|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
<h2>What makes him a colossal failure?</h2> Interest rates? Stock market values?
Home values? The economy? Unemployment rates?
I know what it is, its Iraq, the AG, and what happens in Washington.
No matter how bad you think he looks, just look up Carter and he seems great...
|
Where to begin....hmmm ????
We'll start with the Bush administration fiscal policies, which began in early 2001 with a $70 billion, instant tax rebate which reversed the decline in annual US Treasury Debt to just $18 billion in the year ending 9/30/2000. What happened nest is all documented in the tables, below:
(...and at the end of fiscal year 9/30/2006, Total US Treasury debt <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm">was $8,506,973,899,215.23</a>, vs. <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">$8,872,999,958,833.00 today</a>...<b>an increase of $366 billion in the last nine months and 12 days....</b>
In his Jan., 2007 SOTU, what can you....reconmike...point to, that is a Bush improvement or accomplishment, either fiscally or in the war in Iraq....or, anywhere. What did Bush say in his SOTU that was even reliable. His "deficit reduction" claim, is simply the "trick" of refusing to budget for the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars have been funded, since 2002...by a series of "off budget" supplemental appropriations <b>that add to total annual US Treasury Debt...but NOT to the annual budget deficit number that Bush touted in his SOTU. <h3>reconmike; total annual US Treasury debt between Oct. 1, 1999, and Sept. 30, 2000 increased by just $18 billion, and LOOK AT IT NOW!</h3>
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...it#post2185490
01-24-2007
<b>If you argue that there was no surplus in 2000, you must hold Mr. Bush to the same standard...by comparing the increase in the amount of the federal treasury debt YOY. The increase was just about eliminated in 2000, and under Mr. Bush, off-budget appropriations for the "wars", arguably budgetable in large measure, 3 years after the invasion of Iraq, were not included, enabling Mr. Bush to tout a false impression that the increasing debt has been mitigated. Fiscally, this is a failed presidency, judging from the debt trend reversal:</b>
<b>Bush handpicked the chairman Jim Baker, a loyal family friend to chair the commission that wrote the preceding ISG report excerpts. The goal of training an Iraqi security force "to stand up", so our troops can "stand down", seems doomed due to a refusal of Iraqi counterparts to American troops to make a similar commitment to the one that American troops have consistently obeyed orders to make. The effect on our troops, on their equipment, and on the overall readiness is of grave concern.
The concept of a democratically elected government with a representative legislature seems equally shattered, at this time, and we see Mr. Bush reduced to making his featured statement of accomplishment....an intentionally misleading impression that he is reigning in the ballooning annual increase in federal debt, that his policies brought from near zero, to $574 billion annually, in just six years.
If this does not look like a failed presidency to you....tell us why it isn't. Please do not simply vote in the thread poll without posting justification.</b>
|
[/quote]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109356 10-09-2006
In <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2134078&postcount=34">another thread</a>, UStwo posted this excerpt, this is my response:
It comes down to the fact that you want to enjoy a low tax rate, even as the deficit that is aggravated by the impact of recent tax cuts, and out of control republican spending, destroys the fiscal soundness of the US in the not too distant future. As far as a shift of government control to "the loony left", as you describe it, others reading this can mull over the fact that the treasury deficit declined every year, starting with the end of 12 years of "responsible conservative management" of the federal budget, and resumed it's trend of increasing, massively, when republicans returned to power, in 2001:
Quote:
<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LK4mcAFfc4cJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf+2005+revenue+tax+revenue&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7#2">CBO html link</a>
<b>Year_ GDP Revenue Spending Surplus/Deficit</b>
1993 ______1,154.5 1,409.5____ -300.4
2000 9,817 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4 (This line displays an $86.4 billion budget surplus.....
2001 10,128 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4 (a small deficit here, and then the tax cut
2002 10,470 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4
2003 10,971 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4
2004 11,734 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0
2005 12,487 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6
GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LK4mcAFfc4cJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf+2005+revenue+tax+revenue&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7#4">CBO html link</a>
Table 1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public,
1962 to 2005
(Billions of dollars)
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget.
Note: n.a. = not applicable (the Postal Service was not an independent agency until 1972); * = between -$50 million and $50 million.
a. End of year.
