The real progressive mind revealed.

[jokersarewild]

Builder is most definately on the same radical level as an Islamic terrorist, they isolate their minds from reality and immerse themselves into very strictly controlled circles of information that supports their beliefs and hatreds while insulating them from things that don't.

Actually.. sounds just like you, moron...

I laughed out loud at that.

 

[builder]

Once Popular Mechanics refuted and proved the Truthers wrong on every single claim why didn’t they try to come back and prove PM wrong? Why because they can’t fight hard cold facts. Notice the Truthers are disappearing in big numbers? Your fighting a loosing battle builder.:sweat:

Maybe the Alaska Daily and the Cordova Times don't tell you what's really happening, Snafu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZJ5H8oHmI&feature=player_embedded

This guy seems to have a genuine desire for truth. Oh, but he's not a repub. Shame. :whistling:

 

[timesjoke]

So Builder, why is it you completely refuse to discuss things like reality? Why do you refuse to answer any question that actually deals with the specifics required to actually pull off an inside job?


Time after time I ask you if you would keep this blood on your hands to protect someoen like Bush and you refuse to answer that question because you know that your answer would ne no. Why is it you believe other normal people who had to be involved would keep that blood on their hands Builder? Do you really believe all Americans would cover this up? Do you really believe all those firefighters abnd police who responded to the Pentagon and reported bodies and plane parts were telling lies and had really been in on the conspiracy?


Air traffic controllers? Military air bases, independent labs who handles 80% of the material testing from the various sites, the families of all the passengers on flights that were used in the attacks........all these people are in on the conspiracy?

 

[ImWithStupid]

Once Popular Mechanics refuted and proved the Truthers wrong on every single claim why didn’t they try to come back and prove PM wrong? Why because they can’t fight hard cold facts. Notice the Truthers are disappearing in big numbers? Your fighting a loosing battle builder.:sweat:

Maybe the Alaska Daily and the Cordova Times don't tell you what's really happening, Snafu.

This guy seems to have a genuine desire for truth. Oh, but he's not a repub. Shame. :whistling:

He also claims to have seen a UFO.

 

[timesjoke]

He also claims to have seen a UFO.

Birds of a feather, conspiracy theory wacko's all prop each other up.



I like this guy's attempt to play the "Bush lied" card but as Bender found out, there was no lie from Bush, there was no possibility of him creating false information because everything he said was exactly what everyone else had said before Bush ever took office. Every progressive leader said the exact same things Bush said later but you never hear a progressive admit that part:

Bush did not take office until 2001.......

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." ~ Madeline Albright, 1998


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." ~ Tom Daschle in 1998


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998



After Bush took office, all of the progressive leadership who had their own access to information and briefings and their already well established knowledge of the situation long before Bush showed up again said they knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and they agreed with Bush's assessment of the situation so again, where was the lie told by Bush?



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." ~ Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



EVEN GORE SAID THE SAME THINGS

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, 2002




So where is the lie?

 

[builder]

This guy seems to have a genuine desire for truth. Oh, but he's not a repub. Shame. :whistling:

He also claims to have seen a UFO.

And this guy hears voices in his head. :geek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.



In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.



Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

 

[wez]

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Tis useless.. I've pointed that exact quoted insanity out many times.. falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.. don't even expect a whisper of a response..

Ya see.. TJ is most definitely on the same radical level as an Islamic terrorist, they isolate their minds from reality and immerse themselves into very strictly controlled circles of information that supports their beliefs and hatreds while insulating them from things that don't.

Hey TJ.. ya watch that vid yet.. The Panama Deception? Didn't think so..

 

[wez]

So where is the lie?

Here it is TJ..

Reagan’s WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
​

by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 18, 2004
​

Given all the indignant neoconservative “outrage” over the financial misdeeds arising from the UN’s socialist oil-for-food program during the 1990s, when the UN embargo was killing untold numbers of Iraqi children, one would think that there would be an equal amount of outrage over a much more disgraceful scandal — the U.S. delivery of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S. officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people into supporting the invasion and war of aggression against Iraq, a war that has killed or maimed thousands of innocent people — that is, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.

