I guess the evidence is in.

[sirs]

<<The mantra [that Bush lied the country into war] has been applied so often and left so consistently unchallenged by the mainscream media when made, that folks like Tee can simply declare victory (Bush lied us into war), and hit enter (not be required to actually substantiate the claim>>

See, that's where all your lies become undone.  Because Bush lied to the whole country.  People remember the weapons of mass destruction.  That wasn't a part of the language till Bush and his gang made it a part of the language.  And they remember the allegations that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, he did not account for them, so he must still have them. ...So when you come out with this shit, it never happened, Bush never tried to scare America into supporting an invasion, they KNOW you are lying because they remember being scared by those very lines.  So telling them it never happened is just compounding the lie.

No, this is where we again show the audience at large just how off your rocker, you are.  You've made your best "Bush lied us into war" allegation the ever famous WMD.  Now obviously in your reality "lie" means something entirely different, that in this reality.  In this reality, a lie is a deliberate deception, where person A KNOWS that what they say/claim is false, but say/claim it anyways.  
- To this date NO ONE has been able to demonstrate anywhere that Bush KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD, but told us he did anyways.  
- To this date, Bush's conclusions that Saddam had WMD mirror every other Government leader that made the same conclusions, based on their internal intelligence gathering apparati.  
- To this date, his rhetoric was a mirror of the prior administration's conclusions, based on their intelligence gathering apparatus.  
- To this date, his rhetoric mirrored every one of those Democrat politicians that both during Clinton AND initially under Bush, (Kerry, Edwards, Reid, included) came to the same conclusions, regarding Saddam's WMD.

Now, they're either ALL lying or they ALL got it wrong.  Only a completely warped mind can claim that Bush lied, but everyone else simply got it wrong, or was fooled by Bush.  That defies any logic or common sense.  Now I've noted a bit of backtracking on your part now, where you're opining that many politicians lied because of campaigning.  So, since this issue of Saddam's WMD conclusions have been going on since Clinton, then you must be claiming every Democrat is a liar, who mirrored what Clinton was saying, when he too concluded that Saddam's WMD remained a distinct threat.  And of course, the grandadday of lying,  being Clinton himself.  After all, they all were campaigning at some time

Now your version of Bush trying to scare people is pure distortion 101.  Yea he highlighted the danger that Saddam's WMD in the hands of a terrorist group could pose.  He would have been irresponsible in going to war, had he not.  It was both political and ethical.  But as comittee investigation after committee investigation have FACTUALLY determined, Bush did not lie about the WMD, he did not coerce the intel folks to shape their conclusions, and following 911, would have been morally and wrecklessly irresponsible as CnC had he not taken action, both in Afghanistan & Iraq.  David Kay's report makes that crystal clear as well.

So, you can keep playing the game of declare victory <Bush lied us into war>, and hit enter <continued failure to demonstrate how he supposedly lied us into war> to your heart's content.  The only folks you're fooling are yourself and those who have not been paying attention to the facts

[sirs]

There's no way that Saddam could have transferred weapons to terrorists without leaving a calling card.  One way or another the U.S. would have to learn where the weapons came from and when they did, that would be the end of Saddam and the end of Iraq.   The idea that Saddam would just hand over nuclear weapons to a bunch of terrorists (Osama Bin Laden is as good an example as any) and say, "Here ya go.  Nukuler weppinz.  Just don't tell anyone where ya got 'em from, fellas, I'm relying on your discretion."   I mean anybody who thinks there is a serious chance of Saddam Hussein or ANY world leader acting like that would have to be a total and complete moron.  These conjectures get more and more foolish.  Foolish as it is to think of Saddam nuking the U.S., it's even more foolish to think of him giving away his own nukes to some terrorist group and trusting their discretion not to get him in any trouble.

