Confirmation from Senate Intelligence Committee: Bush lied about Iraq

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ok. It's pretty much official now.....or rather it is official now.

The question is. What are people going to do about it? All these years...all your money...your children, and their children's future, squandered on pre-meditated lies.

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=298778

.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

and then let the reality of it sink in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOj7Nxcn6gg&feature=related

.

DriftingByTheStorm

This was a whitewash.
Just like "The Rockefeller Commission" investigations from the 1970s that determined that the CIA never assassinated anyone, and that the CIA wasn't involved in Jonestown, this too was a whitewash.

And how did "they" pull this one off?

Well, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE?

SENATOR JOHN D ROCKEFELLER, IV

Even the Washington Post had to admit that certain democrats said that their views had been ommitted from the final report,which largely upheld that George Bush's decisions were ALL backed by intelligence information.

No shit.
Look it up.
:(

acutejam

And now for something completely different....

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

[D]ive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

DriftingByTheStorm

acutejam wrote:

And now for something completely different....

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

[D]ive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Yup.
This is what i was talking about.

The Fox guarding the Hen House.

JDR IV is Mr. Trigger Happy, according to that quote, and yet he was in charge of the investigation as to if Bush mislead the country in to that very same war?

:cool:

God save the Rockefellers.
:(