Study: False statements preceded war

[ak24]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded 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."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "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."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"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," the study concluded.

"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," it said.


Nothing new here, but I thought it was interesting how many times the article says Bush Administrator lied to us. This must be a record of some sort!

[Jetsetlemming]

Those aren't lies. Those are things they believed true that turned out wrong. :sarcasm: To label them as "falsities" and count them as such is intentionally misleading on the part of the "non-profit journalist organizations" publishing it. I've yet to see anyone prove that the Bush admin and their friends knew Hussein didn't have WMDs and claimed he did anyway.
It's also ancient news and of essentially no modern consequence anymore, all things considered. This reminds me of that news story I heard a few weeks ago reporting on Hitler's violent chronic flatulence.

[Sublime]

Old news is old. Bush is either a huge fucking retard or a genius of international politics. I'd like to think he's a retard with more power and luck than any man should have. There can be two motivations for his actions - 1 - fighting terrorism and - 2 - securing foreign oil we might as well choose - 3 - both. What's done is done and the motivation behind is crystal clear if you look at the world around us. Weather the terrorism banner was just stagecraft - it doesn't matter anymore. They pulled it off.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Those aren't lies. Those are things they believed true that turned out wrong. :sarcasm: To label them as "falsities" and count them as such is intentionally misleading on the part of the "non-profit journalist organizations" publishing it. I've yet to see anyone prove that the Bush admin and their friends knew Hussein didn't have WMDs and claimed he did anyway.
It's also ancient news and of essentially no modern consequence anymore, all things considered. This reminds me of that news story I heard a few weeks ago reporting on Hitler's violent chronic flatulence.
A false statement is a false statement. It doesn't matter if the person who said them at the time believed them or not.

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

A false statement is a false statement. It doesn't matter if the person who said them at the time believed them or not.

Actually, yes it matters a hell of a lot. If, for example, a student gets an answer on a math test wrong, he's not being dishonest. He's not lying. He's incorrect. To accuse him of dishonesty would be. . .well, dishonest. Unless you don't know the difference between lying and not lying.

[stsparky]

Those aren't lies. Those are things they believed true that turned out wrong. :sarcasm: To label them as "falsities" and count them as such is intentionally misleading on the part of the "non-profit journalist organizations" publishing it. I've yet to see anyone prove that the Bush admin and their friends knew Hussein didn't have WMDs and claimed he did anyway.
It's also ancient news and of essentially no modern consequence anymore, all things considered. This reminds me of that news story I heard a few weeks ago reporting on Hitler's violent chronic flatulence.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/TDC/project/header_titlebar.gif
Actually they were out and out lies (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/). He and his cronies lied and our troops died. Wouldn't say they did a bang up job on getting bin Ladin either. I mean WTF. Just admit it. But we can easily go the Zeitgeist discussion to link the Bush Crime Clan to Hitler. Because Prescott Bush was Fart Boy's so-called Financial Angel. And no, you can't end this by playing the Hitler/NAZI card. :D

The Center for Public Integrity: War Card (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/)
“... 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. ...”

Key False Statements (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946)

On September 8, 2002, Bush administration officials hit the national airwaves to advance the argument that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly stated that Saddam Hussein "now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium."

Condoleezza Rice, who was then Bush's national security adviser, followed Cheney that night on CNN's Late Edition. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein's government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

In April 2001, however, the Energy Department had concluded that, "while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production." During the preparation of the September 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated their belief that Iraq intended to use the tubes in a conventional rocket program, but the Central Intelligence Agency's contrary view prevailed.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence subsequently concluded that postwar findings supported the assessments of the Energy Department and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

______________________________

There was dissent within the intelligence community in the first 48 hours after 9/11 over the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, President Bush's chief counterterrorism adviser, has written that President Bush asked him on September 12 to "see if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way. . ." Clarke said that he responded by saying, "Absolutely, we will look . . . again," and then adding, "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq."

Beginning apparently in late November 2001, a team in the office of Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, working independently of the formal intelligence community, reviewed intelligence data related to Al Qaeda. In August and September 2002, this team provided three separate briefings to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, and finally to high-level White House officials. The briefings, titled "Assessing the Relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," included the assessment that "Intelligence indicates cooperation [with Al Qaeda] in all categories: mature, symbiotic relationship."

Bush administration officials were soon publicly linking the two. For example, on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter's question, President Bush said: "They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

Such statements were not supported by the intelligence community's findings. In July 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information."

