This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 6, 2008 8:06 AM. The previous post in this blog was Accentuate the actuarial. The next post in this blog is Warm up your laugh muscles. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, June 6, 2008

You don't say!

Breaking news: Bush and Rumsfeld lied to get us into the war in Iraq.

No.... you're kidding... really?

Comments (47)

Butbutbut ... that's treason!! Sedition! Suborning public funds and the General Welfare in violation of oath of Office!

Oh well, joke it off, it's all only lip service, nobody holds principles they actually BELIEVE in and LIVE by; talk of patriotism and honor is only for peer pressure to be socially accepted, go along with the herd and get a slice of the victim consumer's wallet, for personal enrichment. LIARS happen. People die. Hey, it ain't your kid ... laugh it off. Vote for Blumenaeur -- he doesn't hold principle and honor in everybody's face and embarrass the moral destitutes who don't have any.

Besides, cute Dubya and clever Rummy are on their way soon, they're not going to do any more damage -- look at O.J., he straightened up and flew right, quit while he was ahead, after murdering only two people -- y'know, hey, LIARS here, LIARS there, water under the bridge, spilled milk, get over it. 'most of all you got to hide it from the kids coocookachoo ...'

When's the next playoff game on TV ...?

Does Scott Mclellan know about this?

Yaaaaaawn. Consider the source: a panel of anti-war from the outset Democrats and two anti-war 'RINO's. And this is what the NYT passes for front-page news these days? No wonder their circulation is plummeting.

Another story no longer news: George W. Bush was the worst President ever.

I would think that Bush supporters should be the ones most upset about McClennan's revelations and this report. For folks opposed to the war, these items merely confirm what they already suspected. Both, however, drive home that Bush played his supporters for fools. I can't fathom why these folks would continue to support him after these revelations.

"Bush supporters should be the ones most upset ...."

A sort-of 'revelation' to me, came yesterday. All along, (since non compos mentis Raygun), the rightwing 'Republican' authoritarianism pronouncements had sounded to my ear like boasting of accomplishments and rectitude. Then, in a moment's instant of inspiration, I recognized that all of the Big Talk racist-bigot Hate, is them still trying to talk themselves into it.

In nobody's human heart-of-hearts was ever a liking of Bush. So, no one feels 'upset' at being jilted and scammed.

Butch, Once again you've put your love of President Bush and Dick Cheney ahead of reality with your pathetic attempt to blame this on politics.
The problem you have is that the Knight Ridder news service was debunking the case for war in real time. For example, they knew the aluminum tubes story was a crock before the invasion.
So when you write, "Yawnnn", you're really describing your own laziness in finding out the facts. But why worry about little things like getting our soldiers killed for lies, when you're busy sucking up to war criminals? If ignorance is bliss you must be one happy guy. George Bush and Dick Cheney thank you for your support. You might think you know George but you really don't know Dick.

Bob writes:

Let's see: take a potentially dangerous situation, scare the hell out of everyone about it with an organized propaganda effort and the willing cooperation of the news media, ignore or shout down any voices that question your premise, promote a solution that has enormous costs and risks and may or may not solve the problem but purposely ignore or downplay any questions about that, and make sure that you keep the problem going forever, because it cements your power. How is your take on the run-up to Iraq any different from the lefties' "solution" to global warming? Just wondering.

Bob, How is it any different from Iraq? Maybe some of the 10,000 wounded American soldiers could explain it to you.

" Yawn..."

Please tell the 4,000 families who have had a loved one killed in Iraq, that the purposeful manipulation of intelligence is trivial and bores you. If you can do that, well...

Does Scott Mclellan know about this?

Apparently not until he got a book deal.

Was Goldwater a RINO because he turned on a Republican President once he saw that Nixon was a crook?
No, he put America ahead of his party and marched over to the White House and told Nixon he was through.
This generation of Republicans is so busy with their fan mentality and their Rush Limbaugh obedience school, that they cannot see what is right there in front of them with this President. Or they can see it and don't care.
Goldwater would be ashamed of what Bush supporters have become. There is still a thing called morality, you know. It's not all about the spin.

