Who Here Will Deny STILL That Bush Is A Liar?

[Brassmask]

I'm gonna post this then I will a couple of hours and check back.  During that time, try to go through all the little bullshit steps you guys always take to make it seem like Bush is not a liar.  Ok?

Let me list of those steps for you and maybe you'll just give them a miss.

Flatly state Bush didn't lie.
Ask for the exact quote where Bush lied.  (Provided in the post btw)
State that the lie statement isn't about the same subject as the released transcript.
State that the transcript is suspect in some way (maybe from later than the lie statement, maybe released by someone out to get Bush, anything!)
State that whoever released the transcript is suspect in some way (wants to make a name for themselves, wants to make money writing a book, anything!)
When all else fails, then state that Bush lied for a good reason!  (protecting troops, keeping my kid alive, 9/11, anything!)

So get that out of the way and then let's just get to the part where someone agrees that Bush lied and it was wrong.

Check the link I posted at the end for all clickable links at ThinkProgress for ProofPositive.

Ok, loveya, meanit, don'teverchange.

 Spanish Notes Reveal Bush Was Hell-Bent On War, Despite Claiming ?I?ve Not Made Up My Mind?

aznarToday, the Spanish newspaper El Pais published a transcript of a discussion between President Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in February 2003 in which Bush told Aznar that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein with or without a UN resolution:

    ?We must take him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready.?

Though Aznar asked Bush to ?have a little patience? and urged, ?It is very important to have a [UN] resolution,? Bush pushed for war throughout the meeting, telling the Spanish Prime Minister, ?We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.?

Just a few days later, Bush insisted to the American public that war with Iraq was not a certainty:

    BUSH: ?I?ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.? [3/6/03]

    BUSH: ?We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.? [3/8/03]

Prior to going to war, Bush insisted he would get U.N. authorization. He said, ?no matter what the whip count is,? the U.S. would go to the UN and ?call for a vote.? But it?s clear Bush was never going to let the U.N. get in the way of his quest for war.

To this day, Bush has continued to insist that the ?the United States did not choose war ? the choice was Saddam Hussein?s.? In fact, as this conversation with Aznar illustrates, Bush had made his decision long before exhausting all other options.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/bush-aznar-talk/

[Michael Tee]

AMBE.  The bi-partisan Robb-Silberman Commission, The bipartisan 911 Commission, the bi-partisan Butler Report, the bi-partisan CIA, the bi-partisan FBI, the bi-partisan foreign intel services of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, China, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Romania and all other members of the U.N. except its filthy stinking Arab and Muslim members (in which I do not include the good Muslims, the moderate Muslims, the Muslims of such God-fearing, peace-loving and decent nations as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and whoever else has learned to kiss our good Uncle Sam's hairy ass five times a day) and all decent and peace-loving people here on this earth and elsewhere, living and dead, have unanimously concluded that George W. Bush is not a liar, was not a liar and will not be a liar in any circumstances.

And against all this overwhelming evidence of the goodness, the truthfullness, the very saintliness of our God-given and Supreme-Court-appointed "President," what can you offer us?  A miserable scrap, a note in a Spanish newspaper?  Puh-LEEEZE.  Get serious.  Bzzzzzz!  Wrong answer.  Want a do-over?  D'oh!

[sirs]

I'm gonna post this then I will a couple of hours and check back.  During that time, try to go through all the little bullshit steps you guys always take to make it seem like Bush is not a liar.  Ok?

Let me list of those steps for you and maybe you'll just give them a miss.

Flatly state Bush didn't lie.
Ask for the exact quote where Bush lied.  (Provided in the post btw)
State that the lie statement isn't about the same subject as the released transcript.
State that the transcript is suspect in some way (maybe from later than the lie statement, maybe released by someone out to get Bush, anything!)
State that whoever released the transcript is suspect in some way (wants to make a name for themselves, wants to make money writing a book, anything!)
When all else fails, then state that Bush lied for a good reason!  (protecting troops, keeping my kid alive, 9/11, anything!)

That would be A) 
NO WHERE does it make any conclusion Bush was hellbent GOING in. 
NO WHERE does this piece show where Bush said something completely inconsistent with something else. 

Gads, the desperation you folks have, in trying to lay cliam to something that just isn't there, is beyond sad....it's pathologic.  Has Bush never lied about anything?, unlikely.  Has he lied at some time he was in public office?, probably, though no one has yet to demonstrate such.  The best the BDS crowd can come up with is claim Bush said/meant 1 thing, then present quotes to the contrary.  Lame and weak

NOTHING in this piece proves any concrete plan to invade.  Following 911, Saddam was put on notice (NO, that doesn't mean Saddam had anything to do with 911, it means, what it has ALWAYS meant, that the terrorist connections Saddam DID have with similar folks that caused 911, was no longer going to be tolerated)  We didn't need the UN, but went ahead and got 1441 passed anyways.  Does that mean Bush wasn't afraid to make such a decision to go in?, yea.  Did they have plans to invade, as soon as he took office? Pentagon has contingincy plans to invade many hot spots, regardless who the President is.  Point being, just because Bush wasn't afraid to go into Iraq, doesn't equate to him being hell bent to enter, regardless of what Saddam did or didn't do.  Saddam had his chance to comply, and chose not to.  His call, his consequences

I do appreciate however the laundry list Tee provided, of offical reports/conclusions, from a wide range of Government sources, repeating the FACT that Bush neither lied us into war nor forced any intelligence agents to alter their findings

[Michael Tee]

I think anyone with basic reading comprehension skills understands this article to mean that Bush told the Spanish Prime Minister in confidence that the U.S. was gonna invade Iraq with or without U.N. approval because they had to take out Saddam immediately, and then AFTER that, told the American people he had not made up his mind on this and there was still a possibility of peaceful resolution.

