Rockefeller (Democrat) on Bush's lie

[Dr.Who]

Wow... willful ignorance. Did you just miss the whole report by Rockefeller in which he, himself, openly submits that all Bush's positions were backed by the known intelligence information at the time? As in... he didn't lie?

In all honesty Rockefeller's report showed that President Bush was supported by the intelligence in almost every instance.

There were one or two judgement calls that in hind sight were not supported well enough.

It is these that Rockefeller is now using to feed the fires of those who will claim that Bush lied. He won't say it himself because it is not true but he is democratic politician after all...

 

[Jeugenen]

MC-CAIN’S LAST DATE WITH THE REAGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY


McCain’s ideological support, like Bush’s, comes from Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs, not Reagan Conservatives nor Kennedy Liberals. These supporters have the same Neo-Marxist roots, which originated over 60 years ago, when millions of defeated Marxist immigrants from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were admitted by America, as desperate persecuted refugees; after all of the European nations refused to take them.


By the McCarthy Era, many of these pathetic refugees had gotten good government positions; and, by way of showing their deep gratitude to the American People, they systematically corrupted the government and endangered national security, by working as spies for Marxist Russia. The most notorious of these spies, the Rosenbergs, were executed for treason. This had the intended beneficial effect of stopping most of the dangerous spying; but it had the unintended consequence of causing these Marxist refugees to seek social and economic power by pretentiously assimilating into the Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat parties; where they quickly mutated into the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals, with insidious ideological opposition to traditional Christian culture and Constitutional principles. The result of the subversive influence by these virulent Crypto-Neo-Marxists in the government, schools, news media and entertainment media was the increasingly intolerably cultural degeneration that has led up to the American Cultural War.


Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib ideology notoriously instills subversive contempt for patriotism, defensive war, historical accuracy, Christian culture, and Constitutional rule, United Nations resolutions, and Conservative Reagan Republicans and Liberal Kennedy Democrats.


All of this contempt is transparently motivated by a dogmatic belief in gaining an advantage by insubordination to the practices of national religious and governmental traditions, which grant the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These Crypto-Neo-Marxists, like their failed Marxists predecessors, imagine that they can somehow create their own new superior civilization, if they first destroy the traditional allegiance to the nuclear family, Christianity, nationalism, and the Constitution.


Israel, which these Marxists refugees have had all to themselves for 60 years, to do their utopian social engineering, in their own artificially created state, is notoriously poorly governed and heavily subsidized by the Diaspora; and the People of Israel, once the most widely pitied in the World, have come to justly earn the distinction of now being the most universally despised, condemned, and threatened with annihilation.


In this crucial 2008 presidential battle of the American Cultural War shall the Reagan Conservatives and the Kennedy Liberals finally combine forces against these desperately united Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs supporting Insane McCain; or shall they continue to suffer ideological corruption of their Republican and Democrat parties, subversion of their traditional Christian culture and Constitutional rule, pernicious governmental strife, and the illegal and un-patriotic sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People to sole benefit of Israel?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Then present his "lies", I'll be more than happy to debunk them for you (not that you'll accept it).

They're presented in the link. Are you claiming George Bush has never lied as President? LOL. Give me a break. I guess when he ran on a platform of smaller government and no nation building he was telling the truth in your opinion? The Republicans raked Clinton over the coals for his "middle class tax cut" lie, now you guys look the other way when Bush's spending and growth of government have been 10 times worse in regards to his original statement.

Kwiatkowski is a nut job and conspiracy freak of the Alex Jones and Ron Paul ilk. As far as anyone not challenging her statements, what's the point?

Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule. If she gave false information, THEN PROVE IT.

 

[Andy]

They're presented in the link. Are you claiming George Bush has never lied as President? LOL. Give me a break. I guess when he ran on a platform of smaller government and no nation building he was telling the truth in your opinion? The Republicans raked Clinton over the coals for his "middle class tax cut" lie, now you guys look the other way when Bush's spending and growth of government have been 10 times worse in regards to his original statement.

You are blending different issues. Some of which are valid, but still not what topic of this thread. Please try and stay remotely focused on the issue at hand, namely, did Bush lie when he made the claims about our reasons for going to Iraq?

The answer, according to your democrap senator whose in the intelligence committee is... No. He did not lie. Thank you for your time, here's a copy of the home game, see you later, bye.

Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule. If she gave false information, THEN PROVE IT.

Actually... in a innocent till proven guilty system, you must prove her unsubstantiated hear-say claims true. Not make up stuff and then claim everyone else has to prove it wrong.

