Tired of W. Bush, vol. 2

[arky-tennis]

Mark,

I am not basing my post off Jack, which, is an enormous task to follow. Now, that is a teaser of what I believe and may not be the point of Jack. I am expressing my ideals and will stick by them. The quality of the post above that was quoted by you was more of a 'teaser' where I just typed a wee bit in because of sheer boredom. Have a good day,


Daniel
P.S. Jack, great posts.

[arky-tennis]

Phil,
He is a member of both, THE COLITION OF THE WILLING (IRAQ BS) and THE ARMY OF COMPASSION (Katrina aid). Just look at the names, they have to mean good . Also, the reason he believes in such ignorance and false hope is his lack of intellect.

[andfor]

Originally Posted by Phil

"Party of the Incompetent"? I think you're referring to the people in power, who, in 5 years, have shown themselves to be the most incompetent administration of the 20th and, so far, 21st centuries. They have done absolutely NOTHING right or well, other than get themselves elected and put money into the pockets of their "base". If you have children, they and your grandchildren will pay dearly for the stupidity of the American people in letting this corrupt vermin in the back door. I can't believe people still support these idiots.

Incompetent may have been the wrong word. Both parties have shown a lack of leadership and good decision making in many areas.

Originally Posted by arky-tennis

Phil,
He is a member of both, THE COLITION OF THE WILLING (IRAQ BS) and THE ARMY OF COMPASSION (Katrina aid). Just look at the names, they have to mean good . Also, the reason he believes in such ignorance and false hope is his lack of intellect.

As for you, well I never directly insulted you as you have attempted to do to me.

Jack, you are very well versed in the world of U.S. democratic politics. I have neither the time or energy to really put my dog into this fight. I respect your views however onesided they may be. Again, without my spending much energy to reply I hope you'll respect mine.

[FedererUberAlles]

Originally Posted by tonyjh63

Bush is again making partisan attacks? You've GOT to be kidding me! The commie-pinko-leftist democRATS haven't ever stopped attacking W since he was elected five years ago, except for one brief period following 9/11. And you're accusing him of partisan attacks?!?! Give me a break!
To answer your rhetorical question, YES, we are better off today than we were four years ago!

Hahahha, you think democrats act like communists? hahhaha

Americans really need to take a reality check. This place is a ****ing mess.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by andfor

Jack, you are very well versed in the world of U.S. democratic politics. I have neither the time or energy to really put my dog into this fight. I respect your views however onesided they may be. Again, without my spending much energy to reply I hope you'll respect mine.

Andfor - I absolutely respect your views. And tony's view as well. And believe it or not, I actually can put myself in your shoes, and tony's shoes and understand. Bush was not only elected once (under more than a little controvery) but twice. Now you've got another three years of listening to the left do nothing but compalin about him. The Ds are sick of Bush, and the Rs are sick of the Ds complaining about him. Both sides have and endless supply of reasons to feel what they feel.

I have enourmous room for somebody stating unsupported personal opinion. As long as they state it as such. But the moment somebody (not mentioning you specifically) gets into the business of declaring that they have the truth in a bottle, and I just don't understand what the real truth is, thats when I come loaded for bear with cold hard facts, and endless supply of credible sources to support those facts. I really have no intention of being a thread bully, it's just that political debate is just one arena where everyone is skeptical, and should be skeptical, that's what my lengthy, deliberate posts are about. Anywhoo, see you round the ranch andfor, no hard feelings here. I hope I have not caused any on your end. Best regards and take care.

Tonyjh63 - Regarding the "you morons" thing, I know from doing this sort of thing for a while, and through many extended family conflicts regarding politics, that nobody is going to be converted here. Nobody is going to switch sides here. Bush's approval rating is now down in the 30's somewhere, and if he's still your guy, then he's always gonna be your guy. The best possible outcome I've ever experienced from political debate is that you understand my world, and I understand yours. I've gotten there with somebody from enemy camp before and its really golden. I think that's something than CAN be achieved here. It's fine to declare that whoever voted for Bush is a moron, or whoever voted for Kerry is a moron. But guess what, Joke is on you. You just created a little fanatsy world where you are surrounded by morons. That's just p...ssin in your own punchbowl. The quality of your own life is diminished by that invented viewpoint. I'm not preaching from the soapbox on this, that's a hard lesson I had to learn for myself.

