BS: Proof that Bush lied

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: 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 - 09:46 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:35 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 - 09:35 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:13 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: 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 - 09:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:59 AM

Oops!
Sorry, I phrased myself rather clumsily back there - when I wrote "If even one of the statements on that list is true...and they all are", what I meant was that every one was a true statement, and not hearsay or an invention; a statement uttered by the person named, and I that I could cite when and where.
The statements themselves are, of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations.
I do hope that clears things up a tad. Sorry to have wasted your time and rendered your last few posts irrelevant, bbruce!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:36 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 - 07:34 AM

YOU may presume whatever you want. It is the relationship between your statements and the real world that I will continue to call into question.


I think there's an echo in here.... or two minds with but a single train of thought....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:29 AM

YOU may presume whatever you want. It is the relationship between your statements and the real world that I will continue to call into question.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM

So I can presume that what YOU state, even if true, is propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

I fail to see how labeling valid statements as propaganda contributes to a reasonable discussion of reality.

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

So I can presume that what YOU state, even if true, is propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:19 AM

"to declare a true statement to be propaganda seems a little unreasonable. "

But some propaganda statements ARE true!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:14 AM

Captain Ginger,

And YOU, old chum, have fallen for the idea that any fact you do not like can be labeled as propaganda and ignored. Perhaps you should determine the truth of what people say BEFORE you declare that it can't be considered because YOU do not like what it says about the real world.

I will listen to any facts YOU present- but to declare a true statement to be propaganda seems a little unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:58 AM

Ah, Terry, you master of equivocation; you are a veritable antithesis of Gallileo, muttering under torture that the Earth "is still a little bit flat"!
There was no propaganda campaign deliberately instigated by the Bush Administration to link Iraq to the attacks of 911 over the period carefully selected by Ron Davies. Or before or since for that matter.
The list I quote is by no means comprehensive and shoots your claim out of the water. If even one of the statements on that list is true (and they all are - I can provide links to the primary sources and context for each and every one if you like) then your categorical insistence is wrong.
I've noticed that when you are proved wrong you wriggle once or twice and then you go quiet, letting the thread drop and heading off for more furious cut and paste in another thread. Shall we see what happens here?

And, apropos your nit-picking, let me see...

Al Qaeda is not a structured entity; anyone can call themselves Al Qaeda (and do). Think of it in terms of a franchising operation, where a group of radicalised Muslims, by endorsing the relatively simplistic ethos of Bin Laden, become to all intents and purposes 'Al Qaeda'. With the exception of 9-11, the Cole attack and the African Embassy bombings, most Al Queda operatons appear to be autonomous and largely home-grown, with little evidence of external quartermastering or steering. As such your distinction is irrelevant. How am I 'clouding the issue'? To contextualise Rice's comment on September 10 last year, the interviewer on Fox News Sunday asked her: "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB knowledge or assistance. Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?"
Rice's direct reply was: "We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq… There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Does that help make things clearer in your mind, Terry?

Ansar al Islam is a radical Kurdish group operating in Northern Iraq which has links to Al Qaeda. It was estimated at some 700 strong in 2002, and was not representative of or supported by the Iraqi government. Its leader, Mullah Krekar, has denied any association with the Ba'ath regime in Iraq and and declared his hostility to Saddam Hussein. Such links as exist would seem to have been akin to those between HMG and PIRA - largely one-sided and based on infiltration and informants.
If you are now about to spring upon us some post-hoc justification for the invasion based on Ansar al Islam, it would be like trying to justify a British attack on the USA because NORAID was based there.

So Terry, a couple more wriggles and then off to another thread, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:25 AM

Not really all that quiet Carrots. You have come late to this, had you followed Ron's stipulated period of time you could have saved yourself half the typing time it took you to come out with your "so-called-comprehensive" list.

Going through your examples, I find:

- much is cherry-picked for effect and taken out of context
- the way you have chosen to present your later examples, you cloud the issue as to whether the Al-Qaeda being referred to is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" or OBL's "Al-Qaeda" currently believed to be scuttling about from secret location to secret location in the mountains of the Hindu Cush.

Ansar-Al-Islam is what kind of organisation Carrots? Where did they seek refuge and when? Given the nature of Saddam's regime in Iraq, who would have had to have been involved in granting them sanctuary and allowing them to set up shop in Iraq albeit as a marriage of convenience?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:49 AM

Copy cat Dickey!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:15 AM

Due to a lack of facts, Ron must continue his belligerent personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:22 PM

Teribus' obedient acolyte, Dickey, is also suddenly a bit subdued on the subject of the propaganda campaign. Amazing how that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

Either fools or malicious deceivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:30 PM

O.K., O.K.

Maybe Bush didn't lie. Maybe he's just too stupid to know whats really going on or maybe he's so arrogant he doesn't care.

Either way, he's going to go down as one of the most despised presidents of all time and the people who supported him will be called fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 06:00 PM

Bruce, you really don't get it poppet - that statement was one of a few that I posted to point out that the US administration had tried to link 9/11 and Iraq. Your reaction would seem to indicate that you, too, have fallen for it.
Bless!
Terry's very subdued tonight, isn't he? Someone put bromide in his cocoa or summat?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

Didn't Bush once say that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government? So that one truth compensates for all those lies or was he lying then too? Trouble with lies is that you can't keep track of them with the truth it's always the same. Captain, stop you're killing me with truths.

"did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program" of "WMD"

No but we're still looking even though Bush has now said there were none.

Has Bush lied? You couldn't name as many times that he has told the truth.
Well if he said all those statements above it would lead me to believe that he tried at the very least to lead me astray.
Please.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:47 PM

""...imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life...imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.""

All true statements. 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?


Please be specific, and tell me what you object to in this statement>

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:35 PM

"Why is it that when Israel take prisoners it's called "captured" and when Hezbollah doies it's "kipnapped"? "

For the same reason that an Israeli crossing of the border is an "invasion", and a Hezbollah crossing is a "raid".

Israel is a nation, Hezbollah is a (terrorist) group.