If I were to say you (or insert random person here) are a gay-hating, Stalinist loving, Jew-killer... does everyone assume it's true until you prove it false? Do I run around and say "ha! Prove you are not!" and of course since you can't prove the negative here on this forum, "ha can't prove it! You are you are you are!"

How about we just stick to claims you can prove, ok?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You are blending different issues. Some of which are valid, but still not what topic of this thread. Please try and stay remotely focused on the issue at hand, namely, did Bush lie when he made the claims about our reasons for going to Iraq?

The answer, according to your democrap senator

I'm not a Democrat.

whose in the intelligence committee is... No. He did not lie. Thank you for your time, here's a copy of the home game, see you later, bye.

How about we just stick to claims you can prove, ok?

"The Washington Post reported on January 7, "In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s."

Days later, a report by experts on weapons proliferation from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications," stated that Iraq's weapons programs did not, "Pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security. With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the threat was largely knowable at the time. Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution.

Regarding chemical weapons, UNSCOM discovered that Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991. Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities. It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity before, during, or after the major combat period of the war."

The report continued by stating, "The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002. There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it. The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is highly dubious."

George W. Bush and his people in the White House and Defense Department wanted a war with Iraq. They began seeking a premise for that war as soon as they arrived in Washington. They created the Office of Special Plans to fashion justification out of whole cloth. They browbeat analysts at the CIA and State Department to manufacture frightening portraits of an Iraqi threat that did not wed to reality. They used the terror created by September 11 against the American people to get that war, and lied time and again about the threat posed by that nation. All stated rationales for war - weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, the likelihood of another 9/11-style attack by Hussein or his agents - have been decisively disproven.

Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski knew it all along. "War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons," she says in her American Conservative editorial, "but the reasons given to Congress and the American people for this one were so inaccurate and misleading as to be false. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq - more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional sheikdoms, maintaining OPEC on a dollar track, and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision. These more accurate reasons could have been argued on their merits, and the American people might indeed have supported the war. But we never got a chance to debate it."

Link

 

[SW85]

Days later, a report by experts on weapons proliferation from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications," stated that Iraq's weapons programs did not, "Pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security. With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the threat was largely knowable at the time. Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution.

This matters only if "immediate threat" is your standard for justifiable war.

The entire idea behind preemptive war is to preempt threats before they become... imminent.

 

[Andy]

Bunch of stuff that was irrelevant.
(link to political hack)

Umm.... what... did you just miss the WHOLE POINT of the first post? Let's try this... AGAIN!

The report by Senate intelligence committee member, Jay Rockefeller stated clearly without question... that in 2002, according the best intel information we had... Bush was correct.

This article you spammed us with, doesn't address ANY OF IT. It simply states that as we started looking in Iraq, we didn't find what we thought was there. That says NOTHING.... as in... ZIP ZERO NADDA THING... about Bush being truthful that at the time, the intel information we had suggested Saddam was doing thus and so.

Again... like SW85 correctly pointed out, the point was to stop Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat.

That said, Bush already had more than enough reason to stomp Saddam down, even without all this 'evidence'. Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors. If he had allowed the UN to verify that he had disarmed, we would never have gone over there.

Maybe you don't remember the late 90s, but I sure do, and I remember the UN inspectors sitting in front of a military installation while dozens of military trucks pulled out the back, before they were let in. What was in the truck? Why couldn't they go in to start with? What was Saddam hiding? Certainly not WMDs <sarcasm>. I also remember the satellite photos of military trucks crossing the Iraq Syrian boarder. What did they have? Where did they go? I wager it could not have been WMDs <sarcasm>.

So with all due respect, can the blaw blaw. It doesn't stand to the real evidence. Bush didn't make anything up. The Senate report proves that. Do you follow now? It proves he didn't lie. That's it... nothing more.. end of discussion. All your extra blaw blaw, doesn't change that.

 

[Federal Farmer]

They're presented in the link. Are you claiming George Bush has never lied as President? LOL. Give me a break. I guess when he ran on a platform of smaller government and no nation building he was telling the truth in your opinion? The Republicans raked Clinton over the coals for his "middle class tax cut" lie, now you guys look the other way when Bush's spending and growth of government have been 10 times worse in regards to his original statement.

TB, I'm not interested in reading your regurgitations of someone elses opinions, I was hoping that you could present your OWN thoughts and experience to the discussion. Alas, it appears that my hopes were naive, and you are but another in a long line of C&P artists who let other people do their thinking for them, and bring none of their own analysis to the table.

