Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush?

sazerac · 11-09-08, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

That is absolute bull****!

The Senate Committee on Pre-War Intelligence concluded what he told the nation was not supported by the intelligence. So he lied!

If you weren't lying your ass off you'd have a link. Both senate reports said that everything he said was backed up by our intelligence.

Quote:

The lowest number of total vetoes since Warren Harding.

Whoa then! If the president has the power of veto that means only he can be responsible for anything. So why are we paying all these other guys?

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sazerac

If you weren't lying your ass off you'd have a link. Both senate reports said that everything he said was backed up by our intelligence.

Whoa then! If the president has the power of veto that means only he can be responsible for anything. So why are we paying all these other guys?

Here it is, lie by lie.

Quote:

How President Bush Lied this country into War

Lie by Lie

January 2003
Instead of concentrating on UBL, Cheney wastes time trying to use the CIA to get some dirt on Iraq.

On 1-1-2003
The CIA finally balks at being assigned over and over to confirm what it viewed as phony intelligence, according to a later report in The Washington Post. In an angry dispute, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin tells Cheney’s aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, “I’m not going back to the well on this. We’ve done our work.”

It has been said many times that Bush was just going off the intelligence at the time. Well, part of that same intelligence said there would be sectarian violence if we invaded. Why didn’t he go off that intelligence at the time as well? Why did he blow that part off and just cherry-pick the other?

On 1-1-2003
Two reports from the National Intelligence Council warn Bush that an Iraq invasion could spark sectarian violence and an anti-US insurgency. One says an occupation could “increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives.” They also express skepticism about the Niger uranium story.

Here is Bush, ignoring intelligence skepticism about the Niger story, speaks about a mythical Iraqi threat.

On 1-3-2003
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats who are friends of America.” — President Bush, rallying troops at Fort Hood.
6 days after Bush speaks of an Iraqi threat, Hans Blix indicates that Iraq is in compliance with UNSC resolution 1441.

On 1-9-2003
Hans Blix appears before the UN on the same day as El Baradei to comment on the Iraqi weapons declaration and to present an update on inspections. He reports that inspectors have found no “smoking guns” in Iraq after two months’ work, and that they have not encountered any impediments from the Iraqis. He does say the Iraqi declaration was incomplete, and calls on the Iraqis to show more evidence of disarmament.

Here is clear evidence that there was some question from the intelligence community as to whether Hussein was re-constituting his nuclear program.

On 1-9-2003
Mohamed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (and, two years later, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient), contradicts President Bush on the aluminum tubes intelligence in a presentation to the UN. El Baradei says the “tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it.” The New York Times reports that the CIA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and the NSA agree with the Bush Administration’s view, while some in the INR (State) and the DOE (Energy) agree with El Baradei. A senior Bush official tells the Times, “I think the Iraqis are spinning the IAEA.”

A day after the IAEA disputes the Niger story, Administration spin doctors go to work.

On 1-10-2003
The Department of Homeland Security advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

Here is clear evidence Bush had already made the decision to go to war.

On 1-11-2003
Donald Rumsfeld shows Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar the administration’s war plans for Iraq and says, “You can count on this. This is going to happen.” Two days later, Bush tells Colin Powell he has decided to go to war.

A full 2 weeks before his SOTU address, it is known that the Niger story was probably a hoax.

On 1-13-2003
A State Department intelligence analyst working on Iraq’s nuclear program sends an email to several members of the intelligence community arguing that “the uranium purchase agreement was probably a hoax.”

Here is more evidence that Bush had already decided to go to war in spite of the information he was now getting from the intelligence community.

On 1-20-2003
President Bush signs National Security Presidential Directive No. 24, assigning to the Pentagon control over post war Iraq. According to George Packer’s book “The Assassin’ the State Department’s “Future of Iraq” project has been making plans for Iraq’s reconstruction for almost a year; the Defense Department will use little of State’s work and will shut its officials out from crucial posts. With the directive, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), is created. Subsumed by the Coalition Provisional Authority six months later, it will be the first post war authority in Iraq.

