Here We Go Again: Bush Lied [UPDATED]

~Snooper~

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SIGH. Here we go again with the old and tired bull-hockeys. I have concluded that evidence beforehand doesn't matter to the BDS crowd. For those that have laid claim that President George W Bush is the dumbest man in the world, I find it interesting that such a Big Dummy could orchestrate and pull off such a stunt with all of the hatred being directed towards the man for stealing the election away from Al Gore.

CBS says that they have breaking news but this isn't breaking news. It is the same old garbage that has been debunked and disproved for at least 3 or 5 years now but the Leftinistra, having been beat up for the past 7 years by the Big Dummy on a regular basis and over every issue, just hate him so bad that facts don't matter to these idiots.

We know have a report that claims:

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. [...]

Interesting.

[...] 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. [...]

Really.

[...] 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. [...]

I see.

The theoretical "search" criteria is here and the theoretical "parameters" are here. I found these collection of words perplexing and misleading...would they be lies, then?

[...] Direct false statements. False statements by the eight Bush administration officials were counted as "direct" - and included in the total count of false statements - when they specifically linked Iraq to Al Qaeda or referenced Iraq's contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons). In addition, any use of the verb "disarm" was categorized as a direct statement because of the literal meaning of the word. (Example: "Saddam Hussein has got a choice, and that is, he can disarm.") These false statements can be found within the passages that are highlighted in yellow in the project database. Indirect false statements. Statements were classified as "indirect" if they did not specifically link Iraq to Al Qaeda but alleged, for example, that Iraq supported or sponsored terrorism or terrorist organizations, or if they referred to Iraq's former possession of weapons of mass destruction or used such general phrases, for example, as "dangerous weapons." These indirect false statements are not included in the total count of 935.

They wouldn't "directly" lie, would they? And, they even have pictures!


Such a pretty picture it is, too! Thank God for Crayola Crayons! They get an A+ and 15 Gold Stars! Their Mommies must be very proud of them! And, you just have GOT to love this...

[...] 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?

WOW! Nothing like being about 2 years behind the times there, Skippies! The only difference I see here is that in this report, they were counting via 'rithmetic. I wonder how their reading and 'riting is...

Check out their Staff and see if you see what I see. Bill Buzenberg is the Chief Top Dog. The Board of Directors is here. The Advisory Board is here. A small blurb on the Founder is here. Having recognized several of the folks listed in the links above, I find the report wanting in substance and can guarantee the politics of each of them has contributed to this report and there is nothing unbiased in this report. On top of that, the NY Slimes endorses the "project"...go figure. And, adding insult to injury - self inflicted - check out the Funders here.

I know that I am a lowly blogger and all and a Citizen Journalist but I can read and I know that I have had EVERY single one of these arguments in one form or another for a long time now with many people. This report is designed to distract from the fact that the Leftinistra have been wrong all along and they know it. This report will merely incite the already emotionally and psychologically weak moonbats, libtards and other anti-Americanist groups all atwitter to distract from the issues at hand - meaning the elections.

I have read this study and a good portion of the methodology and it lacks integrity. As usual, there is no "smoking gun" proof of any of the allegations, meaning, there is no substantiation. In regards to the WMDs, especially, they obviously have been locked in a closet someplace. Also, there is no evidence that the alleged "false statements" were purposefully stated knowing them to be false at the time they were uttered. I love hind-sight investigations, if this can be called an investigation.

How soon people forget, either on purpose or suffering from a mental condition with short and long term memory dysfunction. Surely they have read the Iraq War Resolution...yes? Therein, one can see that in a prewar discussion, all possible scenarios were discussed and agreed upon.

In the Iraq War Resolution, it was stipulatedd that Iraq had violated 17 United Nations Resolutions and had not provided proof that Iraq had destroyed their WMD stockpiles and equipment. Saddam had proven to the world that his word could not be trusted and the Cease Fire of 1991 was withdrawn.

Another obvious element is that this group was not allowed out of their closets and were not allowed to read the ISG. Enough said about that one.

No one can convince humans capable of rational though t that this report isn't biased one bit. Had they honestly carried out their research, they would have found this:





This report is shamefully distributed and lauded. It is a pathetic example of BDS inspired and contrived garbage. This report, in this time frame, with everything that we know now, today, is much more dishonest than dishonesty can describe. With all of the Media Bias there is strong evidence of, this report should be gathered up and burned.

We bloggers and Citizen Journalists will now have to re-fight and rehash this garbage again. We are ready and willing.

Let's roll.

