Ty Webb;553068 wrote:A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large numbers of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general

Gas is intended to kill small number of people at a time. There for...Gas isn't a WMD

You are obviously so damn stupid and uninformed about history on this subject your right to comment further on this subject should be suspended. For God's sake, do a little research on something before you make yourself look like such a stupid, insensitive dolt.

believer;552981 wrote:Apparently Bush believed the same lies provided to him by American and British intelligence sources. You know, the same lies that the Clinton's, Kerry, Daschle, Harkin, Albright, Berger, Byrd, Edwards, Gore, and many other Democrats believed well before "W" took office. Those liars too right?

Well they weren't important. The important opinions were those of Powell and Rice. Which both of them said Iraq had no WMDs and couldn't even fight a regular war. Which proved to be true.


But that's then and not relevant to the topic.

If lies were told to support a drilling moratorium that's wrong.

Ty Webb;552929 wrote:No...I have a problem with Republicans point out every little thing wrong Obama does,but they are perfectly fine with GWB lying to get us into a war that has cost us almost two trillion dollars and almost 4,500 lives

Not that I'm saying he didn't, but show proof that Bush lied about WMDs.

If my memory serves me correct, and I think it does, the dems and repubs BOTH agreed that the intelligence pointed to Iraq having WMDs. You can blame it on Bush all you want, and he deserves some of the blame, but lets not act like the intelligence didn't point both sides YES THE DEMS TOO, to believe that Iraq had WMDs.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your biased rant, carry on.

Ty Webb;553068 wrote:A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large numbers of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general

Gas is intended to kill small number of people at a time. There for...Gas isn't a WMD

lol, so wrong it isn't even funny. Ever heard of chemical warfare/chemical weapons? Come on, you can't be that retarded can you?

Ty Webb;553070 wrote:Why was Bush so quick to believe these lies,but when he was told point blank one month before 9/11 happened it was going to happen,he brushed it off and kept going?

And yes,they were liars about this too

lol, more untruthful left wing nutball conspiracy theories...what next, there were incendiary explosives planted in the towers and a missile hit the Pentagon...all while Bush was the real master mind behind it?

So please, keep up with the BS conspiracy theories, it just makes your positions even more hilarious.

Clearly, and something about free masons and the jews running the world. Or something like that.

I Wear Pants;553318 wrote:Clearly, and something about free masons and the jews running the world. Or something like that.

I thought it was the Illuminati? Maybe it is those darn masons.

Ty Webb;552877 wrote:Ohh...maybe you forgot about Bush completely lying about WMD's to get us into war with Iraq??

Ty Webb;552956 wrote:I never said Bush wasn't a convincing liar

Ty Webb;552958 wrote:Show me proof that they ever have WMD's...until then Bush is a farking liar

He didn't lie. Lying assumes they/ he knew Iraq did not have WMD. The opposite is true. Pretty much everyone at the high levels of government used the faulty assumptions that the intelligence community built from 1998-2002 (when they had no on the ground presence) to make the observation that Iraq had the capability to make nuclear. chem and bio weapons. It was only at the lower level of the intelligence communities where these assumptions were challenged, but those challenges never made it very far up the chain. By the time the information got to Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. it was thought to be straight fact, when in reality it was all based off faulty assumptions. But, they truly thought Iraq WMD, and if that is the case, they were not lying, just flat wrong.

Oddly enough, the IAEA turned out ot be right, as they had had boots on the ground and the technical expertise to say that Iraq did not have the technical means of a strong nuke, chem and bio program.

fish82;552972 wrote:You mean apart from the times where he gassed his own people?

Writerbuckeye;553026 wrote:Game.Set.Match.

It's not like THE WHOLE FUCKING FREE WORLD didn't believe he had WMD or anything, right? Do we have to go back and link that long, long list of DEMOCRATS WHO HONESTLY BELIEVED Iraq had WMD and needed taking out?

This isn't about Bush, anyway. When are you libs going to MOVE ON (.org) and accept responsibility for the government YOU HAVE IN PLACE NOW?

Such a whiny ass bunch.

The chem weapons and gassing was in the 1980s, before the Gulf War. The Gulf War and UNSCOM eradicated all of Saddam's chemical, bio and nuclear programs really. So, using that as an example is not quite right, unless you mention UNSCOM.

The whole world did not believe Iraq had WMD, mainly the IAEA, and France. Both turned out to be right as well. But, I agree on your point about blaming Bush too much. Yes, the blame should fall on him since he was CINC, but honestly the Bush lied stuff is too much.

I Wear Pants;553223 wrote:Well they weren't important. The important opinions were those of Powell and Rice. Which both of them said Iraq had no WMDs and couldn't even fight a regular war. Which proved to be true.


But that's then and not relevant to the topic.

If lies were told to support a drilling moratorium that's wrong.

Powell was skeptical, but still thought Iraq had WMD, and he did give the UNSC address. He just did not support quick military action. But, believed Iraq had WMD. Rice made the smoking gun comment, so she was for military action.


Anyways, to the thread. Yes. if the memo was changed or adapted then that is not good. I would like a little more on the story though and maybe even another rational for why the change was done. But, initially, not good.

February 2001: “He [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” -Powell

"We are able to keep arms from him, his military forces have not been rebuilt" -Condoleeza Rice July 2001.

