Spin it all ya like, chickenhawks. It doesn't change the facts. Besides, you've lost all credibility here anyway.


REPORT PROVES BUSH KNEW HE WAS LYING ABOUT IRAQ

Earlier this week, President Bush claimed "we all thought we would find
stockpiles of weapons"[1] in Iraq, and claimed that he had no inkling that
his pre-war claims about the Iraqi threat were weak. But as a major new
story released today shows, the President and other top administration
officials were repeatedly warned before the invasion that its case for war
was weak.

The cover story for this month's In These Times analyzes declassified
government documents and intelligence reports given to the White House
before the war. These documents either warned the administration about its
WMD and Iraq-al Qaeda claims, or totally debunked them. In some cases,
intelligence experts explicitly warned top officials not to make the claims
they were making, and yet they were ignored. The story wholly refutes
assertions by the White House and Republicans that it was the intelligence
community to blame. In fact, as the data shows, the White House deliberately
ignored intelligence to mislead America.

Read the full article, with direct links to all source material, at
http://www.inthesetimes.com.

Sources:

1. Presidential Remarks, Whitehouse.gov, 8/02/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2367942&l=48897.


Further from the article:
"Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our men and women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced to lay down life and limb for a lie.

To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true.

But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity."

"Hey Dick, do you smell smoke?"

MY PANTS!! MY PANTS!!

Now I get it, as in liar, liar, pants on fire!

Chicken coop is empty up in here....

Well if you dig deep enough there are also claims that Bush is from outerspace.

I would beleive that source over two bipartisan reviews and a 3rd by the Brittish. I would also not believe Clinton when he made the same case in 98 or the rest of the world leaders that said they knew Sadam had WMD.

I guess you run with what you can find when you have nothing.

Clinton's not the issue, so quit trying to use the GOP distraction method.

But since you did bring up Clinton, let's remember that he took that information and bombed the weapons factories instead of invading the country, thus sparing thousands of lives. Turns out he was right in his judgement all along - something the GOP just can't stomach.

But enough of that. Don't try hijacking the thread with GOP distractions. The fact is Bush knowingly mislead the American people and that is synonomous with lieing.

The chicken hawk stuff is getting pretty tired. The world you guys live in must be really interesting.

chicken hawk refers to older gay men who go after young boys.

You guys on the really far left fringe shouldn't use the term chicken hawk as a Bush bash technique because you might offend some of your big fans.....gay predators who like anal sex with little boys.....Isn't that one of the planks in your pathetic platform?

Why is it no surprise that the only one who knew that here was gramps?

Gawd, the far right hates it when everyone starts using their tactics. You'd think they'd be happy since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I consider myself pretty socially aware, but I've never heard that definition of chicken hawk, GP. Curious how you seem to be on the down-low in that area.

Oh, by the way, the correlation of anyone not agreeing with you or Bush's policies being from the "far left fringe" is getting pretty tired.

Sorry guys but I know alot of useful stuff....You guys ARE on the far left fringe....the Howard Dean Democratic party ....I know you're proud if it. You revel in it every day here. So why deny it? You've got your right to be the way you are just like I do. I only wish I had enough time not spent on fishing issues to be literate in the areas you live in so I could respond but I prefer studying fishing topics when I am not in entertainment mode here.

I did look into the latest DNC buzzword: chickenhawk....I knew when AuntyM started using it in every other post that I needed to really understand your usage. So what do I find? Michael Moore....et al... The good ol definition of chicken hawk is so much more appropriate for the far left. Celebrate the basest things in our society....support the lowest of the low and tear down the traditons America was built on. Tear down America and support our enemies. No wonder you support Kerry.

Somehow those who choose not to join the voluntary military are sitting around clapping and cheering whenever a soldier is killed? WOW is that stupid thinking. You're anti-war but serve in the military? I sure wouldn't want to depend on you on the battlefield...Oh that's right you're not on the battlefield....you're on the sidelines too....you just wear some old service on your sleeve as if it is some license to bash everyone else...how pathetic.

There you go again. Is over generalization your way of trying to understand the complexities of what's going on here? You come up with some pretty hair-brained accusations that have little, if any, foundation. Text book GOP.

Maybe your endless need to lash out is some form of pent up anxiety or guilt? There are people that can help you with that. I hear Bush is taking something for that kind of behaviour, maybe he can lend you some advice?

Then again, maybe you're just out of foil.

Oh, and by the way, you're working too hard at this stuff. A chickenhawk is simply someone that advocates war (hawkish) but has not, or will not, go to war and fight (chicken), i.e., Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, et al. Those are the kind of people destroying the ideal that this country is founded on.

Alcoa stock just rose 10 points.

you just keep kicking them when they're down, gh, they're true colors wil show.

i'm seeing alot of yellow.

It's the new chickenhawk, gramps. It's a combination of chickensh!t and warhawk.

It's meant to say someone is too big a chickensh!t to go to war himself, but he's war-hawk enough to send your kid.

The homosexual reference is SO 1960's.

I get a kick out of a cackling hen using the term Chickenhawk. Did she serve or just counting riding the coattails of someone else? I do not think the 50/50 estate laws consider military service as something you can divide 50/50. Who he served and I stayed home and moped the floors in the trailer I am a hero Whoo hooo. Maybe that flys in bumpkinville but no where else.

When she has no valid point, he resorts to insults.

If Caveman can design, permit and install a septic system for 20,000 to 35,000 SF homes in classIII kitsap grade soils within 200' of a stream, wetland or steep slope in King county for less than $30k I have some clients for him.

$17 K seems high for a double wide.

Elvis has the trailer market all priced out.

I do . One of my clients is a management company and brokerage that has over 20k units managed .

neat.

i retired (at 34 )as head of a business unit that did over a billion in sales last year.

but you don't see me throwing that out there every time someone questions something I say related to business. I don't feel the need to prove anything to be taken seriously by my peers around here, college boy.

From what I've been able to ascertain my street education is worth alot more than your toilet paper degree. Do the math business whiz.

You just did what you said you did not do. So youmust have felt it important. I did not throw it out casually. I pointed out that someone had little to no background with the legal system re: trial attys. specifically to the point that the law is not about right or wrong as the layman thinks. It's about the process and who can manipulate it to their statisfaction. My background was cahallenged and I responded. With your background we should be able to have a high level discussion on business practices and principals.