But how Bush/Cheney forced a Clinton appointed CIA director to say it was a "slam dunk" re: Iraq WMD program is beyond me.
And how Bush/Cheney got Bill, Hillary and Al Gore all to say Iraq had WMD is really amazing! LOL
Of course there is the Tony Blair issue as well. Oh well...
I do realize this isn't about the facts in any of this with you, it is about your "feelings" so no sense arguing this back and forth.
But remember this. Yes, Bush got the war he wanted but the Dems served it up for him on a tee, and many used the above named Dems as justification, as well as evidence from sources they trusted, for that vote to give Bush authorization.
As to Hillary, while I initially assumed that the families misunderstood her, I later concluded that she lied in private to at least one of the Benghazi families because that guy kept notes of what she said –“we are going to get the filmmaker responsible for your son’s death”, and all Hillary gave us was a general denial that she had lied about anything.
But, as I painfully explained to Ed when this issue came up, she did not lie in her public statements when you read exactly what she said – the filmmaker caused protests at some embassies, and there was violence at the compound. Both statements are true and there is no link between the two.
As to Bush and Cheney, it is not even possible to conclude that they lied about whether Saddam had WMD. This is because no one in West knew for SURE one way, or the other. Remember, neither the UN weapons inspector nor any intelligence agent was given access to all the Iraqi installations. In order for them to have “lied” about it, they would have had to have known for sure and told the opposite story.
Now, it may be fair to say that they knew the intelligence agencies more likely than not had it wrong, and lied about the confidence they had in the intelligence estimate of WMD, but even there you have to ask what information did they have outside of the intelligence agencies? Why would they give that more weight than our own experts?
So, my friend, I think we will have continue to disagree on this one
No blatant lie, however, I do believe that Bush wanted the war, and were willing to do whatever it took to get it. And, the only way he knew they could get it was claim WMD's. I believe there is ample evidence that Bush/Cheney spun any intelligence they had to convince others of their belief, while ignoring and even withholding any evident to the contrary. I'm not saying, so much that they overtly lied, but rather the picture they presented was a lie; some of it through lies of omission. So, perhaps we are not so far apart. 
Again, it was uncanny how my friends from the Middle-East predicted step by step the outcome. What I learned from that experience is if you want to know what our government has planned for a certain portion of the world, get your info from people who live there, not our press, or our government.
but spun the facts to make us believe Saddam had WMD bc Bush wanted the war. I'm guessing it was personal for Bush because Saddam had plotted to have Bush I assassinated.
How did Bush "spin" Tenet's emphatic declaration that Iraq possessed WMD?
Tenet did NOT say it was "likely" they had WMD.
He did NOT say it was "probable" they had WMD.
He was definitive by saying it was a "slam dunk."
No lie of commission or omission. The intel was flawed. By EVERY country who weighed in on it. PERIOD.
You back peddled in this thread for no reason and didn't think this through.
Again, Woodward said Bush was iffy on going to war and went to Tenet to make sure. Tenet relieved Bush of any of his doubts.
Imagine what the libs here would be saying if Bush HADN'T listened to Tenet and Tenet was right?
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against…us.”
Dick Cheney August 2002. In fact, the CIA told Congress shortly after the speech that the likilhood of Iraq initating a WMD attack “would be low.”
True facts – would be low.
Bush admin = there’s no doubt.
You don’t consider that spin, Jack? And that is being charitable. Jack would say its a lie.
Bush 2003 State of Union speech – Iraq tried to import aluminum tubes “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” But Dept of State told Bush they were intended to be used as conventional rockets.
Many, many other examples. If interested you can read the link.
So I think Matt and I are correct here. Bush and Cheny did not really lie because no one knew the true facts. But they took intelligence that painted a very qualified picture and characterized these reports to the public as being absolute.
No back peddling that I can see
Let me help you out:
"(Bush) spun the facts to make us believe Saddam had WMD bc Bush wanted the war."
NO HE DID NOT.
He didn't spin anything in relation to whether or not Iraq had WMD so stop moving the goal posts to now saying Cheney said Iraq would use them against us.