More evidence the Niger story was false.

On 1-24-2003
The IAEA tells the Washington Post that the aluminum tubes often cited as evidence of Saddam’s nuclear ambitions are perfect fits for 81mm rockets used in many rocket launchers. One actually bears the imprint “Rocket.” Says one official, “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece.”

More evidence there was no WMD’s in Iraq.

On 1-27-2003
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei tells the UN Security Council that inspections have turned up no evidence of nuclear weapons programs in Iraq. “[I]t appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.”

Just a day before Bush’s SOTU speech, more evidence Iraq was in compliance of UN resolution 1441.

On 1-27-2003
The UN issues a press release regarding Iraq’s response to Resolution 1441. “It would appear that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on substance in order to complete the disarmament task through inspection.” The press release reports that UN weapons inspectors, after 60 days on the job, have inspected 106 locations and found “no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program.”

Despite several reports the Niger story was false, Bush includes it in his SOTU.

On 1-28-2003
President Bush, in his State of the Union address, says the infamous l6 words: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Various intelligence agencies know this to be false. The CIA made sure the claim was removed from an October 2002 speech Bush gave in Cincinnati.Bush’s speech contains other highly questionable claims: “[Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Iraq has “mobile biological weapons labs” designed to produce “germ warfare agents.” Saddam builds and keeps weapons of mass destruction.

Just 2 days after Bush’s SOTU speech, the CIA questions the alleged meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohammad Atta.

On 1-29-2003
In a report entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA revisits the claim that Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. Some information asserts that Atta met with IIS chief al-Ani, but the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility.... A CIA and FBI review of intelligence and open-source reporting leads us to question the information.

But Administration spin doctors just keep going on the bull**** for war.

On 1-29-2003
A day after the Presidents State of the Union address, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld backs him up. [Saddams] regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The regime plays host to terrorists, including al Qaeda.

Here is clear evidence how out of touch Administration officials are with reality.

On 1-29-2003
Then-United State ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, asked about IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradeis skepticism that the aluminum tubes bound for Iraq were to be used in a centrifuge, responds, If your question to me is, Are we convinced that those tubes were designed and are being, were intended, for enrichment of uranium? The answer is definitively yes.

Here is the “smoking gun” that Bush intended to go to war with Iraq.

On 1-31-2003
According to a secret memo brought to light in early 2006, President Bush tells British PM Tony Blair he plans to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors find no evidence of banned Iraqi weapons programs. He also says he will not need a second UN resolution condemning Iraq. Blair gives assurances that he’s solidly with the president. The memo has Bush telling Blair the US is casting around for a stronger pretext to invade and that it once considered flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]. Bush adds that he thinks it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between [Iraq’s] different religious and ethnic groups after the attack.

Going to war in Iraq, knowing ahead of time, there were no WMD’s.

On 1-31-2003
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush meet in the Oval office to discuss the impending invasion of Iraq. A memo of the private meeting written by two senior British officials later reveals that Bush and Blair were aware that no WMDs had been found and that it was possible that they never would be, but Bush, determined to invade, spent the meeting discussing ways in which the two could justify the invasion. Bush also says that it would be a quick victory and it was “unlikely [that] there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.” During a news conference following Bush and Blairs meeting, Bush tells the press that “Saddam is not disarming this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.”

Lie By Lie

And that was January.

American · 11-09-08, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

We've listened to the hyper-partisans on the left rant, rave, lie and blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in this country. We've seen the hyper-partisans on the right defend Bush for indefensible actions taken by the administration. So now that Obama will soon be taking office, would it be fair for the hyper-partisans on the right and the left to change roles?

I hear ya brother.

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 07:12 PM

Here is February - Lie by Lie>>>

Quote:

February 2003

Even Colin Powell can see Bush is full of ****.

