The Harsh Truth

SOURCES FOR MY ARTICLE:

1. Bender, Bryan. "Bush began Iraq plan pre-9/11, O'Neill says." The Boston Globe 11/01/04 1-2. 13/12/07 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/>.
2. Baker, Russ. "Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer ." Common Dreams.org 28/10/2004 13/12/07 <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm>.
3. http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
4. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10 http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_8.pdf
5. 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment grants: http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/fy03ashcroft.pdf

The problem is you are believing hype, not facts. The facts are clinton Lied. The facts are that Bush never said Iraq was in bed with Al Qaeda, only that they were both terrorists. The facts are that the whole world believed (not knew, believed) that Saddam had WMDs, as did Bush. The facts are that Bush did not lie. He may have been wrong (and the 550 tons of yellow cake plus the lack of evidence of the destruction of the chemical weapons indicates that there were WMDS - just no one knows what happened to them), but he did not lie. And lying in front of a camera is a national past time (wrong but done all the time) and is not illegal. Lying under oath is both illegal and wrong.

Apples and Oranges. It would behoove you greatly to dump michael moore as a source of any facts. he has none. just lies (which are not illegal, just wrong).

From my article I made a case for Bush lying. He has wanted to have a war with Iraq way before 9-11 and even before his presidency. So my question is "Is it really that hard to believe that Bush would lie to get a war he has always wanted?"

It is way too convient that everything works out for Bsh to get the Iraq war. "Bad Intellegence", give me a break. France and Germany did not believe that Iraq had WMDs. As Powell said on "Meet the Press":"it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

And yes there were cliams of an al-Qaeda link from the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press: "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training" When Rumsfeld was asked about whether or not there was a link he responded in one word: "Sure."

You, Dr Guy are a very amusing fellow. You claim you have "rebuttaled" my other article using "facts" when all you said are your silly conceptions on how you preceive liberals and conservatives. (By the way, you did not rebuttal my article, becuase my article uses facts...)

Thanks for the laughs.

did not rebuttal? Thanks for the laugh.

And yes, I did use facts as I stated before.

As for Bush wanting to take Saddam down, that is irrelevant to your contention here or the fact that no one has yet proven he has lied. Alleged yes. But then those who are mad that Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath (an impeachable offense) are themselves using every means possible (including lying) to get back at what they perceive (due to the fabrication of Hillary) as the VRWC.

I am glad I amuse you. You must be easily amused if facts amuse you so easily. Perhaps when you do get some facts, you will not be so amused and perhaps astounded by the depths to which you were lied to - not by Bush, but by those who you have blind faith in.



There is a link between the tooth fairy and Al Qaeda too. Now show where it was used in either the justification or the SOTU speech to take out Saddam. YOu yourself just linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. So?

Based on this statement President Clinton had been planning war with Iraq. Name a nation other than Iraq and the nations that were getting paid by Iraq that disagreed with this statement. He was a bad man and needed to go. Even the Saudi’s said this much!



Talk about taking things out of context. The man is discussing how he would have handled the Gulf war differently than his father. But taking a piece of a statement out of context in the worse way and the best he can come up with is that he would want to have a successful presidency. This is his justification for saying that the president was planning to go to war.



This statement only works if you ignore the fact that his other statements are taken out of context and slanted to make it look bad and it fails to do that. The PDB that he touts is also mythical. It was a historical document and provided nothing new, when I say new I mean since Mr. Clinton was president. It was a document to bring the president up to speed not a warning of an impending attack. Even the left agree with this after a few years of prodding. The liberals in congress were also privy to this information prior to 9/11 but no one said a word about this.

Here is a fact that Mr. Moore left out of his book. On September 11, 2001 the Secretary of Defense was having a breakfast meeting with the leadership of congress. He mentioned Al Qaeda was planning something and that we were in a war with them. He wanted to increase the military and revamp it. To do this he needed more funds. The congress turned him down. They said that a social security lock box was the priority and the military did not need the funds because the Secretary could not prove that AQ was in the process of directly threatening the country. So the president through the secretary of defense was asking for more money to fight terrorists but the republican led congress backed by the democrat minority refused to agree. That meeting was held at 7:30 in the morning. Four hours later they were throwing money at him while at the same time wanting to know why the president did not protect us from this obvious threat. My point is that it is not fair to say that the president did nothing during his first 7 months as president. Remember that they had just finished dealing with the presidential test of leadership with China. This minor point was also left out of his book.