As to your claim that President Bush "lied" because the platform he ran on was utterly and completely trashed by the events of 9-11, serves only to prove that you don't understand the meaning of the word "lie". In order for someone to "lie", they have to intentionally set out to deceive, so, unless it is your contention that then Governor Bush KNEW about the attacks of 9-11, a year and a half before they happened, kept that knowledge to himself, and allowed them to happen just so that he could engage in "nation building", contrary to his campaign pledges, and have proof of such subterfuge, it is YOU who are lying.

You're also "assuming facts not in evidence", in a vain effort to maintain some form of credibility. I have never given any intimation that I approve of our governments spending, and in fact have gone to great lengths to present what I consider to be viable alternatives and solutions to our outrageously extravagant federal budget. Therefore you may keep your juvenile "you guys" attempt at aspersions, and should, at the very least, attempt to step back and honestly evaluate your own positions, as it is becoming readily apparant that you haven't thought them through very well.

Please do not take this as any form of slander or a "personal attack", it is merely intended as an admonition to increase your knowledge base, do more research, and to always remember that, except in cases of documentable fact, we are all dealing with opinions, whether it be from someone here, a political candidate or office holder, or a self styled "expert" on any given subject. We each have our own "opinions", based on our individual life experiences, and the degree to which our "opinions" are closely aligned with the "truth" and facts, is based upon that life experience. We must also remember though, that "opinions" are like rectums, we all have one, and most of them stink.

Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule. If she gave false information, THEN PROVE IT.

It is not an "ad hom" attack, as neither she, nor you, have presented any "facts" in support of her positions, but it is ridicule as no facts have been forthcoming. Her "information" is merely opinion and allegation, and not proven fact. If the day ever comes to pass where she can present indisputable, and uncatagorical fact to support her allegations, I will gladly review it to see if she's drawn a logical conclusion in support of her "opinion" from those facts, but until then, she's just another in a long line of people who have no problem presenting their opinions, and leveling allegations against someone else, with absolutely no proper foundation for their allegations, in an effort to line their pockets by scaring the crap out of the sheeple.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The report by Senate intelligence committee member, Jay Rockefeller stated clearly without question... that in 2002, according the best intel information we had... Bush was correct.

This article you spammed us with, doesn't address ANY OF IT. It simply states that as we started looking in Iraq, we didn't find what we thought was there. That says NOTHING.... as in... ZIP ZERO NADDA THING... about Bush being truthful that at the time, the intel information we had suggested Saddam was doing thus and so.

According to that report, Bush did lie - he lied by omission. One can do that, you know?

This link looks at commentary from conservative authors also, who are only upset that similar statements by Democrats weren't included. It doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration ignored any and all conflicting reports:

Did Bush lie about Iraq?

What happened
The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), issued a report late last week saying that the Bush administration deliberately disregarded conflicting intelligence and misled Americans on the severity of the Iraqi threat to justify invading Iraq. Missouri Senator Kit Bond, the committee’s ranking Republican on the committee, wrote a minority opinion accusing Democrats of trying to politicize bad intelligence on the part of the C.I.A. (Time.com)

Link

Why did he mislead? Another Republican will tell you why:

Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?
posted by Linda

by Patrick J. Buchanan

After losing both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Bill Clinton expostulated: The president of the United States is not irrelevant!

On learning his trusted aide from Texas Scott McClellan has denounced as an “unnecessary war” the same Iraq war McClellan defended from the White House podium, George Bush must feel as Clinton did.

The synchronized savagery of the attacks on McClellan as turncoat suggests he drew blood. For what he has done is offer confirmation to the president’s war critics, from within the White House inner circle, that Bush’s motive in going to war was not a clear and present danger of attack by Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, but to advance a Bush crusade to impose democracy on the Middle East.

Neoconservative ideology, not U.S. national interests, McClellan is saying, motivated Bush to launch one of the longest and most divisive wars in U.S. history.

When loyalists defect and seek to profit from that defection, it is usually a sign of a failing presidency. And, indeed, events suggest that history is passing Bush by.

Rest of Article Here

Again... like SW85 correctly pointed out, the point was to stop Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat.

Then why aren't we stopping Kim Jung Il? Because there's no oil there? Again, the reason the U.S. is being targeted is precisely because of this interventionist agenda. The fearmongering you guys do is sheer propaganda.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

TB, I'm not interested in reading your regurgitations of someone elses opinions,

You're not interested in the truth, plain and simple. That's your problem.

