BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:07 AM

"The statements themselves are, of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations."

Neither a true statement, nor one you have presented any evidence of. YOUR statement that something is untrue requires at least an appearance of justification.

Or will you accept, without any evidence, that the statements refered to are true and valid representations of reality?......I think not. So why should I accept your blanket " of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations."?


Or have YOU been given some God-like dispensation from having to justify your accusations?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:12 AM

I'm so sorry, I couldn't resist a follow-up...
I've just stumbled across the phrase That would make the discussion at least interesting if not actually worthwhile. and nearly swamped myself.
Huzzah for bb for perhaps the most breathtaking and amuisng piece of pomposity so far on this thread. I do hope Terry and Dickey feel suitably chagrined at being out-windbagged so impressively. Hats off to beardedbruce - I think we've found the next editor of the Skibbereen Eagle!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

BB, do you really want me to cite the provenance of each of those statements, complete with reasons for its refutation?
See your PMs (It's a long one, but it will provide the detail you seem to require)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

Since you agree as far as truth is concerned, please try to offer true statements instead of blanket accusations in the future. That would make the discussion at least interesting if not actually worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:28 AM

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:37 AM

I won't bore you with the 3,000-word PM I've just sent to beardedbruce, but the simple refuation of the neo-cons' claims can be found at the following links: 9/11 Panel sees no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Maj Gen Bastide's testimony to "An Oversight Hearing on the Planning and Conduct of the War in Iraq"
The US Senate select committee on intelligence, "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments", particularly pages 65, 67, 73 and 109.
A British Defence Intelligence briefing refuting links between Iraq and Al Queda.
Anyone seen anythng of our Terry?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:47 AM

CG,

Your reports are all AFTER the invasion- Are you claiming that Bush should have read reports that did not get written until 2-3 years after he made the statements you attempt to refute? The statement of facts as known art the time is what is in question.

Did "The Czech interior minister said
today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of
the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the
synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."?

What was the assessment of the U.N. in reports PRIOR to the invasion?

What was the assessment of other nation's intelligence services PRIOR to the invasions as to Saddam?

Did Saddam show support for terrorists PRIOR to the invasion? THAT is known to be so- the only question is which terrorists. Or do you ignor cash payments to suicide bombers?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:51 AM

As I said before Carrots:

"cherry-picked for effect and taken out of context"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:03 AM

"Your reports are all AFTER the invasion"

... based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion...

or are you now trying to say that the information was only made up AFTER the invasion?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:04 AM

"based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion..."

Please provide some evidence of this claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:05 AM

BB - the issue at hand is whether or not the US administration has attempted to link 9/11 and Iraq. Terry and Dickey swore on their mothers' lives that no such linkage had ever been made. I merely provided examples of where it had,
The fact that such links continued to be made after the invasion is even more craven. And the fact that they continued implicitly to be made after those reports simply beggars belief.
So, to return to square one - is there proof that Bush lied? I haven't seen a smoking gun, but on the evidence I have seen I don't trust him to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Terry, would you like the contextualised version I sent to BB (or, to save me the effort, Bruce, why don't you forward it to Terry when you've done checking it for fibs and loopholes)?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:09 AM

""based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion..."

Please provide some evidence of this claim. "


(Puts fingers in ears)

La la la, la la la, la la la...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:11 AM

CG,

See my comments re PM.

"that no such DIRECT linkage had ever been made"

And YOU have shown no DIRECT linkage between those post-war reports and the pre-war intelligence that the UN resolutions, and subsequent invasion, were based on. Using the words Iraq and Al-queda in the same paragraph is not direct linkage.

Did Saddam support terrorists LIKE those who committed 9/11? The answer is YES- he provided support to suicide bombers. KNOWN FACT

Did Saddam have an active WMD program? YES- as shown in captured documentation, as well as the U.N. reports

Was Saddam in violation of the cease-fire terms of the Kuwait war? YES, as stated by the UN reports and numerous U. N. resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:12 AM

One of the most telling comments in the links I posted was from Bastide, who told the Senate that before the invasion: "There was a fixation to find the connection between al-Queda and Saddam Hussein."
The senate report also states that the CIA dismissed Saddam-Al Qaeda ties before the invasion. Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," said the CIA. Before the invasion.
The British briefing mention earlier was also before the invasion.
Honestly, you do have to spell it out for some peope, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:13 AM

So, fooles, you have no such evidence. Your statement is thus invalid, and of no effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:14 AM

I live next to a mad woman - seriously, I've mentioned it here previously - and it's a waste of time trying to be rational with her either...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:16 AM

"It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war
Saddam's government "did not have a
relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to
excerpts of the 400-page report."

The wording states that the OCTOBER 2005 report reached that conclusion, NOT that it was concluded before the war. The CONCLUSION was that before the war there was no relationship.