On 2-1-2003
Officials in the Bush Administration come together to prepare for Secretary of State Powell’s February 5 speech to the UN, in which Powell will put all credible US evidence on the table and make the case for war to the international community. Powell reads an early draft based on work down by Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and, finding the material poorly sourced and misleading, throws several pages in the air and exclaims, “I’m not reading this. This is bull****.” The preparations will go on for four days and three nights. Intense scrutiny will be applied to assertions made routinely by Cheney and others, in hopes that Powell will commit himself to only the very best of American intelligence. One 38-page list of allegations against Iraq is whittled down to six pages by Powell and his team.

Here is clear indication that the Bush Administration was suppressing dissenting opinions from the intelligence community.

On 2-4-2003
CIA agent Tyler Drumheller makes a personal appeal by phone to George Tenet for Curveball’s intelligence to be deleted from Colin Powell’s February 5 speech to the UN. However, attendees at preparatory meetings with Powell say no one from CIA ever mentioned Drumheller or the name Curveball. Powell himself will comment later that Tenet assured him the reporting was solid. Says Powell, "What really made me not pleased was they had put out a burn notice on this guy, and people who were even present at my briefings knew it."

More evidence of Bush’s intention to go to war.

On 2-4-2003
The only American intelligence official to ever actually meet Curveball reads a portion of Powell's upcoming UN speech in order to vet statements about mobile weapons labs. Afterwards, the official writes to his superior at the CIA:"I believe I am still the only United States Government (USG) person to have had direct access to him. There are a few issues associated with that contact that warrant further explanation, in my opinion, before using him as the backbone for the Iraqi mobile program. I do have a concern with the validity of the information based on CURVE BALL were having major handling issues with him and were attempting to determine, if in fact, CURVE BALL was who he said he was. These issues, in my opinion, warrant further inquiry, before we use the information as the backbone of one of our major findings of the existence of a continuing Iraqi BW program! His superior responds, As I said last night, let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.

Powell’s ridiculous speech at the UN.

On 2-5-2003
Colin Powell addresses the UN in an attempt to sway world opinion in favor of war in Iraq. Powell makes a series of inaccurate statements that will badly tarnish his reputation. Powell says, "I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida." This is al-Libi, who provided information under torture and will recant everything. Powell highlights Curveball's "eyewitness" account when he warns that Iraq's mobile labs can brew enough weapons-grade microbes "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people." Curveball has been doubted for some time by intelligence agencies at home and abroad. In fact, the senior German intelligence officer who supervised Curveball's case later tells the Los Angeles Times that when his colleagues hear Powell cite Curveball, "We were shocked. Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven."Powell also says that Saddam’s son Qusay has ordered WMD removed from palace complexes; that key WMD files are being driven around Iraq by intelligence agents; that bioweapons warheads have been distributed to the Iraqi military; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a decontamination vehicle for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam’s guest houses. Every one of those claims has been flagged by a congressional intelligence assessment of the speech as WEAK.

Despite objections from the intelligence community, Bush just keeps lying.

On 2-6-2003
Bush follows Powell’s presentation with a national address reiterating the administration's standard claims: Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, possesses at least seven mobile factories for germ warfare, and harbors terrorist networks. Bush adds that Iraq has developed spray devices for chemical and biological weapons that could be attached to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland. The U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs, the Air Forces National Air and Space Intelligence Center, wrote months earlier in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance. A senior analyst with the Air Force will express shock months later, saying, We were pretty sure this thing was dead.

Here is clear evidence that Bush could care less about Iraqis and wasn’t going to war with over humanitarian reasons.

On 2-6-2003
Three State Department bureau chiefs prepare a secret memo for their superior and cite "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance." They write that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." They advocate that the State Department stand strong against the Pentagon, which is ignoring the State Department’s work in preparation for post-invasion Iraq.

More Administration spin.

On 2-7-2003
Ashcroft, Ridge, and Mueller raise the terror alert level to orange. Ashcroft says, Recent intelligence reports suggest that Al Qaeda leaders have emphasized planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States.

Proof Powell’s speech at the UN was ridiculous.

On 2-8-2003
The Los Angeles Times reports in 2005: Three days after Powell's speech, the U.N.'s Team Bravo conducted the first search of Curveball's former work site. The raid by the American-led biological weapons experts lasted 3 1/2 hours.