White House and C.I.A. Withhold Document on Prewar Intelligence Given to Bush

Was that ever released?

 

[Andy]

According to that report, Bush did lie - he lied by omission. One can do that, you know?

Excuses. The claim is that he made up false accusation against Saddam. That claimed lie, is a false statement. Bush didn't lie. The end. You are just coming up with stuff to support you prejudgement.

This link looks at commentary from conservative authors also, who are only upset that similar statements by Democrats weren't included. It doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration ignored any and all conflicting reports:

Did Bush lie about Iraq?

What happened
The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), issued a report late last week saying that the Bush administration deliberately disregarded conflicting intelligence and misled Americans on the severity of the Iraqi threat to justify invading Iraq. Missouri Senator Kit Bond, the committee’s ranking Republican on the committee, wrote a minority opinion accusing Democrats of trying to politicize bad intelligence on the part of the C.I.A. (Time.com)

As to the severity of the Iraqi threat... indicating there was a threat. Possibly not as bad as could have been? In that case, the point is still true since the purpose was to stop Saddam... BEFORE HE BECAME A THREAT!

It seems like talking to you I just want to say... "well DUH!"

Did it not occure to you that if Bush omitted all supposed garbage, then so did all the people in the entire intelligence committee? That's how they know all this. So why are you not bickering about Rockafeller and all the other numb skulls in the committee? Let me guess... Bush bribed and silenced and threatened all of them to remain silent too, so it is still all Bush... right?

Why did he mislead? Another Republican will tell you why:

Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?
posted by Linda

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Is not a repug.

Then why aren't we stopping Kim Jung Il? Because there's no oil there? Again, the reason the U.S. is being targeted is precisely because of this interventionist agenda. The fearmongering you guys do is sheer propaganda.

Because we didn't defeat him in 1992 and have him sign a conditional end of the war that included disarming, and have him skirt it. Maybe because we don't have obvious evidence that he supported terrorism, or that he wasn't attempting to establish working relationships with Al Qeada, like is clearly there for Iraq.

Yeah and I remember people whining about fearmongering when talking about terrorism prior to 9/11. Sorry reality is a bit different than your partisan talking point tactics. Only 7 years after the twin towers and the stopped numerous attempted attacks and all this people went back to their clouded partisan world view... amazing.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You're not interested in the truth, plain and simple. That's your problem.

Now, not only are you lying about the President, you're lying about me! I DO know the truth, or at least as much as anyone who is no longer cleared for Top Secret intelligence will ever know in this lifetime (have you ever even been cleared for Top Secret intelligence?) because I've actually taken the time to do the research, which, as I will show below, is something you consistantly fail to do.

White House and C.I.A. Withhold Document on Prewar Intelligence Given to Bush

Was that ever released?

Perhaps if you'd have bothered to do even a modicum of research for yourself instead of swilling the Paulistinian, Liberal Kool-Aide about "Bush lied and Soldiers died" by the 55 gallon drum full, you'd have found THIS way back in April of '04, and realized that neither President Bush, nor ANY of his cabinet or intelligence assets lied about ANYTHING! They used the best intelligence information that they had available to them at the time, and made their judgments based on that intelligence. Was all of the intelligence correct? HELL NO! But let this Soldier clue you in on a little something, NO "intelligence" is EVER more than 75% accurate, and on average you're lucky if it's half right, but it beats the hell out of dropping blind into a DZ, behind enemy lines, with no idea at all about what to expect. It's real easy to sit back, 5 years after the fact, and armchair General the decisions of the men who had to make the type of decisions you can't begin to fathom in your wildest dreams, knowing that they would be placing the lives of Americas best and brightest on the line with their decisions.

To be perfectly honest, you're typical of the type of people Teddy Roosevelt spoke of in his speech before the Sorbonne in 1910;
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Teddy said it best, YOU DO NOT COUNT, and you ARE a cold and timid soul who never has, and never will, know victory nor defeat.

TruthBringer? Not by a long shot.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Excuses. The claim is that he made up false accusation against Saddam.

No, that's not my claim. My claim is that he lied by omission, and he did. Regardless, there is evidence his administration made at least 935 false statements regarding the war. They deceived people with pie-in-the-sky fantasies about how easy an invasion and occupation would be also:

The Imperial Presidency

"Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to persuade Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, who was skeptical about a war on Iraq, in a private meeting in September 2002: 'We have great information. They’re going to welcome us. It’ll be like the American Army going through the streets of Paris. They’re sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we’ll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two.'"

