Worse than Watergate--Print Version
Worse than Watergate

Same article available here (FindLaw.com).

I am unsure what is of greater concern, That this Admin would use intel they were unsure of to start a war, or that after 9/11 we still do not have our intel act together.
In additon, on the world stage we look like either fools or Liars, so that if we do find a real reason for a preemptive strike no one will believe or back us up.
Maybe Ms Bush ( the one who can read) should read the story of the boy who cried wolf to George.
(Afterwards he can look at the pictures)

It's both good and bad to see the UK media take Tony Blair to task, to the point where he really could lose his premiership over this. The US media will never, ever, ever do such a thing to Bush, unless, of course, they find out that Bush has been getting blow jobs from an intern.

Maybe he should get one, perhaps he would be less aggressive

Reality check for all the lefties out there trafficking in the Big Lie that George W. Bush "lied" about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. If you think President Bush lied, then you must really be upset about the lies told by both Clintons (yes, Hillary too), bny Madeleine Albright and even Jacques Chirac, where each categorically stated that Hussein and Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Here's an article that takes whole quotes from these folks, none of whom can be deemed a conservative Republican Bush apologist. These are real whole quotes -- not NY Times/Mo Dowd/Krugman selectively edited quotes. Here's the link: \"If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People\"

The left lied about the Iraq War from Day One. The left, having lost the honest argument then, is still losing and still lying.

And if you and the discredited John Dean still believe that the War on Saddam Hussein was not justified, then let's talk about the mass grave specifically for children that was recently found. A mass grave just for children. Some of whom were buried alive clutching dolls. Justify that, Saddam apologists.

George W. Bush was honest from Day One that the War was about "regime change." WMD was one component. I think they will be found soon. And we have already found two mobile biological labs. I think we'll find more. But even if we don't: I am very proud that my country fought to rid the world of the evil that is Saddam Hussein. You are free to disagree.

Not to mention the fact that only 1/3 of the suspected site have been visited for inspection...

so wouldnt we have used our intel and check the most suspected sites

hey, maybe sadaam coulda put a few pork chops with gravy around the WMD's... Natalie, the big boned dixi chic, woulda hunted them down in about ummmm, a second and a half....

Natlie, that white powder isnt salt... put that down.

Gov Davis might be able to help soon, when he's out of a job.

[ June 11, 2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

plus nevermind that going to war in Iraq was unconstitutional or nothing. Shrub deserves to be impeached.

Phillyfan, I think if we did the pork chop thing she would look like Karen Carpenter. Also yes, the republicans in my state are, pardon the pun, stealing a page from Florida's election system and tring to steal the election here too. The repub's refuse to allow any new taxes but cry about the size of the deficit.

Where did you get that "fact" from" FAUX?

FAUX too funny!
BTW if weapons are there you would think we would have sent in enough troops to search all the sites by now, so that Osama can not get there first! Or has mr Rove figured that another attack would seal bushy victory in 04?

I said on another thread that the Righties would find a way to bring in Clinton...well, guys, W. is a different, new prez and unlike Clinton, he used the pretext of these weapons, not just regime change, but these weapons, which he SPECIFICALLY enumerated, as did our Secretaries of State and Defense, to launch this war. It's utterly, utterly insufficient to piggyback on Clinton here. W. knew of the intelligence failures BEFORE 9/11, so to be basing ANYTHING on what came before him is just ludicrous. The fact is, either he lied, either he used bad info (and so he's still responsible for not making major intel changes after 9/11) or both. So all around, he's culpable and he needs to take responsibility for it and be the tough guy he claims to be.

I don't give a damn about Clinton's lies anymore. He's out of office and was impeached for getting fellated. So let's deal with the current liar, who has not told the truth since BEFORE he was appointed.

Moreover, as John Dean points out, Rummy listed the places where they would be found. NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND. W. even repeated Rumsfeld's tale recently.

All the blather about getting rid of Saddam is fine. He should not only have been deposed but killed, something W. has yet to manage. (What about Osama???). But anyways, we KNEW ABOUT THE MASS GRAVES AS FAR BACK AS REAGAN AND BUSH I. We watched as Saddam slaughtered Kurds and Shi'ites and dumped them in mass graves. This newfound righteousness does not in any way diminish Bush's international lies and criminality. He did NOT need to lie to the American people.

There are mass graves in Indonesia, in Rwanda, in Congo, in Liberia, in Sudan, etc. Are we invading those countries or even trying to damn thing to stop the killing? Did we not abet the killing or just not do a thing about it? So please, spare me the triumphalism and moralism. I actually saw an African guy JUST YESTERDAY HERE IN CHICAGO with both his hands cut off (I mean, it is horrifying to see up close, this is what some monsters did to a fellow human being), and I assume he is one of the many Liberians or Sierra Leonians now living in the Chicago area who were able to escape the killing there. Is W. doing anything to stop that slaughter? Didn't the US for years prop up the government there, and later support the current dictator Charles Taylor, who was educated here? Where's the moralism about that?

