• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hubris: Selling The Iraq War

Joe Wilson is a liar...
His report to the CIA supported British intelligence...
President Bush's 16 words were 100% accurate

Those are proven, undeniable facts.
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

Jack Hays said:
Fleischer erred. The report that Iraqis sought material in Niger was accurate.:cool:
Click to expand...

Sure it was :lamo

May 2, 2004 - Meet the Press | NBC News
MR. RUSSERT: George Tenet in a statement said that a Niger official did say to you there may have been discussions about a potential business dealings and maybe that could have been a suggestion of uranium.

AMB. WILSON: That's right. And, of course, as I put in the book, there was a meeting on the margins of an OAU summit between a senior Niger official and an Iraqi official who turns out to be the former minister of information, Baghdad Bob. At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
Sorry Boo, but until I see proof of deception on Bush's part, such an accusation is baseless and unfounded. Several investigations determined what went wrong on the intel, and anyone who ignores those findings is doing so in the name of partisan politics, ideolgical beliefs, hatred, or all of the above.

That war was endorsed by the majority of the senate and the congress, and done so based on the same intelligence that was given to the President. How is Bush responsible for that?
Click to expand...

The proof is for all to see. You're hiding behind republicans not telling you. There will be no trial. No conviction. But any thinking person can see that using al Libi, Curveball, and Chalibi and his heroes in error, all previously doubted by the CIA, and ignoring UN and other evidence has to add up to deception.
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

pbrauer said:
Sure it was :lamo
Click to expand...

How far will you go to defend this proven liar Pete? I guess we all know the answer to that, and it centers around politics as it always does for you.

And btw Pete, you must have overlooked the key thing Wilson said, which explains why he tells one story to the press (where he can't be prosecuted) and tell quite another when under oath an subject to charges of purjury... Those words were:

"...as I put in the book"

Translation = $$$$$

Congratulations Pete... It's people like you who turn liars like Wilson into millionaires.
 
mpg said:
I've seen people call Bush a liar over this many times, but none of them say the same thing Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.




That's a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

If misleading is lying, he is a liar. But you claim something else.

As for opinion, I'm sure nearly everything can be called opinion. But, Iraq did nt attack us, pose no imminent threat, was never ever likely to seriously threaten us, so I'm confident in my opinion.
 
Boo Radley said:
The proof is for all to see. You're hiding behind republicans not telling you. There will be no trial. No conviction. But any thinking person can see that using al Libi, Curveball, and Chalibi and his heroes in error, all previously doubted by the CIA, and ignoring UN and other evidence has to add up to deception.
Click to expand...

Well said as usual Boo!
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

Grim17 said:
How far will you go to defend this proven liar Pete? I guess we all know the answer to that, and it centers around politics as it always does for you.

And btw Pete, you must have overlooked the key thing Wilson said, which explains why he tells one story to the press (where he can't be prosecuted) and tell quite another when under oath an subject to charges of purjury... Those words were:

"...as I put in the book"

Translation = $$$$$

Congratulations Pete... It's people like you who turn liars like Wilson into millionaires.
Click to expand...
You are too funny, you like calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a liar.
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

Jack Hays said:
GWB's statement was based on a British intelligence report that was never retracted and in fact was repeatedly corroborated. :cool:
Click to expand...

Not really.

The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?

The Downing Street "Memo" is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering of many of the British Prime Minister's senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.

Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.

There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

Even as the Bush presidency winds down, a recent Senate investigation final report shows how the administration manipulated information to overstate the WMD threat and conjure up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaida that did not exist.
Click to expand...

The Downey Street memo showed the illegality of the war.
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

pbrauer said:
You are too funny, you like calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a liar.
Click to expand...

That isn't an accusation Pete, it's a proven fact that has been clearly demonstrated.
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

Grim17 said:
That isn't an accusation Pete, it's a proven fact that has been clearly demonstrated.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know what a lie is, intent in involved, you can't determine that.
 
Boo Radley said:
The proof is for all to see.
Click to expand...

Must be written in super secret liberal code then, because all I've seen are a bunch of baseless accusation and not a shred of credible evidence to support them with.

So help me out if you would, and decode some of that "proof" and post it for us.



You're hiding behind republicans not telling you.
Click to expand...

Republicans? I base my information on 2 reports that were investigated by, and approved by, bi-partisan groups of investigators... All of which approved of ever damned word in them. People like Democrat Senators Dick Durbin, John Edwards and Diane Feinstien.

There will be no trial. No conviction.
Click to expand...

That's because there's nothing to go to trial about... Unless of course you think some of our intelligence personel should go on trial for their analytical failures?

But any thinking person can see that using al Libi, Curveball, and Chalibi and his heroes in error, all previously doubted by the CIA, and ignoring UN and other evidence has to add up to deception.
Click to expand...