You're promoting the notion we'd find out AFTER the fact.  How, I have no idea.  Perhaps you can entertain us with how we'd have found this "calling card"  The point being, this is a pro-active event...the PREVENTION of the act happening, thus the PREVENTION of it even getting into America.  I realize you have no problem with the rudimentary slaughter of perhaps a few thousand, perhaps tens of thousands of "little Eichmans", but I do.  And your continued LIE that we were worried that Saddam would attack the U.S. with WMD/nuke, just reinforces how devoid of meirit your POV has

I'm starting to see your real problem.  We all know that Bush said something which turned out not to be true.  So either Bush KNEW it wasn't true when he said it, making him a liar, or he really believed in it at the time, making him look, well, kind of . . . stupid.

Ahh, getting closer.  Now instead of they were ALL liars, now they were ALL stupid.  Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry (well, he was military, so obviously he must be stupid), Schumer, Dean, etc., etc., etc., are all now stupid.  If you say so

[Plane]

Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.
And we said, "Oh no, we need ___________, this is insufficient. "  I can't remember what our objection was.  It was moot anyway---machinery of war was already started.  Jesus's return to Earth  could not have stopped that war, I don't think. 

When did we get the reams of "proof" that the WMD was gone?

After the threat became tangable?

[sirs]

The guy is a moron and what's worse, he's a dangerous, lying moron....How you can continue to be one of his cult members is beyond me.  Decency counts.  Principle counts.....Party loyalty has ruined this country and cult like love of each party's candidate due to the letter behind their name is what is wrong with America and how we got ourselves into the messes we're in.  They allowed Bush to have the power to invade IRaq illegally.  He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  He said evidence from 20 years ago was evidence to invade IRaq.....You know why?  Because we all know that Bush isn't fit to tie Nixon's shoes, much less follow in his footsteps.  Its like having Angelina Jolie come on TV and a little while later they show a pig with lipstick on.  Sure they both have on lipstick but it's not even remotely the same thing.

 

While putting aside your vitriolic Bush rant, you know why this claim of me being some Bush loving cultist falls completely as uncredible, is because you perpetually ignore every one of my criticisms and condemnations of Bush.  As I've referenced before, to you, unless someone is burning Bush's name in effigy, cursing his every living breath, they must be a cool-aide drinking Clint...I mean Bush worshipper.  Regardless of how often I've criticised & condemned Bush, both domestically and on the war, that just doesn't cut it with you.  You either ignore them or pffft those condemnations as token and worse, insincere.  Without you knowing me personally, you have no frelling clue of how sincere or insincere I am.  So, what you're left with is your blinding Bush hatred, that prevents you from actually dealing with substantive criticisms from the likes of me, of Plane,of Ami, of Bt, of Professor, of Miss De & Miss Kim, when they're around, when it's aimed at Bush.  Because if we dare support the effort to deal with the Terrorist threat & the leadership that Bush has brought to that cause, we must be Bush loving cultists, who can see no wrong in the never wrong King Bush, as deemed by no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon Brass

[Amianthus]

GOP candidates refuse to be seen in public with him.

Funny, I seem to remember him being at various GOP condidates' fund raisers over the past few days. Pictures and everything.

[Amianthus]

Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.

"In early December 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, U.N. weapons inspectors, the U.S., France, United Kingdom and other countries thought that this declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents."

"On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a 'genuine acceptance' of the need to disarm. Inspector Hans Blix said that after the empty chemical warheads were found on the 16th, Iraq produced papers documenting the destruction of many other similar warheads, which had not been disclosed before. This still left thousands of warheads unaccounted for however. Inspectors also reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen, suggesting an attempt to 'hide' them from inspectors and apparently contradicting Iraq's earlier claim that it had no further documents to provide. In addition, by the 28th, a total of 16 Iraqi scientists had refused to be interviewed by inspectors. The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private. Iraq insists that they are not putting pressure on the scientists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq

[Michael Tee]

<<No, this is where we again show the audience at large just how off your rocker, you are.  You've made your best "Bush lied us into war" allegation the ever famous WMD.  Now obviously in your reality "lie" means something entirely different, that in this reality.  In this reality, a lie is a deliberate deception, where person A KNOWS that what they say/claim is false, but say/claim it anyways.  >>

Bush's lie was to tell the country he KNEW that Saddam had WMD, that it was a slam dunk.  This wasn't true.  The intel was dubious and he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him.

