Bush Lie?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Oct 29, 2003.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Bounced from "Partyin' With Rush"

    There has been some question about whether or not Bush has lied about matters pertaining to the war in Iraq. Obviously, there are the usual heated jibes by various posters that have a partisan bent. Possibly true, possibly not, possibly gossip, etc. I think you get the idea.

    I'm of a mind that Bush has lied about many things. But I will only focus on one item regarding the possibility that Bush has lied. Following are quotes from Bush (quotes pulled from the White House website).

    THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

    We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth.
    http://www.lpsg.org/cgi-bin/YaBB.cgi?board=99;action=post;title=Start+new+topic

    Now before I get to the bomb drop on this particular example it's important to put in some caveats. One, a president is a busy man and he can't vet everything he reads in a speech. That responsibility usually lies elsewhere. Also sometimes announcements get ahead of facts. You think you have something that proves your point and you want to stick it to your critics and detractors.

    So my question for this particular thread is -- does this constitute a lie on Bush's part? I'm not sure. So I figured I would put it out there for everyone interested to put in their two cents worth -- hopefully with attribution to back up their opinion.

    Now here's the other part of the equation. Mind you, as best I can find out this administration has not retracted anything regarding the initial speeches. So if you went and read what is listed on the White House site you would be lead to believe that the above are a true statements.

    Bombs away.

    Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds

    Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
    Sunday June 15, 2003
    The Observer

    An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

    The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html
     
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gawd this stuff is getting boring.

    On the other hand, if you are obcessed with this drivel at least you're too busy to think up other 'problems' for an admirable man who has the cajones and ability to lead America at this time.

    You aren't winning new converts, Inwood. You're only preaching to the choir, which is a total waste of time and LPSG board space.

    Pecker

    (HEADLINE: Town To Drop Schoolbus When Overpass Opens)
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#1 date=10/29/03 at 19:46:00]Gawd this stuff is getting boring.
    (HEADLINE: Town To Drop Schoolbus When Overpass Opens)[/quote]

    Then don't read it.

    [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#1 date=10/29/03 at 19:46:00]On the other hand, if you are obcessed with this drivel at least you're too busy to think up other 'problems' for an admirable man who has the cajones and ability to lead America at this time.(HEADLINE: Town To Drop Schoolbus When Overpass Opens)[/quote]

    Well I do feel that most people don't appreciate Powell as much as they should.

    [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#1 date=10/29/03 at 19:46:00]You aren't winning new converts, Inwood.  You're only preaching to the choir, which is a total waste of time and LPSG board space.(HEADLINE: Town To Drop Schoolbus When Overpass Opens)[/quote]

    I'm sorry Pecker I didn't get the notice of your appointment. Congratulations on assuming the position of censor for LSPG. I'm looking forward to receiving your rule book as to what is now allowed on LPSG board space.
     
  4. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#1 date=10/29/03 at 19:46:00]an admirable man who has the cajones and ability to lead America at this time.
    [/i])[/quote]

    Pecker..

    I think you should start lead off a thread on An Admirable Man. I like humor.

    jay
     
  5. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    gigantikok: Pecker's right though, we had this discussion in private. What is the point of some of these political discussions? I jump in most of the time because I can't help myself, but I question why sometimes. The board space is limited. And what is the point of political debate when you are always arguing with the same people or preaching to the same choir? Hell, it'd be nice if some people who supported my political opinions would jump in every once in awhile (and trust me, there are many, many that side with me, as I have learned through private IM's), but I guess they see how pointless it is too. You aren't going to "convert" me, you aren't going to "convert" Pecker, you are hardly going to convert any right-wing lurkers, so why? Some of the LPSG political debate has moved out of the range of "healthy debate" and more into the range of pointless arguing. Maybe that's partly my fault, but hey, I've got a big mouth. :)
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    H8Monga: What's politics? ???
     
  7. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Javierdude22: This is a discussion board

    This is the Etc. Etc. section

    Everyone is allowed to discuss what they want, and since this subject is coming up often, and responded to often, it must be an interesting topic to them.

    There is a point to it: venting ideas, frustrations, experiences, thoughts, and opinions. Don't read it if you want, but if the sole irritation to the posts is that someone you admire is being criticized, than put up a thread to post good things about that admirable person.

    Very easy...
     