Hey Butch, whenever I see your name on a post, I have to "consider the source" too! I can only hope that someday soon your circulation starts plummeting. (Well, that wasn't a nice thing to say, maybe i'll take it back someday?) Until then here's what a lie costs;http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

I consider each and every casualty of the Iraq farce as a murder victim of George W. Bush. Let there be a judgment day.

Man, there is a lot of hate around here.

Yeah, we need a compassionate conservative to come on in and show the love by wasting a half million people or so.

Bushbutch: "there is a lot of hate around" -- that's in the eye of the beholder. But, even so, it never coulda happened without your contribution.

As I said in a comment, elsewhere: LIARS promotes this website and all (dozen) LIARS loser listeners come here expecting a continuation of the hate fest. Come here and dive right in with repeating the hatetalk and LIARS lore. And stupidly think they are in the majority, and then get shocked, SHOCKED! to find the actual factual majority tell them LIARS is lying and their bubblewrapped fantasy world is false.

LIARS broadcasts that here the loser listeners can find sublime agreement in all the false fairytale telling, a school of stupids talking each other into believing each other and, maybe, even convincing themselves.

LIARS broadcasts lies. Truth is there is nothing here for rightwingy ringy-dingys. No support, no concurrence, no love they are going to feel.

Go ahead and come here, but don't expect your LIARS lies is gonna fly. Probably, in the end, the hate you take is equal to the hate you make.

Don't confuse justice and hate.

Watch out, Butch. Next thing you know, Tenty will start calling you loony or a nutcase. Mmmm....feel the hate.


Didn't I hand you a twenty-spot the other day when I was stopped at a red on the I-205 Glisan St. exit? And not even a thank you?

I don't listed to Liars (or Lars) Larson. I have a day job......

Bob (who's having tech difficulties with this site) writes:

Bill, I don't share the view that Bush "lied" to get us into war, but I accept that there are some reasonable people (and some unreasonable ones)who think he did (or at least pushed the case beyond the evidence). What is interesting to me is that the exact same tactics you deplore when you think Bush used them in 2002 seem ok today when used by others in the context of the global warming debate. This issue can affect lives just as much as the Iraq war (just ask the people who are starving to death because of high food prices caused in part by the diversion of corn from food to fuel). I wish our bovine-like populace applied the same skepticism with foresight to the global warming debate (and everything else our government tries to convince us we need them to do for us)as they apply with hindsight to Iraq.

I must land somewhere between Bill and Bob (hopefully that still puts me far away from Tenska) on this topic.

But I still keep coming down to how many people where involved in this "lie"; besides the neocons there were many naysayers like Colin Powell, many Senators and Congressmen and women (including Pelosi). Far too many people are now using the line: "he lied me into it & I was kicking and screaming the whole way." Not very believable to me.


You left out Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, George Tenet, Tony Blair, Vladimer Putin, etc etc as those proclaiming to be absolutely CONVINCED that Iraq had WMD. damn liars....

PS - Jack, good job relaying Bob's opinions (that generally run somewhat against he consensus on your blog).

Bob and I go way back. His opinions are always worth reading, even when I disagree with them.

There were plenty of ordinary? folks in PDX who knew the invasion was BS from the get-go, and took to the streets to show it. Sad to say I wasn't among them from the very start.

"There were plenty of ordinary? folks in PDX who knew the invasion was BS...."

No, there were plenty that GUESSED it was BS, and they weren't privy to the same intel that our own and the rest of the World's governments were privy to. They would have opposed it regardless of any situation.

Look, I have no problem with anyone who opposed the war, or any war for that matter. But I do take issue whith those saying we were "lied" to in order to justify the war. As Bob has pointed out, if New York City isn't under 20 feet of ocean ten years from now, are you going to condemn Al Gore as a "liar", or chock it up to his basing his arguments on 'misinterpreted information'?

And for those that say than promoting environmental policy isn't in the same hemispherical plane as promoting a war when it comes to potential consequences, do a little research on the consequences of the environmentalists campaign against DDT.