It was long enough to prove Curveball had lied.

Proof we have started to torture people.

On 2-10-2003
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who replaced Pelosi as ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in early 2003 and was briefed on interrogation techniques around that time, sends a classified letter to the CIA protesting the interrogation techniques and insisting the CIA not destroy any videotapes of interrogations. Her words will later appear prophetic: "Even if the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law, the videotape would be the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future. The fact of destruction would reflect badly on the agency."

More proof Bush was full of ****.

On 2-14-2003
Hans Blix appears before the UN Security Council and says his inspectors have enjoyed uninhibited access to 300 sites over a period of 11 weeks. Everything is in accordance with the Iraqi weapons declaration, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found. He singles out Colin Powell’s assertion to the UN that trucks found in Iraq are mobile weapons labs, saying that the trucks, photographed weeks apart, could have easily been engaged in "routine activity."

Proof the corporate complicit media was under-reporting anti-war sentiment.

On 2-15-2003
Anti-war rallies take place in nearly 600 cities across the globe, including in Rome, where 3 million march in the worlds largest protest.

More proof how delusional Administration spin doctors were.

On 2-20-2003
In an interview with PBS's News Hour, Donald Rumsfeld has the following exchange with Jim Lehrer.
Q: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?
A: There is no question but that [the troops] would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda would not let them do. He will later deny saying that America would be welcomed. Never said that. Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. I may look like somebody else.

More proof Bush didn’t give a **** about Iraqis.

On 2-21-2003
Retired Army Lt. General Jay Garner, who has been tapped to head the body in charge of Iraq reconstruction efforts, initially known as the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), brings relevant parties together for a "rock drill" to hash out unanswered questions about post-invasion Iraq. Garner had previously spearheaded humanitarian efforts in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, but at the time of his appointment was president of defense contractor SYColeman, which designs missile communications and targeting systems. A weekend of diagrams and presentations reveals serious holes in the war plan, two of the most important being that there is no plan for policing or any thoughts on the makeup of an Iraqi government. Garner’s second-in-command notes the plans he witnessed were "overly optimistic" and lacked "reality." A report about the "rock drill" forecasts much of what goes awry in Iraq.

Still more unsubstantiated Administration spin.

On 2-23-2003
Richard Perle, in a short article for the American Enterprise Institute, writes, The "terrified and brutalized people of Iraq will rejoice at the downfall of Saddam Hussein." He adds, "U.N. weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived. It reminds me of the way the Nazis hoodwinked Red Cross officials."

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 07:14 PM

February continued>>>

Quote:

Here is proof of Bush removing any dissenting opinions for his plans of empire.

On 2-25-2003
Rumsfeld demands that two of Jay Garner’s most qualified team members be let go. One is Tom Warrick, who has led the State Departments work on regime change issues and has attended a conference of Iraqi opposition leaders, many of whom are opposed to Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress taking control.

General Eric Shinseki tells the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Defense Department's estimate of troops needed for occupying Iraq is too low and says "several hundred thousand soldiers" will be needed. (FDCH Political Transcript, 02/25/03) Paul Wolfowitz, appearing before Congress two days later, responds that Shinseki's estimate is "wildly off the mark." Says Wolfowitz, It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his Army. Hard to imagine. Rumsfeld names Shinseki's successor one year before the end of Shinseki's term, making him a lame duck and an example to the rest of the military. Three months after Shinseki's comments, former Army secretary Thomas White will admit that he was right.

Rumsfeld demands that two of Jay Garner’s most qualified team members be let go. One is Tom Warrick, who has led the State Department’s work on regime change issues and has attended a conference of Iraqi opposition leaders, many of whom are opposed to Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress taking control.

Still more proof Bush doesn’t give a **** about Iraqis.

On 2-27-2003
OHRA chief Gen. Jay Garner prepares a document for Rumsfeld decrying the fact that his team has only $27 million to rebuild Iraq. Garner forecasts the cost of reconstruction to be upwards of $12 billion. Shortly before Garner deploys to the Middle East, Rumsfeld tells him, "If you think we’re spending our money on that, you’re wrong. We’re not doing that. They’re going to spend their money rebuilding their country." By fall 2006, the US spends $2 billion a week in Iraq.