The president being on vacation is irrelevant since the three branches of government shut down in the month of August and have been doing so for 200 years. To claim that the president was on vacation when he got this brief is disingenuous at best and an outright twisting of the facts to suit his perverted point of view is more correct and fair.

Based on this statement President Clinton had been planning war with Iraq. Name a nation other than Iraq and the nations that were getting paid by Iraq that disagreed with this statement. He was a bad man and needed to go. Even the Saudi’s said this much!



Talk about taking things out of context. The man is discussing how he would have handled the Gulf war differently than his father. But taking a piece of a statement out of context in the worse way and the best he can come up with is that he would want to have a successful presidency. This is his justification for saying that the president was planning to go to war.



This statement only works if you ignore the fact that his other statements are taken out of context and slanted to make it look bad and it fails to do that. The PDB that he touts is also mythical. It was a historical document and provided nothing new, when I say new I mean since Mr. Clinton was president. It was a document to bring the president up to speed not a warning of an impending attack. Even the left agree with this after a few years of prodding. The liberals in congress were also privy to this information prior to 9/11 but no one said a word about this.

Here is a fact that Mr. Moore left out of his book. On September 11, 2001 the Secretary of Defense was having a breakfast meeting with the leadership of congress. He mentioned Al Qaeda was planning something and that we were in a war with them. He wanted to increase the military and revamp it. To do this he needed more funds. The congress turned him down. They said that a social security lock box was the priority and the military did not need the funds because the Secretary could not prove that AQ was in the process of directly threatening the country. So the president through the secretary of defense was asking for more money to fight terrorists but the republican led congress backed by the democrat minority refused to agree. That meeting was held at 7:30 in the morning. Four hours later they were throwing money at him while at the same time wanting to know why the president did not protect us from this obvious threat. My point is that it is not fair to say that the president did nothing during his first 7 months as president. Remember that they had just finished dealing with the presidential test of leadership with China. This minor point was also left out of his book.

The president being on vacation is irrelevant since the three branches of government shut down in the month of August and have been doing so for 200 years. To claim that the president was on vacation when he got this brief is disingenuous at best and an outright twisting of the facts to suit his perverted point of view is more correct and fair.



It seems that Mr. Moore left out another minor tidbit. That the plane used to practice the 9/11 attacks were in Iraq. The training staff was in Iraq, the students were in Iraq, and the best part is that all of, the terrorists were trained during the Clinton administration. All of them were already in the Untied States prior to the election of President Bush. That the Clinton administration forbids the CIA from telling the FBI that the terrorists were in the country so they could keep an eye on them, a fact that Mr. Bush did not find out until after the attacks on 9/11. Mr. Bush was in office for 8 months and Mr. Moore expected him to act quickly to stop the terrorist’s attacks. But Mr. Clinton was in office for 8 years and he did not do anything to stop them. It happened on Mr. Bush’s watch but it was planned and put in place on Mr. Clinton’s watch. When Mr. Bush took office all they were waiting for was the word to go. All of this is a matter of public record but you don’t seem to be interested in the public record or the harsh truth.



Your assertions have yet to be proven by you or anyone else.



Funny how he mentions France and Germany or was that you? We had classified reports from them saying the exact opposite of what they said publicly. After the war was over we found out why. The president of France was on the take from Iraq. Don’t believe me, then explain why he is under investigation for this corruption now that he is out of office. The man is facing jail time.

Germany was shipping equipment to enrich uranium so was France and Russia. Wow the three big countries that opposed restarting the war with Iraq had a national financial interest in not going to war. I wonder how that happened to be missed by Mr. Moore? Talk about misleading!



What’s your point? It was proven to have happened, it is a matter of public record so how can you say the president lied to get us into a war?

I have rebutted your article with facts that anyone can get a hold of. Dr. Guy has stated his opinions based on having rehashed this argument for seveal years. Your only source of infromation comes from a man who has made a career of lying to the public to make money.

Oh, one other thing, my job is counter-terror it was my job when I was in the military and is my job now.

Sorry for the almost double post