Changing the topic to global warming isn't going to help you defend President Bush in this. I can make an analogy too. You people are like Hillary in this debate. She couldn't accept reality in a timely manner and neither can the people who still believe in the Bush administration. See, I changed the topic, too. That was easy.
It is now beyond dispute that the Vice President's office was leaking stories about Iraq to the New York Times and then Cheney would appear on the Sunday talk shows and discuss them as if he had just found out about them when he read the paper that morning. That is definitive proof that he was lying during this process.
A look at the facts proves what happened. This is not skepticism with hindsight. This is a case where something clearly occurred and the only people who don't see it, don't want to. They are either pretending or haven't really looked. Or as I mentioned before, they could be in a Hillary-like denial.
I can completely understand why you wouldn't attempt to back up your belief that the President didn't lie us into this war. Your case is too weak. So changing the topic is really all your side has, or the other standard of listing other people to blame.
Did any of them order us into Iraq? No, Bush and Cheney did.
Why not go to the next tactic and say, "Look, mistakes were made, but that is ancient history now. Let's look to the future."
That one works sometimes, but I doubt it will work here. Not with thousands of Americans facing decades with limbs blown off, or burns over large parts of their body. We'll all be living with this disaster for the rest of our lives.
Unfortunately for you, neither the global warming debate nor talk of the future, will change the conduct of this war. Like Hillary, you will eventually have to face reality.


Paragraph breaks are your friend.

Or (there may be thinking) they can maintain denial indefinitely in the FUXNews bubblewrapper.

CNN, Fox News falsely suggested Senate report finding Bush administration "misled Americans" about Iraq-Al Qaeda link was approved only by Dems, Jun 6, 2008.

In June 5 reports on CNN's The Situation Room and Fox News' Special Report, CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, and Special Report host Brit Hume falsely suggested ....

Costello reported that "Republicans dismiss the report as partisan gamesmanship."
Henry reported that "[t]he Senate report released by Democrats rapped the president ...." Henry also asserted that "Republicans mocked the report ...."
Hume reported that "Republicans called the report a partisan exercise ...."

At no point did Costello, Henry, or Hume mention that the report had bipartisan support.

Republican Sens. Bond (MO), Chambliss (GA), Hatch (UT), and Burr (NC) signed ... opposing the conclusions of the full committee's report, which they referred to as a "majority-only written report."

Hagel and Snowe also asserted: "The report accomplished its primary objective, unanimously agreed to by the committee: to evaluate ...."

in his own "Additional Views" document, Rockefeller wrote: "On April 1, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved on a bipartisan vote of 10-5 the remaining two reports of its investigation ...."


Thanks for making me laugh with that last comment. I have to admit your first comment today made me so mad I felt dizzy.

It's good to get a laugh out of you now and then too.

Fear which causes us to reign in our wasteful behavior is a healthy fear. Fear which causes us to pre-emptively invade another is a paranoid fear. Apples and oranges to me.

Further, it was transparently clear that the PNAC and the Clean Break report undergirded the Iraq strategy long before the invasion. The mission was to aggressively remake the strategic arena of the Middle East: the road to Jerusalem, in the neocons' eyes, went through Baghdad. A post-invasion inspection that turned up a WMD capacity that matched up in any way to the Bush administration's public arm-waving about nuclear holocaust in American cities would have served to quiet critics, but would still have been rather incidental to the larger strategy.

Technical difficulties fixed. (Thanks Jack for posting my earlier comments.)

Bill, I can tell you're very sincerely angry about how the US got into the Iraq situation. If I agreed with your interpretation of events, I would be too, but I don't. And I'm pretty sure I won't change your mind, and I'm pretty sure you won't change mine, and arguing the same thing over and over isn't really healthy. (If you really want to hear why I think Bush didn't "lie", I guess I'll get into it, but you know there's nothing I could say that would have even a glimmer of a chance of changing your mind, so what's the point?)

So, to be clear, I am not trying to change your mind in Iraq. You believe what you believe, and so do a lot of other people. My effort on my original comment was to at least ask people who do feel like you do on Iraq to think critically about what I think are tactics in play on the global warming debate that, with whatever foresight I can muster, seem to me very much like the tactics you think were in play in the Iraq situation.

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, but this is not a case of interpreting facts - it's the facts themselves that are the problem.
So let's agree to disagree on what the facts are.

It is interesting when you review the comments by Bush and Cheney during this nightmare at how carefully sentences are couched. It's proof they knew they were lying and needed the wiggle room for later when the truth came out, as it has.

