Intelligence Strikes Bush

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Where did Bush lie? About intel?

TC

As a service to you, here is the Top 20 Lies as reported by The Independent a couple of days ago. Justto make sure you understand it isn't one or two pieces of spurious intelligence. It is a decision to go to war under PNAC, then backed up by selective intelligence, including forged, fabricated, twisted (all variations of ) lies.

Check that you understand why people call them lies, why people throughout the world are sick of it, and why a Clinton-style defense won't do the Bush administration any good at all.

news.independent.co.uk...

20 Lies About the War

Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath.

By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker
13 July 2003

1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming."

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.

12 The "dodgy dossier"

Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13 War would be easy

Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against," one general complained.

14 Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.

15 Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.

17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.

"It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."

18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20 WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.

Thats a pretty impressive list of supposed "lies".....
I would almost go as far as saying that that very same list could be pretty much "still under advisement" and therefore still speculative, for the most part.

Lets see, a lie is what? It takes two components:

1) You must make a false statement.
2) You must know that the statement was false and make it in attempt to decieve a person or group of persons into believing it was true.


I still find it rather odd that Resolution 1441 concluded that, indeed, Saddam had WMD's, and that he was obligated to show that he had destroyed them. In other words, he had the burdon of proof. Did he destroy them? Did he move them out of country? Did he destroy them and not tell no one? See, what I cannot fathom is the fact that everyone is thinking because WMD's have not been found, he obviously didn't have them! Then, if you say he had them, then your saying that you obviously don't agree that the US, under the Resolution 1441, had no authority to go in and find them and destroy them. Or, your saying it was ok for Saddam to have them, to gain them, to continue building, thus violating Resolution 1441, but that Bush "lied" and "decieved" to go in and get them. Seems to me, whether he lied or not, that Bush, under Resolution 1441, had all the rights necessary to go into Iraq...but maybe I'm just "seeking logic in a sewerhole somewhere"?! Hmmm....so I guess the documentation, done by the UN inspectors, etc. was of no importance?
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.iraqfoundation.org...
www.dfat.gov.au...
www.fas.org...

Mute point I would suppose but it seems that Saddam's WMD were documented and those WMD's that were destroyed were also. Even those amounts that were unaccounted for or missing or unrecorded, etc. also.
(Personally, I think if we really want to know where they are that perhaps we ought to ask his good buddy Chirac and the French government --- since it has been confirmed that they had a quite "unique" relationship as well as the military weapons and parts 'connection.' But thats another matter all together....)

As to the Iraq connection to 9/11....I agree, but still conjecture and speculation.

As to the Iraq and Al-Qaeda connection.....still some what speculation but many questions remain to this. Thus this as being "false" or interpreted as a lie...remains unsettled and unanswered....and cannot be considered a "lie" to empirically proven one way or the other.

And here we have the word: "reconstituted". I think to be perfectly fair to all, here is the transcript from that Cheney comment:
www.msnbc.com...

I fail to even see the word: "reconstituted". The word I see Cheny using is: "reconstituting". There meanings ae of different import also. So this being thrown into the category of "lie", I find hard to see and interpret as such, even with the current field information.

The aluminum tubes issue. I believe inconclusive. Why? Because I also remember Muhommad El Baradai, the UN nuclear 'watchdog' in Iraq, in his speech before the UN, saying the aluminum tubes were of no import and use. He says this because, indeed, they were of no "use".........no "use" in the fact that they were too long in length (though, admittedly, they could have been deemed 'acceptable' in every other way)! Lets look at it a bit closer.....does anyone doubt that the Iraqis lacked the skill and know-how to cut them down to size and still maintain tolerances of +/-.005? How aboutthe ability to 'mil' said tubes? In short, another one thrown into the category of 'lie' that I also find still speculative and not proven.

The "vast" stocks of bio and chemical WMD. I find this to be also speculative, not proven, and still up for debate. Question: Care for a drink from the rivers around Baghdad today?

