+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63
  1. #1
    Ultimate Member TOAD6147's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,479

    BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

    BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

    Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
    continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
    and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
    today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
    asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
    their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
    after the 1991 Gulf War.

    The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
    Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
    conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
    500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
    actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
    "can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
    showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
    anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
    all.

    Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
    doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
    against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
    war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
    vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
    labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
    Al Qaeda were linked.

    In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence
    community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar
    intelligence." Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the
    intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the
    president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts
    who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
    a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."

    Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately
    "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence,"
    and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of
    Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing
    position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known
    declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
    significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands
    to remove such allegations from his speech.

    Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
    < http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1155689&l=16075 >

  2. #2
    FTM
    FTM is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7

    Misleader.org misleading about misleading

    LOL Toad, I'd expect nothing less.

    The header clearly indicates that "BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD" when that's not the case at all.

    Disappointed... not surprised... but disappointed....

  3. #3
    The Jiggawatts, Marty! tony_j15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Joplin, MO
    Posts
    16,386
    Blog Entries
    1
    I agree with FTM. How the heck can I trust anyone when you are as biased and misleading as you claim the Presient to be? here's a few tips.
    1) dont put the title in all caps. Make you look like a propagandist n00b
    2) present the information clearly from a non affiliated web site. unlike some of my more conservative counterparts, I accept reports from CNN, NBC, etc. When you quote from something like "the daily misleader" alarm bells immediately go off in logical peoples brains.
    All 1.21 of them.

  4. #4
    Banned wallie_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    161
    Yep..the ole liberal standby, repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it!

  5. #5
    FTM
    FTM is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7
    Well in Toads defense, he copied and pasted it exactly as it appear at the misleading site, caps and all. It still doesn't make the headline or the premise anything other than a lie. I believe the thread was probably posted here for the same reason it was posted there... to mislead and give ammunition to those incapable of discerning reality from fiction.

    There is no evidence that Bush mislead on WMD's... an he CERTAINLY did not "admit" to doing so as the thread and article title indicate he did.

    It's becoming harder and harder to tell if Bush's detractors are just doing this in hopes that those unable to think rationally will begin to believe it... or if they themselves have slipped into a perpetual state of delusion?

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    4,097
    If we can all agree that this war was not about WMD's then we can start to focus on more important issues than the lies about WMD's.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    115
    Wallie x you have called everyone on this board that does not agree with you a liar. I for one am tired of it. I have called George bush a liar and his cabinet members a bunch of liars and I stand by my statements but I have not called anyone on this board a liar.
    If this administration wants to admit that they are budgeting 35 billion dollars anualy for an intelligence network that can only plagerize a students report then it is ibvious it is time for a change of administrations.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109409,00.html

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...A80894DC404482

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0530-05.htm

  8. #8
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,449
    Blog Entries
    2
    Originally posted by ClubMed
    If we can all agree that this war was not about WMD's then we can start to focus on more important issues than the lies about WMD's.
    CM that really depends on where the lies genesis was.

    If it was Iraq lying to saddam with feigned reports made by people in his camp, then there is no lies on our side. Intel of fake programs with will look just like real programs from an intel prospective if you do not have infiltrators in the ranks of the program.

    Now as said before if it is found that the US fabricated the evidence then I think heads should roll. As it is with people on the ground and iraqis in custody it is still difficult to get a handle on things. Imagine doing it from tapped phone calls and rumors and disgruntled former workers.

  9. #9
    FTM
    FTM is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7
    I'm not sure what your upset about whitebeard, except that you're offended that others use the same criteria for defining a "liar" as you do. There is no evidence that Bush has lied to or mislead the country or the Congress. It's obvious that Bush made some inaccurate statements, and it's obvious that Saddams capabilities were over-estimated, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Bush was not basing his decisions and statements on the best inteligence available at that time.


    If someone wants to find fault with the inteligence gathering capabilities and decision making of the Administration, that's thier perogative, but if they're willing to make the baseless accusation that Bush lied, then they're fooling themselves...some might even say that they are lying to themselves.

  10. #10
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,449
    Blog Entries
    2
    FTM well put.

  11. #11
    Senior Member J-Excel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Kzoo, MI
    Posts
    886
    I'VE DECIDED TO REPLY TO THREADS WITH CAPITALIZED TITLES IN ALL CAPS.

    IT APPEARS TO ME THAT ANYONE CALLING BUSH A LIAR IS IN FACT A LIAR THEMSELF. ALL OF THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BUSH ACTED APPROPRIATELY IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS IN LIGHT OF THE INTELLIGENCE HE WAS RECEIVING. THE FACT THAT WMD HASN'T BEEN FOUND DOES NOT GIVE LIBERALS THE RIGHT TO REVISE THE HISTORY REGARDING THIS INTELLIGENCE. THE ONLY REASON THE WORD "LIAR" IS USED IS BECAUSE THEY (ULTRA-WACKO-LIBERALS) ARE TRYING TO GET REVENGE FOR CLINTON BEING CALLED A LIAR. WHAT A BUNCH OF STINKING CRYBABIES. GET OVER IT.