In an October 1, 2002, article entitled “Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ’80s,” Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,

[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran.

In a December 17, 2002, article entitled “Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program,” the Associated Press stated,

Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq’s 1996 accounting of its nuclear program....

Iraq’s report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction....

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985–90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

In a September 26, 2002, article entitled “Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail,” columnist Robert Novak wrote,

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

In a September 18, 2002, ABC article entitled “A Tortured Relationship,” reporter Chris Bury wrote,

Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam’s regime as “a grave and gathering danger,” it’s important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam’s forcible removal from power.

In a March 16, 2003, article entitled “How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program,” in the St. Petersburg Times, staff writer Tom Drury wrote,

Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a $100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi dictatorship. U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them.

And here’s the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Unfortunately, the U.S.-WMD connection to Saddam Hussein involved more than just delivering those WMDs to him. In an August 18, 2002, New York Times article entitled “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” Patrick E. Tyler wrote,

A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter’s questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq’s use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq.

As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article “How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons,

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Immediately prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein delivered a WMD declarations report to the United Nations in an attempt to avert a U.S. invasion. Do you recall that U.S. officials intercepted the report and removed special sections of it, based on claims of “national security”?

Well, it turned out that the removed sections involved the delivery of those WMDs by the United States and other Western countries to Saddam Hussein, information that obviously caused U.S. officials a bit of discomfort on the eve of their invasion. In a February 3, 2003, Sunday Morning Herald article entitled, “Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown,” writer Anne Summers wrote,

What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations — including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council — were given only 3,000 pages. So what was missing?

The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on “procurements” in Iraq’s nuclear program and “relations with companies, representatives and individuals” for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.

In a June 9, 2004, article “Reagan Played a Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein’s Survival in Iran-Iraq War,” Agence France Presse points out,

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

“Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran’s defeat in the next month,” wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book “The Threatening Storm.”

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

In his June 8, 2004, article “Reagan and Saddam: The Unholy Alliance,” Alex Dawoody states,

By 1982, Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring nations. By 1984, America was actively sharing military intelligence with Saddam’s army. This aid included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and tactical planning for battles, assisting with air strikes, and assessing damage after bombing campaigns.

One of the most fascinating parts of this entire sordid U.S. foreign-policy episode is that none other than Donald Rumsfeld played a key role in it. Yes, the same Donald Rumsfeld who, as U.S. Secretary of Defense, scared the American people to death with the thought that Saddam Hussein was about to employ the WMDs (which the U.S. had delivered to him) against them.

A December 31, 2002, CBS story entitled “U.S. and Iraq Go Way Back,” put it this way:

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports. It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.

In an August 18, 2002, MSNBC article entitled “Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift,” Robert Windrem wrote,

State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.

The new information on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld’s role in it, comes as The New York Times reported Sunday that the United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons.

In a February 24, 2003, article entitled “Who Armed Saddam?” writer Stephen Green wrote,

And he’d probably read the front page Washington Post story (“U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup,” 12/30/02) based upon recently declassified documents, which revealed that it was Rumsfeld himself who, as President Reagan’s Middle East Envoy, had traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security relations.

In her article “Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown,” Anne Summers reinforced this point:

In December 1983, Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to the Middle East appointed by President Reagan, travelled to Baghdad to inform Saddam Hussein that the United States was ready to resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq. A lengthy report in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002 — based on analysing thousands of pages of declassified government documents and interviews with former policy-makers — said that “US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences” following Rumsfeld’s visit.

So, that is Rumsfeld’s response to all this? Unfortunately, he suffers a malady that commonly afflicts Washington officials when a whiff of scandal is in the air: selective memory lapse. According to Matt Kelly’s article (cited above),

The disclosures put the United States in the position of possibly having provided key ingredients of the weapons it is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D., W.Va.), who entered the documents into the Congressional Record last month.

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Ronald Reagan’s Middle East envoy.

“Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?” Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.

“I have never heard anything like what you’ve read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it,” Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

Or as Robert Novak put it in his column (cited above),

Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate’s 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.

According to the article by Anne Summers (cited above),

These days Rumsfeld likes to downplay or even deny his role in helping arm Iraq with the makings of weapons of mass destruction. He has been quoted as saying he had “nothing to do” with helping Iraq fight Iran in the ’80s. However, the Washington Post says, “The documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer US-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts.”

Given that the WMDs that were used to justify the invasion and war against Iraq never materialized, one would think that the neoconservatives who pushed and misled America into the war, and those members of Congress who complacently rubber-stamped the president’s actions, and those members of the press who served as the administration’s cheerleaders would be at least mildly outraged over how Saddam Hussein acquired his WMDs in the first place — from the United States and other countries during the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, the response has been the standard ho-hum one hears whenever the rot at the center of the empire surfaces: “It was just a policy mistake; it happened a long time ago; we need to put it behind us; and it’s now time to move on.”

It is that mindset of denial, however, that is certain to doom our nation to increasing conflicts, crises, and turmoil. To restore political, moral, and economic health to our country, it is necessary to excise the cancer associated with the unrestrained — and oftentimes secret — exercise of government power. In order to excise such a cancer, however, it is first necessary to acknowledge and confront its existence.


Reagan’s WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein


Close your eyes, moron..

 

[phreakwars]

TJ's mind revealed

When the stupid don't realize they are stupid.

.
.

 

[builder]

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Tis useless.. I've pointed that exact quoted insanity out many times.. falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.. don't even expect a whisper of a response..

Ya see.. TJ is most definitely on the same radical level as an Islamic terrorist, they isolate their minds from reality and immerse themselves into very strictly controlled circles of information that supports their beliefs and hatreds while insulating them from things that don't.

Hey TJ.. ya watch that vid yet.. The Panama Deception? Didn't think so..

NPD sufferer for sure and certain, Wez, but thanks for the heads up.

I must confess that I enjoy poking him in the eye with some reality on a regular basis, but like you've said, it's akin to training an elephant to jump hurdles. Slow and torturous work.

Maybe some day he'll see reason, but for an NPD sufferer to actually improve, they first have to realise they have a problem, and that is the major hurdle.

Even the best psychiatrists end up shunting them up a dead-end street just to end the association with them, realizing that they will never confront their demons.

Meanwhile, we slam him on a daily basis, without him realising it. inch:

 

[timesjoke]

So you on the personal attack kick now Bender because I again have you running away from questions you refuse to answer?

That garbage Wez posted does not show where Bush lied about anything.



Let me help you guys out a little being as it seems progressives don't understand how this whole thing would have to work:



For Bush to have told a lie, he would need to have independent knowledge that Iraq not having weapons of mass destruction, from the time of the last weapons inspectors leaving Iraq (long before Bush being President) to the day we invaded, all of the information from the Clinton Administration to that day was consistent. Bill Clinton and every other Progressive politician who had full access to the same intel Bush later had all said the same things and everyone from Bill Clinton of old to his wife of the Bush time all agreed that this info showed the same things.


So how could this be a lie?


Unless.......it was a lie shared by everyone? Is that what your saying Bender? Do you believe the lie was started by Blill Clinton then everyone just went along with that lie and years later Bush decided to use that lie for his own purposes? While I don't think Bush did I can see that as the only logical way the invasion later could be based on a lie.


So either everyone lied, or nobody lied, which one is it Bender? You can't have it both ways.

 

[builder]

TJ's mind revealed

When the stupid don't realize they are stupid.

.
.

That's a classic, Phreak. How do I access the shoutbox back a couple of days? I was chatting with emkay while tj was foaming at the mouth. Would love to post what he said.

 

[timesjoke]

That's a classic, Phreak. How do I access the shoutbox back a couple of days? I was chatting with emkay while tj was foaming at the mouth. Would love to post what he said.

Foaming at the mouth? Your such a child sometimes Builder, I was just screwing around with you two, you both decided to flame me when I said nothing to you and after I gave it back, then suddenly you tried to pretend to ignore me while I kept playing wiht you, I laughed so hard at you guys having to admit you can't compete with me I almost spotted.