Clear indication this ridiculous drive to war is hurting US reputation abroad.

On 2-27-2003
Diplomat John Brady Kiesling resigns his post at the US embassy in Greece with a scathing letter to Colin Powell. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far.

And still more Administration spin.

On 2-27-2003
Paul Wolfowitz tells a Congressional hearing that Shinseki’s troop estimate of several hundred thousand soldiers is wildly off the mark. He also says, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators.

More indication of how out of touch with reality the Administration is with its plans in Iraq.

On 2-28-2003
Gen. Jay Garner goes to the White House to meet President Bush for the first time. Garner tells the assembled parties that four of the nine tasks his small team at the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) are supposed to be in charge of are plainly beyond their capabilities, including dismantling weapons of mass destruction, defeating terrorists, and reshaping the Iraqi military. He suggests that OHRA will need 200,000-300,000 Iraqi army troops for reconstruction.

That was February's lies.

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 07:23 PM

And finally March - Lie by Lie>>>

Quote:

March 2003

More proof Iraq is in compliance with UN resolution 1441.

On 3-1-2003
Iraq destroys four missiles, meeting a U.N. deadline to being disarming.

More proof of US torture.

On 3-1-2003
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is arrested in Pakistan, though some later question the report that KSM was arrested on this date. In any case, KSM is taken almost immediately to a series of secret "black site" CIA-run prisons and tortured. The New Yorker's Jane Mayer later describes the torture in an August 2007 article, "The Black Sites":Soon after Mohammed’s arrest, sources say, his American captors told him, "We’re not going to kill you. But we’re going to take you to the very brink of your death and back."…A former member of a CIA transport team has described the "takeout" of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location. A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to "sodomy."…Mohammed said that, while in CIA custody, he was placed in his own cell, where he remained naked for several days. He was questioned by an unusual number of female handlers, perhaps as an additional humiliation. He has alleged that he was attached to a dog leash, and yanked in such a way that he was propelled into the walls of his cell. Sources say that he also claimed to have been suspended from the ceiling by his arms, his toes barely touching the ground. The pressure on his wrists evidently became exceedingly painful…Mohammed was kept in a prolonged state of sensory deprivation, during which every point of reference was erased. The Council on Europe’s report describes a four-month isolation regime as typical. The prisoners had no exposure to natural light, making it impossible for them to tell if it was night or day. They interacted only with masked, silent guards. (A detainee held at what was most likely an Eastern European black site, Mohammed al-Asad, told me that white noise was piped in constantly, although during electrical outages he could hear people crying.) According to a source familiar with the Red Cross report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed that he was shackled and kept naked, except for a pair of goggles and earmuffs. (Some prisoners were kept naked for as long as forty days.) He had no idea where he was, although, at one point, he apparently glimpsed Polish writing on a water bottle.

More proof of the Niger story was false.

On 3-3-2003
IAEA official tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents are forgeries so error-filled that "they could be spotted by someone using Google."

More proof Iraq is in compliance of UN resolution 1441.

On 3-7-2003
Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."

Here Bush has been planning war for 2 months and has the gall to stand up before this nation and say this ****.

On 3-8-2003
President Bush tells the nation, "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."

More proof of government corruption.

On 3-8-2003
Halliburton is awarded a $7 billion reconstruction contract over the objections of Army Corps of Engineers procurement officer Bunnatine Greenhouse. Testifying before Congress, she later calls the contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed." She is demoted in short order.

More proof the Niger story was false.

On 3-8-2003
Joseph Wilson appears on CNN and is asked to comment on El Baradei's appearance at the U.N. the day before, in which El Baradei called the Niger uranium document forgeries. Wilson says it's an embarrassment that the U.S. intelligence community couldn't come to this conclusion on its own. "It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early '60s. All this stuff is open." He doubts that El Baradei's announcement was the first time the U.S. had reason to think the documents were fakes. "I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. El Baradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday."

