Your response to someone who says, "bush didn't lie, the intel was bad?"

[Skip Intro]

I saw it happen just like everyone else did. Claims of this and that, no proof, no media asking for proof, the world saying NO - I remember the day in day out claims from the bush regime, claims disproved, over and over again. The attack, our attack on a nation that had not attacked, nor could attack, us, happened because george w bush wanted it to happen, and made it happen. The whole thing was a sham. I saw it just like you did.

Well, now I find myself in the position of proving to an acquaintance that bush indeed lied. This person's response to the "bush lied" statement is that bush did what he did because the intel was wrong. Bush didn't lie.

I want to knock this outta the park.

Thoughts?

[Historic NY]

1. Downing Street Memo.......that about says it all.....

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[jaxx]

3. The hardcore pubs say the memo isn't true

The only thing that is real to them is dubya standing on that pile of rubble saying he's gonna go get em. The rest, the hype and lies leading to the war in Iraq, the cover-ups, the whole shebang is nothing but dem rhetoric to the sheeple. It gets damn frustrating after awhile. :grr:

[HeeBGBz]

25. Yeah, I'm in a discussion on that now

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Who is "C"? Who's quoted here?

[jaxx]

36. A guess who " C " is........Robin Cook

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Cook-Resigns-Blair-Cabinet17mar03.htm

[FreedomAngel82]

40. Then ask them

why hasn't Blair come out publicially and denied it? Only someone speaking for him has. He has to come out and say it's not true. If he doesn't then that should show you.

[ghostsofgiants]

55. I thought Blair actually said it WAS true...

I dunno, I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere though. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Cha]

5. Thank you for

that link!

[Sokrates]

2. Two replies.

1. Isn't negligent to send the country to war based on some other countries intelligence? Remind them that we had 0 CIA agents in Iraq. All of our intel was 2nd and 3rd hand.

2. If Bush really thought the intelligence was bad, why did he give Tenet a medal?

[TOhioLiberal]

12. I seem to remember...

...Hearing that intelligence workers who gave the faulty intel were awarded medals recently....

Why are we giving medals for bad intel?

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Also you can point out

how a lot of rightwingers claim they don't care what other countries say. Of course unless it comes to war and intelligence and blaming them. Ask them why didn't Bush look into it with his own intelligence committe? Since a lot of them don't give a damn about other countries ask them why did Bush believe a foreigner like Blair?

[TheWatcher]

60. Deleted

[Cha]

4. bush was pounding

for war and so was condisleazy,et al. And lest we not forget about the downingstreetmemo.

They are guilty of negligent homicide at best..pre-meditated murder is what I think.

The trouble with the bush "didn't lie" scenario is that bush never tells the truth so there are lots of examples one could use to give credit to a serial liar.

http://www.bushlies.com

[Skip Intro]

18. Yes. And condo/cheney/rums speak for the "president" - yes?

So I was going to say, among other things, that there was no intel that saddam had nukes, yet condo was running oround telling ghost stories of mushroom clouds, and cheney was claiming that saddam indeed already HAD nukes. I would then challenge for proof that intel said saddam had nukes. There would be none. Those who speak for the "president" lied, such statements wouldn't be made without "presidential" consent, surely, so therefore the "president" lied by proxy in those examples.

That makes sense, doesn't it?

[Cha]

26. Yes, that makes sense..

and people were saying as much at the time on DU.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Downing Street Memo

"intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Send your friend this link:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

Also, recent reports reveal that bombing raids by the US and UK were increased in 2002 to provoke Saddam Hussein into war. Why did they do this?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052905X.shtml

[GreenPoet64]

7. The Downing Street Memo shows not only Bush's plan to lie . . .

but his plan to deceive. It shows that he knew "regime change" was not a legal rationale for the war--so he had some "fixing" of the facts to do.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Also

they could've easily changed regime's in the early nineties when Bush senior did Kuwait and all that but they purposley left him in power and got all the oil while all that was going on. Bush senior did nothing to stop the violence and all that with Saddam back then either and Saddam kept all the stuff he got through Rumsfeld and Bush senior (the photo of Saddam shaking Rumsfeld's hands). So Bush knew that they destroyed everything in the early nineties after Kuwait was over because of his father. Bush could've gone to his father for help with intelligence since he dealt with Iraq too but he didn't. Even Kerry pointed this out in the first debate (of course Bush's blood boiled. You could've seen it in his eyes).

