THE LIES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!
Mon Apr 5, 2004 14:02
THE LIST KEEPS GROWING
But do you know why the following statements are some of Bush's biggest
10. "I have been very candid about my past."
9. "I’m a uniter not a divider."
8. "My [tax] plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of
7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research."
6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."
5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger."
4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."
3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al
2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction."
1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House."
Click here for a full explanation of each lie.
01/14/04 - New Evidence Against Iraq-al Qaeda Tie
Before the Iraq war, Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al
Qaeda and that it was this connection that made Hussein a threat to America.
Bush argued that on any given day, Hussein could slip weapons of mass
destruction to his pals in al Qaeda (even though there was no clear evidence
Hussein actually had WMDs to share). And when Bush spoke aboard the USS Abraham
Lincoln on May 1, he declared Hussein an "ally" of al Qaeda.
The case for the Hussein-bin Laden link grows even weaker today. The New York
Times reports that according to a document found with Hussein when he was
captured, the former Iraqi dictator had warned his Iraqi followers to be wary of
forging an alliance with foreign Arab fighters who had come to Iraq to battle
American troops. Apparently, Hussein believed that the jihadists--like al Qaeda
fighters--had a different agenda than his Ba'athist supporters in the
anti-United States insurgency. The letter did refer to the state of play after
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but it hardly made it seem as if Hussein and al Qaeda
had ever been allies.
1/08/04 - Powell Blows Apart Bush's War Rationale
In a press conference today, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked about a
report produced by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that concluded
there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and no
evidence that Hussein was likely to transfer weapons of mass destruction to
Osama bin Laden's network. Powell replied, "There is not--you know, I have not
seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the
possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at
the time that we did."
No concrete evidence? The possibility of such connections? That is not how Bush
depicted the supposed link between Iraq's dictator and America's number-one foe.
In a press conference in November 2002, he declared that Hussein was "dealing"
with al Qaeda. And during his high-profile May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS
Abraham Lincoln, Bush said that Hussein was an "ally" of Hussein.
So what did those statements mean if there was no solid evidence tying Hussein
to al Qaeda? Bush had argued that war was necessary because (1) Hussein
possessed weapons of mass destruction and (2) Hussein maintained an operational
alliance with al Qaeda. Bush claimed that Hussein could at any moment slip his
WMDs to bin Laden. Consequently, Bush's assertions about the relationship
between Hussein and al Qaeda was an essential part of his case for war. Yet now
Powell--who on February 5, 2002, told the United Nations Security Council that
there was a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and al Qaeda--says all the talk of an
alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda was based on prudent concern not actual
facts. That is not how Bush presented the matter to the American public. Once
more, here is evidence of the absence of a nexus between reality and Bush's
rhetoric and yet another indication he misled the nation on the way to war.
01/08/03 - Bush's WMD Case Weakens Further
When will George W. Bush say, "We were wrong on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction"? The evidence--or lack of evidence--continues to mount suggesting
that Bush and his aides made false statements about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction before the war. Yesterday an extensive Washington Post front-page
article by reporter Barton Gellman (and based on interviews with US weapons
hunters and Iraqi weapons scientists and heretofore publicly unavailable Iraqi
documentation) detailed the tremendous gap between the Bush rhetoric and the
reality. It's not that Hussein was not interested in chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons. But Gellman found that Iraq's programs in these areas were
either in suspension or far from advanced and that--most important of all--they
were not even close to producing actual weapons. The two key paragraphs of his
"[U.S. weapons] investigators have found no support for the two main fears
expressed in London and Washington before the war--that Iraq had a hidden
arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public
statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered
no work on former germ-warfare agents....The investigators assess that Iraq did
not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal
nerve agent, VX, or learned to make it last longer in storage. And they have
found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering
danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in
much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s."
"A review of available evidence, including some not known to coalition
investigators and some they have not made public, portrays a nonconventional
arms establishment that was far less capable than U.S. analysts judged before
the war. Leading figures in Iraqi science and industry, supported by
observations on the ground, describe factories and institutes that were
thoroughly beaten down by twelve years of conflict, arms embargo and strangling
economic sanctions. The remnants of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile
infrastructures were riven by internal strife, bled by schemes for personal
gain, and handicapped by deceit up and down lines of command. The broad picture
emergingfrom the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq
did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the
scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War."
This is a far cry from the Bush administration's prewar shout that Hussein was
neck-deep in WMDs. Today, the Carnegie Endowment on International Piece released
a report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications that complements Gellman's
article. It notes that Iraq's nuclear arms program had been suspended for years
and that Iraq had focused on preserving a dual-use chemical weapons capability
and perhaps a similar capability concerning biological weapons. (Preserving a
dual-use capability--worrisome, yes--is much different from amassing a
stockpile.) The Carnegie paper also reports that Iraqi nerve agents had lost
most of their potency and that Iraq's large-scale chemical weapons production
capabilities had been destroyed by the Persian Gulf War and U.N. inspections.
Perhaps the Carnegie paper can be dismissed as the I-told-you-so product of
policy wonks who were opposed to the war and who had favored more intrusive
inspections. But the administration's own actions indicate there isn't much
there there in Iraq. Today The New York Times reports that the administration
has withdrawn 400 members of its weapons-hunting team in Iraq--a signal there
isn't that much work for them. And the chief weapons hunter in Iraq, David Kay,
has said he may well leave his job soon--another sign that a big score is not
There's more. Two nights earlier, Stuart Cohen, the vice chairman of the
National Intelligence Council who supervised the production of a prewar National
Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq had chemical and biological weapons,
went on Nightline to defend the CIA's work on Iraq's WMDs. He said he "remained
convinced that the work we did was well-grounded." But he also said "we judged
that[Hussein] did not have nuclear weapons--indeed, would not have them until
very late in the decade." That was not how Bush, Cheney and company depicted the
supposed nuclear threat from Hussein. Their remarks made it seem as if Hussein
had a major program under way.
At the end of the show, Nightline host Ted Koppel asked Cohen "how much of a
threat" Iraq had posed to the United States. Cohen replied: "We, as I said,
indicated that he did not have nuclear weapons. And that while he was in
violation of UN resolutions, his missiles could not have reached that far. We
were concerned about unmanned aerial vehicles. And at least theoretically, there
was a concern at the possibility that unmanned aerial vehicles could be brought
within reach of the United States and used. We were also concerned about
unconventional delivery of chemical and biological weapons. The ability of Iraqi
intelligence agencies to, perhaps, bring something in undetected and use it."
Note that Cohen did not mention that "we" were "concerned" that Hussein would
slip a weapon of mass destruction to al Qaeda. That was the heart of Bush's case
for war--yet now Cohen does not even refer to it as a worry. The CIA should have
been "concerned" about the theoretical possibilities Cohen mentioned--although
U.S. Air Force intelligence had discounted the threat from unmanned aerial
vehicles. But Bush presented a dire, concrete threat assessment to the public,
not theoretical concerns.
As of now there is no clear evidence the weapons were there--and no indication
Bush is ready to concede he hyped the threat, knowingly or not. The case
continues to grow that the Iraqis' denials about WMDs (as incomplete and
self-serving as they were) were closer to the truth than the assertions of the
president of the United States.
[The above is drawn from David Corn's most recent "Capital Games" column at
www.thenation.com. For the full version, click here.]
12/16/03 - Bush Snows Sawyer?
In a big year-end "get," ABC News' Diane Sawyer interviews George and Laura
Bush. When Sawyer asks Bush about security for the troops in Iraq--noting that
GIs are using Humvees that lack armor and that soldiers have had to ask
relatives in the United States to send them flak jackets--Bush replies, "We are
doing everything we can to protect the troops." Then why are GIs seeking
family-issued, rather than government-issued, protective gear? Sawyer does not
push Bush on this point.
She does try to press Bush on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Sawyer
asks, "Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the
administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of
mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong,
misguided?" Bush replies, "No, the intelligence I operated on was good, sound
intelligence." As noted in entries below, the House and Senate intelligence
committees (both led by Republicans) and David Kay, the chief weapons hunter in
Iraq, have each definitively stated that the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs
was loaded with uncertainties. But Bush continues to insist it was "solid."
In the interview with Sawyer, he refuses to concede there was any overstating of
the WMD threat before the war. And he refuses to directly address the question.
Instead, he repeatedly says that Saddam Hussein was a "threat." Bush maintains
that Kay discovered Hussein had "a weapons program." When Sawyer notes that Bush
and other administration officials "stated as a hard fact that there were
weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to
acquire those weapons still," Bush counters, "What's the difference?" He
continues: "The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire
weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to
But before the war, Bush asserted Hussein was an immediate threat because he
already possessed such weapons, and two days before the invasion he claimed that
US intelligence left "no doubt" about that. He never went before the public and
said, Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction; then again, he may only have
weapons programs; but there's no difference. This is disingenuousness after the
fact. As is his statement, "We'll spend what's needed to protect the homeland."
His administration refused to provide the $1 billion requested by port
authorities to beef up security at the nation's ports. And according to a
Council on Foreign Relations task force headed by former Senator Warren Rudman
(a Republican), the needs of emergency first-responders in the United States are
being underfunded by almost $100 billion over the next five years. Does Bush not
know all this? Perhaps. In this interview, he once again acknowledges he does
not read newspapers. Sawyer asks him if he might be "missing anything." No, he
answers, just "missing opinion."
12/14/03 - Bush Overstates Current Threat?
During a brief speech in which he discusses the capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush
says, "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq.
We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept
the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct
threat to the American people." The murderous, thuggish insurgents in Iraq
indeed pose a threat to the American military forces there and to anyone
cooperating with the United States. But are they a "direct threat" to the
American public? Before the invasion, the Ba'athists, as far as we know, had no
plans to strike the "American people." Since the invasion, they have yet to
mount operations aimed at the US public. They certainly are horrific and evil
people who target civilians in Iraq. But a "direct threat"--rather than an
indirect or down-the-road threat--to the United States? Once more, Bush is
attempting to depict the war in Iraq as an essential and unavoidable step to
protect Americans. But he offers more rhetoric than evidence.
Blackwater aids military with armed support
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Posted: 9:09 PM EST (0209 GMT)
Exposing Bush the liar, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, Tue Apr 6 18:22
Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace
Walter Cronkite, Tue Apr 6 18:32
Buildup Begins as Rice Prepares for Testimony at 9/11 Panel RESEARCHER, Mon Apr 5 14:17
Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap Center for American Progress, Mon Apr 5 14:30
Condoleezza Rice threatens Iran on terror link joseph hobeika, Mon Apr 5 15:49
Main Page - 04/07/04
Message Board by American
Patriot Friends Network [APFN]