Bush was OPEN to the possibility that there was no WMD but there was NO ambiguity in Tenet's talk with him, according to BOTH men.
Tenet answered with "slam dunk" meaning it was a done deal.
And you can't see yourself back pedaling bc your eyes are closed. LOL
But look on the bright side. We got Matt to stop his nonsense that Bush lied about WMD. Can Laffy and Jake be far behind? LOL
For example, here's part of Powell's slide show to the Security Council on Saddam's WMD program. See this "mobil chemical weapons lab?" It never existed. They never found anything like it.
Powell later admitted he was lied to about it by other members of the Administration or he would never have put this garbage in front of the UN
At best, he is acting recklessly on flawed intelligence. In order to show that he “lied” –that is knowingly stated an untrue fact - about whether Saddam had WMD, you would have to show that Bush knew the true facts. You would have to show Bush had a source of intelligence superior to the intelligence agencies that gave him true facts. I’ve never read that anywhere. Have you?
No one knew for sure but Saddam. Certain facilities were kept off limits. Even if Bush knew that every bit of our intell was wrong, it could still be that the WMD was so well concealed that we had not uncovered it. Iran was building its reactor years before we discovered it. Again, Bush could have lied about whether he believed our intelligence agencies – but he could not possibly have “lied” about whether Saddam actually had WMD because he did not know for sure. He was making judgments on guesses supplied by third parties.
He may been reckless but he did not lie. Powell does not say otherwise.
Posted By: JakeFromStateFarm
For example, here's part of Powell's slide show to the Security Council on Saddam's WMD program. See this "mobil chemical weapons lab?" It never existed. They never found anything like it.
Powell later admitted he was lied to about it by other members of the Administration or he would never have put this garbage in front of the UN.
Lies. Look what Cheney and his henchman Scooter Libby did to manipulate the CIA into cooking the evidence. Look at what Ambassador Joe Wilson said when they mis-characterized his report.
The list goes on and on.
Then they taught Wilson a lesson by ratting out his wife as a CIA agent. Wilson and Plame were Republicans and her career was destroyed. Not to mention a number of our Iraqi agents were murdered.
All to cover up the lies.
You keep skipping over the fundamental problem- you insist they lied when they just didn’t know the true facts. No one did but Saddam. Even some Iraqi generals believed he had WMD. Bush/Cheney took intelligence of “low probability” and “possibility” –as well as evidence of higher probability - and represented to the pubic that it was all true without the qualifications.
So there is more than one explanation for the “pattern of deception.” They were not sure but they didn’t tell the public that – they flatly represented that Saddam did have WMD and the intent to use them.
I see it as advocacy pure and simple
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Go do some homework. Then get back to us.
Oh, and buy a clue.
I am not doing your homework for you any more.
The only difference between me and Woodward is he spent 18 months studying the issue while I’ve spent maybe 18 minutes. But we both concluded “no lie.” Damn that Woodward is naïve. No WMD were found, so they must have lied, right?
But you have your supporters as well. A Mr. D Trump and Mr. ___ Laffy are firmly in your camp. LOL
It's good to be loved by a warthog-faced buffoon. You should try it. What's a"Laffy?"
According to Bush and CIA director George Tenet, Bush was skeptical of WMD, or was playing devils advocate at least, but Tenet assured Bush the intel was correct that in fact Iraq had WMD, again, per Woodward.
It makes no sense for a Clinton appointee to lie for a R president and it makes zero sense for a liberal head of UK to back the CIA's assessment with that of Mi5's if it were not so.
In addition, Egyptian, Israeli and German Intel all independently stated that Iraq had indeed reconstituted it's WMD program. There was not a single democratic nation in the world that disagreed publicly with that assessment. Not one.
If Bush managed to pull ALL those groups into his "mass deception", Bush was no dummy, he was fucking brilliant! LOL
but it rhymes so libs repeat it over, and over ,and over . . . .
but stupid libs like rhymes, it helps them to remember stupid shit!
they really are simple minded fucks.