PS. I'm off the board for a while everybody, my wife is giving me that look.
-Jack

[andfor]

No hard feelings. I quite appreciate and enjoy your civil and well thought response. Not sure about the last part of your last paragraph. But that's OK. If only you lived on my side of the ranch and could see the local and state politics we have to endure. I'd say more but am to close work and politically to get into it. It's off topic from national politics and GW anyway.

I also would never be the first to say that one side has the "truth in a bottle". They (both U.S. political parties) all have their own lies. What ever the lies are either side chooses to debate, listing them in a factual based manner and backing them up by quoted and credible sources is something I have no time or energy for. We could go back and forth doing so adnausium (sp?). It's been done here to often before.

Foremost on this topic I am an American, second most I support our president, third most I am conservative. I know many here have a problem with some or all of those. But that's me and I won't change. I respect the other side but only have a problem with either side when they get going with personal attacks (not sighting any here). In general both sides do it. I just lean to the conservative side. Oh well, call me mislead or whatever, I don't care. Overall I HATE POLITCS and can't believe I waste time like this discussing. I to would not attempt to convert others politically. It usually leads to hard feelings of which I have none here for you or anyone else.

The coolest thing about this board is that we can sit here with folks from across the U.S. and world and talk tennis. Oh yea, tennis! It's 72 degrees and sunny here. I gotta go get ready to play.

Later

[ChicagoJack]

And For- I see that some of my comments in post #25 should have been more clearly directed towards tonys comments here, I've edited my #25 to more clearly illustrate that.

Have fun playing tennis today,
Jack

[arky-tennis]

Andfor- Sorry for being critical of you. Sorry again, just trying to make a point and didn't try to mean offence.

Cheers,

Daniel

[bluegrasser]

The middle class is becoming a disappearing act, three Big factors come to mind: 1) High real estate costs ( housing ) 2) High medical costs 3) Taxes, Taxes, taxes, and maybe an honorable mention " Fuel costs"

I think greed is partially responsible, in that profits ( oil companies ) are not shared with the consumers, but we're socked instead while these CEO's give themselves an outrageous salary and bonuses etc, also so much buying and selling of real estate, people just don't stay very long in a residence + all the schemes ( get rich quick ). Then you look at high medical costs, shoot, 25% of my wife's paycheck, why ? high malpractice insurance rates-- driven up by lawsuit-happy culture?
i think the answer is a third party-- but a better representative than someone like Jessie, The Body, Ventura whose politics were epitomized by self-interest.

[max]

This has been interesting stuff from both sides, but again, why all the raw, hard emotion? Why the sheer anger? I mean, we're all in this together as Americans, and I'm not about to hate someone because he's a Democrat or a Republican. I'm really just tired of this Politics of Anger and Hate and Loud Noise. What ever happened to mutually productive, constructive compromise? Is our ship really sinking so fast that everyone's got to knock everyone else aside? Just what exactly do we agree on anymore?

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

I have many many more items to submit supporting my claim that George Bush is a serial misinformer, and lied us into war. I am willing to share the other references with you if you wish, I realize it is improper etiqutte to post them all here.

To be able to call someone a liar, don't you have to show both that what they said was false and that the speaker knew that it was false when he said it?

Pretty much every politicians speech I've ever heard has some kind of exaggeration or overstatement. It's the nature of the beast. They present one side of an argument, and leave the presentation of the other side of the argument to their opponents. But in the case of Iraq, the other side were not putting the other side of the argument, since all the Democrats with access to the intellegence were saying the same thing as Bush.

So I'm not very interested in hundreds of statements that might be considered misleading. I'm interested to know if there is one statement made by Bush which was a lie.

Which of these hundreds of statements can you show to be a lie?

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by deluxe

To be able to call someone a liar, don't you have to show both that what they said was false and that the speaker knew that it was false when he said it? Pretty much every politicians speech I've ever heard has some kind of exaggeration or overstatement. It's the nature of the beast. They present one side of an argument, and leave the presentation of the other side of the argument to their opponents. But in the case of Iraq, the other side were not putting the other side of the argument, since all the Democrats with access to the intellegence were saying the same thing as Bush. So I'm not very interested in hundreds of statements that might be considered misleading. I'm interested to know if there is one statement made by Bush which was a lie. Which of these hundreds of statements can you show to be a lie?