It's possible there could have been deception there, but according to the many investigations into this matter, the intelligence analysts made honest mistakes and rushed to judgment, but weren't trying to deceive anyone in congress or the administration.
 
Grim17 said:
Must be written in super secret liberal code then, because all I've seen are a bunch of baseless accusation and not a shred of credible evidence to support them with.

So help me out if you would, and decode some of that "proof" and post it for us.





Republicans? I base my information on 2 reports that were investigated by, and approved by, bi-partisan groups of investigators... All of which approved of ever damned word in them. People like Democrat Senators Dick Durbin, John Edwards and Diane Feinstien.



That's because there's nothing to go to trial about... Unless of course you think some of our intelligence personel should go on trial for their analytical failures?



It's possible there could have been deception there, but according to the many investigations into this matter, the intelligence analysts made honest mistakes and rushed to judgment, but weren't trying to deceive anyone in congress or the administration.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the kind. Al Libi was tortured, and the CIA doubt he could know what was he claim. We used the intel. This is well documented. If you wanted to know, you would know. Curveball was doubted. The New Yorker reported this years before the Bush administration acknowledged it. And using Chalibi and his people, after all the CIA thought about him and his deception in the gulf gulf war? Surely as well read as you are, none of this is new for you?
 
Re: Hubris: Selling The Iraq Ware

pbrauer said:
You obviously don't know what a lie is, intent in involved, you can't determine that.
Click to expand...

Well, when a man tells a story to the CIA about Iraq trying to set up a meeting to discuss uranium sales, then a year later makes a public claim that his report didn't back up the president making the same claim, I find it hard to believe that wasn't intentional.

When a man under oath in a senate inquiry, is confronted and asked to explain the false statements he made to the media and in his book, and he replies by saying that those statements might have involved a little "literary flair", I believe that clearly shows that his intent was to deceive in order to spice up his book, and to bolster it's sales.

I'm sorry Pete... I know how hard you've tried to defend Wilson, but the fact is, the man is a liar... Now you can either stand with the truth and walk away, or you can continue to play politics and defend the man and his lies.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's nothing of the kind. Al Libi was tortured, and the CIA doubt he could know what was he claim. We used the intel. This is well documented. If you wanted to know, you would know. Curveball was doubted. The New Yorker reported this years before the Bush administration acknowledged it. And using Chalibi and his people, after all the CIA thought about him and his deception in the gulf gulf war? Surely as well read as you are, none of this is new for you?
Click to expand...

How does this prove that Bush lied about Iraq?
 
Grim17 said:
How does this prove that Bush lied about Iraq?
Click to expand...

He either lied, is stupid, or Cheney ran the country. Take your pick. They used doubted intel and presented it as valid.
 
Grim17 said:
According to the Butler report, who investigated British intelligence, those reports were "well founded", and not based on any phony documents.


You need to get your facts straight, because you are really looking foolish posting all those liberal myths that were debunked years ago.
Click to expand...


You aren't posting facts. You're posting redacted information coming from the CIA which has already been criticized by YOU yourself as having completely dropped the ball on Iraq intelligence. Then you offer this redacted crap as evidence of some sort from the same source that botched the intel to begin with? This is the same agency that was totally politicized by the Bush administration. The intelligence on Iraq was stovepiped to produce the desired result. This is all known. You seem to be one of the few that doesn't know this.

According to the Butler report, who investigated British intelligence, those reports were "well founded", and not based on any phony documents.
Click to expand...

The Butler Report???:shock: Screw the Butler Report. It wasn't even taken seriously by Commons. The only people that bought it was the Labour Party. The review was published on 14 July 2004. Its main conclusion was that key intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq has been shown to be unreliable. It claims that the Secret Intelligence Service did not check its sources well enough and sometimes relied on third hand reports. It criticises the use of the 45 minute claim in the 2002 dossier as "unsubstantiated", and says that there was an over-reliance on Iraqi dissident sources. It also comments that warnings from the Joint Intelligence Committee on the limitations of the intelligence were not made clear. Overall it said that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear", and that judgements had stretched available intelligence "to the outer limits".

The Butler Report offers no details -- not even an approximate date when this may have happened, thus giving no way to assess its credibility. The British have also declined to share any information about this intelligence, even with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was responsible for prewar monitoring of Iraq's nuclear capability. In any case, the Congo's uranium mine was flooded and sealed several decades ago, which means that Iraq would not have been able to obtain uranium there even if it tried.

In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents . (Times Online, 2003)

I would suggest that you back off the "Butler Report" since there is no credibility in it that would support your claims. About the only thing it establishes, is that by saying "according to the Butler Report" you are voicing something that even the British didn't buy into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom