Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[Theowl32]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see, so you think both sides are liars, it's just that you only want Republicans to be accountable for that.

Neither side lied about the intelligence. W pursued a bad strategy that isn't in US interest, then Democrats lied that they were lied to and threw their country under the bus.

Funny how you seem to think you know what's in my head. You don't, by the way.

Um...it's what you posted, moron. If you blame both sides, blame both sides, not just one which is all you're doing now except when I said, then you said oh yeah, them too.

Neither side lied about intelligence, yet the US Congress came out and said that the CIA was deliberately making up "evidence"

Actually, Democrats did. You make it sound like that was bi-partisan. It wasn't. Your argument is we know Democrats were lied to because they said they were. LOL, and you're calling me a sucker? Also, no idea who you were quoting when you quoted evidence.

and passing it to Bush so he could do exactly what he wanted to do. That's way too much of a convenience for me to accept that Bush or those around him, didn't ask for it.

The Bush administration KNEW that the intelligence they were getting was not correct. If that isn't a lie then you're a sucker for liars.

Right, Democrats ran the Senate and were in the White House until six months before 9/11. Then said they had no idea what was going on, Bush fooled them. They didn't know, And you're calling me a sucker for liars? That's just classic. Oh, and you're not a Democrat. LOL. And you blame them both while you say Democrats were innocent and Republicans lied to them.

You're a tool. A socket wrench. Democrats tell you what to think, and you think it.

Well done for insulting, it must have taken a lot of your intelligence to get there.

 

[Ibentoken]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Their entire existence is a lie.

 

[Lakhota]

Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

The thread title is open to TWO possible interpretations:

1. Why did Bush lie by suggesting Saddam was linked/connected to 9/11?

2. Why did Bush lie by saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

 

[frigidweirdo]

and you know that he knew? how? where you on the WH intel staff during that time? or do you get your "facts" from propaganda sites like kos and huffpuff?

Well, there are two choices here.

The first is that Bush wanted to go into Iraq. Got intelligence to make this possible. Pretended he didn't know anything and went to war. Oh, and profited from it, well Cheney and his buddies did.

The second is that Bush didn't really want to go to war, only he saw the intelligence and decided that this was now the time to go to war, though the CIA, for no reason at all, decided to make the intelligence up by themselves, when they would hardly profit from this.

Which is most likely? The second is not likely at all.

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

"The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department. "

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

"“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses. "

"
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements wereNOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

ØStatements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
"

How could there be SO MUCH evidence that wasn't proven, probably wasn't even true, be ending up on Bush's desk?
Why did this "evidence" end up on his desk when evidence from the Pentagon, which was doing things properly, was COMPLETELY IGNORED?

 

[Camp]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue. There is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

 

[Ibentoken]

It doesn't matter.

 

[Theowl32]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue. There is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

Fuck off you hack.

 

[Theowl32]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue. There is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

Poor Clinton did not have the intelligence of BOOOOOOOSH, so that was why he signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs, why he passed up on killing bin laden, and emboldened the terrorists after the Somalia debacle.

You think you are so fucking intelligent?

You spew utter fucking bullshit.

 

[Staidhup]

Sad to think when people are faced with the realities of Obama's current lack of foreign policy direction tend to distract from the now and revisit 12 years past. For the record you continually use the word lie, how about trying, from the intelligence obtained from secondary sources, our allies?
Illegal? interesting observation considering overwhelming congressional support. How do you address this small issue?

 

[Camp]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue. There is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

Poor Clinton did not have the intelligence of BOOOOOOOSH, so that was why he signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs, why he passed up on killing bin laden, and emboldened the terrorists after the Somalia debacle.

You think you are so fucking intelligent?

You spew utter fucking bullshit.

Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 you idiot. Do you think that the intelligence data from 1998 had some kind of relevance in 2002 or 2003? Well, you are an idiot, so maybe you think 4 or 5 year old intelligence can be turned into actionable intelligence. The rest of you garbage is garbage you had to have picked up from your favorite low information idiots talk radio show or nitwits blog site.

 

[Camp]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Their entire existence is a lie.

Don't you just hate when people tread on you and your dumb ass opinions just because you can't think of intelligent things to say?

 

[Lakhota]

Sad to think when people are faced with the realities of Obama's current lack of foreign policy direction tend to distract from the now and revisit 12 years past. For the record you continually use the word lie, how about trying, from the intelligence obtained from secondary sources, our allies?
Illegal? interesting observation considering overwhelming congressional support. How do you address this small issue?

Have you read the following memo?

The Downing Street Memo

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue.

Camp, you define "true" as that which serves the party. So to you, the idiotic, partisan bullshit you post is "true," it serves your filthy party.

But to rational people, the fact that most of what you post is factually false means that what you are posting is untrue.

here is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

While you post endless links, DailyKOS, ThinkProgress, Alternet, Stormfront, Media Matters, MoveOn, and the rest of the hate sites are far from "reliable,"

These hate sites start with a conclusion, then find or fabricate data to support the conclusion.When dealing with those like you, who suffer from severe BDS, we can be assured that the vast majority of the data is fabricated.

 

[Lakhota]

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue.

Camp, you define "true" as that which serves the party. So to you, the idiotic, partisan bullshit you post is "true," it serves your filthy party.

But to rational people, the fact that most of what you post is factually false means that what you are posting is untrue.

here is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

While you post endless links, DailyKOS, ThinkProgress, Alternet, Stormfront, Media Matters, MoveOn, and the rest of the hate sites are far from "reliable,"

These hate sites start with a conclusion, then find or fabricate data to support the conclusion.When dealing with those like you, who suffer from severe BDS, we can be assured that the vast majority of the data is fabricated.

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

 

[Camp]

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue.

Camp, you define "true" as that which serves the party. So to you, the idiotic, partisan bullshit you post is "true," it serves your filthy party.

But to rational people, the fact that most of what you post is factually false means that what you are posting is untrue.

here is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

While you post endless links, DailyKOS, ThinkProgress, Alternet, Stormfront, Media Matters, MoveOn, and the rest of the hate sites are far from "reliable,"

These hate sites start with a conclusion, then find or fabricate data to support the conclusion.When dealing with those like you, who suffer from severe BDS, we can be assured that the vast majority of the data is fabricated.

I don't belong to a political party and have a long history of supporting Republicans in local elections. And I have never used any of the sites you accuse me of using. Not a single one. So, that makes you a liar on top of being a low information idiot. You can not find one post from any thread where I have used anyone of the sites you accuse me of using.

 

[kaz]

The following link is a great timeline: It begins on 8/14/92 and ends on 3/20/03 when the war begins.

Here's a great timeline as well. It's the occupant of the White House in Six Month intervals before 9/11.

Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

And apparently according to you, W just completely fooled you. Damn you people are dumb, and that's according to you.

Actually Bush became President in January 2001, months before 9/11. He was also warned by intelligence that there may be plans to fly planes into buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_W._Bush
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-bush-knew-before-sept-11/

You Repubs should do like to rewrite history, don't you? Are just DUMB are you just a liar?

Wow, liberals are dumb. Read my chart again, it accurately shows W was President six months before 9/11.

And exactly what conclusion do you draw from that W was "warned by intelligence that there may be plans to fly planes into buildings?

 

[kaz]

And you wonder why I stated you were dumb, partisan and insane?

No, I don't, I never wonder that. It's because you are dumb, partisan and insane.

It was a result of stupid posts, maybe not Idiot-Grams but you are pretty much like CrusaderFrank and Stephanie.

Right, because being the rocket scientist that you are, you know that Republicans opposed Iraq and think both sides are the same. Republicans are always telling you that.

LOL, what a dumb ass.

 

[kaz]

Yep, ole kaz is a world class idiot.

Am I? How big an idiot am I on a scale from 1 to someone who starts a thread based on a lie, then can't back it up or admit he was wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.