Lets go to the current WMD:
1) traces of chemicals needed to make WMD have been found in the rivers near and around Baghdad. (fact)

2) The factories to make WMD's from those chemicals have been found in the form of two large chemical trucks and a smaller bio truck. (inconclusive)

3) The persons who have the skill to make WMD's from those chemicals in those factories have been identified and/or mostly captured. (fact)

4) Warheads to contain WMD's made by those persons from those chemicals in those factories have been found in a variety of ammo 'dumps' and scattered locations. (fact)

5) Missiles to deliver those warheads containing WMD's made by those persons from those chemicals in those factories were discovered 2 weeks before the bombing began. (fact, but no all are accounted for, therefore, still speculative)

Personally, my question is this: What does it take for you people to say WMD have bben "found"? Mayhaps a crate labeled: "DANGER: Weapons of Mass Destruction"? I doubt it then.....you all will still continue your protests and denials because the crate didn't contain a "sufficient" quantity of WMD's........

So, all-in-all, the "lie" of vast quantities is again speculative and not fully proven. I do believe they are still looking as we speak.....but as par, it is walloped into the category of "lie".

the "smallpox" issue. *shrugs* I have nothing on that. Therefore, if no one has the answers, Brits, US, etc., how does that make a statement from the UN saying: "there is nothing to support it" equate to a "lie".....seems pretty evident to me that it simply means they don't have a clue and don't know! A "lie", nope, inconclusive and presently unproven.

The US and British claims were supported by the UN. Hehehe, like that would matter to me anyhoo. Hans Blix has been stonewalling the US for how many years? Hell, so has El Baradai! I do think that the UN documentation might not be interpreted to say Saddam, indeed, had or has them but it doesn't rule it out either. Especially in light of documentation showing the amounts and types unaccounted for, etc. A "lie", unconclusive and further speculative.

Previous weapons inspections had failed.....speculative.....ask Saddam's currently dead son-in-law...duh. Whats that tell ya? A "lie".....speculative and unfounded.

*smile*...Iraq was obstructing the inspectors........this considered a "lie"......Iraq willingly and unobstructively aided the UN inspectors? False! All of it is truth and has been documeneted by the UN and media. Its unfounded and untrue.

Deployment of WMD in 45 minutes.....I don't know. But because the sole source of this not being brought forth far from makes this a "lie". Speculative and unproven.

That "dodgy dossier", is of no import to Bush....they never really went by it anyhoo. A "lie"...again, speculative and open to interpretation.

War was easy.......this is getting very 'weak' on the part of those digging for "lies". Folks, the US opened a can of whoop-a** on these folks. I don't give a rat's behind if they offered selective resistance...duh...what you expect. Russians spent how many years trying to take Afganhistan (sp) and still didn't do it....right! A "lie"...hell no, flat out delusional on anyones part for even thinking this would be a lie.....!

Umm Qasr.......please. *smile* Battlefield conditions can change hands in matters of minutes to hours, etc. The uppper levels are recieving info from a ongoing battle situation and Rumsfield got caught within the "ongoing battlefield" reporting....a "lie"....speculative and seriously open to interpretation!

Basra........same as above.....geezus.....!

Private Lynch....that one has always smelled funny so I'll somewhat agree though it can still fall into speculative.

Troops would face chemical and biological attacks. Oh yeah.....a big "lie".....right! Not! Thats called "precautionary measures".....this is going no where. A "lie" nope.

Interrogation of scientist would yield WMD locations. First off...I love the use of the word: interrogation. That word almost gives me the boney but beside the point....a "lie".....nope....specualtion, grabbing for a life preserver, unfounded, and diffently inconclusive.....its currently a on-going process.

Iraq oil money going to Iraq. A "lie"......matter of interpretation........ The US is like a bank.....where are helping to rebuild Iraq with their money under our control....makes sense, when you think about it. You have a country, still getting on its feet, with barely a governing body, so lets give them the money and watch them all scatter to the four corners...running. A "lie", speculative and far from inconclusive....get real.

WMD were found...............read above. Again, care for a drink of water from the rivers around Baghdad? Thought so.

This are real good hard core evidences for "lies"...really....hands down. Not! Amounts to no more than the usual twisting and manipulating of words, bette known as word games.

Clinton? Who was president in 1998? I recall Clinton making a speech saying that Iraq had WMD's. You bet Clinton is implied in all this BS. In fact, bet on it. How many Iraq's were killed in "Operation Desert Fox?" BTW, where WMD's found after that operation? Again, did not Clinton fall for the same "mis-information" clause that is now being denied to Bush?!?

Personally, I had my wish....I have Condoleeza Rice in the White House and let her just eat the Dme's and anyone else a new a**hole.

