Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Impeach Bush?
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-04   #1
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,453
Impeach Bush?

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)

(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the president is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Bush administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit
Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American press reaction to the missing WMDs
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs would indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War intelligence reports
Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption —when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame -- informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it -- they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct -- and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Sen. Bob Graham -- a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they finds WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A potential huge scandal if WMDs are still missing
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.


John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president of the United States.


An old article I know but still relevant to todays issues..... and he makes some very good points....
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #2
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Telling the truth isn't an impeachable offense.

Sorry.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #3
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade
There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.
Nice that he brushes aside the more likely explanation -- that the US intel groups are not doing a good job -- as "difficult to believe." Is that really so difficult to believe. Does Dean think the POTUS went to Iraq himself and gathered the intel personally? If not, he finds it easier to believe that the POTUS invented the intel rather than took what was given him by the CIA et al?

Once again, we see the sad gullibility of conspiracy theory mongers. They find it easy to believe great evil malfeasance by the POTUS, but completely fail to think the matter through to the end and see what other implications are implicit in their assumption -- then see whether the whole conspiracy theory is still believable once all the implications are known.

So, if we believe the POTUS invented the intel we have to also believe (at a minimum):

1. The same intel that Congress had and which agreed with the general broad consensus in Europe as well -- who invented that intel?

2. Bush started a war, knowing that no WMD would be found, thus guaranteeing a potentially election-losing embarrassment. In other words, we have to believe he was cunning and self serving enough to invent all that intel -- but not cunning enough to realize that the lack of WMD would mean no WMD would be found.

Of course the author is ignoring a third, likely, possibility: that the intel was right and there were indeed WMD, but in the interminable time leading up the invasion, as Iraq's sock puppet Chirac stonewalled and stalled and bought time for Saddam, the WMD were simply moved out of Iraq into some neighbor.

Quote:
New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued.
Great -- an avowed partisan hack like Krugman is touted as some impartial observer.

Right off the bat we see that Krugman is STILL to this day retailing the long since exploded lie that Bush ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat." That lie has been refuted at least a thousand times. By now, everyone in the world musty know that Bush explicitly stated we have to act BEFORE the Iraqi threat becomes imminent, i.e., exactly the opposite. Everyone knows this, except those still confined to the insular partisan world of the NYT.

Quote:
But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."
Except we just saw how an unmarked missile head contained sarin components.

Quote:
Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence.
Gee -- the CIA were wrong...that doesn't occur to him?

Quote:
One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities,
Indeed. But that option fails to satisfy the need for a conspiracy theory to retail, so let's not go there.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #4
Lawson
Darkness Incarnate
 
Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Lawson is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 65,081
Good post.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #5
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,453
hahahaha... conspiracy theories.... good try.... it is a conspiracy that Bush is for the American people..... your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more.... as such I will stop responding to it.......

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #6
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,453
From Ronald Reagan Jr.---

"""He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party. Yes, he was elected governor of Texas, and before that he ran a baseball team and lost a lot of other people's money in the oil business. But what has happened in the intervening five years to make people believe that George W. Bush would be a good president?
What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
Ron Reagan Jr."""

David Letterman---

""Now I don't get this : George W. Bush is in Europe again. Wasn't he just there? This is all part of his second 'I'm In Over My Head' tour. He's in Europe for the G8 Summit. When asked if George W. could name any of the members of the G 8, he said, "Why sure! Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman ..."""

Bill Maher----

"""Did I mention that Bush is a lying bag of crap?""""

Martin Sheen---

"""George W. Bush is like a bad comic working the crowd.
A moron - if you'll pardon the expression."""

"If George W. Bush is a reformer, I'm an astronaut!"
John McCain, March 1, 2000.

"Watching Republicans trying to spin the results in Florida is like watching 10 cats with one litter box.
So much shit, so little sand."
Grace Newton

"Bush is the kind of businessman that can create a multi-million dollar company - just so long as someone gives him a multi-billion dollar company."
Brian Sweat

Poor Bush----

Embarrassing Moron
British teenage singer Charlotte Church told a London paper she found pResident Bush "kind of stupid" when she sang at his preinauguration celebration .
That's because when little Charlotte told Bush she was from Wales, she said he replied, "Uh, what state is that in"?


Fidel Castro even gets in on the fun----

"Bush was not elected president, but appointed" and therefore why should the US bitch about Cuba not holding free elections?"
Fidel Castro



Me---

Bush has one foot in the grave and the other on the throat of all healthy americans....
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #7
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,453
:whipit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade
hahahaha... conspiracy theories.... good try.... it is a conspiracy that Bush is for the American people..... your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more.... as such I will stop responding to it.......



