publication "no matter how old or historically significant it may be" [b/]

    [2]. During a briefing on May 21, 2002, Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary, characterized the PDB as "the most highly sensitized classified document in the government"

    [3]. The PDB came under increased public awareness during testimony in front of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was convened in 2004 to analyze the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States of America. On April 8, 2004, after testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the Commission renewed calls for the declassification of a PDB from August 6, 2001, entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.” Two days later, the White House complied, and released the document with minimal redactions.”

    - Wikipedia, free online encyclodepia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Briefing

    -Jack
     
  49. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Bottom Line

    Deluxe - Once again, thank you for hanging in there with me on this one. Just to be sure we are square on this thing...

    Question: forget about the intentional portion "of intentionaly false and misleading" for 11 seconds. Do you agree the Presidents statement was false and misleading?

    I know you'd like to focus lies that led to war, and so would I. But the general notion that congress got the same intell that the president got is becoming so pervasive, Ive got to straighten that one out just to be heard above the roar.

    Just a gentle reminder, I'm not just hanging my hat on the PDB. There are other reasons why the Presidents statement is false and misleading. Those reasons are presented in great detail #129 with the supportive evidence for my assertion on the remainder of 129-130-131.

    I'm off to bed, and will prob be very busy at work mon-wed with big job coming thru the studio.

    Phil, if you'd like to jump in here in my absence, feel free. I appreciate your passion and limitless tenacity, but try to play nice, and keep that flame thrower holstered as much as you can.

    Best regards to all,
    -Jack
     
  50. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    dupe deleted
     

Share This Page