Fox News:
MSLSD:
AP:
The Daily KOSmonoffs: (swallowing it hook, line and sinker) (BDS runs deep and wide)


And, because I have been all through this many many times, I have collected some items of interest. Below is but a mere scratch of the surface:
Al Qaeda In Iraq; The Corner; Back Talk; Obsidian Wings; Captain's Quarters; Slate; Slate; BBC; Jules Crittenden; TigerHawk; Amy Proctor;

HT to Lew Waters: CNN

[...] Maybe they forgot that it was one other than Saint Hillary who said in April 2004, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." [...]

Go figure! Check back in for more updates...they are sure to come screaming in when the sun rises in DC in a few hours!!

Catch the wave at memeorandum...

NY Slimes weighing in
SmolderingPuppyWadi shows its stupidity...again...
Radamisto...the guy that blogs at Arizonas' expense makes an idiot of itself...again
Another fruit loop here...


Dog Ross: The AP: willful accomplice in the run-up to idiocy (read that as Ass Hat) and The Astute Bloggers
Poligazette: Two Years of Lies?
Chicago Ray: False Statements Made About What Was Then Universally Known And Believed

posted at RCP and Digital Journal...vote them up please.

DOE Report: U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials

Captain's Quarters: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

[...] In fact, there is nothing new in this site that hasn't already been picked apart by the blogosphere, and some of it discredited. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

Let's boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented -- and this somehow qualifies as news?

Hey, AP. I'll be posting a couple of essays today. I'll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.

SPOT on as usual!

Gateway Pundit: Surprise!!...Soros-Funded Journalism Groups Slam "Bush Lies"

The Center for Public Integrity has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from anti-Bush philanthropist:

Despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization and profession of the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, the Center has been accused of bias towards left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes.

The donations included:

A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[35]
A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[36]
A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[37]
A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project."[38]

We all look forward to the follow-up study that includes the Clinton years and their lies on Iraq.

Don't hold your breath...

Jules Crittenden: (I don't care what you think or say...this shit is funny!)

I dispute that! But I'm not going to waste any time arguing the points all over again. Next thing you know, we'll be in a debate over whether Bush is president or not. More to the point, do these august wanktanks have nothing better to do? Somebody tell them it's over. Saddam Hussein will never have (any more) WMD or (any more) meaningful ties with al-Qaeda. Next order of business, Iran. It looks like, thanks in part to the latest intelligence miscalculation, Bush isn't likely to be acting forcefully on that threat to Mideast and world peace in what remains of our national nightmare.

Firedoglake (what the heck that is a firedoglake, anyway): More Bush-lied Koolaid, please.

But here's a lefty on the verge of an eyeroll. Down With Tyranny:

Do you suppose that there is someone in these United States - or, for that matter, anywhere in the entire world - who doesn't already know that Bush, Cheney and the foul creatures that populated their regime lied our country into a disastrous war - disastrous, that is, for everyone except themselves and their business associates?

I do not know that.

Well, there are some people who have willed themselves into ignorance - the 20-odd percent of Americans who report that they still think Bush is doing a satisfactory job as president.

Uh, that's 33.8 percent. That 20-odd percent belongs to the crowd that hasn't managed to figure out how to surrender yet.

ROFLMAO!!

Protein Wisdom: Another Study Discovers Phenomena It Sets Off to Discover, for Foundations Predicated on Discovering Said Phenomenon

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 215

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 407: Narrated Umar: The properties of Bam An-Nadir were among the booty that Allah gave to His Apostle such Booty were not obtained by any expedition on the part of Muslims, neither with cavalry, nor with camelry. So those properties were for Allah's Apostle only, and he used to provide thereof the yearly expenditure for his wives, and dedicate the rest of its revenues for purchasing arms and horses as war material to be used in Allah's Cause.
Tafsir

There is a reason why infantry, cavalry & camelry were not involved in taking fei. The victims were so intimidated by Moe's terrible reputation; what he had done to previous victims, that they surrendered and paid tribute without putting up resistance. Click the link and read the ahadith surrounding this one.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 214

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 406: Narrated Ibn Umar: 'Allah's Apostle burnt and cut down the palm trees of Bani An-Nadir which were at Al-Buwair (a place near Medina). There upon Allah revealed: 'What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm trees (of the enemy) or you left them standing on their stems, it was by the leave of Allah, so that He might cover with shame the rebellious.' (59.5)
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

POLITICALLY INCORRECT Q & A-Speaking TRUTH to Talking Points

Another quote from A Newt One:

I'll have those niggers voting democratic for the next 200 years. ~Democrat Lyndon Johnson

Special thanks to Sonlit Knight and Snooper at A Newt One for this quiz:

Q: Which politician often referred to blacks as 'niggers'?

1. Trent Lott
2. LBJ

Q: Which politician was a recruiter for the KKK?

1. Strom Thurmond
2. Robert Byrd

Q: Which politician's father was a segregationist who voted against the civil rights act?

1. George W Bush
2. Al Gore

Q: Which party did Civil Rights heroes MLK, Susan B Anthony and Abraham Lincoln belong to?