Clear indication Cheney outed Plame.

On 3-8-2003
In Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," he will claim that this appearance prompted the "workup" meeting between top Cheney aides that led to the decision to smear him and the disclosure of his wife's identity.

More Administration spin.

On 3-9-2003
On CBS's Face the Nation, Condoleezza Rice says, "We know from a detainee that—the head of training for Al Qaeda—that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help." Libi, the detainee in question, has been doubted by American intelligence since February 2002. All of his intel was obtained under torture, and in 2004 the CIA will recall all intelligence assessments based on his testimony.

More Bush lies and insanity.

On 3-10-2003
Frank Miller, an official handpicked by Condoleezza Rice to handle postwar policy issues, briefs national security deputies and the President on postwar plans. Miller assures them that only the top one percent of Baath Party officials will be purged from the government and that de-Bathification will leave the Iraqi army largely intact. George Packer writes in The Assassin's Gate, "Everyone up to the president approved these eleventh-hour decisions. And yet, somehow, they would never matter in Iraq. They seemed to exist so that, in case anyone ever asked, someone would say, "Yes, the president was briefed and he signed off." "Miller adds that it is important that de-Baathification doesn't cripple the Iraqi military because the army will be integral to the postwar plan. Coalition forces do not have the manpower to control Iraq nor do the troops understand the political situation in the country.

A low spot in our judicial system.

On 3-11-2003
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., rules that the detainees have no legal rights in the United States. "The law of the circuit now is that a 'foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights, under the due process clause or otherwise...The consequence is that no court in this country has jurisdiction to grant habeas relief...to the Guantanamo detainees, even if they have not been adjudicated enemies of the United States. We cannot see why, or how, the writ may be made available to aliens abroad when basic constitutional protections are not."’

Proof the UN resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force in Iraq.

On 3-14-2003
As it becomes increasingly clear that a U.N. resolution justifying the use of force will not pass (Bulgaria is the only country other than the original sponsors to publicly support it), President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar meet in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit." At its conclusion, the three leaders restate their commitment to a March 17 deadline for the U.N. to authorize war. Bush says, "tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world."

Here Cheney shows just how out of touch with reality he is.

On 3-16-2003
Cheney appears on Meet the Press. He says, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." On the fact that the IAEA's ElBaradei doubts Saddam Hussein has a nuclear program: "I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing."

More proof the Administration didn’t give a **** about Iraqis.

On 3-16-2003
Three days before the bombing of Baghdad begins, 169 members of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance fly to Kuwait. Confusion abounds. No one has an org chart of the Iraqi ministries. USAID contractor Albert Cevallos is asked by Army civil affairs officers: "What’s the plan for policing?" Cevallos replies: "I thought you knew the plan. Haven’t you talked to ORHA?" "No," they reply, "no one talked to us. "Anxious, several members of ORHA - precursor to the Coalition Provisional Authority - draw up a list of sixteen key sites around Baghdad that the military should protect after the fall of the city. The first and second are the central bank and the Iraqi Museum. The last is the Oil Ministry.

More proof of Administration corruption.

On 3-16-2003
Many officials are there because of connections, not expertise. Head of ORHA’s civil administration team is Michael Mobbs, a former law partner of Pentagon official and prominent neoconservative Douglas Feith; Mobbs has been appointed at Feith’s insistence.

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 07:24 PM

March continued>>>

Quote:

Still more proof the Administration corruption and lies.

On 3-16-2003
After saying several times that Saddam is trying to build a nuclear weapons, Cheney says: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Six months later after the beginning of the war, Cheney will claim that he misspoke.

Still more proof UN resolution 1441 did not authorize war.

On 3-17-2003
With little international support, the U.S., Britain, and Spain officially scrap the quest to obtain a new U.N. resolution on Iraq. Four and a half months have passed since U.N. Resolution 1441, and a new resolution would signal the world's belief that Iraq had failed the terms of that resolution and now faced the consequences. The "coalition of the willing" announces it will enforce the U.N. resolution without the U.N.'s approval.

More Bush lies.