Finally, those "bio" labs are very likely hydrogen production facilities! Even the military AND our intelligence officers are admitting this, as Britain supplied them to Iraq for hydro production! Not one nanometer of biochemical toxin has been found in either, and as numerous commentators have reported, even if Saddam had tried to wash them clean, there'd be residue nearby. So just repeating more of W.'s lies doesn't make them true. You may be proud of this ignominy, but his high crimes need to be punished. Impeach him and get him out of there ASAP!

[ June 11, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Do you really believe this? Puh-leeze.

Even the army general over there complained about not finding all this stuff that we supposedly had such great intel about. Why aren't they finding it? Because W., D.I.A., RUMMY and CREW were LYING! They were using the lies of that crook Chalabi to make their case for this war to get ahold of Saddam's oil, which they've done, as a counterweight to Saudi Arabia AND Venezuela.

If they even find a few WMDs, which Saddam surely had, that won't hardly make up for the extensive claims W. brayed about in his State of the Union speech, or that Colin mentioned at the UN. And to think that you smart people really bought this stuff. Does someone claiming to be GOP automatically turn your bullsh*t sensors off?



[ June 11, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I get more insight into what is going on with you guys than I ever do from the broadcast and print media! Who needs Hannity & Colmes. Thanks!

I am quite tired of the "Mass graves" reasoning.
how many of these are from when Bush one supported an uprising and then did nothing while they were being killed? Where was the hue and cry when Kurds were being gassed? By gas we provided?
We all know if Clinton or Gore had done this Rush & co would be calling for heads to roll.
Your double standards replusive

The point is not that Saddam had weapons. He may very well have had them at all these points in the past, and may well have destroyed them before and/or during the inspections, in order to avoid a war with the US (in other words, our threat may have worked). The point is not that Saddam was a bad guy - we've known that for 20 years, and as fantomas has pointed out, there are a lot of countries with seriously bad guys out there that we are not invading (Burma comes first to my mind).

The point of all the questions about how the Bush Administration made the case for this war is the nature of the threat these weapons posed. We went to war without a direct provocation (and I'm sorry, but the 9/11 link just doesn't hold up) because we were told the WMDs posed an imminent threat to the United States. As far as I know, and have seen reported, none of the people you quote were stating that Saddam's weapons posed a direct threat to the US - one that was so severe we had to violate our longstanding policy against starting a war - a war, I might add, fought against the official opinion of the UN and the opinions of many of our valued allies. This Administration took a huge risk with this country's reputation in the international community. If they did all this on false pretenses, that is deadly serious.

Edited to add:

As for "discredited" John Dean - he is one of the few involved with Watergate who (eventually) did the right thing. He is the one that testified about the cover-up, and he was the one who tried to stop it from within (the famous "cancer on the Presidency" tape). He may have committed criminal offenses, but he admitted them and served his time. That is more than you can say for some of the other Watergate conspirators.

[ June 11, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

I wasn't talking about Clinton's lies. I was talking about Clinton truth-telling. Clinton and her husband -- up until very recently -- told the truth when both said Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD and were a danger to the world for it.

Didn't you hear? The French have sent troops to Congo. Actually, they're just standing by watching everyone slaughter everyone else there. But they've unilaterally sent troops to Congo. Just like they did in Ivory Coast. Wasn't unilateralisim supposed to be a bad thing?

As for Rwanda, Liberia and Sudan: three tragedies. And the failure to act to prevent one tragedy is the lamest excuse possible for not preventing a fourth. Either regime change in Iraq was justified on its own merits, or it wasn't. I think it was. The fact that we stood idly by for the genocide in Rwanda did not justify inaction in Iraq.

George W. Bush certainly does not have Rwandan blood on his hand. It occurred during Clinton's presidency. I don't blame Clinton, except to the extent that he deferred to the U.N. to act in Rwanda, naively thinking the U.N. was capable of anything other than useless blubbering. The U.N.'s absolute and unequivocal failure in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia abasolutely justified the U.S. acting as it did in Iraq because the U.N. is a useless relic. And because it pretends to have some value when it doesn't -- like in Rwanda -- it's more dangerous than useless.

The U.S. removed a dangerous, murderous, thieving tyrant from power in Iraq. That is cause for celebration. Muted celebration because so much more work needs to be done. There and elsewhere. But it's time for celebration nonetheless.

CITT,

You're correct. The US did remove a danmgerous, murderous, cancer of the world in removing Saddam.

But wasn't the information we had enough for our ends? Or was it necessary to deceive the country and the american people to achieve our goal?

