Ok, you can stop bitching now. Michael Moore can shut the hell up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf

There's the Senate Intelligence comittee's full report on pre-war Iraq intelligence. It wasn't all favorable for the President, but one fact I've not seen reported much is this one:

"The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
So reads Conclusion 83 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda. So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush Administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.

A few apologies would seem to be in order. Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.

If they weren't lied about, will you tell us (and the military) 1) why our more-than-six year hunt has yeiled nothing, and 2) why the British intelligience yestarday said everyone was mislead by intelligience agencies/leaders?

Originally posted by sppunk
If they weren't lied about, will you tell us (and the military) 1) why our more-than-six year hunt has yeiled nothing, and 2) why the British intelligience yestarday said everyone was mislead by intelligience agencies/leaders? Perhaps you should read what I wrote above, and perhaps the report itself.


According to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Joe Wilson lied to the CIA about his trip to Niger and Africa that essentially started the uranium story.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Perhaps you should read what I wrote above, and perhaps the report itself.


According to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Joe Wilson lied to the CIA about his trip to Niger and Africa that essentially started the uranium story.

OK? Today, Bush still said Saddam posed a threat to us. You just posted something that should make him shut the fuck up.

He's not.

Besides, I hate Bush on his domestic policies far more than foreign ones. Fuck foreigners, we have major, major problems at home that guy refuses to even speak of, care of or try to correct.

I don't think anyone, beside the hardcore left and Ted Kennedy, accused him of straight out lying. I wouldn't stop short of calling him a deceiver though.

Originally posted by Mayfuck
I wouldn't stop short of calling him a deceiver though.


I concur. I've NEVER said I thought Bush was a "liar." I really believe that, now LISTEN TO THIS CAREFULLY, he wants to do the best for the United States that he thinks he can do and in HIS MIND he's doing what's right to achieve those goals.

The main problem with Bush, which was my main problem with Reagan, is that not only is he not cerebrally equipped (both intelligence AND knowledge) to run the country and the free world, but he also surrounds himself with reactionaries like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft to help him make every decision.

It's not that I hate Bush and think he's a liar. It's that I hate everything that he stands for. His administration was searching for a reason for war and they found one. Now let's see if they can get us out of it.

Hey, if he can keep saying Sadam was a threat, I can keep calling him a liar.

yeah, and the CIA failed him.

Its not as if he lied straight out and intentionally fudged facts - the intel was really bad to begin with. The CIA department for Iraq was considered a dead end job for years. However George Tenet had a few ghostly facts that he insisted was a "slam dunk" to the president's face that Iraq had WMD. Those facts were basically some old reports from before the inspectors ran out of Iraq and some crappy voice recordings they have of people saying "Biological agents". It wasn't, and never was, a strong case. Cheney was concerned that Iraq was going to make WMDs and hand them over to terrorists and really pushed for it. Everyone just sort of got swept along. But no one wanted Saddam to stay in power at all. That was never an option. The White House had an adgenda since the beginning and that was regime change.

For a pretty even-handed look at the leadup to the war check out:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/074325547X.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Now available at bookstores everywhere! or check out your local library!

no one seems to understand how much of a royal fuckup this is. this war has been a priority since Bush took office. we can thank the hawks, and our spineless leader for following them.

bush didn't lie about wmd




the american people weren't told the truth about why we went to war.




how can we find a bridge between these words?

This is the largest pdf in the world!

While it's loading, let's reiterate - people weren't saying that he lied, because he was very careful not to. If he'd lied outright it would be something tangible to point to, something definite to back him into a corner with. I think what's at issue is whether or not he intentionally misled people.

A similar report just came out in Britain, saying similar things about Blair and co. "It was the intelligence agencies' fault."

Originally posted by Ugly
The White House had an adgenda since the beginning and that was regime change.
Actually, it was Bill Clinton who officially changed US Policy in Iraq from "sanctions" to "regime change."

Originally posted by DeviousJ

While it's loading, let's reiterate - people weren't saying that he lied, because he was very careful not to. Nearly every protest group and anti_bush website specifically say Bush lied. So does the fat asshole I specifically named, Moore.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Actually, it was Bill Clinton who officially changed US Policy in Iraq from "sanctions" to "regime change."

Ah, got me there. However the Clinton white house didn't really enforce it. I believe it passed when the Republicans were the majority in Congress. So they applied pressure to Clinton, Clinton said "whatever", signed it, got a blow job for Monica and didn't think twice about it. Its the Bush White house that actually took it seriously.

well i do recall bush on several occasions saying that saddam posed a significant and imminent threat to the united states because of his possession of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons... and that they didn't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud... so I would say even if he didn't have all the right information he stil lied to the american people.

...and he joked about it afterwards at the white house press correspondents ball (i think thats where it was, where there was a slide of bush lifting up an ottoman or something and him looking under it and looking confused)... he fucking joked about the main reason why he sent over 100,000 troops there and why close to a thousand of them are dead and why tens of thousands of iraqis are dead, the reason that has so far shown pretty much close to no validity... it is unacceptable

What I never understood about this whole fiasco was:

Why didn't Saddam let the inspectors into his country? If he did have nothing to hide, then why didn't he say, "Door's open boys!"

And besides, it's the fucking UN. The only thing those guys know how to do is get pushed around. Whether it's from Iraq or from the US, it doesn't matter. The UN is pretty much useless. That's one point the US did prove successfully, whether it was intentional or not.

So, the question here is, why didn't Saddam just let the inspectors come into his country and check everything out? He could've let them nose around (and supposedly find nothing - right?) until the heat was laid off, and then kick them out like he usually does.

In my honest opinion, there were some WMD in Iraq. Not allowing the inspectors in allowed Saddam to hide those things where they'll never be found in a million years. I mean, christ. It's a desert. All you have to do is dig. And if he didn't want to do that, there were a dozen countries close to him that would've gladly taken the stuff from him free of charge.

This thing reeks on both ends. It's not that I'm sticking up for the Bush administration, it's just that I'm not taking this whole "there exists -NO- weapons of mass destruction" thing seriously. Sure, we can't prove that there are, but at the same time, we can't really prove that there aren't.

Originally posted by Sapphire
Why didn't Saddam let the inspectors into his country? If he did have nothing to hide, then why didn't he say, "Door's open boys!"

Because the inspections were being enforced by Iraq's enemies (particularly the US), so it's understandable they wouldn't want foreign agents gathering intelligence as they pleased. There were also reports of US spies in the inspection teams, which is apparently what prompted Iraq to completely kick them out.

But apparently Iraq was very co-operative in the last round of inspections, and Hans Blix was very pleased with the progress they were making. Of course the inspection teams left again, but this time because the US basically said get out, we're bombing here