In September, the CIA circulated a draft report titled Iraqi Support for Terrorism, which found "no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike." On September 17, CIA Director George Tenet reiterated this point in testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training, and reciprocal non-aggression," he said. "There are several reported suggestions by Al Qaeda to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures, but in no case can we establish that Iraq accepted or followed up on these suggestions."

The 9/11 Commission Report found that while there may have been meetings in 1999 between Iraqi officials and Osama Bin Ladin or his aides, it had seen no evidence that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It added: "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

______________________________

In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support." Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don't know about?'"

______________________________

In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "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. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush's radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

The CIA put the NIE together in less than three weeks. It proved to be false. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded, "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

______________________________

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq. That month, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research published an intelligence assessment titled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." In July 2002, the Energy Department concluded that there was "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq" and suggested that the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program." In August 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency made no mention of the Iraq-Niger connection in a paper on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Just two weeks before the president's speech, an analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research had sent an e-mail to several other analysts describing why he believed "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." And in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious.'"

______________________________

In his dramatic presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." In preparation for his presentation, Powell had spent a week at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters sifting through intelligence.

One of the "human sources" that Powell referenced turned out to be "Curveball," whom U.S. intelligence officials had never even spoken to. "My mouth hung open when I saw Colin Powell use information from Curveball," Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's chief of covert operations in Europe, later recalled. "It was like cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I thought, my government has something more. But it scared me deeply."

In his presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Powell described another of the human sources as "a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda." Six days earlier, however, the CIA itself had come to the conclusion that this source, a detainee, "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

In a report completed in 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell's speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

______________________________

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

______________________________

On July 30, 2003, in an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Condoleezza Rice said: "What we knew going into the war was that this man was a threat. He had weapons of mass destruction. He had used them before. He was continuing to try to improve his weapons programs. He was sitting astride one of the most volatile regions in the world, a region out of which the ideologies of hatred had come that led people to slam airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington. Something had to be done about that threat and the president to simply allow this brutal dictator, with dangerous weapons, to continue to destabilize the Middle East."

Just two days earlier, David Kay, the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, had briefed administration officials. "We have not found large stockpiles," he told them. "You can't rule them out. We haven't come to the conclusion that they're not there, but they're sure not any place obvious. We've got a lot more to search for and to look at."

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Actually, yes it matters a hell of a lot. If, for example, a student gets an answer on a math test wrong, he's not being dishonest. He's not lying. He's incorrect. To accuse him of dishonesty would be. . .well, dishonest. Unless you don't know the difference between lying and not lying.
Actually, no it doesn't matter much, because I was specifically talking about making a false statement, not lying. It doesn't matter if Bush believed what he was saying at the time, since as I said, a false statement is a false statement. This was in direct response to Doc's statement "To label them as "falsities" and count them as such is intentionally misleading on the part of the "non-profit journalist organizations" publishing it."

[Mechs]

:bang: Oh for the love of......

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Everyone suspected him of having NBCs. Just cause the president turned out to be wrong don't mean he's a liar.

[stsparky]

:bang: Oh for the love of... Everyone suspected him of having NBCs. Just cause the president turned out to be wrong don't mean he's a liar.
He's a big fat liar who deserves prison.
http://celebslam.buzznet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/george-bush-finger-flip.jpg

... 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). ...

[Mechs]

He's a big fat liar who deserves prison.

The president gets all his information from the various inteligence agencies in the U.S. and abroad. All believed that Iraq had some sort of NBC weapons. Same did everyone with half a brain and followed the news about Iraq over the past 13 years. The president based his decsion on the info he got. It's not that he knew Iraq didn't have the weapons, otherwise he would have lied, but that is not the case.

The president was wrong, the info he got was wrong, plain and simple. Saying he lied is just plain childish to me.

Think about it like an adult for a sec. Can you prove he lied? Does anyone that says he lied knew, 100%, without a fucking doubt that Iraq had no WMDs back in 2002-03? If you didn't, then how do you know he lied, when you yourself didn't even know the truth?

[japanat]

The president gets all his information from the various inteligence agencies in the U.S. and abroad. All believed that Iraq had some sort of NBC weapons. Same did everyone with half a brain and followed the news about Iraq over the past 13 years. The president based his decsion on the info he got. It's not that he knew Iraq didn't have the weapons, otherwise he would have lied, but that is not the case.

The president was wrong, the info he got was wrong, plain and simple. Saying he lied is just plain childish to me.