Lets also keep in mind, as I was so belittled for over the "Indian Siamese Twins and priorities in life"............
let me pose the same back. Are you all not defending a regime that gassed its own people --- and children? Buried them alive ---- including children ---- those same children, many of whom, were still holding their toys and dolls?!? And hey, lets not forget to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraq's that have turned up in unmarked, massed graves, and are still being dug up today.....

Lust my thoughts, views, and opinions.
Great article though MA.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-7-2003 by Seekerof]

[Edited on 16-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Seekerof

I could discuss with you the psychology of lying over drinks. I have come to different conclusions to yours, but let's look at the qualifications you state:

1) You must make a false statement.
2) You must know that the statement was false and make it in attempt to decieve a person or group of persons into believing it was true.

The Bush administration has certainly met those criteria, and this will be borne out. I have every confidence in that.

People can also lie to themselves, to protect them from the plain ugly truth...

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Seekerof

I could discuss with you the psychology of lying over drinks. I have come to different conclusions to yours, but let's look at the qualifications you state:

1) You must make a false statement.
2) You must know that the statement was false and make it in attempt to decieve a person or group of persons into believing it was true.

The Bush administration has certainly met those criteria, and this will be borne out. I have every confidence in that.

People can also lie to themselves, to protect them from the plain ugly truth...

Plead your insults and case somewhere else....again, you can bust on my opinions and views and you expect me and all to take yours as 'empirical' and as fact......?
Please.......you can say and believe and talk all you want....that facts are, that alot of the propaganda that is being put forth is nothing but.......propaganda.
And I whole-heartedly agree with ya mate....."People can also lie to themselves, to protect them from the ugly truth."

Btw.....question still holds.....want to drink some water from the rivers around Baghdad?

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Seekerof

You are in a state of cognitive dissonance, from previous insults and the heinous lies of the Bush administration. I have not insulted you in almost 22 hours and do not plan to do so again.

The Litany Of Lies presented in the Independent (UK) serves the purpose of that journal. I used it as an illustration to TC of how broad in scale the lies of the Bush administration are perceived to be. Some of the lies are attributable to Blair and not Bush. But now the Bush administration will, where possible, point finger at allies and friends in where its own assessment and application of intelligence, for criminal purpose, went so badly wrong.

I was searching for my previous answer to Toltec on gassing and mass murder of Kurds under Hussein. I can't find it, but my position hasn't changed.

As far as the Iranian (not Indian) Siamese twins go, no, money could not have bought them their health in Iraq, either.

You may not want to believe this, but the groundswell in the mainstream media in all countries is now catching up with the opinion of 'early adopters' of the anti-war cause. Not anti-war, just anti- the PNAC agenda which has brought the illegal US invasion about. You will need to be defending yourself against millions of vitriolic attacks from people who are righteously angry and who are gathering information and voice. Just be thankful they are not all spending time at the ATS website.

MA,
Look....... I have always, and I know of a couple of occasions, that I have mentioned and sayed that I highly respected your intelligence, your sarcasm, your humor. I will state it again.

Last night was something that probably went beyond what we both know as acceptable in light of respecting each's views. The only thing that bothered me was the belitting and the name "variations". I will give my apologies to that extent.

I would certainly entertain some 'unbiased' information on PNAC, but I wish to state/mention one thing also. I, in no way, fully think that Bush is "spotless"....far from it. I am almost of the mind set of TC when it comes to Bush, but I do feel sometimes, the need to step up and try to nullify some of the "claiming of this and that".

Hard to explain really.....

Maybe my sense of patriotism going to far and such, but I will assert this: Some of us are just getting sick and tired of most of the US crap. I'm sorry to say it that way but I'm currently lacking better words. Anyway, I will, again, apologize for my above sarcasm and last night. I may not always agree with you MA, but I will certainly respect your opinions and your views, as well as, you, the individual.

regards
seekerof


[Edited on 16-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Name-calling and mud-slinging are the domain of rednecks and other miscreants, some of whom float around here.

I chose to engage in such to point out how stupid they are. Glad you agree.

Taking TC's position, you are bound to be subject to barrages of attack of varying levels of belittlement, insult (and insight) and hundreds of websites with varying levels of credibility. Amongst them is the truth.

This whole groundswell is what John Pilger writes about so eloquently. It has never happened in the world before. I am certain it will not cease until the Bush administration is removed from office, as is deserved.

