PresidentBush lied in government matters

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-27-2003
PresidentBush lied in government matters
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 9:58pm
I'm going to quote this story from ABC-News because otherwise people would not believe that President Bush and his Administration could have lied to us. Ok, one official called it "a matter of emphasis". How is that any different than President Clinton's lie or lies? THE BIG DIFFERENCE I SEE IS THAT President Clinton lied in a private matter, not one having to do with his duties as President of the United States. BUT, MR. BUSH HAS LIED AND COLIN POWELL HAS LIED, ETC., ETC. AND THEY LIED IN MATTERS REGARDING THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THAT MAY MEAN THAT MR. BUSH CAN BE IMPEACHED! That is, of course, if some of our representatives in Congress are strong enough and man enough to start an impeachment proceeding against him. One big problem I see is that Rumsfeld is on his way to Iraq and I'm sure one of his biggest jobs will be to pay off a soldier or two or a dozen if necessary to "find evidence of weapons of mass destruction" so Bush and his cronies will be cleared of any implications of wrongdoing. Read below and you'll see what I mean about lies which are called other things such as "a matter of emphasis". Now, here's the story by John Cochran,, so read it for yourself:

W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.

If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here's the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.

Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.

Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.

The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.

Sending a Message

Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.

Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking.

"We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March.

The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.

Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.

But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.

That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.

Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong.

"I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send messages," Woolsey said.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 12:14pm
I find it particularly funny that you are touting this report from ABC like it is gospel as ABC (All Bill Clinton) is severely Anti-Bush, and their chief source is former Clinton lackey James Woolsey who is partly to blame for 9/11 in the fact that he was the head of the CIA when Bill Clinton decided to reduce the human assets in the field and basically said that the CIA could no longer pay undesirable people for information.

That really is pretty funny. I bet the reporter covering this story didnt ask Woolsey if he was covering his and his former boss's butts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 12:38pm
Yeah since it wasn't reported on Fox News or the WSJ then it couldn't possibly be legitimate. LOL
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 10:59am
C'mon. You dont think that Woolsey is trying to cover his own ass?

Have you seen Woolsey when he is on Fox? Both Sean Hannity and Greta Van Sustern have both hammered him on the point that Clinton basically blew apart the CIA, and he had no defense for it, but tried to change the subject. The same think happened when he appeared on Scarborough Country on MSNBC.

Have you read the book "Dereliction of Duty"? It explains many of the reasons why Woolsey is so quick to try to blame anyone else but the administration he served under.

After reading that book, you should read the new book "After", as it will shed more light on the subject and how the Bush Administration inheirited a CIA that was severely out of shape. I do think that the FBI did miss the boat as far as the information that was gathered from their field agent in the midwest, and that Robert Mueller should lose his job because of the attempted cover-up.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 12:01pm
That still doesn't excuse the fact that bush has lied directly to the American people, His lies about the evidence (that turns out to have been fabricated) against Iraq,and the BIGGEST LIE when he told the American people that "We had no warnings prior to 9/11".

Scarborough Country is that the show hosted by Joe "Dead Intern" Scarborough?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 12:13pm
That is the same Scarborough... He is actually quite entertaining, although a bit too harsh for me.

Where did Bush lie about the evidence. Did you see Colin Powell's presentation to the UN? I did, and the stuff he produced was pretty compelling, especially the transcripts of the telephone conversations of the Iraqi field commanders. He didnt lie about it. He just could not present all of the facts that he had access to due to the human assets that the CIA had on the ground in Iraq. (unfortunately we probably will never know all of the facts that were known to the White House before the war, or before 9/11 as this information will probably remain classified).

Bush also did not lie when he said that "we had no warnings prior to 9/11", as he and his advisors were never given the information. This was admitted to, and then hushed up quickly so Robert Mueller could keep his job (which is unfortunate as I think he should be fired). I think Mueller and his predecesor have done a pretty bad job in running the FBI, and now that agency looks totally inept. What was once the elite crime fighting unit in the world now has a severe black eye, which will take many years to get rid of. I think you will agree with that. Mueller is the fault of the Bush administration and Freeh was pathetic as Clintons appointee. Clinton bashed Sessions for his leadership, but the FBI has not been the same since William Sessions was in charge.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-17-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 12:20pm
I think he's refering to the most compelling so-called evidence, which consisted of outdated and forged documents showing Iraq's Nuclear ambitions.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-30-2003 - 10:25am
Also, to further clear up matters, Bush may have presented information that was not correct (we don't know that for sure yet), but it was his advisors and the people at CIA, NSA and FBI who compiled the information for him. If anyone really is to blame, it is the people who gather and process the intelligence.

I hope that if it really does come out that much of the information Bush used to put forth his agenda for war with Iraq was not factual, that some of the people responsible for the information pay for it with their jobs.

I dont care who is in power, be it Bill Clinton, George Bush, or whoever. If you are the head of the CIA, NSA, FBI or a division within those organizations, it is your responsibility to be sure that the information you are passing on is as close to 100% factual that you can be certain of. If it isn't then the information should be scrutinized more, until it can be verified.

Clinton was misinformed by his advisors about Waco and Ruby Ridge, and basically made the FBI out to look like savages for what happened at each event, making him and his administration look bad. Unfortunately, heads did not roll during that time either, as there was a massive coverup on both of those fronts as well.

The bottom line is that government and politics is a good ol' boys group, and while the Democrats and Republicans may not agree on many things, they do agree when it comes to coverups that make everyone look bad. The best corruption money can buy I guess.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2003
Sat, 05-03-2003 - 4:32am
Absolutely, I totally agree. I'm a fox news fan too!!!


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 05-03-2003 - 6:38pm

are we supposed to order your toys?

I want a teddy bear thats sound and motion activated and will play soft sleepytime classical music. I am serious.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 05-04-2003 - 8:38pm
Don't waste your time! Some people don't want to face the truth about Bush and company. They just keep repeating the same old Clinton-hating non-sense!