No one here is debating the necessity of Saddam's removal. what we are discussing is the wool being pulled over the american public with casual indifference.

It has already been proven that the assertion of Iraq's nuclear was based on forged documents. (everyone on all sides agrees they were forged documents) What else was faked?

and this thing about "well...... anyway... I'm proud that America got rid of this tyrant."

Meaning.... that should we find fault with W.Bush or our modus operandi vis-a-vis the Iraq war, then we must not be patriots or "real americans" inferring that if we criticize the administration, then we're traitors and/or "Saddam apologists".

You know that kind of simplistic thinking doesn't wash. and I know that you are more intelligent than that.

Real patriots take the time to know what's happening to the country and to ask pertinent questions. You want sheep, go to Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.

[ June 11, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Didn't you hear? The French have sent troops to Congo. Actually, they're just standing by watching everyone slaughter everyone else there. But they've unilaterally sent troops to Congo. Just like they did in Ivory Coast. Wasn't unilateralisim supposed to be a bad thing?
1) The French did not go in to promote a change of gov't
2) Was the Congo a French colony?
3) Sadam was evil, a butcher...But I would like to see a pre-war poll "Sadam has kiiled children, some clutching dolls, placing them in a mass grave. Also there MAYBE WMD- do you support sending our young men and women to fight and die?
I would bet the polls would be mixed at best.
I sure Tony Blair is pleased with us now too... with friends like us....So who will support us next time?

So many misperceptions, so little time:

It is my understanding that in his screed, Dean relied on the Guardian's now-discredited falsification of Wolfowitz's statement about the role of oil in the Iraq War. Dean was a liar in 1973. He's a liar 30 years later. The fact that he tattled on other liars makes him marginally less dishonorable the other liars in the Nixon White House. But he's still a liar.

I am proud of my country and its role liberating the Iraqi people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to hold it. As I stated at the end of my post: \"You are free to disagree.\" And I'm further entitled to hold a low opinion of (and vote against) those who choose to disagree. Ain't democracy grand?

Did you hear? Other countries have intelligence services too. And British intelligence ... and even French intelligence and Russian intelligence ... believed Saddam held WMD immediately prior to the U.S. war. You think the U.N. was just blindly listening to the CIA? Tony Blair acted on the best information available to him by independently analyzing British and U.S. intelligence. It's a shame that the British public may pull a Churchill and toss Blair from power even though he was vindicated in the unpopular war he fought against a tyranny.

CITT: you said:
It's a shame that the British public may pull a Churchill and toss Blair from power even though he was vindicated in the unpopular war he fought against a tyranny.
But I thought you also said:
"You are free to disagree." And I'm further entitled to hold a low opinion of (and vote against) those who choose to disagree. Ain't democracy grand?
So why if the Brits disagree and vote out Tony, ( or his party )Why are they pulling a Churchill?

Your ever serve in combat? My buddies who did ( front line first gulf war, lost buddies from both enemy and friendly fire) think there needs to be an accounting of the intel failure.
I am more proud of the men and women who are willing to give thier lifes, than I am of people with flags on their SUVs beating their chests

It's not the British public, but Tony Blair's own party and the opposition, which are accountable to the people, who will ask for an accounting of his actions. If a leader knowingly misleads his public into wars, then he or she should be held accountable. I know you realize this, and however "proud" you may be of the "liberation" of the Iraqi people into mass lawlessness, looting, and death (over 3,000 of them were killed, you know, including children), the President of the United States is not elected to act unilaterally in fighting wars. HE is accountable both to the Congress of the United States, which is the elected body of the citizenry, and to the American populace. The fact that this president either lied or has allowed inept intelligence services to continue to provide poor information to him, as the pretext--and you cannot deny that he made the WMDs the central pretext of this war--is simply unacceptable, and worthy of not only Congressional investigation, but if he's found to have lied or manipulated the intelligence to have his war, impeachment.

We do not live in a fascist nation where whatever state or business ends justify the means, we do not live in a monarchy where a king may have his wars and be accountable to no one but his military, we do not live in a military dictatorship where a junta decides the rule of law as it goes along. We live in a democratic republic, and the President has to be accountable for his actions. Whatever the Clintons may have believed is not germane; Bush has been in office nearly 3 years now, and once again, after the grotesque intelligence failures BEFORE and OF 9/11, after the grotesque military response ON 9/11, when it took American citizens to down a plane that might very well have smashed into our White House or one of our houses on Congress while our Air Force could not scramble planes to protect us, it behooved the president to do EVERYTHING HE COULD to improve the intelligence situation. So if he did not do so, he is guilty of dereliction of duty. And at the very least, he should not be re-elected, because such ineptitude could only cause even greater problems down the road. The buck has to stop somewhere, CITT, no matter what the president's party.