[Plane]

"...he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him."



How do we know this?

[Brassmask]

If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?

Of course, but let's be honest, because I know where you're headed with this.  Those actually in the federal government are far guiltier than those outside it who might have agreed with the idea that WMD's NOT "were a problem" but were a deadly threat to the very fabric of the universe and required America to start a war of choice in order to keep the "smoking gun" from being a "mushroom cloud".

Here's how I look at it.  The intelligence was wrong.  Admittedly, it was like the belief that there is some kind of god who cares for us but doesn't make his presence factually known to us, meaning that nearly EVERYONE thought it was more than likely true (except the inspectors who were withdrawn by the Bush cult, NOT thrown out by Saddam) but that didn't make it true.  Even my own personal political hero, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

And like anything that is supposed but can't be 100% proven and verfied, that information and the subsequent suppositions based on the information should never be used as a basis to commit human lives in a war of choice.  That's why Clinton didn't invade though he agreed that Saddam may have WMD.  That's why Bush's own father and fellow Republican didn't continue his push into Iraq after the "liberation of Kuwait". 

(Note on that:  I would not be surprised to find out there was some other reason that wasn't public.  Bush41 was a savvy CIA-trained operator since the 50's.  He would know more than his advisors were telling him to his face more than likely.  I suspect it was that he knew Saddam was an operative and perhaps even that he wanted to save that invasion for Bush43.  I am sort of the notion that Bush41 set his son up to take the fall for Bush41's own misteps as part of a larger plan but that's a whole 'nother story.)

The No-fly Zone was working. The inspections were slow but steady.  Saddam was contained.

Those who believed that there were WMD should state plainly that they were wrong and now they know there never were any WMD that were unaccounted for because they are guilty of fostering the belief among The People who don't have access to Top Secret documents and must trust their representatives. 

Those who supported and voted for the war and held the same erroneous belief should state plainly that if they knew then what they know now, they never would have voted to give Bush the authority to invade.  If they had access to the information and were told by the "president" that they had to act, they are only guilty of ignorance and apathy and being scared shitless to oppose a "president" with an approval rating in the upper 80's (lol remember that?  80% of the people actually supported this monkey in a suit?  LOL Hilarious.)

The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq that the neo-conservatives, now the major players in the stolen White House, holding all the cards and using McCarthyesque tactics of accusations of non-patriotism  and Hitleresque tactics of politicizing "homeland" attacks (think Reichstag Fire and all that insinuates) had been advocating for several years from their Project For a New American Century think tank.  Those same neo-conservatives who were now handed the very thing that they said would help to persuade the nation to support a war of choice.

Sure, BT, there is dirt to go around.  Plenty.  Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and that whole DLC type gang who spent time dancing around the Iraq war are dirty.  (I suspect Hillary and the DLC are just in collusion with neo-cons and they are equally guilty as Bush and Cheney and Perle (who was laying the groundwork to avoid prosecutions at the Hague beside Bush and Cheney by selling them out but got screwed by Vanity Fair), if they are not out and out co-conspirators.

But if you think that I must then condemn people like Dean and, say, Chirac, then you are going to be disappointed.  But there is one difference between them and the Bush people and the congress that gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq.  They weren't involved in that illegal act.  Dean voted for no such authority and other government who may or may not have believed that Saddam had WMD didn't actively pursue and war of choice.

[Plane]

"The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq ..."


Yes that would be lieing.

Is there any reason to think that this happened?

[Michael Tee]

<<How do we know this?  [that Bush actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him."]>>

Good question.  We know it because of published accounts by White House insiders.

Next good question:  Whose published accounts?