[BringEmOn]

8. If they're right wing Pharisees.......

Bush said that gawd told him to invade Iraq...I guess it was gawd who had the bad intel.

http://bushwatch.org/evangelist.htm

BUSH TELLS PALESTINIAN PM GOD MADE HIM ATTACK IRAQ..."God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Ha'aretz, 06.25.03

[FreedomAngel82]

43. I've used that before

but the rightwingers just said that the PM wasn't being truthful with the quote and he was confused. :eyes:

[jasmeel]

9. Don't forget PNAC-the document signed by so many from the *

admin. These guys have been pushing for war with Iraq for a LONG time. They were not happy with containment.
Find more info here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Bush was also

talking about Iraq and WMD's in 1999 when he was still campaigning for the presidency. He said (about Saddam) "This is the man who threatned to kill my father." Like he gives a damn about his father. :eyes: Anybody who knows their Bush family history knows that junior is always trying to be better then Poppy.

[InfoMinister]

10. Downing Street, Paul Wolfowitz's Plan During Bush Sr.'s Admin., PNAC

There's a lot of evidence to show that Bush and plenty of others in the administration wanted to go to war even before he was even president.

[benburch]

11. He ordered the intel to say what he wanted it to say.

In other words, he told them to give him bad intel.

He is 100% responsible.

He is a murderer.

[stellanoir]

15. the presumed leader

of the free world trusted a dude named "curveball" and his buddy who was a known extortionist, to provide bogus intell (sheer stupidity) as our cassus belli. Whilst he silenced the voices of anyone who dissented.

Such total bull.

[mopaul]

13. I usually say, 'you don't really believe that and you know it'

[radwriter0555]

14. Refer them to the 1998 Ballistic Missile Threat Report under Clinton;

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bm-threat.htm

Lead them to it, they'll yell and scream and point about how it's "CLINTON'S intel that was bad," and "see, see, see! Bush DIDN'T LIE, CLINTON did!" and then finally let them see who chaired the commission that said Iraq was going to kill all of us;

Let them see for themselves who the author and chair are.

And they sit down and shut the fuck up in a BIG hurry.

You can even print a lovely copy of it... to see the author's names in print is a BIG "shut the fuck up".

Iraq is mentioned 30 times.

Oh, let me say that again.

Iraq is mentioned 30 times.

In 1998.

[punpirate]

16. The first Secretary of the Treasury...

... said Bush intended to go to war with Iraq within days after inauguration. Doug Wead's tapes suggested Bush wanted a war with Iraq before he was elected. Bush's first biographer for his 2000 campaign book said the same thing.

And, there's still that one specific--the Niger uranium claim. The NIE said it wasn't supported. The White House agreed to take it out of the State of the Union on George Tenet's recommendation. And, then, back in it went. That indicates a clear intent to deceive that was contrary to the recommendations of the CIA.

Tell `em that.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. You can also note

that in the presentation of Powell he presented these photographs that was taken in the desert there in Iraq and he claimed they were factories that was making WMD's. In reality they were really trucks that had things in them that were not any type of WMD's. The photograph was taken very far away so you couldn't tell. You can learn about that in the doc "The God Awful Truth with Michael Moore." There's two season's and it's full of information. You can download it at http://www.mininova.org You need a bit-torrent program to download it though. It's in the documentary section under films. Also if someone does the blame Clinton thing tell them you expect the person after Clinton, whether Al Gore or George Bush, to do better then Clinton. To learn from his mistake's and not do it again. Just because Clinton did something doesn't mean George Bush should and should get away with it. You're supposed to be better then the last. Just like you should expect the person after Bush to do better then him (which shouldn't be too hard heh heh).

[punpirate]

51. I believe the photos you are talking about...

... were the ones of trucks Powell indicated were making deliveries to a chemical weapons plant, where, in fact, they were fire trucks.

But, while Powell can't be excused for either being duped so easily, or lying, whichever is the case, Powell wasn't the one to order troops to invade Iraq, and technically, he could say, I was just telling the public what intelligence told me.

Bush gave the order, and he can't be excused for lying before the fact--he had to have approved the content of his own State of the Union Speech--and it was well known within the White House since April, 2002, that the supposed Niger intelligence was bogus. Bush can't get around that one.