1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.7 n.a. 3.2 278.1
1970 192.8 195.6 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.1 3.1 -0.4 -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.2 0.5 -0.2 -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -7.2 1.8 -0.8 -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -54.1 2.0 -1.1 -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -69.4 -3.2 -1.1 -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.9 -3.9 0.2 -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -55.4 -4.3 0.5 -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -39.6 -2.0 0.9 -40.7 640.3
1980 517.1 590.9 -73.1 -1.1 0.4 -73.8 711.9
Revenues Outlays Budget Security Service Total the Publica
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 -0.1 -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.6 -7.9 0.6 -128.0 924.6 <b>End of First Reagan Admin. Budget Year</b>
1983 600.6 808.4 -207.7 0.2 -0.3 -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.3 0.3 -0.4 -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.5 9.4 -0.1 -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 * -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -168.4 19.6 -0.9 -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -192.3 38.8 -1.7 -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.8 -205.4 52.4 0.3 -152.6 2,190.7
1990 1,032.1 1,253.1 -277.6 58.2 -1.6 -221.0 2,411.6
1991 1,055.1 1,324.3 -321.4 53.5 -1.3 -269.2 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.6 -340.4 50.7 -0.7 -290.3 2,999.7
1993 1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4 <h3>Deficit decline starts</h3>
1994 1,258.7 1,461.9 -258.8 56.8 -1.1 -203.2 3,433.1
1995 1,351.9 1,515.9 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0 3,604.4
1996 1,453.2 1,560.6 -174.0 66.4 0.2 -107.4 3,734.1
1997 1,579.4 1,601.3 -103.2 81.3 * -21.9 3,772.3
1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 -29.9 99.4 -0.2 69.3 3,721.1
1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6 3,632.4
2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4 151.8 -2.0 236.2 3,409.8 <h3>Deficit eliminated</h3>
2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4 163.0 -2.3 128.2 3,319.6
2002 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4 159.0 0.7 -157.8 3,540.4
2003 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4 155.6 5.2 -377.6 3,913.4
2004 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0 151.1 4.1 -412.7 4,295.5 SSI Revenue= $151.1b
2005 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6 173.5 1.8 -318.3 4,592.2
Revenues Outlays Budget Security Service Total the Publica
Deficit (-) or Surplus Debt
On-
|
In 2004, 3 years after the 2001 tax cut trend began, SSI revenues collected were the same $151 billion as they were in 2000. Revenue from inidvidual income tax, however, was down to $1,880.3 billion, or $125 billion lower than the $2025.4 billion collected in 2000.
The actual 2006 treasury deficit, with "off-budget" appropriations for Katrina "relief" and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, added, will total <b>$574 billion</b>, vs. $553 billion in 2005, $496 billion in 2004, $555 billion in 2003, $421 billion in 2002, $133 billion in 2001, and just $18 billion, in 2000,
down from $347 billion when "the loony left began to manage the budget in 1993: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Quote:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Prior Fiscal Years____Intragovernmental Holdings
09/29/2006 _______8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 _______7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 _______7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 _______6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 _______6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 _______5,807,463,412,200.06
09/28/2000 _______5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 _______5,656,270,901,633.43
|
The economist who recently wrote this column:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100100872.html
A Party Without Principles
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, October 2, 2006; A19
After years of single-party government, the prospect of a Democratic majority in the House ought to feel refreshing. But even with Republicans collapsing in a pile of sexual sleaze, I just can't get excited. Most Democrats in Congress seem bereft of ideas or the courage to stand up for them. They clearly want power, but they have no principles to guide their use of it.....
|
also wrote this one:
Year GDP Revenue Spending Surplus/Deficit
1993 ______1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4
2000 9,817 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4
2001 10,128 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4
2002 10,470 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4
2003 10,971 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4
2004 11,734 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0
2005 12,487 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6
<b>Deficits in right column, above, do not include "off budget" appropriatins.....</b>
GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year.
So....aside from wanting to avoid increased personal income taxes, necessary if the "loony left" has any hope of coming in and cleaning up "the dog poop on the carpet", which is the mismanaged state of federal budget management and spending, today.....contrasting sharply to the state of the budget when "the loony left" handed control over to "responsible conservatives", less than six years ago.....and neccessary if you want to be responsible enough to commit to avoiding passing a bankrupt government to you own children, as your legacy, can you seperate the preceding facts, data, and descriptions, from your own political prejudices and preconceived notions.
The federal budgeting and spending of the last 25 years, provides a model that strongly suggest that the opposite of everything you've posted on the justification of your political preferences, is invalid. It is a presciption for temporarily low income taxes now, in exchange for a curency crash and a bankrupt federal treasury, before 2015. |
<h3>reconmike; some of us see the following as damning evidence that the president lied to us about his justification for snooping into our private lives and for his authorizing an end run around FISA laws, just months after he told us on October 26, 2001 that,
Quote:
|
"The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
|
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.</h3> Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants." </h3> Why...then, reconmike, at the end of 2005 and in 2006, were Gonzales and Bush using the same excuses as Bush used in 2001 to persuade us that the Patriot Act was needed to monitor "terrorists", and that it's provisions had closed the "technology gap"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=16 05-24-2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>October 26, 2001</h2>
Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill
Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation
The East Room
... The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.
Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.
I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.
But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.
We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict. We may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement officials, under the most trying conditions. They are serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery.
They deserve our full support and every means of help that we can provide. We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.
For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.
As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. <h3>The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.</h3> Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants.
Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they're after the same suspect. Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. ......
....... It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
END 10:57 A.M. EDT
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20011027.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>October 27, 2001</h3>
Radio Address of the President to the Nation
.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.
<h3>When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. </h3> It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike....
..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.
Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. <h3>But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. </h3> Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance <h2>of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.</h2>
In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.......
...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.
<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2> And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.
Thank you for listening.
END
|
...and what is this....40 months later....could it be????
<h2>The Flop:</h2>
Quote:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006...t-he-says.html
....<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2>
And I can assure all Americans that
these important new statutes will be
enforced to the full. Thank you for
listening.
Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." <h3>Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.</h3>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
.......So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. <h3>Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.</h3> It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.
The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.........
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>December 19, 2005</h2>
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room
......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. <h2>You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</h2>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>September 7, 2006</h2>
President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror
Cobb Galleria Centre
Atlanta, Georgia
......Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. <b>So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.</b> (Applause.)
<h2>When FISA was passed in 1978</h2>, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. <h3>Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.......</h3>
|
<h2>The Flip:</h2>
Here is Bush, just weeks after he is alleged to have (by James Comey) directed Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's ICU unit bed to sign an authorization that Ashcroft was no longer legally authorized to sign...he had relinquished his duties due to illness:
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ges/print.html
And beyond McConnell's plainly false Op-Ed, the lies told by the Bush administration on the issue of eavesdropping have no equal. In light of the revelations from James Comey, just re-visit the statements from Alberto Gonzales in December 2005 -- five days before the New York Times revealed the warrantless eavesdropping program -- in which he assured his audience: "All wiretaps must be authorized by a federal judge." <h3>That is the same Alberto Gonzales who barged into John Ashcroft's hospital room to coerce his consent to their ongoing warrantless eavesdropping activities.
Worse, the President himself -- literally one month after the dispute with Comey and Ashcroft over warrantless eavesdropping -- one month -- ran around the country as part of his re-election campaign insisting that the only eavesdropping done by the government was one done with warrants:</h3>
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. <b>Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.</h3>
The same President who ordered warrantless eavesdropping -- and who almost had the entire top level of the DOJ resign as a result -- told Americans weeks later that the Government only eavesdrops with warrants. To call that "lying" is to understate the case. It really is to our great discredit that we have acquiesced to this level of presidential deceit.
<h3>McConnell's Op-Ed demonstrates that this level of deceit with regard to eavesdropping continues unabated. The notion that the administration would demand, and that Congress would entertain, further expansions of FISA under these circumstances is just staggering.</h3>
|
|
.....and, reconmike, some of us see these Bush statements as evidence that he <h3>"lied us into war":</h3>
Quote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html
World>Terrorism & Security
posted November 21, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.
Germany: CIA knew 'Curveball' was not trustworthy
German intelligence alleges Bush administration repeatedly 'exaggerated' informant's claims in run-up to war.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named 'Curveball' was giving about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Los Angeles Times, in a massive report published Sunday, reports that "the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq." They also say that 'Curveball,' whom the Germans described as "not a psychologically stable guy," never claimed that he had produced germ weapons, nor had he ever seen anyone do it.
The Independent reports that proof of Curveball's lack of credibility came when the US sent its own team of inspectors to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They discovered the informants's personnel files in Baghdad.
It showed he had been a low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or site manager, as the CIA had insisted. Moreover he had been dismissed in 1995 – just when he claimed to have begun work on bio-warfare trucks.
The Independent also provides what it calls its list of "intelligence red herrings." There was Curveball himself. There was Ahmed Chalabi, who brought to US attention defectors that "proved to be false, as was his claim that US invaders would be met with bouquets." There was the Niger-Iraq uranium story, which later turned out to have been fabricated by a former Italian spy. And there was Iraq's possession of aluminum tubes, which the administration said were for nuclear weapons, yet turned out to be for small conventional military rockets.........
Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."
http://groups.google.com.tw/group/al...9995877e60e9d?