On 3-17-2003
Bush addresses the nation on the eve of war and says, "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." He gives Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face military action.

More evidence of Bush lies.

On 3-18-2003
A Washington Post article runs, inside the paper on page A–13, under the headline, "Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq." It reads, in part: "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged and in some cases disproved by the United Nations, European governments, and even US intelligence reports."

The nightmare begins.

On 3-19-2003
Operation Iraqi Freedom begins. Coalition forces start striking selected targets in Iraq. President Bush warns a "campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict," but "we will prevail."

This is what happens when you have an AWOL for CINC.

On 3-21-2003
Shane Childers is the first soldier killed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is shot when a pickup truck full of armed Iraqis, mistaken for a civilian vehicle, opens fire on an Iraqi oil station. Journalist Michael Gordon, in his book Cobra II, will describe the incident as a perfect illustration of American troops' poor preparation for the Iraq invasion. Instead of engaging armed divisions directly, they face un-uniformed forces, precursors to the Iraqi insurgents, who attack sporadically and frequently on supply lines away from the front lines.

The nightmare continues.

On 3-21-2003
"Shock and Awe" aerial attacks begin.

The nightmare continues.

On 3-23-2003
Private First Class Jessica Lynch is injured in an ambush. Iraqis take her to a hospital.

More evidence the Bush Administration doesn’t have a clue as to what it is doing.

On 3-26-2003
ORHA gives the U.S. military a list of 16 sites to secure when Baghdad falls. It is ignored.

More Bush lies.

On 3-27-2003
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tells Congress that Iraq's oil revenues "could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

And still more Bush lies.

On 3-30-2003
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deflects criticism that he hasn't deployed enough troops. Of Iraq's purported WMD he says: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

More evidence of a complicit media.

On 3-31-2003
NBC fires Peter Arnett for telling Iraqi TV that the Pentagon's war plan had failed. FOX agrees to send Geraldo Rivera home after the Pentagon accuses him of revealing the position of his embed unit on TV.

Evidence we are treating everyone as the enemy in Iraq.

On 3-31-2003
An Iraqi doctor has Pfc. Jessica Lynch driven by ambulance to a U.S. checkpoint, in an attempt to hand her over. GIs fire on the ambulance, which turns back to the hospital.

Still think I'm lying?

Hugh_Akston · 11-09-08, 09:22 PM

Those aren't a listing of Bush's lies Billo, but nice try. And where have you been anyway? I find it humorous that you disappear for months at a time and suddenly re-appear after Obama wins the election. Who'da thunk it?

Billo_Really · 11-09-08, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

Those aren't a listing of Bush's lies Billo, but nice try. And where have you been anyway? I find it humorous that you disappear for months at a time and suddenly re-appear after Obama wins the election. Who'da thunk it?

Thank you.

And what makes you think they aren't lies?

sazerac · 11-09-08, 10:59 PM

This is the best this forum can do? Mother Jones?

You abandoned your country during a war because of Mother Jones.

You tore this country in two because a radical left magazine said so?

Have fun explaining this to your grandchildren.

View Poll Results: Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	16	27.12%
I blame Bush for this poll!	9	15.25%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

11-09-08, 09:22 PM	#68
Hugh_Akston Breaking News Specialist Mod Team Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Seen: Today 10:29 AM Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 5,136 Thanks: 1,905 Thanked 2,273 Times in 1,291 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 3	Re: Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush? Those aren't a listing of Bush's lies Billo, but nice try. And where have you been anyway? I find it humorous that you disappear for months at a time and suddenly re-appear after Obama wins the election. Who'da thunk it?
	__________________

11-09-08, 10:59 PM	#70
sazerac Adventurer/Bon Vivant Join Date: Sep 2008 Last Seen: Yesterday 06:20 PM Location: New Orleans Posts: 2,038 Thanks: 1,575 Thanked 604 Times in 395 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender:	Re: Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush? This is the best this forum can do? Mother Jones? You abandoned your country during a war because of Mother Jones. You tore this country in two because a radical left magazine said so? Have fun explaining this to your grandchildren.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode