Rodeo, lets just do this.

[lendaddy]

lol

[Nathans_Dad]

If you can show me a quote which is verifiable that Bush said he had been to war then yes, that one would be a lie. Quote and source please.

[speeder]

Originally posted by Rodeo
color

Time to stop, this is a sick beating.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Rodeo
How long did it take you to research this wildly inaccurate information?

Just wanted to say that I am trying to fight a case where I won a civil judgment against a guy. Then he goes and files for bankruptcy to get out of paying me and a bunch of other people. Chapter 7 at that. He makes over $120k (unverified) and owes less than $70k in debt. He "claims" to only have $11k in assets and has about $1500/month more bills than income.

We will see if I can keep the court from just rubber stamping this one. But my point is that this guy could well get his bankruptcy while still making $120k/yr. All he has to do is prove to the judge that it cost more for him to live than he makes.

[Scooter]

Real life sucks sometimes! Good luck with that tobster.

[Rodeo]

Did he file before or after the Reform Act took effect? Could make all the difference in the world.

[bell]

i can't believe this thread is going on 17 pages........

[Nathans_Dad]

Well 5 pages of it is a stupid discussion about the intricacies of bankruptcy law...

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Well 5 pages of it is a stupid discussion about the intricacies of bankruptcy law...

I agree, I should just ignore them when they try to change the subject but it's hard when they are so baltantly wrong. Then again it is my thread so........

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, on the "I went to war" quote. I tried to Google it and came up with one site which is www.sourcewatch.org . This site operates under the Center for Media and Democracy which looks to be a...um...Progressive website. Here's a pic that I pulled off their front page:



Undaunted...I proceeded to follow their directions for retrieving the original CNN article where Bush was purported so say he "Went to War". Here is the article:

Bush's visit to West Virginia last week included a chat with Bob Kiss, Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates.

While they hail from different parties, they found plenty to talk about -- although while both have twins, Kiss' 5-week-old twin boys aren't quite old enough to cause much trouble.

Kiss told Bush that if he wasn't doing anything the next morning, he could come by for their 3 a.m. feeding. Kiss said Bush joked, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

So, two things come to mind. First this isn't a quote, it's hearsay. A democratic politician said Bush said this. Even if we take the democratic politician at his word, it looks like Bush said this in a joking manner anyways. To meet the definition of a lie, I guess you would have to think Bush really wanted this guy to think he had actually gone to war and wasn't just making a joke about raising twins.

Is this really the best you guys can come up with? Come on, this guy is supposed to be an evil pathological liar...

[Rodeo]

Ok, I'll give it yet another try on this thread. This is long, but if I am correct, this is a story you are going to be hearing A LOT about in the coming months. It could bring this presidency down.

I don't say that lightly. The fight is over PDBs, or Presidential Daily Briefings. Both the Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly requested these PDBs, and the Bush administration has refused.

Nowhere is the Congressional Republican/Bush split more evident than it is here. This could become an all out war, with Congressional Republicans and Democrats united and at the administration's throat.

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.


The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President's Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.




The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there."

In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States.

Democrats in Congress, as well as other critics of the Bush administration, charge that Bush and Cheney misrepresented and distorted intelligence information to bolster their case for war with Iraq. The president and vice president have insisted that they unknowingly relied on faulty and erroneous intelligence, provided mostly by the CIA.

The new information on the September 21 PDB and the subsequent CIA analysis bears on the question of what the CIA told the president and how the administration used that information as it made its case for war with Iraq.

The central rationale for going to war against Iraq, of course, was that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons, and that he was pursuing an aggressive program to build nuclear weapons. Despite those claims, no weapons were ever discovered after the war, either by United Nations inspectors or by U.S. military authorities.

Much of the blame for the incorrect information in statements made by the president and other senior administration officials regarding the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue has fallen on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

In April 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that the CIA's prewar assertion that Saddam's regime was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and "has chemical and biological weapons" were "overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence provided to the Committee."

The Bush administration has cited that report and similar findings by a presidential commission as evidence of massive CIA intelligence failures in assessing Iraq's unconventional-weapons capability.

Bush and Cheney have also recently answered their critics by ascribing partisan motivations to them and saying their criticism has the effect of undermining the war effort. In a speech on November 11, the president made his strongest comments to date on the subject: "Baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Since then, he has adopted a different tone, and he said on his way home from Asia on November 21, "This is not an issue of who is a patriot or not."

In his own speech to the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, Cheney also changed tone, saying that "disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy" and the "sign of a healthy political system." He then added: "Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, pointed to incorrect CIA assessments on the WMD issue, they both also said that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

CONTINUED

[lendaddy]

Rick, I looked that one up when Cam first posted it and found the same thing. But after seven pages of trying to explain that the "SS system going BK" comment was legitimate to a couple of brick walls I was leary of another go round.

I really can't imagine how they will claim you're wrong.......but I'm sure they will. Best of luck

[Rodeo]

Get the rest here: http://nationaljournal.com/scripts/printpage.cgi?/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

[Nathans_Dad]

Well that's a nice article from a questionable source. Unfortunately I couldn't surf through the site to "consider the source" as I usually do because I don't subscribe and can't get past the front page. It is a little bit suspicious that their front page has a link to a moveon.org ad.

Anyhow, that's a nice story and if it is ever proven that those documents actually say what this reporter says he heard people say it says then you will have Bush in a lie...till then it's all hearsay.

NEXT

[cool_chick]

The more I think about it, the more this thread is pointless. We have an administration who outright admitted that WMDs weren't found....on numerous occassions, stated no WMDs were found....to our face....and there are still people here who are claiming WMDs were found. So honestly, if Bush himself looked square into the camera and say "I lied" do you honestly think these people would believe it?

Pointless.

[lendaddy]

I too thought it was strange that it goes to great lengths to say that Team Bush has been ultra secretive about the Sep21 PDB, then goes on to tell you exactly what was in it. Either way, like Rick said NEXT.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
The more I think about it, the more this thread is pointless. We have an administration who outright admitted that WMDs weren't found....on numerous occassions, stated no WMDs were found....to our face....and there are still people here who are claiming WMDs were found. So honestly, if Bush himself looked square into the camera and say "I lied" do you honestly think these people would believe it?

Pointless.

Are you saying that if I concede there were no WMDs found then I am admitting Bush lied?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Are you saying that if I concede there were no WMDs found then I am admitting Bush lied?

No. Reread my statement, please.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
No. Reread my statement, please.

Ok, then you're saying that your(the W haters) inability to prove even one Bush lie in 18 pages doesn't matter because even if you did we would not admit it because we are brain dead followers of the Piper?

Or to translate:

"Yea, well you guys suck anyway"

[Scooter]

Analysis, not personal opinon (assuming the PDB described above is accurate):

Since we are talking about Bush's potential lie, where is the statement from Bush in this article that is in question? I read through the above very quickly, so forgive me if I did not read carefully enough, but I don't see a statement. What I gather from the writing above is that there is an alleged PDB on September 21, 2001 indicating that the information available on that date that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and had no affilation with Al Qaeda. This is one piece of information, of which I am sure was merely one of many other pieces. Also, what information was made available from September 21, 2001 until the time of the non-existent proposed lie made by Bush? My point is that other highly sensitive classified intelligence may have exsited at that time, the next day or any other time that may have rebutted this particular alleged PDB.

Bottom line, this particular article really does not prove anything. It does allege that there was information available, but it does not allege Bush lied.