  8. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Hmmm...oh well...

    It's been interesting looking into the topic I sprung on this thread. I'm not even sure now if it can be a discussion of did Bush lie. Maybe it's more of an inquiry into how information is interpreted, or how it is communicated, to and for public consumption.

    I chose the finding of the two trailers since they received such a high profile when finally their existence was publicized. As mentioned in the beginning these were said to be examples of Saddam's having the weapons that the administration said he had and was part of the reason why we went to war.

    Then I followed that by the revelation that the British government had determined that the trailers were in fact what the Iraqis said they were. Trailers to produce hydrogen for military weather balloons.

    Well I'll try to be brief about what I've found so far. Oh hell. Let's just say it's been fun seeing how different groups have spun the information.

    Despite the British determination reported by the Guardian in my opinion the question of what the trailers were actually to be used for is still undetermined. But each group seems to be hiding something. So here goes:

    The White paper issued on this subject by the CIA and Defense Dept. says they're biological labs for producing WMD. However, a white paper is usually issued only when those two depts and the Defense Intelligence Agency(DIA), of State Dept, come to a consensus. This paper was issued without input by DIA or even DIA's knowledge it was going to be made public (Highly unusual but not totally unknown to happen). I think this was around May. Around August the DIA issued their report. Not biological labs but trailers to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. White House chooses to stand by CIA and Defense white paper.

    Of the British conclusion reported by the Guardian I haven't been able to find anything issued by the British government. So if anybody can find it and post it I would appreciate it. Will keep looking. But Blair is in trouble because of it so there might be something there if I can find it.

    And the Guardian. Well there's an interesting sideline. In one of the articles on the Guardian website they quote the CIA as saying the trailers are for producing hydrogen. Hmmm...that's odd...CIA white paper says: biological Lab, CIA quote says: hydrogen production. So I read the white paper on the net and the quote is actually pulled from the white paper's discussion of other possibilities that the CIA feels can be discounted. So I thought it interesting how the paper apparently didn't pay attention to what they were reading and pulled something out of the context in which it was written to make it appear to support a totally different claim.

    So where does that leave things now? White House sticks w/CIA/Defense white paper saying biological lab. DIA says hydrogen generators. Paper reports British government commission says hydrogen generators. But can't find any info from British government. Guardian needs to look at how they use quotes.

    There's more but I leave it at this for now. Quite frankly I'm not sure what to think about all of this. So I'll keep looking for info and post what I can find or at least a version of it. I know the truth is out there. Just where exactly I'm not sure.
     
  9. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: Good luck finding anything from the government itself - as soon as anything good happens then the trumpets are out heralding it with bells on. If the news is bad, however then it is just ignored and swept under the carpet.

    If our system was working correctly then this would have been pounced on by the opposition in parliament and the truth outed there, but unfortunately our (soon no-longer to be) leader of the opposition is almost completely incompitent in regards to this (he just lost a vote of no confidence after 2 years leading his party, after which 44% of the British public don't even recognise his name for God's sake!)

    Besides which, just because the Commission stated that fact, doesn't mean to say they have published it - it may have been relayed in a telephone interview.
     
  10. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    SpeedoGuy: I think its to the Bush administration's credit that weapons and their production labs have not (yet) been manufactured to justify the war.

    SG
     
  11. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: That was actually one of the big conspiracy theories that went around here after it was announced that the US/UK were going alone on inspections without the UN.

    I mean - this is a very politically damaging thing, so it's better to have as independant a body looking into it as possible. IF they do find anything then it's going to be so much harder to prove it to the sceptics if it's found by a US-govt funded US-search team, just because it's in their political interest.

    Plus, it also means that it is yet another thing for the US public to pay for on top of the $XX bn dollars the war and reconstruction is already costing.

    I'm sure there must be some logic buried there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see it!
     
  12. B_RoysToy

    B_RoysToy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,558
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    memphis, tennessee
    Do you wonder why the body bags coming back from Iraq are never shown on the news? Freedom of the press just goes so far when the controlling political party's support could suffer!
     