Think about it like an adult for a sec. Can you prove he lied? Does anyone that says he lied knew, 100%, without a fucking doubt that Iraq had no WMDs back in 2002-03? If you didn't, then how do you know he lied, when you yourself didn't even know the truth?
Can I prove that he lied? No. But as an adult during the buildup to war with access to news other than FoxNEWS cheerleaders and CNN's embedded rahrah, I did know that former weapons inspectors were saying that they had no physical proof of weapons, just that Hussein was playing games with the process. The BBC constantly reported that there were some substantive-sounding rumors, but no proof of any kind, of any kind of renewed, sustained WMD production. Only half or thereabouts of the available intelligence supported his conclusions - instead of balancing it, he got to pick and choose which intelligence was favorable.

I would prefer that we have solid proof, not conjectures, when going to war. Especially since Hussein, while a right nasty piece of work and a potential threat, was not an immediate threat to the US. And I'm not talking about only Bush & Co, either; the whole damn Senate and House jumped on the patriotic bandwagon (what was it? something like 3 nays?), and are now trying to cover their asses.

[Roxie]

I have to agree with Sparky here. I can't "prove" it, but I agree.

I never believe any of the talk from the moment it began. I knew when was elected this stuff would happen. I wish I could've been old enough to vote then.

[DL84]

rofl american government

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Funny how people want Bush to go to prison when he hasn't even broken a law in our Country.

[Roxie]

Cause laws are the only thing that dictate something being wrong?

[Y.T.]

The president was wrong, the info he got was wrong, plain and simple. Saying he lied is just plain childish to me.


However the people who advised him, at least, ought to have known better .. but they didn't. They discounted information that did not point to Iraq having NBCs and only considered information that pointed to Iraq developing / having NBCs.

There are plenty of interviews with retired CIA personnel and other insiders.
That cherry picking is well documented.

That is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. US went to war over such dishonesty.

No moral person would behave in such a manner.. overthrowing a nation and causing tens of thousands of deaths, and not even thinking hard beforehand.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Cause laws are the only thing that dictate something being wrong?

Pretty much, especially when it comes to politics.

You'll find that there is pretty much no way he'll be tried or found guilty in a court of law even if we did live in a perfect and fair system. International Court is a bit trickier, but we aren't even a part of that so it doesn't matter. Not to mention he hasn't done much wrong under that system either.

You can spout morality and how he deserves to be in jail for what he's done, but by the end of they day all anyone is ever going to do is whine on the Internet.

[stsparky]

Funny how people want Bush to go to prison when he hasn't even broken a law in our Country.
You'd be wrong. Perjury is just one law he's broken. And it was over something more important than a blowjob. Maybe you're cool with mass grave desecration here at home - but I find it to be heinous.

I do think leading a nation to war over false pretenses is treason. And the unnecessary deaths of nearly 4000 US troops needs to be addressed. So yes. I think Bush, Cheney and the other decision makers need to put on trial for treason now. And I would include any of the enablers in the Congress as well. But we knew from the start of his presidency Bush the Usurper would be pressured to use any pretext to go to war with Iraq by the corporate interests his backers have beholden him to. Ask yourself who got rich by supplying our soldiers with inadequate armor? Where do smarter soldiers turn to when they find themselves forced to buy a better replacement bullet proof vests?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

You'd be wrong. Perjury is just one law he's broken. And it was over something more important than a blowjob. Maybe you're cool with mass grave desecration here at home - but I find it to be heinous.
As much I hate to say it, a case of perjury could only be made if he has lied while under oath, which I don't think he has.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.

The most common would be selling secrets to other nations, enemies or helping them out in anyway.

Also, treason wasn't defined very well in our Constitution. In your own definition how would you define someone who was treasonous?

In fact Bush nearly went to war under a type of Neo-Conservative agenda with Hegemonism running through his brain. False pretenses, sadly, isn't a case for treason and to throw that idea up into court is dumb. Not to mention Bush is doing what he is doing because he believes it is going to help and better the country. Which is the exact opposite of treason.

I hope you are trying to see where I am coming from. In all reality you can spout that Bush is a war criminal (which he technically isn't), a liar (that's always up for debate) and deserves to go to prison (which he doesn't). Still at the end of the day there isn't a court that would find his imprisonment viable even if this was a fair system.

Face reality man. President Bush is going to leave his Presidency and live a very long (albeit not harassment free) life.

Things aren't right in Iraq and the President is by far one of the bad ones. I'm just trying to make you understand how ridiciulous you sound.

[stsparky]

As much I hate to say it, a case of perjury could only be made if he has lied while under oath, which I don't think he has.
Google "Funeralgate" and I think you'll find he has.

