Let’s see, Powell, as Bush’s surrogate, states that there is no doubt that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and WMDs, on the biggest stage in world politics, and that’s not proof they lied, given that we now know that many, many intel folk were 100% opposed to those claims- and were right.

Yes, that is called lying- to knowingly deceive. It’s called reading and logic.

As for BDS, as I said, Sullivam got there first- when I don’t know; but his/my version is far more cogent, and far more deadly. no sarcasm, unfortunately!

Did I undermine my point? The term, BDS, has been used by the right for 3 to 4 years. The term as you use it, has been used for what? Two days. My point is that we now have both sides screaming the same thing at each other. Well thats real productive. I merely conceded that the term, BDS, in its new an improved form, will find its way into the the TMV comment section quite a bit in the future.

So Powells 20/20 hind sight is now proof that Bush “LIE(D) to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.”? Are you telling me that Bush made Powell to go out there and lie for him? Why would Powell do that? I’m really looking forward to a link where Bush “LIE(D) to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.”?

Stop sucking from the Far Right’s helium bottle and let yr mind detox; then reality may come into focus.

Yeah, you really got me pegged/sarcasm

Humorously, you even undermine yr own point w yr link, for Andrew Sullivan, apparently, beat me to the punch. Haha.

As for labeling, ’twas you who typed, ‘Kinda funny how your mindset can put you on both sides of this consensus thing and be so damn sure that only you opinion is the right one,’ about those who disagree w yr position.

Irony is best when it’s unintended, and undermines its speaker.

I will note that the definition as you use it has been added just TWO DAYS AGO. I will also concede that there will be some who will use this term, as you define it, quite often from here on out (especially here in the comment section of TMV). But as I said, round and round we go, and of course, that ensures that we never get anywhere.

I’ve never found labeling very persuasive, have you?

to portray the intel as unanimous

You got a link where Bush said the intel was unanimous, because my understanding of intel is that it is never 100% accurate.

When Bush and Cheney, and their lapdog Powell, say that they have incontrovertible proof of WMDs and ties to 9/11, knowing that there were many, many major players in intel that found those claims laughable- it is a LIE to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.

This is really not a difficult idea to gtrasp, as long as one does not suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, and view him as some sort of Messiah. He lied. That is incontrovertible. Only the extent and depth is arguable.

Nobody- look at all the people in Intel who have spoken out, and been removed. There is your proof. That you refuse to see it is evidence of BDS. And it is the people who still foolishly want to add bopdies to the lost fire of Iraq that are grasping desperately. As someone else at TMV posted, Bush is just running out the clock, so that a Dem Prez gets stuck with cleaning up his mes, and then R’s can say D’s cut and ran.

Bush needs no enemies- his own incompetence and lies have turned the US against him, after all the unwarranted goodwuill he got for his incompetence for letting 9/11 happen in the first place, for had he read his PDBs and put in place appropriate measures, there’s no way the planes wd have been hijacked.

Stop sucking from the Far Right’s helium bottle and let yr mind detox; then reality may come into focus.

The perspective that the antiwar does not grasp is that they will grasp at anything to make their case, while deny due processes and diligent fact finding before publishing anything. Joe quoted from an AP article in another post and the quality of the (AP)reporting was downright atrocious. That reporter only had one thing on his mind.

Getting Bush. At all costs and the truth be damned. I refuse to accept this country has stooped to “damn the truth full Impeachment ahead.”

In times of war the truth is the first thing to go and I do believe the antiwar has declared war on The president of the United States.

You keep saying he lied, he distorted the evidence, covered it up or whatever nonsense. I just want you to prove to me how he did that given how the CIA is in oversight by everyone from Ho Chi Minh to Gunga Din.

Show me how. Im from Iowa. An ex analyst with Democratic credentials coming forward is hardly evidence in this time of hate filled Rhetoric.

I want evidence that he covered up, distorted to such a point that the democrats in these committees as well as the congress in general would STILL go along with him and vote for war.

You offer nothing but again enough people have come forward and said this that or the other. You bluster that Joe Wilson went to Africa and wrote an OP ED piece. Why thats certainly evidence.

You offer nothing but Innuendos and distortions. Had Bush indeed lied, had the Democrats on the committees that oversee the CIA evidence believe they were lied to or Coerced Bush would be on trial right now.

So again show me where there is proof, Substanial proof. Proof that would stand up in court. Not a mosiac of theories and disgruntled ex employees coming forth and saying Yep he did it.

Because honestly thats what the world did to Saddam Hussein. The evidence against him was pathetic I will grant you that. So we fabricated all kinds of stuff against him including very real truths such as broken UN resolutions but still that does not altar the fact that the evidence against him was all circumstantial inuendo and speculation.

People came forth and said Saddam has WMDS. Well gee its okay for them to be used against Saddam so it must be okay to use them against Bush? But that does not prove Bush Lied. That only proves our Cia SUCKS.