  12. #12
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,449
    Blog Entries
    2
    J-Excel,

    I disagree with you analysis as to why they do it. Many of the rank and file use it because the leaders use it. And they genuinely believe that he is a liar. Their leaders use it because they hope to sway the simple minded into believing that he is a liar. It is a baseless claim and does in fact make their leaders liars. But the rank and file are simply the mislead. They fail to see the info before them they are looking through a bias. For if Bush were not a liar then they must admitt to themselves that their leaders like Kennedy, and Michael Moore (their king) have mislead them.

    I will not say that Bush did not lie or possibly selectively look at the data. But the jury is not in on that one. If you are to call someone a liar you must prove it. Merely proving that the premise was false does not make a liar. For the democratic and liberal powerful to state with conviction that Bush is a liar is simply wrong at this point. At best they should say the matter needs further investigation.


    Now of course for the democratic and liberal powerful to keep up their claims they must now call Kay a liar. They also need to call the UK government liars, MI6 liars, CIA liars, Pakistani Intelligence Liars, Germany Intelligence liars.

    It is amazing how many liars these pure as the driven snow democrats find with out a shred of evidence that any of these folks KNOWINGLY made tried to mislead people for their own benefit.

    Liar is a powerful word and should not be used lightly. But of course the politically powerful and the lowly surfs now throw it around at anything they do not agree with.
    Last edited by Epidemic; January 28th, 2004 at 09:51 AM.

  13. #13
    OAP Theophylact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    inside the Beltway
    Posts
    11,843
    Blog Entries
    69
    TOAD6147, I'd say "failed to deny it" rather than "admitted it."

    I don't expect him ever to admit being wrong, much less to lying.

  14. #14
    Senior Member tmx468's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    836
    It may be true, but a politician will never admit to being wrong... he'll just change the goalposts instead!

  15. #15
    Ultimate Member Pexster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ???
    Posts
    5,434
    (First off, let me point out that I'm not talking about just WMDs here, but four years of observed behavior.)

    I don't have to prove anything to call someone a liar (or anything else for that matter). I make my own judgments based on my knowledge of the facts at hand. Or . . . in Dubya's case, I just look into his beady shifting little eyes and I know. He's a dishonest man . . . a liar. See, it's simple! Anyone can do it!

    At the same time, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong. He may be stupid. Or he may be both.

  16. #16
    FTM
    FTM is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7
    Do you believe that all men with "beady little eyes" are liars?

    Again, you're free to draw your own conclusions, (even if it's based on the size and position of a mans eyes), but you better have something more substanitive than physical charactaristics and baseless speculation as "proof" of misconduct if you expect to be taken seriously.

  17. #17
    Senior Member tmx468's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    836
    It doesn't take much to find the proof in the pudding - just watch the statements leaders on both sides of the Ocean are saying about WMD...

    Its almost a retraction, just a political one!

    I will admit I am not pro-Bush, but not knowing American Politics to the extent of the oppostion, I shall just live with it!

  18. #18
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,449
    Blog Entries
    2
    I am not sure he should say he was wrong or apologize for going to war over a situation where the enemy put forth the appearance of doing wrong (as stated by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair). The intel was not incorrect really (not as far as intel goes) These paper programs were genuine in Saddams mind, and many in the Iraqi community, Intel leaked out about these paper programs through many sources.

    Intel being what it is cannot always be corroborated on the ground in closed countries. The only corroboration was Saddam’s actions which continued to give the impression that wrong doing was going on. The mere fact that Saddam did not fully comply with resolutions, restricted access to scientists, and did not proclaim his innocence right after destroying the programs to relieve sanctions give all the impressions of guilt. Coupled with information leaked to the intel agencies I would say you have a reasonable case for action. At the very least “at the time”. Since taking him in for questioning and or to jail was not a reasonable solution to the problem that left war to remove him.

    The only serious lies I saw during this whole thing would be that of his scientists to saddam, and saddams lies to inspectors (which in a strange turn of events turn out to be more truth than fiction)

  19. #19
    Ultimate Member Undeadlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,559
    Bush did lie ... I mean I am not sure how anyone can argue with that??

    Bush, using the intelligence he had in front of him (wether he cherry-picked it or not) told the American people that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD that he could use on America.

    We invaded, search and found nothing that could be construed as a real WMD threat. There is no libral or conservative leaning in that information. Its just what happened.

    Undeadlord

    TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!

  20. #20
    Senior Member J-Excel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Kzoo, MI
    Posts
    886
    Undeadlord, if I told you something, then you told a bunch of people, then later it turned out that what I told you was wrong, did you lie?

Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above.

What planet do we live on?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc