Yes it was known to Bush that certain informants about Iraq's WMD were deemed unreliable. Batman posted reports which were sent to Bush that showed he knew Saddam, wasn't a threat with his WMD's and it was unlikely that he would use them or share them with terrorists. Bush did not pass that information on. Congress even investigated it, and found Bush didn't supply all the information he had when making the case for war.
Here is what I looked up:.... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175296,00.html Bush: We All Saw the Same Information But Bush shot back, saying lawmakers had the same intelligence the White House had when making the decision whether to support the resolution giving the president the authority to use military force to oust Saddam. He also noted that more than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with that resolution. Even Kerry, Bush's 2004 election opponent, said he believed Saddam and his weapons posed a "grave threat to our security" "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong, bipartisan support," the president said. "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Bush also blasted those who claim that his administration somehow pressured intelligence experts to formulate threat assessments more favorable to the war effort, noting that critics know a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessments of Saddam Hussein," he added. "They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction." The Silberman-Robb commission, formerly known as the Commission of the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, submitted its report to the president in March of this year. "In no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments," the report states. "We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments." The commission notes that the intelligence community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate said Iraq was in fact still pursuing its weapons of mass destruction programs. In the end, the assessments turned out to be wrong, and the commission found that intelligence experts didn't explain fully to the administration just how thin its evidence was, which led to "serious errors" in statements made by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and others in making the case for going to war in Iraq. "Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources, and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," National Security Adviser Steven Hadley said Thursday. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike." Democrats who claim Bush and others in the administration misled the public have been emboldened by the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff and national security adviser, who was accused of lying to federal officials investigating who in the administration may have leaked the name of a CIA operative to reporters. Administration critics say the leak was a retaliation move after the operative's husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson, publicly refuted the administration's claims about Saddam's weapons. Fred Barnes, co-host of FOX News' "The Beltway Boys," said it's surprising the White House has waited so long to push back against the Democrats' charges.
That is Bush making another claim that has been refuted, and may be further evidence of his lying. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/39306.html Then here is the congressional report which investigated the issue and came to the conclusion that Bush did in fact have more evidence than he gave to Congress, and gave them only selective information.
I don't know it is pretty hard to refute this...: "bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs." It doesn't change the fact the Democrats blatantly LIED!!!!!!
That was the bipartisan comittee that hadn't even begun their investigation of the Whitehouse's role. There were two phases to that investigation. The first one didn't even address whether or not the whitehouse used selective picking of evidence. Once congress did actually look at that they found the administration did. In the case regarding Saddam some Dems lied, but not that list you provided, because of information they didn't actually have that Bush did have.
I should think congress should look before speaking, but Bush said this: lawmakers had the same intelligence the White House had when making the decision whether to support the resolution giving the president the authority to use military force to oust Saddam. Normally I challenge Bush's statements, but in this case it is clearly political oportunism on the Democrats part. They LIED then, they LIE now.
Bush did claim they had the same evidence he had. That was shown to be false. It was shown to be false by a congressional report which was mentioned already. It was shown to be false by statements from CIA personnel, former officials etc. Dems do lie, but they aren't in this area. The fact that Bush claims something isn't proof that it is true.
The Dems did lie by claiming to a statement...Now I will agree that the information should be laid out side by side. To that, I villify Bush. But I feel since WE DON"T KNOW the content of the missing information in whole, WE CANNOT conclude the information was NOT the same. We can ONLY conclude there was additional information which may have been the SAME in content OR NOT...Bush may be telling 100% truth in this regard... That is a fact.
But we can. WE do know that Bush was told that the information provided by curveball was not deemed to be accurate. We do know that the qualifier that the information was not to be trusted was not passed along with the information curveball provided. We do know that every intel report said Saddam would not use WMD's unless he was attacked except for one. That one that disagreed said Saddam wouldn't use WMD's even if he was attacked. We know that Bush saw this information, but didn't pass that along.
However, even the article you cited stated that the content in exact detail is not available, period. That part lends to the culmination of whether or not Bush had assertatined an untrue statement in regards to the intelligence that was delivered and in responose to this I have to justify the conclusion I am summizing that Bush has not necessarilly lied with difinitive proof. Intel report of conficting conclusions as you stated is suspect and I would justified that suspect intelligence may be omitted...
But Batman has now reported that exact reports that Bush received which he did not share. We do know that he was told information he did not pass on that would have hurt the case to go to war in Iraq.
I am just not sure if redundant information is beyond the scope and content, when contradicting reports could be omitted when conflicting conclusions of differing reports are included as a whole... The aspects of counterpoint also deal with prediction of use, not whether have or have not...If the summation of predication is centered on use, then it is blatant the issue is predicting an act, and I personally have difficulty on relying on a report to predict human behavior...It makes folly of the word "intelligence" to objectively summize prediction of a human act can be ascertained...
I'm starting to wonder if ROXRAN and Franchiseblade are just two sides of one multiple personality carrying on a war of words with themselves. Carry on.
Since the dawn of politics, politicians have lied. In fact, it is human nature to lie. Virtually every human has lied. I have better things to do with my life than try to alter human nature. Instead, I'll focus on the "big" lies that I find objectionable. In an ideal world ...a lie is a lie. When you find that world, let me know and I'll join you. Such is life, dude. I can't spend my energy holding politicans accountable for every lie they tell. If I did that, I wouldn't have a life and there probably wouldn't be any politicians left. I'll save my energy for when the "big" lies come along. That's your opinion. IMO, if we can have degrees of murder, then I beleive on some level most humans understand there are degrees of lying. Lying to my wife about how she looks in her blue jeans is completely different than lying about the justifications for launching your nation into war. Why is that hard to understand? A lie is not a lie. Some lies are big ...others ...not so big. It isn't so much about acceptance. Its more about how much energy do you have to pursue it? Is it worth the energy? If it isn't worth the energy, then you don't vote for the lying b*stard next time. That's how democracy works. Acts of high crimes and treason are lying too. They are explicity outlined in the constitution thereby giving those types of lies an elevated status. Lying to take your country into war is unprecedented, IIRC. I can resolve the problem next time I cast my vote. That's how democracy works.
I haven't read this thread -- only scanned the original link that ROXRAN posted -- so I'm sorry if I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said. Being wrong isn't lying. Lying is being told you're wrong and then saying you weren't told that or saying something is definitely true when you have been given conflicting reports from reliable intelligence agencies as to the sureity of the claim. I'm not aware of any allegations that Clinton or Daschle or any of those other Democrats was told by intelligence that what they were saying could not be confirmed. We know for sure Bush was told that, on several occasions regarding several claims, and he continued to not only assure us his claims were true, but suppressed evidence to the contrary. We have proof of that, as documented in the thread I started that not one single person even tried to refute. In fact, a lot of the people from ROXRAN's list never had access to the intelligence that Bush had, which contradicted many of his claims and later turned out to be right. He suppressed it from them too. There is a clear case that Bush lied to the American people, Congress and the world about Iraq. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Democrat did. If there were I would eagerly condemn them too.
I think Roxran didn't read that thread, because I was pointint out evidence from that thread, and he seemed to go back to older evidence and older statements.