Again, Masked Avatar, making assumptions that one is lying because 1) you don't trust him to begin with 2) pundits see wriggle room to make him look like a liar and question his every method, motive and strategery doesn't make him a liar. You have been wrong before, going by what you saw or read, does that make you a liar, and if the intelligence finally comes out to be totally wrong about attempted uranium access in Africa (technically one can't say Hussein didn't, as he'd tried many many months before) does that mean Bush is automatically a liar, either? No.

The only one I'll give you is the Lynch propaganda, but again, do you think Bush was in that? That isn't even the work of high ranking spin-masters.

As far as you, Colonel, just because even Ann, who is bright and graceful and very, very ladylike, is more masculine than you, no need in taking it out on her! Go look in the mirror. Figure out a strategy. I dunno, I never had that problem; would steroids and exercise help you?

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Here's my simplified synopsis: Bush is absolved of any misdeed, the UN/Nato help out in Iraq, stabilizing the nation by election time, people see few more green backs in a slowly growing economy and four more years of---------------BUSH

Are the people who were put out of work after Bush became president gonna see any more money in their nonexistent paychecks? Bush's presidency does not represent the little guys who make up 90% of America. Only the well off with stock portfolios and investment capital will benefit from anything that Bush does.

Can any of you skulking repugnants tell me anyone in this admin that has NOT LIED DAILY? Health care. LIES. Iraqi War. LIES. Economy. Education. LIES. Tax cuts. LIES. Just Non-stop LIES 24/7. Yeah, just keep lurking.

Hell, they don't even try to put a spin on it anymore. They just flat out LIE.

The Bush Crime Family says the deficit will be 455 billion dollars. The OMB Report says that our deficit will be 698 billion dollars. JUST LYING EVERYDAY!

"My intelligence is darn good intelligence."-Bush when meeting with a Un Chief

Originally posted by Colonel
The Bush Crime Family says the deficit will be 455 billion dollars. The OMB Report says that our deficit will be 698 billion dollars. JUST LYING EVERYDAY!

Colonel....... you have made three posts, back-to-back..........echoing and proving just what many feel today......the Democracks are desparate. All 9 of the Demcrack presidential nominees voted for the war...based on the same info as Bush had prive' to. Today, only 2 of that 9 are yelling for a "lynching".....

I hope you haven't missed reading the articles also that state that the Democracks maybe cutting their own throats by calling Bush a liar, perchance? Quite a few of them out there in the past few days....

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Here's my simplified synopsis: Bush is absolved of any misdeed, the UN/Nato help out in Iraq, stabilizing the nation by election time, people see few more green backs in a slowly growing economy and four more years of---------------BUSH

Are the people who were put out of work after Bush became president gonna see any more money in their nonexistent paychecks? Bush's presidency does not represent the little guys who make up 90% of America. Only the well off with stock portfolios and investment capital will benefit from anything that Bush does.

So, according to you, as soon as Bush took office, jobs stop coming open....we've had this debate already...Bush did not cause the economy...and I suppose %90 pf America is out of work and hungry??

Please show me how bush is directly responsible for anyone losing a job. Not congress. Not the economic downturn that began with corporate malfeaseance, dot comfallout, 9/11 and all of its ramifications.........???
Your dem friends are reeeeeeeeaaching for a reed to grasp on to to keep from drowining in their own mediocrity and lack of a viable candidate.

It is sad that dems who patted bush on the back and said "We must rid the world of Sadaam" are now being asked by their radical, leftist, spurious comrades to do a hatchet job on the President. It is laughable how pathetic the public views the democratic party lackeys as they walk a fine line between attacking the President and acting like they are for the war at the same time.

Hypocrites.

TC

I respect your comments about mislabelling people as liars.

In fact, I am very precise in the application of this term. You will see that if you go to a recent thread at ATS on "lying". It's important to be assured that you are talking about something that you know, if you are going to call someone a liar, yes.

I am 100% confident that Bush is a liar, based on all the evidence available. On the evidence alone, and not on the distortions of left-wing media, or the extensive cover-ups being perpetrated by the Bush administration itself in their tag-team lying and scapegoating, but on the evidence alone.

No, that doesn't make me a liar, but a qualified critic of this administration. The fact they have not yet been convicted does not absolve them.

I'm interested to know, in this matter of the lying of Bush and his associates, where I have been wrong about something before. I can't remember the error you saw me make, and I am interested enough to be reminded of it...