Still think Bush lied about Iraq, Senate Intelligence Reports says not so fast.

[Turbo RX-6]

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive 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."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"

and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation. In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?


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."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.
But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

I'm glad they wrote this article as I was going to cut and paste all the info from the Senate report. You would think this would shut up all the leftard, Bush lied, fanatics, as this report was authored by a lopsided Democrat committee majority, who tried their best to nail Bush, even going against their own rules and refusing to include statements they had made themselves, and still couldn't find anything.

I also want to remind everyone that this is from the actual Senate Report, not some personal opinion written by Democrat Rockefeller and being passed off as the actual report as Quickerthanmost recently tried to do.

[1QWIK6]

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

YUP!

BUSH LIED!

YouTube Video

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

YUP!

BUSH LIED!

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

That's a quote from Rockefeller, a Democrat who wrote the report, that was proven in the report to be a blatant lie, but thanks for posting that for us, and leaving out the part where it points that out, by doing so, you pretty much make the writters point that the left will lie about anything concerning Bush, thanks for making his point.

Your reply is exactly what we've come to expect from one of the leaders of the leftards, 1Quik6, another twist of the truth, by only posting a small part of the article. By the way that is exactly what one of the points of the article is, that when presented with the facts, the left will twist and lie at every opportunity.

Thanks for coming through once again 1Quick6 and representing the lying left as we have come to expect, and giving us all a real live example of exactly what the article is pointing out.

Even in the face of truth in a report written by their own people, the lying left will try and spin and twist.




.

[salvageV6]

" Even in the face of truth in a report written by their own people, the lying left will try and spin and twist. "

I knew that.

That's their superior "edumacation" kicking in right Weakster?

Talk about being owned!

Lying lefty smackdown in progress.

OH THE SHAME!

PS: It's time to be labeled an ignurant redneck, southerner, Klanmember, racist, religious fanatic, Nazi.

Like shooting lefty swimming fish in a barrel, not one of their pork barrels either.

[steveX]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

YUP!

BUSH LIED!

BUSH IS A CRACKHEAD .

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by Turbo RX-6

That's a quote from Rockefeller, a Democrat who wrote the report, that was proven in the report to be a blatant lie,

It was? where? Bush was honest and upfront and non-manipulative about the war?

LOL!

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."

"Generally substantiated by intelligence information."... sounds like HARDCORE evidence there... there is NO WAY the BUSH REGIME would MANIPULATE that data..


BTW: Simple Question:

How many U.S. Agents did we have on the ground to actually verify WMD'S?

[Weester]

"It was? where? Bush was honest and upfront and non-manipulative about the war?"

Get the facts straight................

Bush is/was too damn stupid to create this mess..............THIS WAS CHENEYS DOING!!!

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

It was? where? Bush was honest and upfront and non-manipulative about the war?

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
But dive 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.

Right there, can't you read, it was Rockefellers quote, but his his remarks aren't part of the official Senate Intelligence Report, and are not even substantiated in the actual report, notice how the author says dive into the actual report, and you may be suprisried at what you find, what he's saying is Rockefeller lied.

This is from the official report, because it's apparent you can't read.

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."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"

and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Notice how they all say the same thing, substantiated by intelligence information or community. We can explain what that means to those of you who still don't get it.

BTW: Simple Question:

How many U.S. Agents did we have on the ground to actually verify WMD'S?

Doesn't matter does it, thats the point of the whole report,to get to the bottom of what happened, and they found that it wasn't that Bush lied, as the report produced by your own ILK states, he went by the intelligence that was available to him, the fact is that that our intelligence was badly flawed.

How do you explain Rockefeller, who issued the very statement you quoted saying this 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."

That's the same assclown you quoted, saying exactly the same things Bush said, and even though his own report doesn't substantiate it, he is trying to convince you that Bush lied, the scary part is a handfull of you are stupid enough to believe him.

Some of you people are amazing, you have a report issued by the Democrats, but you still want to try and spin it and try and find a way to blame Bush, how had is it to understand, the Democrats themselves, have just issued a report that show he didn't lie.

Try not to let your heads explode.

[Gothmog]

You Bushies are just too much, I just dont understand why you cant admit what we all know

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

You Bushies are just too much, I just dont understand why you cant admit what we all know

Are you that slow, I just told you what we now all know, your very own Democrat led Senate Intelligence committee says in their report, that Bush didn't lie.

We all know this, I just admitted it again to you.

Apparently Gothy, as usual, your the last one to know, and apparently, you know more than your own party.

Are you some super secret special agent masquerading as a lying lefty that knows things even the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't?

I just love how you get your little thong in a wad, when you can't blame everything on Bush, this must really suck for you since it's your own party not supporting your fantasy world.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Turbo RX-6

Are you that slow, I just told you what we now all know, your very own Democrat led Senate Intelligence committee says in their report, that Bush didn't lie.

We all know this, I just admitted it again to you.

Apparently Gothy, as usual, your the last one to know, and apparently, you know more than your own party.

Are you some super secret special agent masquerading as a lying lefty that knows things even the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't?

I just love how you get your little thong in a wad, when you can't blame everything on Bush, this must really suck for you since it's your own party not supporting your fantasy world.

I dont take democrats word or opinion as gospel, especially after they proved how easily Bush could trick them.
Bush lied us into war
Not one of his pieces of evidence was true, and the proof that he knew it was false, he took no action.
he fired no one! scolded NO ONE, you would expect that someone who embarrassed Bush in front of the whole world would feel his wrath- perhaps the wrath that the Wilsons felt...but no one did. NO ONE

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

I dont take democrats word or opinion as gospel, especially after they proved how easily Bush could trick them.
Bush lied us into war
Not one of his pieces of evidence was true, and the proof that he knew it was false, he took no action.
he fired no one! scolded NO ONE, you would expect that someone who embarrassed Bush in front of the whole world would feel his wrath- perhaps the wrath that the Wilsons felt...but no one did. NO ONE

That's what this report is for, to see where we failed and what we need to do to improve things, the final phase just came our last week, easy there conspiricy dude.

You have now entered the twilight zone.

[IEATV8S]

How convenient! You have a Democrat Congress, you have a report written by Democrats, and it is to be believed that there wasn't a political agenda going in that the Democrats used for points in the uncoming election! You Leftards are sure gullible, besides being dense and stuck on stupid!