Still every now and then they slipped like in President Bush's letter to Congress about the Iraq war resolution:

"Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The letter is signed by President Bush despite the fact that he knew Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.

Look, I can see why you wouldn't want to believe this about an American administration - that they would deliberately lie these soldiers to their graves. It is tough.

I just feel we have a duty to understand what has happened here. If I wanted to believe as you do, I would avoid the facts which is apparently what you've succeeded in doing.

Did you ever wonder why the White House reacted so energetically to Joe Wilson's editorial? If the truth was on their side they could have let that slide and proceeded with their work, knowing they were in the right. Instead they acted as if they were running a con game and couldn't afford anyone shining a light on it.

That's because they were.

Bill, nobody's disagreeing with the points you're making. They've been hashed over hundreds of times on this blog. I think people have generally agreed to disagree.

Bob's very correct point is a more fundamental one with the logic and thinking processes of many people who are against the war and/or virulent accusers of the current administration of things up to and including high crimes and treason.

That fundamental point is that people are not applying the same skepticism and study and interest they've applied to make the conclusions they have about the war/Iraq/Bush/neocons to the whole global warming hysteria/movement.

I think if people delved into the whole global warming issue, and looked at the data on all sides objectively, they would come to some very different conclusions about the causes and results of global warming.

As many anti-war supporters are very quick to say, Halliburton and the whole military-industrial complex and various others are getting rich off the war.

While that may or may not be true (not making any statements here), the same scrutiny should be applied to the individuals who are getting rich off of the whole "green" environmental movement. Al Gore would be one logical first place to start, but it goes way deeper than that.

Also, you mentioned earlier WRT one of Butch's posts made you "so mad I felt dizzy." I know you personally attacked me in another post a couple of weeks ago, and I've seen similar patterns in other comments you make regularly.

No personal offense intended, but if comments on a blog upset you to this degree, perhaps you should get some professional, take an anger management class, or at least see a doctor to ensure that the dizziness isn't a symptom of a larger physical/physiological problem. As a fellow human being - I am a bit worried.

Thanks for your concern, Gerry. It probably won't surprise you but I see it differently. I wonder why more people aren't mad these days. Where's the outrage?

The dizziness occurred for a second after I read Butch's comment, "Yawn" in response to a report about the misuse of intelligence going into war.
It seemed too cavalier for a subject like this.

I'm sorry if you felt my comment went over the line to you. I'm not in this to bring other people down. I just don't want these years to go by and have someone ask why I didn't speak out. Believe me, I'd prefer it if government were just a backdrop to our lives, but there are times when you have to get involved. This is one of them.

Where's the outrage?

The 64K question if there ever was one.

This crew took the tragedy of 9/11 and used it to lead us into a quagmire in Iraq--and the only folks I see protesting now are a few people holding signs on Thursday afternoon in front of Congressional offices near Lloyd Center. All I do is honk my horn and give them a thumbs up when I drive by. WTF???

I hope Jack's readers are following the "agreement" Cheney, Bush and company are trying to ram through in Iraq involving a permanent future of US control.

This is the incredibly dumb, arrogant part of the administration.
It also will expose a basic lie about Iraq's cooperation in all this. Naturally, we are freezing their money to try and strong arm them into accepting. The administration is trying to solidify a permanent result from this disastrous war but there is not enough lipstick in the world to put on this pig.

What happened to the conservative movement? I think they veered away from their basic philosophy and decided to rely on marketing to stay in power.

Good luck marketing this deal to Iraq. Maybe President Bush assumes the Iraqi People are as dumb as he is.

From the Washington Post:

"A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment."

Butch and Bob,
Maybe this will get you to see how President Bush lied us into Iraq. Remember the part about no permanent bases? Try 50 of them.

Sometimes it's good to analyze policy choices by considering the end point and asking, "what if the fear is unfounded"?
With Iraq, we've wasted lives, maimed the living and antagonized the middle east. If global warming is unfounded, we've created less of an impact on the environment. Again, lemons to peaches.