Honestly, plane, I don't remember.  I've read the MSM excerpts from the books when they came out and they were impressive enough at the time, but I don't recall who the authors were and I don't have the time to search for them on the net either.  Sorry.
 

[Mucho]

"The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq ..."


Yes that would be lieing.

Is there any reason to think that this happened?

There are a lot of reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418_pf.html

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/3991/printer

Among many others

[Michael Tee]

<<You're promoting the notion we'd find out [that terrorists got their nukes from Saddam] AFTER the fact.  How, I have no idea.  Perhaps you can entertain us with how we'd have found this "calling card" >>

People talk.  Explosions leave residues.  Residues can be matched to other residues.  Samples can be collected from various sites for comparison purposes.  Investigators investigate.  Scientists seem to be pretty confident of their ability to figure out stuff like that.  I believe they can.  HOW they find out after isn't anywhere near the issue of WHETHER they will find out at all.  

If you were Saddam, and your life and the life of your country depended on it, you'd have basically two choices:

1.  Give the terrorists what they want and hope that the U.S. would never find out about it.  That's a pretty big gamble to take.  What's in it for Saddam?  That one or two nukes will go off in the U.S.A.?  WTF good does that do him, really?  Where's the benefit that justifies the risk of anihilation?  Considering that most of these wackos consider HIM an infidel because he's a socialist, and is the head of a socialist Arab state where women run around in miniskirts with nothing on top of their heads and every fucking nightclub serves alcohol, what on earth would he gain by giving them nukes and trusting to their gratitude and their discretion?  On the one hand, nuclear anihilation and on the other, a few thousand more fucking infidels dying ten thousand miles away?  He'd really have to be nuts to take that gamble.

2.  Second choice:  Just say no.  Saddam was not afraid of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  On any given day there were probably dozens of them if not hundreds in his torture chambers, getting "Iraqi manicures" (having their fingernails pulled out) or much, much worse.  Why on earth he would want to give any of them their own nukes is a mystery to any intelligent observer of the Middle Eastern scene.

So this whole concern about Saddam maybe giving nukes to terrorists is just ONE BIG FRAUD.  ONE MORE BUSH LIE.  It's so asinine only a moron could believe in it, but apparently in America there is no shortage of morons.

 <<The point being, this is a pro-active event...the PREVENTION of the act happening, thus the PREVENTION of it even getting into America.  I realize you have no problem with the rudimentary slaughter of perhaps a few thousand, perhaps tens of thousands of "little Eichmans", but I do.  And your continued LIE that we were worried that Saddam would attack the U.S. with WMD/nuke, just reinforces how devoid of meirit your POV has>>

Well, it's quite a stretch to call the invasion of Iraq "pro-active."  Just because some lying bastard SAYS he is acting pro-actively does not make the act pro-active.  In fact, there's another Bush lie right there, and thank you for bringing this up.  The invasion was "pro-active" against an event that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, and Bush must have known that.

[Plane]

Does your logic match theirs?


For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?

[Brassmask]

Does your logic match theirs?


For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?

I don't know that bin Laden has gotten any benefits from any of his attacks on America other than America acting like he is the greatest threat to the world since that meteor that killed the dinosaurs thus helping him find friends in the enemies of his enemy.  When you spotlight bin Laden and give him power, surely that would lead to disaffected middle easterners to think that there was finally a place, a home, you might say for that burning rage they felt about Americans invading their culture and stationing their military in Saudi Arabia (which the Bush "administration" immediately caved on).

The real question is "Who benefited more from bin Laden's attacks on America, bin Laden or Bush?"  I think a clearer answer can found for the latter.  Bush was sitting on a tenuous 50% approval rating.  He had talked the economy down in the campaign and so was reaping what he had sown.   When 9.11 happened (with his perhaps unwitting blessing), he became Bush the Chosen One and then it was Katie bar the door for every crackpot idea the neo-cons and the GOP had ever thought of.  Remember, he hit the "trifecta" and the cash just came pouring down on him and his cronies.

Who benefited from 9.11 in reality?  Who indeed.