[ June 11, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Oh you're certainly entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine. You won't hear me argue that.
and Democracy IS grand. part and parcel of being a democracy is being able to question your Fuhrer and hold him accountable. Like with Lewinskygate.

What I object to is your \"holding low opinion of those who disagree\" with the administration line. Mainly your assertion (both implied and explicit) that those who seek answers are traitors and/or unamerican.

again, you go to the red herring about whether Iraqi liberation was a good thing or not. Read the previous posts. that's not what we're discussing here.

Geez! It's like while in the middle of discussing Arab-Israeli relations, someone blurting out, \"I don't know why you are criticizing Israel. Bagels ARE a good source of nutrition!\"

Our collective response would be a \"huh?\" I mean really. I thought we were discussing something else.

So then.... what we're discussing is not whether we're proud to have bombed the shit out of Saddam. We are. So enough with those comments already.

What we ARE discussing is \"Did the W.Bush administration lie and/or exaggerate intelligence data in order to justify the war?\"
(please note: The response to that question is not, \"I'm proud to be an american. God Bless the USA\" We all love Lee Greenwood. But what's the answer?)

Did you also hear? The process of winning over Tony Blair's support was via the presentation of OUR intelligence to him that convinced him of the need to act. You don't remember that whole series of events where - behind closed doors - we presented Blair with our hard evidence? He then emerged convinced of the need for war? Afterwards, we promised that these evidence would be revealed to everyone else later.

and your assertion about what France and Russia said immediately prior to the war is wrong. How do I know? I was there.

No. The UN was not "just blindly listening to the CIA". The UN was listening respectfully to the evidence being presented within their own chambers by the President of The United States and later by Sec of State Colin Powell in a multi-media presentation. Way to go PowerPoint!!

and did the UN go along with our decision? What's that? we threatened the UN with "becoming irrelevant"?

and let's look at the Intelligence info of the UK and the US. So far the assertions of Iraqi Nukes.... non-proven. Documents forged. No one seems to know who forged the documents the Prez used as evidence in The State of The Union speech.

The AlQaeda-Iraqi collaboration link. Our own intelligence info states that it's almost non-existent. Our own administration? Decided to ignore our own agencies in making its assertions.

The WMDs (the biggie that we're all getting our panties in a wad about) ...... well.... many definite WMD labs and sites proclaimed by the administration and on FoxNews. all later recanted or still yet to be proven. (including the most recent two mobile units)
(by the way, even if these two are proven as such.... These rinky dink things is what we claimed as being "imminent danger" to the United States? Aren't there evidence with a little more fire power? a bit more "Mass Destruction" capability?)

again.... we knew via our spy satellites how many trucks were parked in Baghdad, on what location etc etc. You're telling me that after all that SPECIFIC DATA, we're now playing "where's Waldo?" with these WMDs that we're absolutely positively sure will be delivered overnight?

[ June 12, 2003, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Great post UNG, couldn't have said it better myself.

Clinton lied and he paid the price, now it's Dubyah's turn.

IMPEACH!

I have 3 questions for Dubya:

- Where are the WMD?
- Where is Bin Laden?
- Where is Sadam?

Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?

I second that UNG great post!
This now is a no win situation. If we find some, much of the world will say that either we planted it, or we had it wrong, there was no clear and present danger. If we do not find any then we are either fools, or liars that only wanted the oil.
Either way it will not make the war on terror easier.

Fine, under Junior's logic if we think there might be a threat, then let's go in and wreak havoc. If it turn's out there isn't, then we'll just say we were liberating an oppressed people. There is a half truth in that. So, why don't we use that same logic with China, Cuba, Burma, N. Korea, Half of Africa???????????? Sorry, I was all for turning Afghanistan into a sheet of glass, we had damn good reason. Iraq was just plastic icing for Juniors cake. I'm not for impeachment. I think he should be taken to the steps of Congress and HORSE WHIPPED!!! But I'm sure they'll find another Oliver North to lie to Congress and cover Junior's behind. If, they don't find anything.

[ June 12, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: budge ]

another tidbit about the Iraq-Alqaeda non connection from the Wash Post.

wash post talking points

[ June 12, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Ung, great post. And Kona, Denver, you all are hilarious! I love: horse whipped! But I think impeachment should come first, that is, unless DUI-bya resigns.

posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Doesn't this thinking then mean that Bush is a deserter and cannot therefore be trusted? After all, he hasn't even owned up to his crime, or paid the penalty for failing to fulfill his duty. And certainly a man who has never served in the armed forces should be even more careful when deciding to risk American lives.

No kidding! how many days did he serve in the Tx N.G?
One of my gruging points of respect for his father is he served frontline duty.

we're getting off topic. it's all about the weapons of mass distraction! stay focused, please, until after the next election.