"Since they've done such a bang up job, I'll be using the database over at the Center For Public Integrity a lot. It is fully researched and sourced." http://tinyurl.com/565p3y
Yup, definitely a lot of information there, and while there is a bibliography it’s not really sourced so checking context on various “Key False Statements” is an exercise in Google research.For example;
In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein's government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Q: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government -- how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?Rice, September 8, 2002: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Finding a refutation of the famous “They Lied/They Died” Anti-War ad from Sept 22, 2005, at Factcheck.org, several statements are in fact placed in context and summarized by saying;
Looking back, it is now clear that much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading. To say Bush and the others "lied," however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea (Commission on Intelligence Capabilities, March 31, 2005).
http://www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-waradsaysbushcheneyrumsfeld.html There are more at Factcheck, such as;Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lyinghttp://www.factcheck.org/bushs16wordsoniraquranium.html
I’m not going to go through the entire project and look up every quote, and while the Rice quote above shows only a subtle difference, there is enough of a difference to make me wonder. The first quote appears to be more definitive, the second shows there is some uncertainty. Best Intelligence There were enough worldwide consensuses that Iraq may in fact be hiding WMD or a WMD program. Statements made by various world leaders prior to the actual invasion were made supporting the intelligence, although there was indeed enough uncertainty where caution should have been exercised.One question I had in trying to nail this down somewhat was, why if the evidence is so damning against Bush/Cheney did Congressional Democrats not go forward and kick Bush out of office? Thousands of US troops died during the conflict, hard evidence would seem to lead directly to President Pelosi, the first woman US President.I remembered Kucinich and his Articles of Impeachment, and how quickly they died. What I didn’t remember was why?One article I came across was this;Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment http://tinyurl.com/432pg7 This was from June 12 of this year. He didn’t know any of this information he presented until just this year, with only seven months left in the Bush Presidency?Rumblings of impeachment have been heard throughout DC for several years. An article in neutrality dispute at Wikipedia tracks the various Rationales for Impeachment ( http://tinyurl.com/6e2jy6 from the NSA warrantless wiretap controversy through the invasion, Lewis Libby, Katrina, etc.Democrats look into the possibility, and after researching it quit. Why? ACLU President Nadine Strossen gives some insight; http://tinyurl.com/3zmgeg
DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached?NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, Bush has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution. He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly passed by Congress. In one breath he is signing them, and in another breath he is saying he doesn’t have to follow them. So, I think if what Clinton did can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor then what Bush did could be. Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him. Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress. Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate. Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program. Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters. They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook. By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think. It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats. It makes it too much of a partisan issue. There is bipartisan responsibility here. For that reason I strongly oppose it. I’m not speaking for the ACLU; I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it. DS: You just don’t think it would be productive.
NS: I don’t think it would advance civil liberties.
It seems that;1. Either there isn’t enough direct evidence that Bush and Co lied to us, or to prove intent to deceive, to go forward with what should if evidence is indeed damning and incontrovertible.2. Or there’s enough blame to go around and Democrats really don’t like where the finger will eventually point.
On the one hand, Bush is a dunderhead and an idiot. On the other hand, he’s a masterful deceiver capable of weaving a web so tight and impenetrable he’s practically Teflon. Or Cheney is the Dark Lord orchestrating things.Democrats in Congress can’t even seem to say “Bush lied” anymore, but have replaced the word with “misled”. I don’t know where all this will be placed in the context of history, but connecting the dots to Bush lied is such a spider web of context, hearsay, and documents yet to be un-classified that to engage in it can be nothing more at this point than an interesting hobby. It seems clear that at this point no legal action will be taken, and the only thing anyone can really do is doubt government for years to come. God help us all in dealings with Iran.
"We sleep safe In our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those that would do us harm." - George Orwell