I think if you read (carefully) the 1st 3 paragraphs from exhibit #3 in my post 17, the Iraq on the record report is very clear about the exact nature, timing and category of the misleads. 237 misleads is a large number, a number which I think has been broken into categories as well as possible. The entire 36 page report is down loadable in the links I have provided. Exhibit #2 is very straight forward, Bush says the Kay report contains evidence that it does not contain. There are speech writers for these things you know. And there is a process for fact checking the speeches. If this whopper is not clear evidence, it at least shows complete disregard for the truth. Beyond what I have already posted, I have many instances which I feel clearly fits your definintion mentioned here. They have to do with speeches regarding the Tax Cuts of 200-2001, Bush statements regarding medicare costs, and statements regarding Social Security Privatization. While I have these items handy, It takes a while to update my links, as things tend to move around since I last retired from political posting. Can have those out to you soon. In the meantime, consider the following documented fact, and ask yourself, how this situation might have occured.

Fact: In 2003, as much as 70% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy.

Reference 21
“The comments from President Bush - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.”
-BBC News, September 18, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Reference 22
“White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that in no way did Vice President Dick Cheney suggest in interviews over the weekend that there was evidence of Saddam's participation in the attacks. Bush never came to that conclusion either, the spokesman said. McClellan could offer no clear explanation as to why recent public opinion polls indicate that 70 percent of Americans think there is a tie between Iraq and the attacks.
- Fox News, September 17 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

Reference 23
Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
- CBS News, September 18, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in584234.shtml

Reference 24
“The Princeton Survey Research Associates polled more than 1,200 Americans on behalf of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. They asked a very simple question: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?" Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi. Another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.
-Salon.com February 6th, 2003
http://salon.com/opinion/feature/200...oll/index.html

Reference 25
Question 18: Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
Results:
9/18/03 47% of registered voters polled, responded Yes
1/29/04 49% of registered voters polled responded Yes
Note: Trends before 9/2-3/04 are based on Total Adults.
- Newsweek, Princeton Survey Research Associates International
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...DATE=Oct+2,+20

Reference 26
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.”
- USA Today / Associated Press, September 6, 2003
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

Reference 27
“Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll.”
- Washington Post, Sept 6, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

-Jack

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

I think if you read (carefully) the 1st 3 paragraphs from exhibit #3 in my post 17, the Iraq on the record report is very clear about the exact nature, timing and category of the misleads. 237 misleads is a large number, a number which I think has been broken into categories as well as possible.

Perhaps you misread my question. I asked for one example of a lie. Of the 237 statements you reference, according to you, only ten are false. But making a statement that is false does not make one a liar. You also have to show that the speaker knew that the statement was false.

Please list one statement that was false, and then show that President Bush knew the statement to be false when he made it.

If you can't do that, you should really stop saying that President Bush "lied us into war".

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

The entire 36 page report is down loadable in the links I have provided.

OK. Tell me which page to look on where they show that President Bush knew that a statement he made was false before he made it.

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Exhibit #2 is very straight forward, Bush says the Kay report contains evidence that it does not contain. There are speech writers for these things you know. And there is a process for fact checking the speeches. If this whopper is not clear evidence, it at least shows complete disregard for the truth.

You can't call "exhibit #2" a lie then.

<stuff not about the war snipped>

[ChicagoJack]

Hi deluxe -

The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials. This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public.

If that is not clear enough for you, I dont know what would be clear enough. If my 26 separate refernces are not enough to convince you, guess what. That is not my mission. My mission is to assert what I believe to be truthful, suppport that belief with as many references as I can. If I am not living up to your standards here, I offer my apologies. I will not stop saying that Bush lied us into war, because I believe that to be historical fact.

Can you answer my question found at the bottom of post #32?