Of course, we now know there were an awful lot of outright lies involved in this, but with regard to being deceived by the intelligence beforehand, that's the one. Why? Because Powell took Niger out of his speech before the Security Council, because intelligence didn't support the conclusion, and hadn't for many months.

Cheers.

[Lost147]

17. It's really one of those

The glass is half full/half empty situations.

[Skip Intro]

19. It really isn't. n/t

[Lost147]

58. good point I never thought about it that way!

........

[BeFree]

20. Intel was not bad

It just wasn't used... it was ignored.

bush senior.... he was a CIA man first, then the vice president, then president for four years. A thirty year career with his finger on the pulse of intellignce.

Senior evidently recruited CIA agents who would fix the facts to meet the political will, and the payoff came with the lies some CIA told about Iraq. They knew the intel being put forth was false but they told the lies anyway.

And it all falls at the feet of the man who was head of the CIA, and in the White House, over a span of twenty to thirty years. And like a bad apple, his fruit fell not far from the tree.

The real intelligence properly described the situation in Iraq but that intelligence was ignored and was replaced with lies by bush cronies in the CIA.

[BeFree]

23. You could blame Clinton?

Clinton should have fired the whole damn bunch of CIA brass. You know, the ones Reagan and Bush put in. Yep, we probably would have never even had 9/11 if Clinton had kicked all those damn idiots out of the CIA and replaced them with honest and truly patriotic agents.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. Yes

Also right after the election sometime in mid/late December present Bush fired any CIA agent who wasn't a "yes" person. That should send off some radars as well. Oh and with Clinton he left tons of information and plans on BinLaden and Al-Quida that Bush ignored. And he ignored Richard Clarke. Clarke is actually a conservative who Clinton kept on the team. Don't forget Mr. Ritter as well who left the Bush team because he couldn't go along with the lies of the administration.

[alcuno]

21. It's called willful suspension of disbelief.

Let's say he thought they had WMD's. Did he ever say they were a threat to us? No. And what about the weapon's inspectors? The US was giving them sites to check and they kept coming back with NOTHING. Remember, this invasion couldn't be put off for one month as other nations were asking in the UN. Why? Because the longer the inspectors remained there, the more the "case" fell apart. It was obvious that their intel was "bad" but they chose to "willfully suspend their disbelief." I call that lying; maintaining something to be true in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. With that

Bush did claim they had WMD's that could hit us in forty-five minute's. Nuclear bombs and the like. Of course it never did happen and they never even staged anything to make it look like it happened. It was all a bunch of talk with no proof whatsoever.

[IowaGuy]

22. There was certainly bad intelligence...

the intelligence between the ears of *, Condi, Rumsfeld Cheney, et al......the evidence speaks for itself....

[SlavesandBulldozers]

24. tell him "hey what matters is that freedom flourishes there

as it flourishes here"- and then laugh him out of the room.

[Roland99]

27. The intel was fine until the PNAC neocons twisted it around.

[recoveringrepublican]

28. well the Intel seemed correct about 9-11

Well before it happen. Why did he ignore that but listened to the intel made pretty much up by Cheney?

[seabeyond]

29. cheney had set up his own little government

there is a whistle blower, karen something from military working with this. not to mention we saw cia saying iraq wasnt a threat to the day tennet walked into u.n. with powell supporting it. it was continually reported that cia was pressured to adjust information to fit bush want to go to war. powell and rice both said in 2001 iraq was not a threat and any wmd's they had were expired. saddam tried to give himself up and cooperate with bush telling his military to cooperate with bush adn bush turned saddam down

bush wanted war

[realFedUp]

30. Office of Special Plans

Bolton demanding the intel fit the agenda...

[LunaC]

47. For those unaware of OSP

From link in sig line.......

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the C.I.A. or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the C.I.A. but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

[FreedomAngel82]

54. And I'm sure we can all

guess where this OSP group came from. Probably was recommended to Cheney or Rumsfeld by someone in their inner circle and they went with it since they knew their mission. So disgusting.

[realFedUp]

56. thanks Luna for that added info

:-)

[Zen Democrat]

31. Not ALL the intel was bad.

Just the stuff prepared under orders of Bush and Cheney. There was lots of good intel that was discarded -- and the authors silenced and/or run out of town.