1. Democrat
2. Republican

Q: Which President established "regime change in Iraq" as the policy of the United States?

1. George W Bush
2. Bill Clinton

Q: Which party founded the KKK?

1. Republicans
2. Democrats

Q: Which party endorsed the views of eugenist, known Hitler fan and founder of Planned Parenthood (the world's largest abortion mill), Margaret Sanger?

1. Republicans
2. Democrats

Q: Who contracts the overwhelming majority of new AIDS cases?

1. Normal people
2. Pervert Homosexuals

Muslims are more likely to do what with homosexuals?

1. Trade recipes and knitting designs
2. Throw them off of a tall building.

Islam is a "religion of peace"

1. True
2. Absurd. Don't be ridiculous.

The surged worked.

2. There can't even be an argument.

If you answered #2 to each question, you are brilliant like me.

~Sonlit

Sphere: Related Content

Serious Allegations Against The Clinton Campaign in Nevada

Cross posted from Wake up America

Statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.

We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008.

Normally, when one campaign makes statements like this, they must be taken with a grain of salt; when they are followed up with firsthand eyewitness accounts backing those statements up, whether the incidents would have changed the final results or not becomes secondary to the question of accountability for using underhanded--and possibly illegal--tactics to begin with.

Let's start with the first allegation of caucus doors being closed thirty minutes early and people being turned away.

From a Daily Kos diary, thereisnospoon:

Here's my story:

I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:

* The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that "that's not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation." We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.


* A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, "I don't control what he does; she does." At that point I said to the man, "Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?" He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.


* The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, "well, I can't ask for ID." I said, "She can't participate if no one will vouch for her." At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that's not impossible, it was also improbable--but I had no way to verify or object further.


* One voter who hadn't even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).


* Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin--but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Read the whole thing; they also relay stories of what others are telling them and are saying they have video to support some of these claims.

This diarist also ends with something that should be very disturbing for Democrats in general:

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed--not because we lost here, but because of the way we "lost." Disillusionment is running extremely high--and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren't just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.

Another firsthand account comes from LV Pol Girl:

As many of you know I am an Obama supporter and a first time caucus goer. Here is my experience...


We showed up at 10 AM and the Hillary camp was all set with signs and volunteers. It didn't take long for the Obama volunteers to neutralize Hillary's head start. For starters, we noticed that Hillary's supporters were breaking the rules by placing Hillary signs where they were not allowed and we asked them to take them down, which they did. We then noticed, that a car sporting Hillary signage, was double-parked, blocking people who needed access to handicapped parking. We told a woman who just had a hip replacement to park her car right beside the car.


The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Hillary camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Hillary.


Another controversy arose, when a Hillary supporter became hostile with the Precinct Chair because she felt that things were not moving as fast as she would have liked -- the time was only 11:00 a.m. This, along with the voter card stunt, ended up hurting the Hillary camp because the precinct chair, a known Hillary supporter, was turned off by these tactics and decided to join the Obama camp.

Once again, there is much more to that diary--those are just the highlights.

The next account is from RunnerAAA, who lists multiple problems at the caucus as well as from some Hillary supporters, from trying to close the doors early [again] to people trying to vote in more than one precinct, people being sent to the wrong precinct deliberately as well as precinct captains being interrupted--in violation of caucus rules--when they had their five minutes to speak to the group about their candidate.

That diary ends like this:

We'll see how the results come out, but for now I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth about the Clinton campaign. I won't forget these dirty tactics today will never be forgotten. I hope that everyone realizes how much this reflects on Hillary's character. Anything to win, even if it means cheating. I am as strong a supporter for Obama as ever. We can't let the machine win.

It should be noted that complaints are coming in about both the Obama campaign AND the Clinton campaign as reported at The Hill.

Rick Moran puts together a list of some of the newsworthy dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has recently utilized since before--and during--the Nevada caucus, over at the PoliGazette.

There is quite a bit of buzz about this on the left side of the blogosphere and Ed Morrisey wonders why we even have caucuses instead of primaries being the standard.

He has a point. Precinct chairs who favor one candidate over another leads to decisions being made, not in fairness to the process but with bias for the campaign that the chair supports... there is nothing fair in that process and leaves us wondering if any legal action can be taken against such tactics as those having been reported.

Secondly, many were so disturbed about the process and what they saw from their own "side" they have been turned off of the whole political process altogether.

Third, because of the chaos at some of the precincts, first time caucus goers may never participate in the process again.

I would bet good money on the fact that nasty tactics, dirty tricks, voter suppression and fraud have just begun in this race, but the fun part about it is the Democrats are using these tactics against each other.

It is like finally ripping the roof off of hell and letting the world see what the Democrats really are all about.

Sphere: Related Content