So, either he was lying to the Spanish PM or he was lying to the American people.  More basic than that it does not get.  Case closed.

[Brassmask]

I think anyone with basic reading comprehension skills understands this article to mean that Bush told the Spanish Prime Minister in confidence that the U.S. was gonna invade Iraq with or without U.N. approval because they had to take out Saddam immediately, and then AFTER that, told the American people he had not made up his mind on this and there was still a possibility of peaceful resolution.

So, either he was lying to the Spanish PM or he was lying to the American people.  More basic than that it does not get.  Case closed.

Apparently, this does not include sirs.

Clearly, he WAS hellbent on going in and he HAD made up his mind and he DID say in public several times that he hadn't made up his mind yet.

That is textbook lying, sirs.  If you don't understand that, you're either mentally incompetent or practicing doublethink.  Could you tell us which it is?

[sirs]

Clearly, he WAS hellbent on going in and he HAD made up his mind and he DID say in public several times that he hadn't made up his mind yet.  That is textbook lying, sirs. 

As I said, the latest and greatest measure of desperation, is claim Bush meant something (when in reality he never did, simply what the left has detemined he meant all along), then provide quotes/actions to the contrary, to validate the alleged Bush lie.  Textbook BDS lying, perhaps

[Mr_Perceptive]

I have only been in this forum for just a little while, but it does appear you are too focused on a past event. It is past OLD. Haven't you all discussed this iisue infinauseum? What NEW evidence can there be at this point?

Get on with your life, debate-wise and discuss something else. Talk about stuck in a rut!

Get a grip, folks!

[Brassmask]

Clearly, he WAS hellbent on going in and he HAD made up his mind and he DID say in public several times that he hadn't made up his mind yet.  That is textbook lying, sirs. 

As I said, the latest and greatest measure of desperation, is claim Bush meant something (when in reality he never did, simply what the left has detemined he meant all along), then provide quotes/actions to the contrary, to validate the alleged Bush lie.  Textbook BDS lying, perhaps

So you're saying when Bush speaks in public, he is not meaning to actually say anything?  Is that what you are meaning?

[sirs]

I'm saying your blatantly skewed reinterpretation of what he meant, from what he said, and supposed underlying intentions are crap.  That's what I mean

[Plane]

Is this second hand or third?

Is this Spanish publication quoteing Bush directly , quoteing someone who heard Bush or quoteing someone who heard it from someone who was there?

[Plane]

BUSH: ?We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.? [3/8/03]

Lets undeline these parts that in this discussion are pertinant.

BUSH: ?We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.? [3/8/03]



President Bush tells it like it is.

[sirs]

Precisly

[Michael Tee]

As per Brass' original post in this thread, based on a story in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, Bush had told the Spanish PM in FEBRUARY of 2003 that <<We must take him [Saddam] right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready.>>

In the same conversation of FEBRUARY 2003, <<Aznar asked Bush to have a little patience and urged, It is very important to have a [UN] resolution,  - - Bush pushed for war throughout the meeting, telling the Spanish Prime Minister, We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.

In fact, the actual date of the conversation was February 22, 2003.
http://watchingamerica.com/elpais000012.shtml

And from the same link, it's reported that the actual notes of the conversation were taken by the Spanish Ambassador to Washington, Ruperez.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, according to plane: 

<<BUSH: We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. [3/8/03]>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the problem, of course, is that Bush told Aznar and Ruperez (as well as Italy's Berlusconi, participating in the conference by telephone) on Feb. 22, We must take him right now.  And also said, There are two weeks left.  In two weeks, we will be militarily ready.  And also, We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.   And AFTER THAT  (March 8/03, according to plane, ) We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.


Who was he lying to?  To Aznar and his ambassador, whom he told that Saddam needed to be taken then, that he had run out of patience, and that only two weeks remained before the U.S. would be militarily capable of the invasion?  Or to the American people, when he later said (after telling Aznar that the decision to overthrow Saddam had been taken) that he was still doing all he could to avoid war?

[Amianthus]

Who was he lying to?  To Aznar and his ambassador, whom he told that Saddam needed to be taken then, that he had run out of patience, and that only two weeks remained before the U.S. would be militarily capable of the invasion?  Or to the American people, when he later said (after telling Aznar that the decision to overthrow Saddam had been taken) that he was still doing all he could to avoid war?

Being militarily ready to invade does not preclude avoiding the war.

Does saving up money in case you lose your job mean that you're required to then lose your job?

[Michael Tee]

<<Being militarily ready to invade does not preclude avoiding the war.

<<Does saving up money in case you lose your job mean that you're required to then lose your job?>>

More than simple preparation was involved.  Bush clearly implied the U.S. was out of options: We must take him right now.  That in response to Aznar's plea for more time. 

We will be militarily ready in two weeks.  We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.

There were no qualifiers - - nothing about well, if Saddam smartens up we can always call it off.  You tell another national leader that you must act right now, and you are only two weeks away from total readiness, that means the decision was already taken.

Nobody gears up for an invasion to the point where they're two weeks away from total readiness and then stands it down.  That's pretty fucking expensive.  A huge waste of taxpayer money.  When they get that close on a massive undertaking like that, they are going ahead with it.  The decision was already taken.  (The article goes on to explain that because of Aznar's need for some kind of fig leaf, Bush placated him, and also tried to get some cover for himself, by agreeing to take it to the UN Security Council, which resulted in the invasion date being set back about a week, but the notes also indicate Bush's intention to go ahead with or without the resolution.)  The fact is that at the time that Bush was telling the country on March 8 that he was trying to avoid war, he was lying because the decision to invade was already a done deal.  And of course the March 6 statement that he had not yet made up his mind on the invasion was also a lie.