Somewhat of a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:18 AM

Fooles,

Your comment is a personnal attack, and de-facto proof that you have lost the arguement.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:22 AM

Sorry Bruce, you're losing me there.
Ditch the upper case text and try writing in sentences - subject, verb, object; you remember? I'm afraid when I see the phrase "Known Fact" written in upper case I think of a tedious drunk in a bar jabbing his forefinger into one's chest in a haze of beer flecked spittle.

Did the US administration make false claims of links between Saddam's regime and Al Queda? And what do post-mortem payments to the families of suicide bombers in occupied Palestine have to do with the price of fish?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:24 AM

BB - No need to argue with us. You must refute the 9/11 Commission Report and the Duelfer Report (among others, but let's start with those). Please go through 'em with a highlighter and mark the mistaken or poorly-sourced passages, then get back to us with the details, 'kay?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:33 AM

"And what do post-mortem payments to the families of suicide bombers in occupied Palestine have to do with the price of fish? "

""…the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001."

Or do you consider that suicide bombers are NOT terrorists? The group
listed is inclusive- it states

"international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

Sorry, TIA, no such thing. YOU must show that the intelligence that Bush acted on was KNOW TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME. Those reports are drawn from sources not available until after the invasion, unless you can prove otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

BB - read the document. The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It adds "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation."
The main source for the CIA's earlier claim that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases was the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi's recanted claims.
You're going to have to raise your game, Brucie baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:38 AM

"The main source for the CIA's earlier claim that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases was the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi's recanted claims."


"now recanted...SINCE...reissue"

So you now demand that all decisions be based on information that will not be available until AFTER the decision is made?

DDo you backdate checks, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

And TIA has it in a nutshell. Your argument is really rather pointless, isn't it?
It's like continuing to argue "the earth isn't entirely flat; it's dish-shaped" - after it has been proven to you that the earth is actually round!
If you do have issues with the findings of the various august bodies that have considered the issues since the invasion I suggest you write to them in green ink and in capitals.
Now be off about your business, there's a love.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:41 AM

The facts are irrelvant - you have another 'victory'!

"Never argue with a fool - onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:45 AM

"all decisions be based on information that will not be available until AFTER the decision is made?"

Called 'the viewpoint of History'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM

CG, old chum, you have never addressed my request for how reports post-invasion, using intelligence not available at the time, prove anything in regards to what was known at the time that the decision was made. Please see my cited facts, and tell me which ones are false.


Are you saying that Saddam was NOT stirring up trouble in that part of the world?

Or that he did not have a WMD program, as found by the UN?

Or that he did not pay the families of suicide bombers money?


Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report.

Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES

Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report.

Did "The Czech interior minister said
today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of
the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the
synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."?

What was the assessment of the U.N. in reports PRIOR to the invasion?

What was the assessment of other nation's intelligence services PRIOR to the invasions as to Saddam?

Did Saddam show support for terrorists PRIOR to the invasion? THAT is known to be so- the only question is which terrorists. Or do you ignor cash payments to suicide bombers?

Did Saddam support terrorists LIKE those who committed 9/11? The answer is YES- he provided support to suicide bombers. KNOWN FACT

Did Saddam have an active WMD program? YES- as shown in captured documentation, as well as the U.N. reports

Was Saddam in violation of the cease-fire terms of the Kuwait war? YES, as stated by the UN reports and numerous U. N. resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

It is a damn shame that the 9/11 Panel did not spend hours taking testimony from BB. The report would have turned out so much clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

Called 'the viewpoint of History'.


All very well, but not significant in regards to whether Bush knowingly lied or misled anyone. If he, and others, believed that the facts they had led to the conclusion they came to, there was no lie.

Given the facts as known at the time ( until you show otherwise) one has to accept that Bush acted in an appropriate manner, and made a good decision.

I will agree that the execution of the war had serious flaws, but the justification for it was reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:54 AM

TIA,

try reading my posts.

21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:58 AM

Did the UN conclude by saying "Invade Iraq"?


Oh, and on the Atta story, do read what the head of Czech foreign intelligence says here. In a nutshell, he says reports of a pre 9/11 meeting between Atta and Iraqi agent al-Ani are "unproved and implausible". Speaking before the invasion, he says that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by US policymakers seeking justification for action against Saddam.
But you wouldn't be interested in that, would you bb?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

from your clicky:

"Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, in an Oct. 26, 2001 press conference, confirmed at least one meeting between the two men, but refused to reveal further details. The existence of an encounter has been debated since then.

In May, American media quoted senior U.S. government sources as insisting the meeting never happened, attributing its creation to overzealous Czech officials.

These disclaimers led Prague's envoy to the UN, Hynek Kmonicek, to reiterate in June that an encounter had taken place. "




If you can't trust the U.N., who can you trust??????

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:05 AM

Bruce, no offence but on balance I'd rather trust the director of Czech foreign intelligence on this one. You stated it as a fact, he pisses on it from a medium height. What is a poor scmuck to think?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:08 AM

Perhaps the director was protecting humintel sources- I don't know. But the Czech government seems to have confirmed the meeting, and THAT was a fact ( the confirmation, not the meeting).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:32 AM

Bottom line is that some folks cannot come face to face with the fact that Furless Liter is a pathological misstater of facts and a spinner of realities.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:50 AM

Amos,

You state as fact something that seems to be an opinion.