........According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
The Times report also says that the White House ignored evidence presented by the United Nations that showed that Curveball was wrong, and that the CIA " punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and [the CIA] refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion." Much of the information Curveball gave to the CIA later turned out to be stories he had gleaned from research on the Internet.....
|
Cheney had plenty of company. Bush spouted this garbage....refuted in the preceding quote box....twice...just days apart, around the time of Powell's phoney presentation at the UN:
Quote:
The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council resolutions are evident, and they continue to this hour. The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary; the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materiels, and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council 1441.
This deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, the Vice President, and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors. In intercepted conversations, we have heard orders to conceal materials from the U.N. inspectors. And we have seen through satellite images concealment activity at close to 30 sites, including movement of equipment before inspectors arrive.
The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand <b>witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents</b>, equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery. Using these factories, Iraq could produce within just months hundreds of pounds of biological poisons....
|
Quote:
.....The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly, biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists. This effort of deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, Iraq's vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors.
The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has <b>at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.</b>
The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. It has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons.....
|
They did it over and over....putting out their fearful message....attributing it to others....pulled it back.....put it out, again...and now, we know that they knew when they were doing it, that it was unreliable....that there was no consensus in the US intelligence community or in the intelligence community of NATO allies....but they "put it out"...because, as Tenet tells us, they never considered anything but war as the "solution" in Iraq. They had to "fix the facts" around the "policy".
How can you tell that they were lying to us then, and now....because all Bush and Cheney had was "Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague", and "Zarqawi was in Baghdad and ran a "poison camp" in Iraq"....and Cheney still justifies the invasion of Iraq, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070405-3.html">in April, 2007</a>, and Bush did as recently as last September, with the worn out mantra that "Zarqawi was present", even though he had no relationship with Saddam or his government, and was located at a "poison camp" in an area of Northern Iraq that US military and it's Kurdish allies could access....if they wanted to.....but Saddam's military could not......
Quote:
http://cbs11tv.com/politics/local_story_120084826.html
.....<b>The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard Perle at the White House.
"He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It’s September the 12th. I’ve got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'" Tenet remembers.
"You said Iraq made no sense to you in that moment. Does it make any sense to you today?" Pelley asks.
"In terms of complicity with 9/11, absolutely none," Tenet says. "It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."</b>
<h3>"The president, in October of 2002, quote: 'We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work.' Is that what you're telling the president?" Pelley asks.
"Well, we didn't believe al Qaeda was gonna do Saddam Hussein's dirty work," Tenet says.
"January '03, the president again, [said] quote: 'Imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam Hussein.' Is that what you're telling the president?"</h3> Pelley asks.
<h2>"No," Tenet says.</h2>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020928.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2002
Radio Address by the President to the Nation
.....The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. <h3>The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq</h3>.......
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
.....Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.....
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021014-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 14, 2002
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
.....<h3>September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking</h3>. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.
As I said -- I was a little more diplomatic in my speech, but we need to -- <h3>we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind........</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003
President Delivers "State of the Union"
.....With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that <h3>Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.</h3> Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.........
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003
President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"
.... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.
The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. ......
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003
President's Radio Address
.....Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.
We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ......
|
Quote:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004
NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.
|
Quote:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1122nj1.htm
ADMINISTRATION
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter....
.....Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists......
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>August 21, 2006</h3>
Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would --who had relations with Zarqawi.....
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday, September 10, 2006
......WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."
But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this — and let's put it up on the screen.
"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" — that's chemical or biological — "knowledge or assistance."
Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?
RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on — and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.
We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq. We know that Zarqawi ordered the killing of an American diplomat in Jordan from Iraq. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more. But clearly ...
WALLACE: But, Secretary Rice, this report, if I may, this report wasn't now. This isn't after the fact. This was a Defense Intelligence Agency report in 2002.....
|
.....<H2>....by Sept., 2006, the Bushshit was soundin' purdy lame:</H2>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>September 12, 2006</h3>
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. <H3>That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it......</H3>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
<h3>Sept. 15, 2006</h3>
......<H3>MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda.</h3> A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, <h3>and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq</h3>. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <h3>I never said there was an operational relationship.....</h3>
|
<b>reconmike, every lie and misleading statement made by Bush, that I've posted, is linked directly to a white house webpage. The information that could have precluded you from asking, "What makes him a colossal failure?" is retrievable in "plain sight"....but you're more skeptical about me, and the "Clinton Crimes" that eight years of white water investigations couldn't "pin" on the man....than you are about Mr. Bush and his statements, vs. the contradictory evidence, displayed on your screen, now...</b>
Last edited by host; 07-13-2007 at 02:05 AM..
|
07-12-2007, 01:51 PM