Reminds me of how you tried to play sex games with me talking about me buying nipple clams then after I replied you discovered you were out matched and tired another direction, you fail Builder, but your not alone, all progressives are just a tad off their rocker, you love to gather together and prop each other up but at the same time it is really you guys who believe stupid things like 9/11 being an inside job and taxing people to death will motivate them to invest in creating new jobs.


But as they say, ignorance is bliss, and you guys seem very blissful

 

[wez]

False Pretenses​

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.​

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008​

​

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

· In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

· In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

· On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

· On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

· On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

Go back to bed, idiot

 

[timesjoke]

Again, progressives and conspiracy nuts all support eash other with these kinds of false claims, but not one shread of hard proof to support their claim, take the nonesense Wez just posted, let's look at just one point made:

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

First of all he tosses out the shock value big number of "532 separate occasions" but what does that really mean? Sure, he said over and over again the same things about the WMD's but how does the number of times it was said change if the information was an intentional lie or not? Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives said the exact same things more than Bush but you don't see the author attacking them for saying that more than Bush said it.



But where is the "BUSH" lie? The existence or not of WMD's was nothing Bush had any independent knowledge of. For it to be a "LIE" Bush would first have to know what he said was not true....right? Let's look it up:

Lie = tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive



Before Bush ever took office Bill Clinton and everyone else all said the exact same things Bush said so how is this a lie by Bush? Get past the progressive BS and actually look at what Bush said and how does the words Bush said differ from what Bill Clinton and the rest said when they had access to the same intel Bush saw?


--------------------------------------------------

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ From a letter by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and many others on October 9, 1998


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" ~ National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998



"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." ~ Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998



------------------------------------------

So I have a direct question for you Wez, let's see if you can answer it.

If every high ranking Progressive who had access to the intel available all agree and openly say that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction before Bush ever took office, why is it a "Bush lie" if he says exactly what they said before him?


Why is it other progressives like Nancy Pelosi who has her own access to the reports outside of what Bush does agrees with what Bush and Bill clinton said and agreed that the evidence clearly showed these things, again, how does that make what Bush said a lie?





There is the biggest problem with almost every arguement you progressives make, your hold a clear and well defined double standard, Bill Clinton says there are WMD's and right or wrong, you will never say one word against him, but Bush says the exact same thing and suddenly everyone wants to claim he lied.




The only way Bush could have lied is if everyone else to include the Prince of Progressives Al Gore had to also be in on that lie together, is that what your trying to claim Wez? That everyone worked together long before Bush ever took office to conspire to attack Iraq?

 

[wez]

So I have a direct question for you Wez, let's see if you can answer it.

If every high ranking Progressive who had access to the intel available all agree and openly say that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction before Bush ever took office, why is it a "Bush lie" if he says exactly what they said before him?

As a professional nurse I am responsible for all staff working under my delegation. A LPN med error is a wez med error. A Rumsfeld and Cheney lie is a Bush lie.

Progressives before he ever took office? Really? Why? Were we planning on invading Iraq before 9/11 ever happened because we were still flexing his Daddy's muscle from the first gulf war after we supplied him with WMD the decade before while he was vice Prez under Reagan?

Why is it other progressives like Nancy Pelosi how has her own access to the reports outside of what Bush does agrees with what Bush and Bill clinton said and agreed that the evidence clearly showed these things, again, how does that make what Bush said a lie?

Cuz she's a self serving bitch who would also lie to advance her own agenda's?

How does her lying make Bush's lies less of a lie? Fancy Nancy didn't have the authority to declare war, Bush did.

There is the biggest problem with almost every arguement you progressives make, your hold a clear and well defined double standard, Bill Clinton says there are WMD's and right or wrong, you will never say one word against him, but Bush says the exact same thing and suddenly everyone wants to claim he lied.

Bill Clinton never declared war on Iraq based upon lies and I'm not a "you progressive", moron.

The only way Bush could have lied is if everyone else to include the Prince of Progressives Al Gore had to also be in on that lie together, is that what your trying to claim Wez? That everyone worked together long before Bush ever took office to conspire to attack Iraq?