I would have expected YOU to be more precise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:14 PM

I'm inclined to say that the Earth goes round the Sun, and smoking causes Cancer. But that's only my opinion of course, based on my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Feel free to believe what you want...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:20 PM

All this begs the question: Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM

McG,

" my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming"

But the opinion presented has no evidence presented at all. Much more of an underwhelming thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM

To be quite honest, I dunno, except that so far no-one thought they had a clear shot at him it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:10 PM

Oh I read 'em.

Now you read 9/11 Commission Report and Duelfer Report (and Downing Street Memo, and any number of NIE's and .....)

In there, you will find plenty of "facts" that were certainly available to those who could have (and should have) bothered to check carefully pre-war (with all the original source citations you could possibly want).

Certainly DO NOT trust the OPINIONS of TIA (or Amos or Captain Ginger). The FACTS are out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:15 PM

"Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?"

Perhaps he's not worth the effort, time and money.

Lets wait until he's out of office and convict him of war crimes.

Just be glad BB and teribus aren't in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:06 PM

Hopefully the march on March 17th on DC will give the impeachment process a nudge foreward.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: guitar
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM

they all lie these politicians, however that is a apart of their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:45 PM

Teribus--


OK, since you and your faithful sidekick, Dickey ---(faithful sidekick for this year--next year it'll be somebody else)--- are still stalwart members of the Flat Earth Society:

Let's just try one quote at a time:

The scene is in the jailhouse--if the curfew rings tonight.

No, actually, the occasion was the Jan 2003 State of the Union speech--yes, Teribus, one of your old favorites:


Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

I thought Carol--(haven't heard from her lately--hope she's OK)--put it well:



What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained?

Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence?



Simple questions.

Looking forward to wonderfully imaginative answers from a true master of fantasy--that's you, Teribus.

Perhaps Dickey will also reply-- though his grasp of the subject, unfortunately, has not been what one would have hoped.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:06 AM

Now some would say that that's not a lie Ron. He didn't actually say there was a connection, so it's just an untruth. So is it just a case of mis-direction?

SLAP, no you idiot, it was a bold faced lie deliberately told so that the world would make the connection & that was how the war was started, mis-direction, on purpose.

There was & still is no excuse for how this man "slicked" his way into the mess we're in & there surely is no way he's getting us out either. That we'll be our job. No thank you please.

His way out is through Iran, Syria & Jordan. He's not done with the mid east yet, unless we are done with him first. Will those backing him now still support him then? What will it take?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

As selective as ever Ron. Just for once try telling the whole story so that anyone reading this thread gets things in perspective.

Quote what was said on the subject in the 2002 State Of the Union Address.

"Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."



Quote what was said on the subject in the 2003 State of the Union Address:

"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

The matter under discussion in both cases was the War on Terror, why it had to be fought and how it would be fought.

Now Ron's Questions:

The Ron Quote:
Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

Ron Question 1:
"What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained?"

The USA was subjected to an a-symetric attack carried out by an unidentified (at that time) international terrorist group. Immediately following those attacks a Joint House Security Committee tasked with identifying the greatest potential threat to the USA came to the conclusion that the greatest potential threat was:

An a-symetric attack on the United States of America carried out by a group of international terrorists armed with some form of weapon of mass destruction. That weapon either being self produced by the international terrorist group (Deemed highly unlikely), or supplied by a rogue state or regime at odds with the US (In the short term the most likely event).

The date and events of September 11th, 2001, therefore became a watershed in terms of threat evaluation.

Ron Question 2:
"Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence?"

No he did not, what he said was that before the watershed of 11th September, 2001, a policy of containmment towards rogue states and regimes could be considered, post-911 it could not.

By the bye, those who quote and criticise GWB regarding his reference to "Axis of evil". Take a good look at what the man actually said, not what the populist press said he said:

"States like these (North Korea, Iran & Iraq), AND THEIR TERRORIST ALLIES, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 12:13 PM

Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?

Its been proven time and time again that he lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. (or he lies by proxy by reading what the BuShites have put on the teleprompter for him)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:24 PM

Bush is devious.

He uses words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" to invoke fear and panic in his citizens. He couples those words with "make no mistake" and "decisive" to make the listener believe that he can overpower the evil. His speech is intended to deceive the public and pump up his own inflated ego.

Call it lies or call it deception, its the same thing. As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable. He is neither. He hides behind a cloak of Christianity and accepts no personal responsibility for his actions.

Now that one of his big secrets (torture) has been revealed, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain are all prosecuting his goons for their hand in extraordinary rendition. Apparently even Cheney is being called to task. Although these countries cannot make the men appear before their courts, they can try them in absentia.

Hopefully, one day, Bush will also see his day in court. Then we will see if Bush lies or if his cloak of deception will be able to protect him.