Anybody who was familiar with PNAC prior to 9-11 would not be surprised at the dumbassed attempts to link 9-11 to Iraq. Those attempted links were specious to begin with and served as the straw offered to the dubious to grasp. It was BS from the beginning and both UN and US weapons inspectors (including ones which had pushed Clinton to intervene because of WMD) were clearing stating that the WMD rationale was a canard.

Then, I found it exceedingly suspect that as the troops rolled toward Baghdad, the rationale became "freeing the Iraqi people from despotism." They knew they wouldn't find WMD, so the new excuse was to paint our troops as "liberators". Of course, the Iraqis made it clear we were no such thing.

Bob...You need to acquaint yourself with the preconditions of the Iraq scene.


"A British newspaper reports..." Really? That's it? Last I heard, a British newspaper was reporting that Brangolina was training the twins to snort crushed Frootloops in preparation for their future cocaine habit.

First, the line about the twins doesn't flow. Comedy should be quick. "Brevity is the soul of wit" should actually be "Brevity is wit's soul."

Next, I was quoting the Washington Post and they obviously had to access the British newspaper's veracity.

You could have checked to see all the other sources on this with a simple google search but as is your fashion you were content to try and discredit anything that puts your hero President Bush in a bad light. This time you suggest the story is not true. Maybe the British newspaper is one of those tabloids.

I doubt if you really believe that or bothered to look into it - you're just playing your usual game of spin.

What you should have been noticing was the lack of media coverage here in the States on this. Why aren't our own reporters covering it and having the British press copy our stories? It is our problem more than theirs. Perhaps it flies against the story our press has been dutifully reporting about how we're there to give them freedom and will not stay one more day than necessary.

But as usual you looked at the situation and drew a conclusion that avoided reality at all costs. Keep it up. Cheney and Bush are proud of you.

I bet in those meetings where they discuss whether or not their latest scheme will work, you're even mentioned - not by name - but as part of the group of people they can count on to buy anything.

One historical note: Iran Contra broke in the Lebanese papers first and it sounds like this deal is a hot topic in the Middle East right now.

Tony Blair accused of War Crimes - Anthony Charles Lynton Blair on Trial in The Hague, by David Halpin, Global Research, May 19, 2008.

Blair is going to prison for the rest of his life.

It is impossible to take seriously or treat decently any rightwing nutjob who careens off their rocker and outside the bounds of sensibility, pleading to have the facts of planetary climate crisis considered as thoroughly as the facts showing Bushbutcher is a massmurderer psychopath.

Global Warming Myths and Facts --
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now ...."

Unmatured infantile brains should look up the definition of 'vital.' To understand why the grownup majority is arresting those outlaws who try to keep doing the human activities making survival viability worse.

Bill McDonald, (ignoring the head-in-the-sand birdbrains), why oh why do you not let yourself see that Nine-Eleven Op itself was part of the (PNAC-derived) blueprint to lie to and betray America and traitorously invade and steal other peoples' oil? And the illegal installation in The Fright House, through the phony Florida 2000, was an earlier step in the same blueprint -- lie up a president, lie up Nine-Eleven Op, lie up WMDs, lie up being not a fascist dictator. All parts of and according to the original continued plan.

Here is the only one irrefutable scientific fact that it takes, to wedge you away from holding any credence at all in the 'official' legend of Nine-Eleven. Seeing Nine-Eleven is a lie, means there were no religious fanatic hijackers on the planes; and lying about Nine-Eleven Op is consistent behavior with telling all the other lies you already see are lies.

Here: Less than 150,000 KWH of Gravity energy went into collapsing a Tower. Period. That's 'officially' all there was: Gravity pushing down.
More than 10,000,000 KWH of Reaction energy came out of a Tower collapse. Period. Mark it and measure it. For the Action there was an unequal opposite Reaction over 100 times too much. As a matter of FACT.

The math is done for you here: TinyURL.com/2p8kep

I guess if Bill goes to the trouble of posting 5 times to show me why I'm wrong on the "Bush-lied" issue, the least I can do is respond once. Bill, I appreciate your efforts to "convert the heathen" and help me "see the light", but I just don't read the facts we know the same way you do.

Before the war, here is my best recollection of the rationale the administration gave at various times for the invasion.