They'll greet us as liberators????????? A month or two and they'll form a new government???????????????? ROTFL. You have to be a complete ***** to give these guys any credibility after making idiotic statements like that.

As to the severity of the Iraqi threat... indicating there was a threat. Possibly not as bad as could have been?

Iraq was never any threat to invade and occupy the United States. If they would have used WMD's against us, they would have been wiped off the map, and Saddam knew it. What did he have to gain from developing WMD's and working with terrorists? Nothing.

935 false statements regarding the war.

It seems like talking to you I just want to say... "well DUH!"

You should save that for your master Bush.

Did it not occure to you that if Bush omitted all supposed garbage, then so did all the people in the entire intelligence committee?

Certainly there are people in the intelligence community who are irrational like you and view other third world countries as threats with no credible evidence to back up their irrational beliefs.

Our rulers only speak about defending freedom, but that is not the real method to their madness.

Is not a repug.

Pat Buchanan is a conservative, and has been a Republican for most of his life. Can't stand any criticism of your master Bush, can you?

Because we didn't defeat him in 1992 and have him sign a conditional end of the war that included disarming, and have him skirt it. Maybe because we don't have obvious evidence that he supported terrorism, or that he wasn't attempting to establish working relationships with Al Qeada, like is clearly there for Iraq.

Or maybe because certain generals at the time were honest about the situation:

General Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 biography, It Doesn't Take a Hero:

"From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit -- we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."

Note that his prediction came true. The majority of people are now sick and tired of paying billions for this endless war.

Yeah and I remember people whining about fearmongering when talking about terrorism prior to 9/11.

Really? Produce and present evidence. I want to see exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Now, not only are you lying about the President, you're lying about me! I DO know the truth,

No, you don't.

Perhaps if you'd have bothered to do even a modicum of research for yourself instead of swilling the Paulistinian, Liberal Kool-Aide about "Bush lied and Soldiers died" by the 55 gallon drum full, you'd have found THIS way back in April of '04,

You better read my link again. That is not what the committee was asking for. The summary specifically given to Bush is what they were asking for. Was that ever released?

and realized that neither President Bush, nor ANY of his cabinet or intelligence assets lied about ANYTHING!

Again, they left out everything that conflicted with what they wanted to do, which was invade Iraq.

To be perfectly honest, you're typical of the type of people Teddy Roosevelt spoke of in his speech before the Sorbonne in 1910;
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

Let me give you Bush worshipers another quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Here's what Bush should have done in the very beginning:

What the President Should Do - How to End the War Quickly and Honorably

 

[Federal Farmer]

No, you don't.

Oh goody, the "liar, liar, pants on fire" rebuttal. I haven't heard that one since I was in grade school!

You better read my link again. That is not what the committee was asking for. The summary specifically given to Bush is what they were asking for. Was that ever released?

Silly me, I would have thought that the entire NIE would have been far more useful to you since the one page summary is just that, a summary.

Look, I'm not doing your research for you any more, so why don't you start by reading REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGNECE ON POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE TO PREWAR ASSESSMENTS from September of 2006. It's only 151 pages, and specifically discusses the document you're so hung up about. I'm sorry it's written in adult language instead of the "big crayon" format you're obviously more comfortable with, and don't worry, if you get stuck on the really big words, I'll be more than happy to tell you what they mean.

Again, they left out everything that conflicted with what they wanted to do, which was invade Iraq.

Well what do you know, you STILL can't formulate a cogent argument without resorting to someone elses work.

Let me give you Bush worshipers another quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

It's really too bad that all of the really big words confuse you so much. The point that TR was getting to is something that's completely over your head, that being that YOU are the ones LYING about President Bush.

Now, let me be clear about this, nobody here is a "Bush worshiper", but I detest it when small minded little twits run around screeching "bush lied and soldiers dies" with not one shred of evidence to support their scurrilous claims. You have presented absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, nada, in support of your claims that the President in any way "lied". All you've managed to do is twist, turn, and contort greivous and intentional misinformation to suit your own political agenda, and frankly, it's gotten very old. Now little boy, man up and state your OWN case, chronicle EXACTLY what "lies" President Bush is alleged to have told, with credible substantiation (as opposed to these idiotic drive-by Op Eds you keep dredging up), or shove it up your fourth point of contact.

Here's what Bush should have done in the very beginning:

What the President Should Do - How to End the War Quickly and Honorably

Maybury is an idiot, or at the very least, utterly politically and economically naive, and so is anyone who believes that drivel. OH, wait a minute, that would be...YOU!