:whipit:

Come on... get to it hehe...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #8
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade
your rhetoric is all conspiracy theories and nothing more.... as such I will stop responding to it.......
Yes, that's easier than offering on point answers to the insoluble problems implicit in your conspiracy theory du jour, like:

Prior to the Iraq War, there was broad consensus that Saddam Hussein had WMD. It was not just Bush saying so. You have seen the big list of quotes form Democratic Senators (including Kerry), European heads of state, pundits, etc -- all of them saying the same thing.

Now, the Congress has access to the same intel Bush does, and Europeans have their own, different, sources of intel.

And they all said the same thing.

So if all the intel and everyone looking at it said the same thing, how is it that only Bush lied? What about Europe? What about Congress? Did they lie too?

Your pet theory, if taken seriously, mandates therefore that either:

1. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had no WMD, and everyone is lying, or
2. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had no WMD, and everyone else read it wrong, so they're all honestly mistaken, but (the supposedly stupid) Bush alone in the entire universe read it correctly, so he's lying, AND he started a war knowing the politically damaging revelation of no WMD was guaranteed, or
3. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had WMD, and everyone's statements, worldwide, reflected that, and Bush said pretty much what everyone else was saying, only now partisan revisionism is setting in.

You posit '2' as most likely. Did you even think about any of this for two seconds?
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #9
John Preston
Listen
 
John Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,395
John Preston is on a distinguished road
Credits: 256,181
http://darkforum.com/showthread.php?t=40861


*coughs* Anywho

If Bush was misleading the public, and Congress or anyone else in his Administration, then Bush was attempting to create a war, which would be akin to premeditated murder.
__________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #10
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade
Fidel Castro even gets in on the fun----

"Bush was not elected president, but appointed" and therefore why should the US bitch about Cuba not holding free elections?"
Fidel Castro



Me---

Bush has one foot in the grave and the other on the throat of all healthy americans....
Well, you can lump yourself in with Fidel Castro if you like, but be advised that does not exactly add luster to your credibility.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #11
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
If Bush was misleading the public, and Congress or anyone else in his Administration, then Bush was attempting to create a war, which would be akin to premeditated murder.
Sorry, totally non-responsive. Did you fail to read that Congress has access to the same intel as the POTUS? How, then, could they be misled when they can see for themselves? Did you fail to notice that other countries, all of whom said the same thing as Bush, have their own sources of intel?

How are they all just honestly mistaken, but only Bush lied?
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #12
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgg9
Yes, that's easier than offering on point answers to the insoluble problems implicit in your conspiracy theory du jour, like:

Prior to the Iraq War, there was broad consensus that Saddam Hussein had WMD. It was not just Bush saying so. You have seen the big list of quotes form Democratic Senators (including Kerry), European heads of state, pundits, etc -- all of them saying the same thing.

Now, the Congress has access to the same intel Bush does, and Europeans have their own, different, sources of intel.

And they all said the same thing.

So if all the intel and everyone looking at it said the same thing, how is it that only Bush lied? What about Europe? What about Congress? Did they lie too?

Your pet theory, if taken seriously, mandates therefore that either:

1. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had no WMD, and everyone is lying, or
2. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had no WMD, and everyone else read it wrong, so they're all honestly mistaken, but (the supposedly stupid) Bush alone in the entire universe read it correctly, so he's lying, AND he started a war knowing the politically damaging revelation of no WMD was guaranteed, or
3. The intel, worldwide, said Saddam had WMD, and everyone's statements, worldwide, reflected that, and Bush said pretty much what everyone else was saying, only now partisan revisionism is setting in.

You posit '2' as most likely. Did you even think about any of this for two seconds?
More conspiracy mumbo jumbo and vague facts which represent a bias opinion.... as such I will delegate it to non-important to the issue at hand----

Bush mislead the American Public with outright lies so as to begin a war..... he should be impeached....
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #13
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade
More conspiracy mumbo jumbo and vague facts which represent a bias opinion
Evasion. Pathetic.

Quote:
Bush mislead the American Public with outright lies so as to begin a war..... he should be impeached....
As expected. I offer direct refutation of your argument, and you simply keep chirping out the same mantra. Clearly, your brain is a Write/Only device.

Well, since you feel you can talk without listening and responding on a public forum, you too have become a waste of time, and your posts can now be dismissed out of hand.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #14
John Preston
Listen
 
John Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,395
John Preston is on a distinguished road
Credits: 256,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgg9
Sorry, totally non-responsive. Did you fail to read that Congress has access to the same intel as the POTUS? How, then, could they be misled when they can see for themselves? Did you fail to notice that other countries, all of whom said the same thing as Bush, have their own sources of intel?

How are they all just honestly mistaken, but only Bush lied?
Who says Congress has the same information?
Did you forget that Putin's information agent gave his information to Bush, Bush thanked the agent and that's the last anyone heard of that information? It just vanished...until Putin talked about it.

Also, if Bush says certain things, the person who is leading the country, should he not have the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he's the LEADER of the country?

It'd be like if you had a Boss at work and they told you something, and you instantly ignore them because you just don't like them. On top of that, who exactly mislead who? As I supplied above there have been many misleading statements given by people in Bush's Administration.

Some of the statements Bush has stated during his speeches hint at how iraq(Or Saddam) had weapons of mass destruction, and others about how dangerous he was/is. Then he has one where he says about how he doesn't want us to go to war with Iraq(Around Dec. of 2002 if memory serves me correctly), yet we went to war with Iraq.
The original reason given dealt with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Those weapons have yet to be find, and Bush's Administration had information telling them that there was little chance that those weapons existed.
__________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #15
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
Who says Congress has the same information?
Did you forget that Putin's information agent gave his information to Bush, Bush thanked the agent and that's the last anyone heard of that information? It just vanished...until Putin talked about it..
Putin was a nice add-in but the POTUS operates off CIA intel. The Congress has access to all of that.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #16
Aeternus
-= Grey CyberAngel =-
 
Aeternus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 41:65:74:65:72:6E:75:73 => 58:65:78:71:82:89:58:00 <=
Posts: 4,828
Aeternus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 112,545
Point remains valid though. Bush starts war WITHOUT security council's permission... On the basis of false intelligence. This false intel is worked up a little and presented as factual propaganda to not only the US, but to the entire world. Now, months later, those tons of chemical weapons remain unfound... which means they are either hidden most cleverly that not even the most hightech spy and search equipment in the world can find them, or they are not there.

The prime reason that was given to start the war has thus been proven most likely false, making the war an illegal one by international law, and the US government a liar to not only their people, but to the entire world. That has some consequences to the credibility of the Bush administration.
__________________

... Time has no bearing...
...when the whiteout begins...

Don't come after me...

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #17
John Preston
Listen
 
John Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,395
John Preston is on a distinguished road
Credits: 256,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgg9
Putin was a nice add-in but the POTUS operates off CIA intel. The Congress has access to all of that.
Can you please supply information as to how they all have the same information to what bush has, including memos between himself and members of the CIA?
__________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #18
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
Bush's Administration had information telling them that there was little chance that those weapons existed.
Congress had the same information. Did they fail to read it? So Kerry voted for war without even glancing at the intel available to him? Then he's unfit for office.

And Bush opted for a war KNOWING there would be no WMD found, thus insuring devastating political damage?

Again, you fail to grasp the contradictions implicit in your nutso conspiracy theories.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #19
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Preston
Can you please supply information as to how they all have the same information to what bush has, including memos between himself and members of the CIA?
Learn how our government works and get back to me.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-04   #20
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeternus
Point remains valid though. Bush starts war WITHOUT security council's permission... On the basis of false intelligence. This false intel is worked up a little and presented as factual propaganda to not only the US, but to the entire world.
Except the rest of the world has their own intel sources, too. Were you aware of that?
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Recent Threads
Whats your job?
11-20-07 14:57
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Hours Ago 20:26
what surprised you today?
04-11-13 17:55
Last post by thefr0g
1 Day Ago 14:31
what have you eaten...
12-24-03 19:43
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Day Ago 10:09
Darkforum Youtube!
03-25-13 07:48
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Day Ago 09:32
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 14:38
by Pahu
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Day Ago 09:27
vote or die
1 Week Ago 01:56
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Day Ago 09:20
vote or die
1 Week Ago 02:02
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Days Ago 21:45
long Sunday
3 Weeks Ago 18:00
by DaxterK
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 01:46
BATH SALT ZOMBIES
12-04-13 11:20
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 23:34
I'm drinking Vodka,...
09-02-17 23:28
by thefr0g
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Week Ago 22:44
Online Users: 52
2 members and 50 guests
formingroll, oschichaclyd
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 18:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community