Best regards-
Jack

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by deluxe

Perhaps you misread my question. I asked for one example of a lie. Of the 237 statements you reference, according to you, only ten are false. But making a statement that is false does not make one a liar. You also have to show that the speaker knew that the statement was false.Please list one statement that was false, and then show that President Bush knew the statement to be false when he made it. If you can't do that, you should really stop saying that President Bush "lied us into war"...continued

Exhibit 5

"The budget I submitted earlier this year commits an additional $400 billion over 10 years to implement this vision of a stronger Medicare system. This is enough to meet our commitments to the seniors today and to future generations of Americans." - George W. Bush

-- President Bush Meets with Florida Seniors to Discuss Medicare
Remarks by the President in Meeting with Seniors on Medicare
Engelwood Neighborhood Center Orlando, Florida, November 13, 2003

Reference 28
"The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan...When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that...Bush administration officials insisted they acted legally in ordering the nation's top Medicare cost analyst to keep from lawmakers his estimate that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit might cost more than $100 billion [than what the White House promised]."
- Knight Ridder, 3/11/04 and 4/2/04

Reference 29
Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, one of the 13 Republicans, said she "was shocked" when she learned of the higher estimate. "I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the bill) because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick said. Five months before the November House vote, the government's chief Medicare actuary had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years. Two months after Congress approved the new benefit, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten disclosed that he expected it to cost $534 billion. "

Reference 30
By ROBERT PEAR (NYT) 813 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 29 , Column 5
"Over strenuous objections from the Bush administration, Congress is moving to increase protections for federal employees who expose fraud, waste and wrongdoing inside the ... Lawmakers of both parties say the measures are needed to prevent retaliation against such whistleblowers, who reveal threats to public health, safety and" ...continued

Link 29 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031113-8.html
Link 30 http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...hard_S._Foster
Link 31 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...6339-2004Mar18
Link 32 http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Po...02breaklaw.htm
Link 33 http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1297339.html

Just wondering, What would you call this?

A - An honest mistake
B - A mislead
C - A deliberate mislead
D - A Lie

-Jack

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

In the meantime, consider the following documented fact, and ask yourself, how this situation might have occured.

Fact: At the time of the 2004 elections, as much as 70% of the American voting public actually believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy.

I'm beginning see why you're having difficulty understanding the difference between truth and error. Let's examine your "fact". To prove your "fact", you give seven references with 6 links to news articles from different news organisations.

Error 1: Look at the dates of the news articles you posted for the articles that mention the 70% figure:
September 17, 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html)
Sept. 18, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in584234.shtml)
9/6/2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm)

So the opinion poll that mentions the 70% figure is well before the 2004 election.

Error 2: The 70% opinion poll does not mention registered voters, just adults.

Error 3: The one article that you posted that was contemporary with the 2004 election has a very different result from the August 2003 Washington Post poll of only 1003 adults that gave the 70% number you quoted.

In that one article (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...2,+20%E2%80%9D ) that is contemporary with the 2004 election, they quote these numbers:

"18. Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?

BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS

Yes: 36
No: 51
DK: 13"

So the real number you are looking for is 36%, not 70% if you are attempting to reference the 2004 election.

<references snipped>

Now, it is obvious that your "fact" is simply unsupported by your references. In fact, your own references show your "fact" to be false. Does that mean that I can call you a liar?

No.

I could only call you a liar if I could show that you knew your "fact" to be false when you posted your message. It's pretty clear that you hadn't done the research yourself, or even checked your own references, since you hadn't even bothered to renumber the links to start from 1.

I would like to suggest that you extend to your President the courtesy of stopping this "lied us into war" rubbish until you can show him to have lied about the war.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by andfor

Incompetent may have been the wrong word. Both parties have shown a lack of leadership and good decision making in many areas.

Oh, I can agree with that...both parties have shown NO leadership, and the Dems don't necessarily have better solutions. I'm an independent, and I don't support either party-they both suck. Only...the rush to attack a soverign nation and fabricate premises for doing so (WMD, terrorism, Iraqi "Freedom"), the cutting of taxes for the wealthiest income brackets (and cutting of social programs to make up for the deficit), the "Outing" of a CIA agent to settle a political vendetta, the poor management of the war and the disrespect paid to the generals who should have been running the war in the first place, the embracing of such paranoid fantasies as the "Patriot Act", incompetent management of Hurricane Katrina, etc., etc., etc., are not acts that would have happened in a Democratic or else a strong and honest Republican administration. Bush is controlled by Rove and Cheney and everyone else is a "Yes" man-or, in Republican circles, it's called "loyalty". They have done absolutely nothing right...and yet, the American people gave them another four years...simply amazing. I'm proud to be an American, always, but embarrassed by my "fellow countrymen". If the latest poll, wheree 57% of the 1,000 people polled thought that Bush was dishonest-is ANY indication of reality, then it seems that a few of the brain dead zombies who supported this crimminal for the last 6 years, are finally coming to life again. Thank God, if it's true.

