Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq released Friday. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush’s justification for going to war. The declassified document, written by the Senate Intelligence Committee, also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam exile group, had in the march to war. It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.†>> Complete Article: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14 728447/</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug The war was launched in March of 2003. Are you saying Bush lied based on a report issued in October of 2005? More specifically, are you saying that George W. Bush stated things that he knew to be untrue before launching the invasion of Iraq? And are you prepared to support that contention?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Are you saying Bush lied based on a report issued in October of 2005?>> Well, I guess it comes down to what he knew and when he knew it, and that is hard to prove one way or the other. At minimum, he was wrong and he was duped by the Iraqi National Congress. Personally, I think what I've thought for a while now. If Bush didn't outright lie, he certainly gave preference to the intelligence that supported his desire to invade Iraq while ignoring the intelligence that didn’t. Is that lying? It for sure is deceiving.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Show me a President that never lied. You can't in the past 20 years for sure. But, I don't think he lied about this. I believe he based decisions on faulty information but that can hardly be classified as a lie.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Of course he lied - he lies all the time. Just this week he stated that "the united states does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values". In the next breath he said he'd be seeking congressional immunity for US interrogators. Why do they need immunity if they didn't torture? Easy answer - they did. They violated articles of the geneva conventions. They tried to dismiss the GC earlier but the supreme court effectively told them they can't. So then they complained that the conventions are "vague and undefined" - even though they have served us for over seventy years. It's not til bush shows up that suddently they're found to be unclear. Not to mention the vetted reports about four separate incidents where prisoners of the CIA died during interrogation. That's not torture? For those that think maybe bush isn't lying - would it change your impression of him if and when his lies can be definitively shown? Of course not - you're married to him and nothing he could ever say or do would shake your convictions.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Being stupid on purpose is a stall tactic done by terrorists, your enemies, all republicans are your enemy. All republicans are liars.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've never been accused of being a liar. Actually, I lied...I was accused in the 3rd grade. But that person was wrong. Saying he didn't condone torture may, in fact, be true depending on who's defintion of torture you choose to follow.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>For those that think maybe bush isn't lying - would it change your impression of him if and when his lies can be definitively shown?<< While I appreciate your helpful response on my behalf (>>Of course not - you're married to him and nothing he could ever say or do would shake your convictions.<<), the fact is it certainly would dramatically change my impression if it were definitively shown that Bush knowingly said anything to the American people that he knew was untrue. Does the same hold true for my friends in the Democratic party? If it were definitively shown that a Democratic President knowingly lied in order to deceive the American public, would that change their attitude? No need to speculate. After Clinton lied UNDER OATH the Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder behind him, literally and figuratively. (Of course, his lies were really not important, you see.) All politicians lie-- but that doesn't make it palatable to me. of course, I can't speak for everyone here...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Saying he didn't condone torture may, in fact, be true depending on who's defintion of torture you choose to follow.>> "it depends on what the definition of is is" LOL
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Show me a President that never lied. You can't in the past 20 years for sure. But, I don't think he lied about this. I believe he based decisions on faulty information but that can hardly be classified as a lie.< and remembering here and now that I voted for him twice and still think he was a better choice each time...(before the far right faction attacks me) I do not believe he out and out lied - regardless of the knock that he isn't that bright - while he may not be Mensa material, he is far from stupid... However more and more do I beleive he somewhat picked and chose what he wanted to hear because he wanted into Iraq - yes. Did he manipulate that dat - no I do not think so-- but the data was bad. He wanted into Iraq as bad as FDR wanted into WWII and when the data looked like it could support it - in he went. I don't regret the fact htat we did as much s I think we went in less than fully prepared...and when Shock & Awe didnt end the issue, plan B was wanting for ability. Am I glad Saddam's gone - you bet. DO I know that this type of war ( onterror) is not a cut and dried affair- know that too. But what concerns me ios the length of time Iraq has taken with little foothold gains( yes there have been some progress) - while the bigger threat in the region by far- Iran grows stronger every day. Now maybe there is some secret strategy to use Iraq as a base to deal with Iran as needed...if so then maybe it all works out... my bigger beef with the current political scene is with our own economy - and the fact the current admin refuses to be honest about the issues in it...while the other side just pokes at the GOP without offereing anything better as a solution to those issues.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<Saying he didn't condone torture may, in fact, be true depending on who's defintion of torture you choose to follow.>> "it depends on what the definition of is is" LOL < kinda like what one's definitions of 'relations' was....
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".> Of course. Remember how Saddam had Zarqawi arrested and deported? Oh no, that didn't happen, did it? We know Zarqawi was in operating in Iraq prior to our invasion, but somehow Saddam didn't? Please.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So douglas - you're going to contradict the official senate intelligence report? You know something the congress doesn't? Please.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you're going to contradict the official senate intelligence report?> When it asserts something that makes no sense, yes. Most likely, it takes things out of context. It's kind of funny that you're asking, considering you've contradicted official senate intelligence reports in the past, for much flimsier reasons.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yup, Doug knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee, populated mostly by Republicans, no less. ROTFLMAO. The arrogancy lately has reached new heights around here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh At least I know that the report doesn't show President Bush lied, unlike your false take on it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Oops, excuse me. Road Trip's false take on it. I guess I could point out that SPP's only contribution to this thread is to attack me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Wow, the more they post, the more they're the best evidence against themselves. It's uncanny.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Bush lied. People died. Kind of a catchy little line. ;-) Maybe he just exaggerated. How big does an exaggeration need to be before it's a lie?