  13. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    jerkin4-10: WOW...stop the presses...a politician telling an 'untruth'...geez...the war on terrorism HAD to start somewhere...why not there...so damn insane clearly has HAD WMD...hes used them on his own people...whos to say that they arent [the WMD] in syria...or...just not found yet...this is not a time for americans...and brits...to be divisive...we have been allies for some time now and our enemy is a common one...terrorism...thats clear...the election IS over...and bush was declared the winner...he is THE president...now is the time to support him...if you dont like him...the election is coming soon...as all you guys have commented in previous threads...just vote him out at that time...but he is our president NOW...
     
  14. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#12 date=11/01/03 at 21:15:47]WOW...stop the presses...a politician telling an 'untruth'...geez...the war on terrorism HAD to start somewhere...why not there[/quote]

    Yes, why not?
    Because they definately had WMD?

    On Iraq's nuclear prog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17707-2003Oct25.html

    On the intelligence reports:
    http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=449983

    Or because of the links with Al-Qaeda?
    http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

    [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#12 date=11/01/03 at 21:15:47]...so damn insane clearly has HAD WMD...hes used them on his own people...[/quote]

    Well as I mentioned before, he had them because the US gave them to him a good 10 years previously when he was fighting in Iran. Gigantikok made some comments about this when I originally posted it on another thread, and I'll reply to them now.

    If I remember correctly the US admin at the time were playing off one side against the other - giving weapons to one and intelligence info and support to the other. All well and good, until each side finds out about it! (and I bet this is a cause of a lot of anti-US opinion in the region) Anyway - what's wrong with conventional weaponry? Why give them WMD?

    [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#12 date=11/01/03 at 21:15:47]
    whos to say that they arent [the WMD] in syria...or...just not found yet[/quote]

    Well indeed - but then again, why the need to attack them while there were independant inspections going ahead at the time? Surely it would have made a lot more sense to let the inspectors complete their job and make the final report?

    [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#12 date=11/01/03 at 21:15:47]
    ...this is not a time for americans...and brits...to be divisive...we have been allies for some time now and our enemy is a common one...terrorism...thats clear
    [/quote]

    Maybe so, but if the war on Iraq would have helped cut back on terrorism rather than provoke more of it, then maybe that would be an argument for war.

    As it is, the British intelligence services actually stated that going to war in Iraq would actually increase, rather than diminish terrorist threat

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/12/1063268547402.html?from=storyrhs

    As for us being devicive, I believe that it was only the US that had the majority of its public in favour of war. Blair ignored the majority of his back-benchers and several high-ranking members of his own cabinet in his decision - let alone the participants in some of the biggest protest marches seen in UK history.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

    or the opinion polls of the people, stating that 86% wanted more time for inspections and only 25% thinking enough justification had been found for the war (at Feb this year). The poll was conducted by the Times, a right-wing paper, although I uncovered these numbers via BBC news.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm

    [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#12 date=11/01/03 at 21:15:47]
    ...the election IS over...and bush was declared the winner...he is THE president...now is the time to support him...if you dont like him...the election is coming soon...as all you guys have commented in previous threads...just vote him out at that time...but he is our president NOW...[/quote]

    Well he is, for better or worse, your president - but that doesn't mean that no-one should oppose his ideas or actions. Otherwise, what's the point of a democracy?

    The only reasoning behind the war that will stand on factual gathered evidence is that of human rights violations. Using the old 'innocent until proven guilty' ideal, there is no evidence to support any other justification at this present time.

    Besides, you may have friends that constantly agree with you as the easy way out, but it takes a true friend to point out when you are wrong.
     
  15. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    jerkin4-10: lurker...your just a wannabe intellectual that surfs the net too much...much like the drooling pen-pocket holder wearing, coke bottled glasses having mathematician that develops the perfect mathematical formula for rolling a strike each time...but unfortuately, releases the ball on the backswing...you just dont get it...you are CONSTANTLY looking for something/someone to disagree with...and you search the net for documentation that backs you up...theres information out there for anything you want to talk about...just because its a BBC report...doesnt make it true...ive seen detailed reports where that we currently are operating a base on the moon...and that aliens landed here and are supporting us with technology...but the thing that REALLY pisses me off...is commenting on AMERICAN problems from afar...you have NO idea what its like to be an american...it sickens me...and i would hope an other real american reading these tales...just like i was chatting with anonymis...from texas...and she understands being from texas...you dont talk shit about texas to a texan...ESPECIALLY if your not one...and i feel the same way about this country...sitting there running you head like a fool...there...ive said what i wanted to...*putting blindfold on, hands over head...go ahead and ban me*...either way...its almost time for football...and ive got almost $2000 on todays games...to the moderator...my apologies...if you feel the need to ban me...i understand...no hard feelings...
     