The very methodology you use to Condemn Bush, is the Methodology that got us in war with Iraq. I have a hard time understanding how you can say I hate chocolate while you eat tootsie rolls all day long.

And YES TONTO thats exactly what Im saying.

However if the consensus is that they HAD WMDS then that is a consensus. it does not mean it was unanimous.

What Nobody is saying is that there was people that didn’t go with the consensus. And these are the very people that you hang on their every word. Damn, even France thought that Saddam had WMD and the were tight with him.

What I find humorous, if this subject isn’t Saddam and WMD but rather globalwarming you would be considered a denier. Kinda funny how your mindset can put you on both sides of this consensus thing and be so damn sure that only you opinion is the right one.

The lie is that he and Cheney claim that the evidence was solid, and that other nations all supported it. Baloney.

You can call a lie Mitzi Gaynor or strawberry gum drops, but it’s still a lie. What make it worse was that the Right went apeshit over Clinton’s lies about a blowjob, and support Bush’s far deadlier lies.

Sorry, game over. There is no question that lies were told- merely the number and extent.

And, in a couple years, you can be sure that dozens of ex-Bushies will try to rehabilitate their reps by exposing lies we do not even know of now. Then, the defenders will merely call them liars as well, and further insulate them from the reality that will show Bush as an unmitigated disaster.

BDS strikes agsin.

You are arguing a lie. You are defending it as truth. Show me where. I presented facts and said SHow me.

You cannot so your response it to call me a delusional liar.

I love the sound of Rightie. Ohh that sounds so good to be on the RIGHT side of truth.

BTW, you righties really need to stop the old canard that those who disagree with our misadventure in Iraq hate our forces fighting there- many who disagree with it have sons and daughters fighting there, or have volunteered themselves to go out of duty to country.

Like other aspects of the U.S. government, the CIA has a system of checks and balances. The CIA reports both to the executive and legislative branches.

On the legislative side, the CIA works primarily with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These two committees — along with the Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees — authorize the CIA’s programs and oversee the CIA. The appropriations committees appropriate funds for the CIA and all U.S. government activities.

So now when I state that the CIA presented the same evidence to the President as it did to congress I want you to show me where in this oversight chain of command the President was able to FIX the information to suit his needs and if he did why the Democrats were not screaming to high heaven that the information being fed to them was not LIES.

No you guys overlook the truth and turn to conspiracy theories and conjecture and some disgruntled former employees and a Democrat with an agenda as proof.

Now if you want to just say I hate war and I hate Bush and I hate our forces fighting in IRAQ that is a position I can respect and understand.

Is that proof?

No its 5 scientists with differing views of the facts. How do we really know we landed on the moon. There is only just a few people on this planet that actually know if we landed on the moon or not. The rest is accepted on faith.

Now if you tell me I hate Bush, I think hes a liar and nothing he says can be the truth. Well then at least you have spoken a truth. But to claim because SOME people say Iraq had no WMDS is proof that Bush Lied is like my cousin who will fight me if I push him hard enough about landing on the moon. Our government lied and thats all you need to know.

That has been the position of the antiwar and its a weak, seriously flawed position in which the proponents have more faith in speculation and hearsay then they do the truth. And yet it is they who claim they are seekers of the truth.

I wonder if Kim Ritter still has any hair to pull out after reading such laughable nonsense.

No he did not lie. If anyone lied it was the analysts. Now why would they lie? I propose they would not. I also propose that intell work goes like this.

You collect a whole bunch of tidbits of information. You get defectors with agendas to tell you stuff. You interview people. You look at maps, you look at recon photos, satellite photos. You read books, you listen to politicos speeches from the country in question. On and on. Tidbits of information collected and then analyzed.

Analysts are being asked to take a whole bunch of nothing and put it together and come up with a picture. Its not exact. Its highly speculative and contingent upon the analyst being objective.

Now when you got 50 or 100 analysts all working with sketchy information you are going to end up with varying viewpoints. However if the consensus is that they HAD WMDS then that is a consensus. it does not mean it was unanimous.

The antiwar on the other hand take 5 people as proof positive Bush Lied. Oh yeah and Joe Wilson. The guy goes to Africa, talks to some people returns and writes a report and this is PROOF???

Sorry lets come up with better facts to support your antiwar stance. Your old ones are full of holes. So full in fact its why Bush is still the president and has not been impeached.

Bush is clearly lying when he says that all our intel showed Saddam had WMDs and ties to 9/11.

When are you BDS types going to stop with the lies? Repeat it all you will but it’s still the same, and now you cannot even effectively scare the zombies here that you used to with the color alert system. In short, both Bush and his acolytes, as well as the BDS types, like Nobody, are irrelevant.

Petraeus has already failed. There has not been one shred of success. Any suggestion otherwise is laughable.

Then why is the Iraqi government easing the curfew in Baghdad?