Republican talking point: "If Bush lied, the Democrats did too" - PROVEN BOGUS

Republican LIE #1: White House and Congressional Democrats saw the same intelligence

Congress members were not privy to the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) and many other intelligence sources. The Bush administration's public pronouncements concerning Iraq began long before any substantial intelligence analysis arrived on Capitol Hill.

For example, the White House's involvement in development of the aluminum tubes allegation shows how the administration's access to intelligence on Iraq differed from that of Congress.

This LIE is fully documented here.

Republican LIE #2: Quotes lifted from Democrats show a justification or willingness to go to war.

WRONG - they were quoted out of context and in the same speeches they warn of dire consequences of launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq
For example: Hillary's 10/10/02 speech that Republicans often quote about her acknowledgement of the danger of Saddam. What else did she say in that speech? This is what she said, do we hear wingnuts quote this part?

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.... a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

In the often quoted John Kerry speech on 1/23/03 on the need to disarm Saddam, he also said:

"The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. ...We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation."

I could go on and on - but you get the picture.

The bottom line is - as I said in my previous post, there was credible intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMD, but it was overstated, cherry picked, manipulated and used deceptively to build a case for war. I can't wait to get the transcript of Richard Clarke's interview tonight on MSNBC. He verifies what McClellan said and what this new report said: conclusions which the Bush Administration delivered in public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence

The Democrats were lied to. The American people were lied to. There is no debate. The game is over. The Republican MO:

Admit nothing

Deny everything

Say "they did it too"

Bipartisan Senate intel report conclusively shows Bush lied to justify war

The next time you hear someone say, "well, they thought Saddam was a threat too"... tell them about this report. UPDATE: CNN Story:

"The Bush administration misused intelligence to build a case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq... the White House exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively to bolster its case for war ... The report also found that the administration misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Slam dunk - Game Over - Bush LIED.

And some assholes say Scotty McClellen was lying to sell books, (i.e. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, idiot denialists etc...)

The report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq.

Although there was some prewar intel that supported the claim that Saddam possessed WMD, the Iraq war was packaged and sold to Americans in a deliberately deceptive way. The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

These findings completely undermine John McCain's claims that ‘every assessment’ justified war in Iraq. WRONG... LIAR.

Also, McCain told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “absolutely” a “large number of Iraqis” will “treat us as liberators.“ Bush/McSame ignored a pre-war intelligence report - a January 2003 Intelligence Community Assessment warned that “Iraq was a deeply divided society that likely would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.”

Every poll ever taken shows Iraqis and every nation in the world want the US out of Iraq. 72% do not support the presence of US forces in Iraq (latest poll q.#20) and majorities say the surge and continued presence of US has made things worse.

Well, we've heard this from Scotty, we've heard this from retired Generals, we've heard this from Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and many others... and now from an exhaustive Senate investigation. Is it starting to sink in yet?? For most thinking individuals it is, but not for the authoritarians ... they will remain in denial.

(H/T: TP)

Obama leads McSame in national polls and electoral map

heh... and we're just gettin' started. Cool.

Very cool.

Which way is he going? down ... down ... down...

CBS: President Bush's approval rating is at its lowest level to date. Just 25 percent of Americans approve of the overall job Mr. Bush is doing as President, an all-time low for him and among the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a President.

McCain's top advisor enables terrorists

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, called McCain's econ brain, is co-chair of McCain's campaign. Gramm, former chair of the Senate Banking Committee opposed President Clinton's attempt to facilitate tracing of terrorist and criminal money laundering. Since leaving the Senate, the fiercely pro-deregulation Phil Gramm, had been lobbying for Swiss bank UBS this spring - weakening America's ability to track terrorist money. UBS is also currently the focus of congressional and Justice Department investigations into schemes that allegedly enabled wealthy Americans to evade income taxes by stashing their money in overseas havens, according to several law-enforcement and banking officials in both the United States and Europe (Newsweek).

Gramm lobbied for UBS through April and associate John Savercool, is still registered to lobby legislators for UBS on numerous issues, including opposing a bill cosponsored by Sen. Barack Obama that would crack down on foreign tax havens.

Making it easier for bin Laden

MSNBC: The New York Times reported that a single senator had blocked legislation that would have helped US investigators track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11. It was Phil Gramm who still defended these tax havens after 9/11, whose bank was still lobbying Congress on behalf of tax havens as recently as last year. In the Senate he blocked legislation that would have enabled the Bush administration to force foreign banks into cooperating on anti-terror measures before and after 9/11.

Chris Hayes on MSNBC:

"What this reveals is really a profound contradiction at the heart of the Republican coalition. It's home to the most sort of chest-beating, self-righteous moralists about foreign policy. ... At the same time, it's a party whose agenda is run by global conglomerates that pursue dollar and profit with no regard for any kind of sense of morality. ... It blows apart this entire moralistic rationale. Senator Obama proposed divestment legislation in the Senate and ... it was blocked by a Republican senator because it would have required the government to report on what businesses have dealing with Iran ... [McCain] was unwilling to lift a single finger to make it happen."

(H/T: RS)

Here we go - the question is: Change vs. McSame

Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention on August 28th, appropriately on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

The battle lines are drawn - a new direction for America or more of the same?

What does America say ?

How does it look so far?

Barack Obama's speech last night and clinching the spot of 'presumptive nominee' was called a historic moment for America.

Meanwhile, McCain's dreadful speech last night was described as being filled with "inconsistency" by right wing pundit Mark Levin in NRO:

"...this speech is a mash and tough to digest. You have to get through the self-congratulatory praise of independence and commander-in-chief pose from the Senator, then you have to try to follow the inconsistency of some of his big-government ideas vs. his anti-big-government rhetoric, and his inconsistency even on his supposed strength..."

Not one single country in the world supports the US occupation of Iraq

The most recent comprehensive international poll on the subject - completed 7/26/07 - shows that of 23,000 people in 22 countries polled, not one single country supports the US occupation of Iraq. Further, the study shows anti-occupation sentiment growing as compared to a 2006 poll.

Overall:

A majority of citizens across the world (67%) think US-led forces should leave Iraq within a year, according to a BBC World Service poll of 23,000 people across 22 countries. Just one in four (23%) think foreign troops should remain in Iraq until security improves.

Muslim countries are among those who most strongly support an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq: Indonesia (65%), Turkey (64%), and Egypt (58%).

Even Israel supports withdrawal. 52% of Israelis want the US out immediately or within a year as compared with 40% who want the US out only when security improves. The Philippines and Kenya offer the most support for a US occupation with a slight majority opposing.



Change is in the air. The most recent Zogby Poll - the only poll that takes into account the candidacies of Bob Barr and Ralph Nader - shows Obama with a solid 10 point lead over McCain.

Bush also has hit a record low approval rating on Zogby of 23%.

McCain doesn't really want to be seen with Bush

McCain and Bush seen together publicly for the first time in 3 months - for just 26 seconds.

The Bush - McCain fund raiser last week was moved from the Phoenix Convention Center to a private residence because of poor ticket sales and a desire to keep the press away. Bush and McCain were seen in public after the fund raiser, but only for 26 seconds on an airport tarmac.

No wonder, polls show Bush with the highest disapproval of any president in modern American history.