Aside to Sock Full of Boiled Dimes - Dennis Kucinich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich) is going to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush this week now he's given up running for Presiden. Let's see what surfaces with that.
“ ... Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations charter. Kucinich opened his press conference by quoting from the Declaration of Independence, and stated: "I believe the Vice President's conduct of office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation. Today, I have introduced House Resolution 333, Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I do so in defense of the rights of the American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful." ...”

Congressman Kucinich has made available more than 45 documents supporting the articles of impeachment at his Congressional website, including at least 15 for each article.

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. stated: "Nancy Pelosi has impeachment 'off the table,' but that's off her table, it is not off [my] table", and that Pelosi "cannot prevent me from introducing an impeachment resolution". He further said: "I have no reticence, no reluctance, no hesitation to use the tool of impeachment".

So - with luck - maybe this smirking chimp of a man who caused many needless deaths will earn his just punishment in the Federal Prison at Fort Leavenworth along with others who've betrayed this country doing hard labor. Let's hope.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Oh well, if its Dick Chaney then that's a whole other story.

That man probably deserves to go to prison.

[darighaz]

April 24, 2007?

[Beowulf]

Funny how people want Bush to go to prison when he hasn't even broken a law in our Country.
They're called war crimes, you may want to look into them.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

That's debateable in a court of law.

Got any proof that President Bush made war crimes?

The laws under the Geneva Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes#Definition

Now, there are maybe 1 or 2 that can be considered War Crimes against the United States. One of which (Torture or Inhumane treatment) Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld themselves signed and made policy themselves. So they knew what they were doing.

Which: However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"

Besides, as you know, the President has the right to interpret the Geneva convention as he See's fit. It's not right, but what are you going to do about it? This is the most powerful nation in the world with a permanent seat in the UN security counsel. Do you really think anyone is gonna bother doing anything?

I still don't think Bush did anything that is considered "War Crimes". Because it's all debatable and needs solid proof.

I'm not saying any of you are wrong I'm just saying that by the end of the day there is nothing but speculation and half-truths that says he is a criminal.

Which means dick to me and means even less to the Supreme Court.

EDIT: Also, the Geneva convention is part of Internation law and not US law. Do you know what that means?

Also, liberal Michael Tomasky said that the impeachment of GW would be the Dumbest Move Dems Could Make stating, "convert Bush from the figure of contempt and mockery he is now into one of vague sympathy", "...alienate nonideological voters and, therefore, harm the Democrats' otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008", and thus harm "liberalism and the country".

[stsparky]

Michael Tomasky lives in Silver Springs MD and thus has an "insider's view" of this — he is wrong. Impeaching Cheney first and then Bush would be a balm for our wounded nation and hopefully restore the freedoms the duo stole from us. I think after that we go after the still standing Justices that awarded the Presidency to these criminals. Then the enablers who aided in this criminal activity. We're clearly not safer because of invading Iraq. This action is to ensure this 'Banana Republic' bs never ever reoccurs in the US.

[Masa the Masta]

http://66.186.8.7/clients/altayer/emails/b090507_02/images/banana.jpg

I wanna be a part of the Banana Republic.. :(

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

stuff.

That's fine and dandy but you still have yet to convince me of how either of them are able to go to jail or be impeached. The reasons you gave me before are kind of crap to be honest.

I'm seriously going to bring this up with my political science professor just to make sure, but I'm a firm believer that despite their actions none of them deserve jailtime (except maybe Chaney and Rumsfeld).

[stsparky]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Women_in_protest.jpg/400px-Women_in_protest.jpg

The Michael Tomasky quote appears in the link below - I strongly disagree. The asshole GOP smear campaign spent millions going after the Clintons wasting Federal cash and time on a 'honey trap' about a blow job needs to be balanced with an impeachment movement about substance: Movement to impeach George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush)

Rationales for impeachment
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
2003 invasion of Iraq
Constitutionality of invasion
Justification for invasion
U.N. Charter
Geneva Conventions controversy
Unlawful combatant status
Extraordinary rendition
Treatment of detainees
Commutation of Lewis Libby
Alleged declassification for political purposes
Alleged politicization of the United States attorney offices
Hurricane Katrina
Expanded executive powers

I'm sure one of these would provide enough to get Bush. I guess Democrats should be happy they have both Conyers and Kucinich to keep this issue active. If I had Pelosi's ear I would have bent it on this issue. As is, I've had heated debate with Brad Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Sherman) on it. We'll see.

And the evil Vice President is Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident) — at least spell it right. He shot Harry Whittington supposedly by accident - but again look at how he links up with Funeralgate.