What happened? How did these people think that he somehow rebuilt his army and developed WMDs in the year in between these quotes and when we invaded? And weren't the IAEA inspectors all over the country in 2002? So they thought that he had somehow rebuilt his army and developed WMD while also hiding it from inspectors who were all over the place in only a year?

I Wear Pants;553844 wrote:February 2001: “He [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” -Powell

"We are able to keep arms from him, his military forces have not been rebuilt" -Condoleeza Rice July 2001.

What happened? How did these people think that he somehow rebuilt his army and developed WMDs in the year in between these quotes and when we invaded? And weren't the IAEA inspectors all over the country in 2002? So they thought that he had somehow rebuilt his army and developed WMD while also hiding it from inspectors who were all over the place in only a year?

The National Intelligence Estimate of late 2002 pretty much changed their tune. The problem was, it was deeply, deeply flawed with faulty assumptions that led to accusations as plain facts. From that NIE came all the discussions that led to the war.

As to the IAEA. They were kicked out in 1998 and did not really have any presence until early 2003 when Iraq let them in. When the IAEA finished their inspections, they did not find a thing. Although, at that point, the gears for war in the high ups was too strong to stop and the administration put their own intelligence above the IAEA. One book that is pretty good on the issue of the IAEA and faulty assumptions is Hide and Seek:
http://www.amazon.com/Hide-Seek-Search-Truth-Iraq/dp/1586485571/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289501403&sr=1-8

Fair enough.

I accept that the push for war with Iraq was led by many false assumptions and incorrect information rather than pure maleviolence. I do still hold that they were far too quick in their actions as more time contemplating it could have been beneficial.

This whole thread is stupid. Since when did presidents start writing their own press releases?

jmog;553259 wrote:lol, more untruthful left wing nutball conspiracy theories...what next, there were incendiary explosives planted in the towers and a missile hit the Pentagon...all while Bush was the real master mind behind it?

So please, keep up with the BS conspiracy theories, it just makes your positions even more hilarious.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Is this guy some left-wing nutjob?

There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

Ty Webb;554090 wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Is this guy some left-wing nutjob?

There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

Dick Clarke? Depending on who you ask....yeah, maybe. At best he's a whore out to pimp himself and sell books. I'm not saying he didn't write the memo, but he hasn't done much to enhance his credibility since leaving the post.

Fab4Runner;552914 wrote:Just so we're clear then...you're okay with Obama lying because other presidents have?

Heh. This is a good point.

I Wear Pants;553947 wrote:Fair enough.

I accept that the push for war with Iraq was led by many false assumptions and incorrect information rather than pure maleviolence. I do still hold that they were far too quick in their actions as more time contemplating it could have been beneficial.

This is, I think, the correct assumption. I don't think the administration was lying to people; the administration was perhaps rash and acting on incorrect intelligence, but I don't think they were intentionally lying/misleading. Saddam wasn't exactly helping his own case, either, until it got pretty late.

This thread needs to get back on topic. Gibby has slying moved this thread from discussion about the Obama administration allegedly speaking mistruths to re-hasing the WMD's for the 1,000,384,539th time.

Bigdogg;553982 wrote:This whole thread is stupid. Since when did presidents start writing their own press releases?

This is a valid point.

The people who work/speak for the White House and or President, are speaking on behalf of the President.
Same with the people who do any press release.

They are figureheads. They are hired with the specific duty of representing the President to the effect of whatever they say/release are the same as coming from directly from the President him/her self.

So, just because a President doesn't sit down and write their own press releases, doesn't mean that the people that work for them are releasing information that doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views, and words of the President. Because that is exactly their job.

CenterBHSFan;554801 wrote:The people who work/speak for the White House and or President, are speaking on behalf of the President.
Same with the people who do any press release.

They are figureheads. They are hired with the specific duty of representing the President to the effect of whatever they say/release are the same as coming from directly from the President him/her self.

So, just because a President doesn't sit down and write their own press releases, doesn't mean that the people that work for them are releasing information that doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views, and words of the President. Because that is exactly their job.

What we have here is a community organizer that can't organize

Belly35;554990 wrote:What we have here is a community organizer that can't organize

That pretty much sums it up for me!

So again,it's ok for Bush's people to lie,but yet you guys jump all over Obama's for it??

Double standard much?

Ty Webb;555162 wrote:So again,it's ok for Bush's people to lie,but yet you guys jump all over Obama's for it??

Double standard much?

So again, Bush did not lie.

Ok ptown...then why did we never find the WMD's?

Ty Webb;555175 wrote:Ok ptown...then why did we never find the WMD's?

See my post, number 33.
But, I'll just paste it again:

He didn't lie. Lying assumes they/ he knew Iraq did not have WMD. The opposite is true. Pretty much everyone at the high levels of government used the faulty assumptions that the intelligence community built from 1998-2002 (when they had no on the ground presence) to make the observation that Iraq had the capability to make nuclear. chem and bio weapons. It was only at the lower level of the intelligence communities where these assumptions were challenged, but those challenges never made it very far up the chain. By the time the information got to Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. it was thought to be straight fact, when in reality it was all based off faulty assumptions. But, they truly thought Iraq WMD, and if that is the case, they were not lying, just flat wrong.

Oddly enough, the IAEA turned out ot be right, as they had had boots on the ground and the technical expertise to say that Iraq did not have the technical means of a strong nuke, chem and bio program.