1. Saddam had stocks of weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program that had not yet created a bomb but that was trying to do so. This would be particularly dangerous, because Saddam had already used chemical weapons in the Iran war and against the Kurds, and was a likely proliferator.

2. The administration indicated that there was evidence that there was at least discussions between agents of Saddam and agents of Al Queda. I'm pretty sure they never said "Saddam was the mastermind of 9-11," but they were trying to suggest a connection.

3. The administration observed that Saddam continued to violate the no-fly zone and the terms of the sanctions and other conditions of the Gulf War ceasefire, and would continue to push the envelope.

4. Saddam was a very bad guy, who brutalized his own people in ways that civilized guys like you and me have a hard time even comprehending and posed a threat to the world.

5. Getting rid of Saddam would make the middle east more stable and peaceful, and a democratic Iraq would be a beacon of freedon that would be an example to the rest of the Muslim world.

So, in analyzing whether Bush lied (not whether the invasion was worth the loss of life and cost--that's a different debate), I just can't conclude as you do that he lied. Let's go point by point.

1. I am very confident that the administration believed that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and that he had a biological and nuclear weapons program. It turns out the administration and many other people were wrong about the stockpiles, but correct about the nuclear weapons program (though it wasn't as far along as they probably feared it was). If Bush actually believed that Saddam had no such stockpiles, it would have been insane for him to assert that Saddam did, and a liar would have "planted the evidence", which Bush never did. So, on cause number 1, I think the administration was obviously wrong (at least for the most part), but wasn't lying, and I think this is probably the most significant reason most people feel as I do that the invasion was based on a mistake, not a lie.

2. There was some evidence of communication between agents of Saddam and Al Queda. Did the administration overstate the relationship? As it turns out, apparantly yes. Did they believe they were overstating what they knew? This is probably the one case where I would say your argument is strongest, but the only people who know for sure are probably Bush and Cheney.

3. It is indisputable that Saddam was violating the no-fly zone and targeting allied aircraft and violating the sanctions.

4. It is indisputable (at least I think it is) that Saddam was a very bad guy. He already showed a propensity to take his act on the road as well, in the Iran war and the invasion of Kuwait, so I think it is naive to believe that he would have been a "good boy" in the absense of decisive US action, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

5. I think Bush believed with all his heart, and still does, that a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq can be an example for the rest of the Muslim world. You may say he's nuts and that it wasn't worth the cost in lives and treasure, and you may be right, but you can't say he lied when he said that's what he wanted, because it's exactly what he wanted.

OK, that's my take on it.

Getting rid of Saddam would make the middle east more stable and peaceful,

Only if you were on a hallucinogenic drug would you think this.

Bob, I appreciate the time you put into this, but this is so discouraging to me. The case for war in Iraq was thoroughly debunked by the end of 2003. That's almost 5 years ago. This is tragic. I think I need a break from the blogosphere. We're so close to the end of the Bush administration, I should just concentrate on other things and express my views in the jokes or the cable access show.

I find the fact that we're still debating this to be an American Tragedy because it means their plan of misinformation is still working 5 years on. All I can say is research it more. One example I'll give off the top of my head refers back to stockpiles of sarin gas that were left over from the first Gulf War. President Bush made a big deal out of how Saddam never accounted for them. Meanwhile experts back in 2003 were screaming that some of the weapons Saddam didn't account for from 1991 had a shelf life of 2 MONTHS. There are intelligence experts who made these points, which is why Dick Cheney personally went over to CIA headquaters and pressured the agents.

That is just one tiny example. I've got to channel my energy better. All I can say, Bob, is you've shown me a lot of respect to write such a lengthy reply. I appreciate the effort but it's a recitation of talking points. The truth is there, was there, and will be there but you can't rely on whatever sources you used for this to give it to you. It's like saying, "Bush didn't lie because he gave me these other reasons that were lies and I believed him." Research it. Spend an hour on the aluminum tubes. That's all it took Knight Ridder to debunk that part of it back in 2002 and 2003.

The Bush administration claimed they were fooled by bad intelligence. That's the starting off point. The starting off point is that they admit they got that wrong. If they had any class they would have left after that, but they don't. A careful look reveals HUNDREDS of lies they told during this time. The truth is out there if you want it. I'm finished with this.

Clicky Web Analytics