Yep.. I believe he came into office ready to carry on with his Daddy's "good works" in Iraq before 9/11 happened..

Only confirmed by the fact that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

 

[wez]

Hey TJ.. do you really believe God talks to Bush and commanded him to wage war or do ya think he was lying?

Either way.. you lose.

 

[builder]

Foaming at the mouth? Your such a child sometimes Builder, I was just screwing around with you two, you both decided to flame me when I said nothing to you and after I gave it back, then suddenly you tried to pretend to ignore me while I kept playing wiht you, I laughed so hard at you guys having to admit you can't compete with me I almost spotted.

Louis, nipple clamps are adult sex toys. You claimed that every purchase in America has to be okayed by the admin, who, in this day and age, is your blg black nemesis, Obama.

I asked you if your purchase of nipple clamps had to be okayed by the admin,(tongue in cheek) and you immediately launched an attack on not only my person, but my anus, and my integrity.

You have now placed yourself in the realm of the NPD sufferer that you are, and probably always have been.

Revel in your irrelevance, dudess.

 

[timesjoke]

As a professional nurse I am responsible for all staff working under my delegation. A LPN med error is a wez med error. A Rumsfeld and Cheney lie is a Bush lie.

Nice dancing from the question but no cigar.

You have to prove either Bush or anyone else actually told a lie first. Based on all the facts and even Bill Clinton what Bush said was no more than what Bill Clinton already said. How can it be a lie if even Bill Clinton said the exact same thing Wez?


And by the way, if a staff under you broke the rules and made an error because they went outside the rules and guidelines, no your not responsible.

Progressives before he ever took office? Really? Why? Were we planning on invading Iraq before 9/11 ever happened because we were still flexing his Daddy's muscle from the first gulf war after we supplied him with WMD the decade before while he was vice Prez under Reagan?

But you keep dodging the fact that it was Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Harry Reid, all the progressive leadership who said Iraq had WMD;s "FIRST", long before Bush took office so stay on that fact and tell me why Bill Clinton was telling the lie? Are you trying to say Bill Clinton, Al Gore, all the progressives were just the puppets of Bush?

Cuz she's a self serving bitch who would also lie to advance her own agenda's?

How does her lying make Bush's lies less of a lie?

Bush only repeated what she and Bill Clinton said, he was saying what they said based on the same intel, if there was a lie created and intel that was falsed to create the impression there were WMD's in Iraq then that had to be planted by Clinton and the progressives, not Bush, Bush only said what he saw based on the intel, intel already there long before he took office.

Bill Clinton never declared war on Iraq based upon lies and I'm not a "you progressive", moron.

Bill Clinton did toss a few missles here and there based on this info and he also said the exact same things Bush said so if there was any lie it was one created by Bill Clinton, not Bush.

And yes you are a progressive, socialist, America hater, anti-colonialist.

Yep.. I believe he came into office ready to carry on with his Daddy's "good works" in Iraq before 9/11 happened..

But you still dodge the point, the so called "LIE" existed before Bush took over, Bill Clinto and every progressive in power said that Iraq had WMD's before Bush took office so there is no possible way Bush could have lied.


A lie would mean he knew a truth outside of the offered facts Wez, are you now saying Bush was smarter than Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives who all said the information available pointed to Iraq having WMD's so Bush should have come to a completely different conclusion than they did?

Only confirmed by the fact that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

The attack in Iraq was not about 9/11, please try to keep up.


Unless you work a little harder on trying to stay on the facts I will simply ignore you, I really do try and give everyone a fair shake at conversation but you always seem more interested in fighting with someone than having a honest discussion so if that is all you want, I really see no point in paying attention to you.



I know, I am most likely not doing the right thing in giving you chances to be reasonable, but I really believe all people can be reasonable if you can get them to look past their hate.

 

[wez]

And yes you are a progressive, socialist, America hater, anti-colonialist.

hahahaha.. whatever.. still better than being .. you.

Hey TJ.. do you really believe God talks to Bush and commanded him to wage war or do ya think he was lying?

Either way.. you lose.