[eleny]

32. Because nothing adds up

We know that he wanted to go into Iraq early on because he brought it up at his first cabinet meeting. If we were in danger then, why did he wait so long? What intel was he using back then? What intel did the neocons use when they went to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq?

As others have pointed out - the Downing Street Memo indicates what they did. You might ask them how many American lives they're willing to sacrifice for their stubborn position.

[LynnTheDem]

33. I reply with FACTS; scares teh crap out of rightwingnuts. They HATE facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3394174

[LynnTheDem]

34. Another good reply is the Republican Party's own Platform;

"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments."

http://www.gop.com/RNC404.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx

[Skip Intro]

37. HA! Awesome!

[proud patriot]

35. LOL "do you believe in witches too"

:shrug:

[UdoKier]

38. I just say "Bush did lie. The intel was right"

If you paid any attention and read carefully throughout 2002 and 2003 it was perfectly clear that Bush was cherry-picking and exaggerating and the CIA was saying there was only the flimsiest possibility of there being any WMD stockpiles. Over and over again the CIA told him there was nothing to substantiate things like the "anthrax balsa glider" or any of the other BS, but the Bushies kept rolling it out for the public anyway.

The obedient corporate media downplayed the CIA's doubts then, just as they are trying to amplify the "bush didn't lie, the intel was bad" spin today.


That's what I tell them, but I really don't know many people that think like that.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Here's what I'd say

I'd remind this person that Bush is the president of the United States and as president he can demand the BEST intelligence in the world not only from people in this country but other countries as well. If you don't trust the UN you can at least trust other allies. If other major countries like France, Canada and Germany all disagree it's for some reason and you better damn well make sure of it before you send people off to war who can and soliders who will die. It's on your hands and your the person responsible. When you elect someone president, or any office really, you expect them to be honest and have everybody's best intrest's at heart and to be sure. My moto in life is: if you're unsure don't do it. I know some people might disagree but in situation's like war and other people's lives this is where it counts. In a time of war Bush is the Commander in Chief. He is the one who gets the final say in EVERYTHING. He can order the troops home if he made a mistake and knows and admits it. He can stop torture in prison's like Guntanamo. He's where the buck stops and if he's going to war, or any president for that matter whether republican or democratic, they better damn well make sure the intelligence is correct and if you're not sure about it don't be a pussy and ask for advice from another country or even from other people in the US that are experts in the country you're wanting to know about. The intelligence was wrong crap is a bunch of bullshit and is to take blame off of Bush. I'd say the same thing if it was a democrat who did this. Just because they are a member of my party (or claim to be) doesn't mean I don't get to have critisim of them like I would someone who wasn't a member of my party.

[BigBearJohn]

45. it's hard to blame bad intel WHEN *HE* CREATED THE INTEL!!!

[lonestarnot]

57. Yep ... also was in on the creation of 9/11

[LunaC]

46. I give them "PNAC 101"

See link in sig line. It provides the background info that puts the Downing Street Memo in proper context.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Four points...

1. Check the UN reports (1995-1996 time-frame) stating that Iraq had destroyed any and all of their biological and chemical weapons, as well as their only nuclear facility.

2. Since the end of Desert Storm, we had recon over-flights and satellites watching every move Iraq made.

3. We had military/intelligence teams working in a cladestine manner throughout Irq.

4. OSP, the intell group formed by the NeoCons in the Pentagon, was the last filter before info was given to the NeoCon Overlords. And THAT info stated that WMDs were in Iraq.

No WMDs...Bush lied...lots of people died.

[bpilgrim]

53. Bush LIED at the STATE OF THE UNION - IGNORED OUR OWN INTEL(CIA)!!!

that usually gets them FROTHY ;->

lot's of hard hitting truth telling in this article that calls bush on his LIES.

Minneapolis Star Tribune obliterates Bush on Memorial Day

...

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse...

...

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

source...
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html

discuss...
http://tinyurl.com/ddcd5

peace

[journalist3072]

59. Easy....

You tell them Bush made it clear that the intelligence was supposed to fit his policy (of deposing Sadaam). If things had been done the right way, it would have been the other way around: the policy fitting around the intelligence.

[understandinglife]

61. Easy. I just send them two links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3764127

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3767850

Peace.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3742495#3743931


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - how ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."