[Roxie]

but I'm a firm believer that despite their actions none of them deserve jailtime (except maybe Chaney and Rumsfeld).Deserve? Or could be convicted? Two totally different things.

[Candyvan Stan]

That's debateable in a court of law.


Besides, as you know, the President has the right to interpret the Geneva convention as he See's fit. It's not right, but what are you going to do about it? This is the most powerful nation in the world with a permanent seat in the UN security counsel. Do you really think anyone is gonna bother doing anything?


Let's be honest here. Only Americans themselves still regard their country as the most powerful in the world. The China and the EU hardly take notice anymore.

[Sublime]

Let's be honest here. Only Americans themselves still regard their country as the most powerful in the world. The China and the EU hardly take notice anymore.

Well yeah - I was reading an article in the newspaper today about the new American soldier equipment. GPS and LCD display goggles fancy guns etc. All in all they said that a dozen other countries have the same technology including Russia.

PP: Good job for reverse-implementing games technology into real life combat :D.The next thing (if they haven't done it yet) is to implement targeting reticles into the soldiers goggles. LOL

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Let's be honest here. Only Americans themselves still regard their country as the most powerful in the world. The China and the EU hardly take notice anymore.

Are you sure about that? China takes the US seriously because they get a lot of their money from trade in the US. The rely on the United States for their booming economy. Imagine how much they would fall if we cut ourselves off from them.

The EU doesn't matter much because its not full cooperation. Pretty much every nation state likes do their own thing.

In 2001 the US's GDP drawfed all other countries. Not to mention from 1997-2001 it sold a lot of its conventional weapons in the marked making an annual income of $44.8 Billion dollars.

I'm not trying to laud the United States as the greatest nation because I live here. No, I don't care about that. We can push that aside if you like. Lets put this in perspective.

The United States is big. It's got huge political and economic influance in the world. The world is essentially tied around it. The UN is stationed in New York City. It has staggering military technology. What it lacks in manpower it more than makes up for constant technological advances that the countries people aren't even aware of.

People laud China as a huge army, but they just have a lot of people in the service. Their military budget and equipment is even less than Russia's and Russia military is practically a joke now. China looks like it could maybe take the role of superpower, but their political structures are weak and with the booming economy they are having social problems as well.

Not only that but the US has helped set up the WTO and the IMF.

To say that the United States isn't even looked at anymore shows how much you know and how much your bias is against the country.

I'm not one of those Apple Pie Flag Waving Americans. I accept faults and failures in this country. Like the fact that this country is going into a recession and their plan to solve gas shortages borders on retarded. I'm looking at the reality of things. We have a bad president.

You hate the country because its big and its a bully? Fine. It's easy to be anti-American these days anyway.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
-That's debateable. President says he can do it because he's monitoring calls coming from outside the US and calls going outside of the US. It's not right, but it can be debateable.
2003 invasion of Iraq
Constitutionality of invasion
Justification for invasion
U.N. Charter
Geneva Conventions controversy
-International Criminal Court stuff. *yawn*
Unlawful combatant status
Extraordinary rendition
Treatment of detainees
-Rumsfeld had something to do with that.
Commutation of Lewis Libby
-Bill Clinton did the same damn thing and no one blasted him for that.
Alleged declassification for political purposes
-Alleged. Oh well.
Alleged politicization of the United States attorney offices
-Look above.
Hurricane Katrina
-He took personal responsibility for it, but that was a mess up on all levels of government. Local, State, and Federal. FEMA was a fuckup and you can't expect the President to wave a magic wand to fix things. You could argue that he was wrong for allowing Brown to lead FEMA, but someone let him do it as a political favor. It's a mess.
Expanded executive powers
-All Presidents have done that during wartime: FDR, Licoln, Nixon, ect.




Cheney is evil incarnate and I wouldn't be sad to see him go at all.

Anyway, its close to the end of Bush's term and in all honesty if they can find probably cause to get them in jail do you think it would happen? Do you think President Bush is going to be impeached? Do you really in your heart believe its going to happen?

Cause I sure as hell live in reality.

I wonder where you live.

[Candyvan Stan]

You hate the country because its big and its a bully? Fine. It's easy to be anti-American these days anyway.

I didn't say anything about hating the United States. You assume too much. I wouldn't even mind living in in certain areas. Especially California, it looks lovely. I don't even think of the United States as a bully. It has never affected me personally. Don't flatter yourself thinking I have any reason to 'hate' America.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes, you appear to be really offended from a small comment about how the average European regards your country. That is, not the the powerful entity it was 20 years ago. I refuse to get into a silly debate. I'm just telling you how the average northwestern European regards your country - that is, just another country.