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Just wondering, What would you call this?

A - An honest mistake
B - A mislead
C - A deliberate mislead
D - A Lie

-Jack

I'm not familiar with the case.

Nothing you've posted indicates that your President knew that the statement was false when he made it. For you to call it a lie would be totally inappropriate.

When you're talking about these very large numbers over a decade, a difference of 25% in the cost can easily be a difference in opinion over things like whether the cost of drugs will go up by 3.7% per year, or 3.8% a year.

I expect what happened was that one set of actuaries used a different set of assumptions than another set of actuaries, and there were ridiculous actuarial arguments about which set of assumptions to make, and the administration chose the assumptions that would be best for them politically.

President Bush did not do these calculations himself.

We'll only know whether or not the cost estimate was wrong in 10 years time. I don't think any of your answers would apply. I suspect the 400bn figure is a correct number based on reasonable, optimistic actuarial assumptions.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by deluxe

I'm beginning see why you're having difficulty understanding the difference between truth and error. Let's examine your "fact". To prove your "fact", you give seven references with 6 links to news articles from different news organisations.

I have some quotes that came from the same source. This explains why I have one more quote than sources.

Error 1: Look at the dates of the news articles you posted for the articles that mention the 70% figure:
September 17, 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html)
Sept. 18, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in584234.shtml)
9/6/2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm)

So the opinion poll that mentions the 70% figure is well before the 2004 election.

Two and a half months is well before? I think you are stretching things a bit.

Error 2: The 70% opinion poll does not mention registered voters, just adults.

Yes, that is an error. I stand corrected. Adults is not the same thing as registered voters.

Error 3: The one article that you posted that was contemporary with the 2004 election has a very different result from the August 2003 Washington Post poll of only 1003 adults that gave the 70% number you quoted.

"18. Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?

BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS

Yes: 36
No: 51
DK: 13"

So the real number you are looking for is 36%, not 70% if you are attempting to reference the 2004 election.

The poll you mention is from 2003, you get diff numbers in the 2004 polls which I have also listed.

Now, it is obvious that your "fact" is simply unsupported by your references. In fact, your own references show your "fact" to be false. Does that mean that I can call you a liar? No.

Yes. my statement should have been "adults" not "registered voters"
I see your point, and I stand humbly corrected. You have every right to call me a liar if you wish to do so.

I could only call you a liar if I could show that you knew your "fact" to be false when you posted your message. It's pretty clear that you hadn't done the research yourself, or even checked your own references, since you hadn't even bothered to renumber the links to start from 1.

These particular items appear in one or two boards around the internet (that I know of) in roughly the same order. It's possible somebody has copied me, but I can go to these boards and bump em up to the top to prove I am the original poster. I actually went out of my way in this instance to keep the numbers consistent within this thread. Had the feeling I might be here for a while. The notion that my credibility is ruined because I don't start each link with 1 is a little silly.

Deluxe - I'm Still waiting for a response to my question at the bottom of post 32

Take care
-Jack

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Hi deluxe -

The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials. This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public.

To mislead is not to lie. And this SID thing uses a ridiculous definition of mislead.

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

If that is not clear enough for you, I dont know what would be clear enough.

Easy. One example of a lie about the war.

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

If my 26 separate refernces are not enough to convince you, guess what. That is not my mission. My mission is to assert what I believe to be truthful, suppport that belief with as many references as I can. If I am not living up to your standards here, I offer my apologies. I will not stop saying that Bush lied us into war, because I believe that to be historical fact.

A "historical fact" that you have no evidence for.
If you don't have standards that prevent you calling someone, especially your President, a liar without having any evidence for it, then I pity you.

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Can you answer my question found at the bottom of post #32?

Best regards-
Jack

Already done.