  16. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: On the thread "Partyin' with Rush" there was a request to show if Bush ever contradicted something he had said earlier. I think what was meant was did he have to ever retract something he had said earlier because it was either incorrect or untrue.

    So I did some research to show that yes, the administration did find it necessary to correct an error in The State of the Union speech earlier this year. This regards the seeking of uranium from Niger by Iraq. Again this is not necessarily a lie by Bush. A lie is knowingly telling a false fact. And since a State of the Union speech is generally written by teams of writers with many high-level staff members vetting various portions of the speech Bush might not necessarily be aware of the province of all he is reading. However, previous to the speech, the White House was at pains to show Bush diligently going over the speech line by line to show how involved he was in its genesis.

    Now there are a few interesting points here. One, our intelligence agencies apparently didn't think there was sufficient evidence of either this particular event happening or that the reliability of the source was sufficient to believe the info provided. Two, this particular item was removed from speeches given prior to the State of the Union and speeches given right after so some people within the admin. were obviously aware that this evidence was suspect. Three, the speech itself was changed so that the source was no longer our intelligence agencies but British intelligence. The admin. uses that particular change to state that technically the speech was correct. That the info came from the British.

    So is this a lie told by Bush? Again it would be hard to say for sure. You would have to know if Bush was informed earlier that the info was suspect. He would have to have known it was deleted from previous speeches for that reason. You would also have to know who suggested that the source be changed to British sources. In any event, this particular item was retracted but only after a delay of a month or so during which time the administration was aware the info was suspect.

    I will have another post on this subject a little later. This one was meant to address an earlier post regarding whether Bush or his administration had ever had to retract false information.

    Listed below are a few links relating to this particular subject if you care to read them.

    White House press release
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030712-11.html
    White House press release - State of the Union
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030717-5.html
    CNN-Tenet story
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/
    CNN-Tenet transcript
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/tenet.statement/
    A commentary
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html
     
  17. B_RoysToy

    B_RoysToy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,558
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    memphis, tennessee
    Thanks for your posting with all the references, longtimelurker. I appreciate your making them available for open-minded individuals who would like to investigate the info. and come to their own conclusions.
     
  18. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hawl: [quote author=jerkin4-10 link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#14 date=11/02/03 at 09:31:50]your just a wannabe intellectual that surfs the net too much...ive seen detailed reports where that we currently are operating a base on the moon...and that aliens landed here and are supporting us with technology...you have NO idea what its like to be an american...it sickens me...sitting there running you head like a fool...its almost time for football...and ive got almost $2000 on todays games...[/quote]I know, I know, the similarity is amazing, but for the moment I'm pretty sure this poster isn't William Bennett! Makes me wonder if Bill could be a lurker, though! :D
     
  19. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: Thankyou Roystoy.

    Jerkin, I really don't mind if you lose your temper and sink to personal attacks, as it just makes you look bad and incapable of rational arguement. If you wish to have a go at actually countering a point that I have made with a valid arguement then that will help you with your points so much better.

    If you hadn't noticed, this is a world affairs argument, mainly involving Iraq, the US, Britain and other countries involved with the war on Iraq. You cannot turn international affairs into domestic policy.

    I have not just picked 'some BBC report' - I have linked to reports from some highly respected publications - Time magazine, The Times and The Independent as well as the BBC. The Times and Independent, being British broadsheets I don't expect you to have in-depth knowledge of, but I don't recall either of them, nor Time magazine talking of alien technologies nor bases on the moon (unless you count Hollywood reviews).

    As I said - reply with constructive arguements if you will, but you cannot discredit proper arguements with xenophobic rants.
     
  20. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: [quote author=RoysToy link=board=99;num=1067480870;start=0#11 date=11/01/03 at 20:54:11]Do you wonder why the body bags coming back from Iraq are never shown on the news?   Freedom of the press just goes so far when the controlling political party's support could suffer!    [/quote]

    I've just found this reason that could explain why you aint seeing any caskets...

    ---

    In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains. [...]

    ---

    Taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55816-2003Oct20.html

    Seems that they've learnt that lesson from Vietnam...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted