Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Did Bush lie about the intelligence he used to make the case for war against Iraq? Were the Democratic Senators duped into voting to authorize the use of force... many of them in both 2002 and 1998? This is a pretty commonly held position, on TFP and elsewhere. It also doesn't make any sense.
The number of intelligence agencies reporting the same information as the CIA is staggering, thus rendering the national intelligence conspiracy into an even more moonbat global conspiracy in which even France and Germany were helping to confuse the Senate into authorizing the war. In addition to being historical revisionism at its most sinister, the "Bush lied" argument is also so implausable as to be impossible.
I happened upon this Christopher Hitchens ( hardly a Republican) article in which the "Bush lied" theory is thoroughly debunked. It is difficult, after having read it, to understand why so many otherwise credible liberals have been duped into supporting an argument that is so obviously untrue.
A selection:
Link |
politicophile, I appreciated your candid/personal comments in response to my post concerning your thoughts about military service as a priority of those who voted for another four years of Bush-Cheney.
My point, which you did not specifically respond to, (and the theme of the majority of my posts on this forum) is that they would not still be doing what is described, (lie to, and mislead the American people in critical, national security matters, and much, much, more, unfortunately) in the following compilation of excerpts from Cheney's statements, if not for your vote, and the votes of other, likeminded folks.
My father served in the USMC and was of the opinion, in the late '60's that Vietnam was a "great training exercise" for our troops. I've never had a concern, in matters of war, anyway, whether I am too much, "my father's son". My gut feeling about the legitimacy and the outcome of the Vietnam war was dead on, and it was the same when it came to my early sense of Nixon's integrity and fate. I've had the same sense of Bush-Cheney and their policy of pre-emption.
My political, social, and moral leanings are decidedly my own. The best advice that I can offer anyone is to make sure that theirs are, too.
Your motivation for starting this thread is an indication that you still don't "get" it. Bush-Cheney reflect badly on you, politicophile, on your judgment, your sense of right and wrong. By your endorsement, you acted, and appear to still be acting, against your own best interests, and against mine....and those of all other Americans, and countless others in the world.
What is it that you think that you are doing? How do your justify your vote and your continuing, vocal support? If you are behind these guys and what they are doing, why have you not posted on the "Can You Tell Me Some Bush Positives?" thread?
Consider the possibility that your parents' and other's opinions you hold in high regard, are faulty, insofar as their support of Bush-Cheney. Try to sort out how you come by your politics and principles. Have you truly questioned everything that you have embraced as doctrine? Is it not a concern that, in political and social issues, your personal views might mesh too neatly with those who have had the greatest influence on you, up until now?
Consider that, being of optimum age for the physical rigors and pliability of will that military service demands, you have an obligation, because you voted for more of Bush-Cheney's version of "war-time leadership", and their version of "integrity", to join and to serve in America's armed forces ASAP.
Don't make the mistake of postponing your decision to serve proudly, only to regret it for the rest of your life, as ustwo related to us.
If not you.....who? If not now....when?
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
December 9, 2001
The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press (Scroll down to middle of page)
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was <b>any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.</b>
Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which <b>I want to get you to react to.</b> The first: The Czech interior minister said today that <b>an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.</b>
And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''
And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.
<b>RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.
Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, </b>what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's <h2>been pretty well confirmed,</h2> that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.
|
Quote:
With Tim Russert, on September 8th, 2002:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business.
Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point. We've got...
|
Quote:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...mountain&hl=en
On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we've never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.
|
Quote:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...404_flash3.htm
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET
In an EXCLUSIVE interview with CNBC's 'Capital Report':
....<b>BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."</b>
<h2>Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.</h2>
BORGER: OK.
<h2>Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.</h2>
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.
BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.
BORGER: That it happened.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.
BORGER: So does this put it to rest for you or not on Atta?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: It doesn't add anything from my perspective. I mean, I still am a skeptic. I can't refute the Czech plan. I can't prove the Czech plan. It's ...(unintelligible) the nature of the intelligence (unintelligible).
BORGER: OK, but let's...
|
The evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice made intentionally misleading statements in the "run-up" to the invasion of Iraq. The record above, of Cheney's own statements, strongly indicated that he made a false denial, regarding the critical matter of a statement that he had made earlier; that is still displayed on the white house website, that affirmed a link between an Iraqi under Saddam's control and the man accused by our government of leading the 9/11 suicide airliner attacks.
Cheney disgraces himself every day that he continues to "serve". Cheney and Bush hold power by the simple technique of repeating the same lies, "often enough". If you believe that it is permissible for them to lie about the reassons for invading Iraq, how do you discern when they've stopped lying.
politicophile, your premise and the content of your thread starter speak for themselves. You cannot see that they've lied and betrayed our trust. Now they attempt to impugn the testimony, and by inference, the reputations of good men who challenge them. You champion their betrayal on this page.
Cheney's "speech" last night, preceded by the exchange above with news reporter, Gloria Borger, the recent indictment of his COS and NS advisor, Libby, and Bush's shameful and unprecedented use of troops at two military bases as "prop" audiences for his partisan, political attacks, disguised as "speeches", ought to be enough to at least give you pause, politicophile....
but they haven't!