After months of refusing to admit that his administration may be guilty of misleading the American people on the rationale for going to war in Iraq, President Bush finally acknowledged in February the need for an “independent” commission to consider the possible misuse of American intelligence. The use of this “intelligence” led us into a conflict in which more than 560… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesI don’t understand how people like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman and other progressives keep their sanity while working with DeLay and his thuggish cronies.
Posted by Clarence Fisher on Mar 27, 2004 at 1:13 AM I feel any enquiry into G.W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on the basis of “intelligence” will result in the same “whitewash” as enquiries in the UK and here in Australia. Neither Bush, Blair or Howard are ever going to admit that the intention to invade Iraq was on the table long before the 11th of September. And Blair and Howard went along and lied to their citizens. Iraq had no connection with this so-called “war on terror”; it provided an excuse to further expand the US sphere of military and economic domination. I say to the US: take your military back where they belong, to the US of A and leave the rest of the world alone. We’re OK without you.
Posted by Hans-H. Boeker on Mar 28, 2004 at 5:00 AM An internal commission can not be trusted to provide confidential (as in, denoting confidence) objectivity. Get Norway to audit the Whitehouse and the American “intelligence” system.
Posted by GdJ on Apr 4, 2004 at 4:52 PM I think George Bush attacked Iraq just so he could show his daddy what a big boy he is now.
Posted by peter harty on Apr 5, 2004 at 2:46 AM If the Dems were so concerned about his tendency toward unnecessary war, why did the Dem Party itself run on regime change in Iraq? Notwithstanding a few on the Dem almost non-Congressional fringe, the reason we went to war was because both parties wanted it.
Posted by Charles Jannuzi on Apr 5, 2004 at 10:36 AM LIED to WAR
PNAC had plans to invade since they asked Clinton to remove Saddam. Their key was placing Chalabi as President. Protect Israel and stabalize oil supply.
How else did 70% believe Saddam was involved in 9-11?
It is recorded that in over 100 speeches by Bush-Cheney-Rumfeld-Rice the technique of Word Association was used by them. It came
from Herman Goering.In speeches they used Saddam and 9-11 close to each other in sentences. In one speech Bush did it 8 times.
The same technique was used on Saddam/Terrorists
Saddam/Osama Bin Laden.
Which American has been the Herman Goering in our politicis?
Mush Dimbaugh.
The review of 4,000 hours of his transcripts revealed over 10,000 LIES (Intent To Deceive).
You do not need to be explicit to Lie.
You can lie by implied comments.
Dimbaugh is master of technique of sin of omission or half truths.
The key is-INTENT.. Was it intended to deceive.
No intelligent person can review speeches by fabulous Four and not find Intent To Deceive.
Bush is either nuts or pathological liar.
He went all over this nation making the statement-
“I got a Patients Bill Of Rights passed as Governor”
It had to be intent to deceive for he knew he Vetoed the bill-He knew it was repassed with a vetoproof majority and he refused to sign it so it went into law without his signature..
He said many many times-
‘The Majority of my Tax Cuts went to Lower Income Earners”.Was his intent to deceive? Who knows!! Perhaps he was uninformed and was told to make it.
The conclusion will be he intented to deceive. There are too many for them to be just Ignorance.
A book was written on Reagan “Ronald Reagan-There he goes again”. It listed over 300 mis-statements by him.
Hard to determine that many were Intent To Deceive.
He showed lack of knowlege and may have believed what he said..
He acted. He was always on camera. He always wanted to know the location of the cameras when he spoke…
Hard to decide. Lie-ignorance-jest
clarence siwnney
cwswinney@netzero.net.
Posted by clarence swinney on May 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM LIE
I submit this challenge to all readers.
Tell me one lie (intent to deceive) President Clinton told the people on Policy.
Yes! He admitted he intended to deceive us on ML(I cannot say the name it still hurts me
Most come back with he lied on middle class tax cut. No No No He did not.
His intent was to do it.
Bob Woodward covers it in his book “:The Agenda”.
CEA got butt chewing from Clinton for allowing him to make a promse he could not keep..Their excuse—We did not know the deficit was going to be as bad as it showed after we got the records.
Moogumboo!.I knew why not the experts?
cwswinney@netzero.net
Posted by clarence swinney on May 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Rep. Barbara Lee
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
