They ALL Lied.

[Qutzupalotl]

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
—Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
(There were numerous doubts. Cheney repeatedly visited the CIA in secret to ensure they gave him intelligence to justify invading Iraq.)


“On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.”
—Remarks to the United Nations, Feb. 5, 2003
(No chemical munitions were found there or anywhere else.)


“We know that he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons.”
—Interview with Infinity-CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002
(They knew nothing of the kind.)


“In retrospect, knowing that some of the documents… were, indeed, forgeries…had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in. And had there been even a peep that…the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”
—Face the Nation, CBS, July 13, 2003
(The director of Central Intelligence had written Ms. Rice in October 2002 that the claim was in doubt and the document they touted as evidence was a forgery. CIA Director Tenet also called Ms. Rice’s deputy to warn against using the claim. They used it anyway to bolster their case for a war.)


“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
—State of the Union Address to Congress, Jan. 28, 2003
(Bush had been told the Niger uranium claim was false and based on a forged document, but needed to justify invading Iraq. Our government purposely misled the British government.)


Lying to congress is a felony. Starting a war based on false pretenses against a country that didn’t attack us is even worse. Hundreds of our soldiers are dead as a result of this deliberate campaign of misinformation.

The Republicans in congress say that’s all just fine, and refuse to acknowledge the obvious pattern of deception. Let’s vote them out in November—the people who did these things and those who protect them.

Printable flyer

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Thank You!!!!

[Catt03]

2. Thank you

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

3. Nice job!

:toast:

[CarolynEC]

4. This is terrific stuff!

Makes one easily-understood point, and hammers it home. Well done!

:)

[lunarboy13]

5. Excellent Post!

:headbang:

[Brotherjohn]

6. This is pretty hard-hitting, and probably effective. I even may...

... print a few and drop them here and there.

But to be fair, we need to be careful to keep the factual information correct (and there is plenty to damn the Bush admin).

The problems with this flyer mainly center around pushing the idea that Bush et al knew that the uranium documents were forgeries. There is factual information aplenty to show that the CIA doubted the Niger claim and warned the Bush White House of this. But no one has yet shown that even the CIA knew the basis was forged papers until after the 2003 SOTU.

I bring this up b/c this is what has given Joe Wilson so many problems of late. Not that he has't been consistent and clear on this count (that he actually never said he knew they were forgeries, but that he said he did not believe the claim could have been accurate).

But here, you are actually saying they knew the claim was based on forged papers. That may be true, but we have no evidence. There is no record of this fact being known until the IAEA released its conclusion on about March 7, 2003 (after a few hours of looking at the papers). Admittedly, the CIA would have to have been incompetent (or pressured by the WH to ignore this) to not realize that what they had in their hands, and waited months to turn over to the IAEA, were forgeries.

What we DO have, though, is clear factual evidence that the CIA warned Bush (and specifically Condi) that the claim was doubtful. Minor editing to reflect this would make the flyer much stronger as far as making a case that "they all lied" (which they did).

In addition, you might want to change "No chemical munitions were found there or anywhere else" to "No chemical munitions were found there or anywhere else, save for a couple of expired shells pre-dating the Gulf War, from when the United states was providing Iraq with the technology to make WMDs". Otherwise, this statement is too unequivocal, and can easily be proven wrong. I don't have a link, but they did find three (I think) old, decrepit chemical shells. Actually, it would probably be better to just change the counter-claim to something like "The promised stockpiles of chemical munitions were not found there, or anywhere else."

I don't know, maybe I'm being nitpicky (and I apologize if I am; the flyer looks great and as I said, it's hard-hitting). And I could see the argument that we should just throw all of this out there and let them be defensive for a change. But the trend has been, it seems, for their side (and the media) to question every claim we make about them, but never to question claims they make about us (Kerry). It seems there are so many clear examples of them misleading the nation in the run-up to the war that clear, inarguable instances could be cited; ones that they could have no possible answers for.

And, I guess, more to the point... all of these instances are probably clear lies. But in actuality, they are either proof that they lied, or were horrifically incompetent. They can always claim: "But the CIA told me it was a slam dunk case!" "But I don't recall seeing the memo!", etc. etc. But for any answer like this that they have, one has to accept the fact that they are simply incompetent to believe it.

For instance, Condi doesn't even read her memos from the CIA on the threat of WMDs from Iraq, and Bush or his staff can't even effectively evaulate his primary claim that Iraq is seeking nukes when the IAEA proved it was a forgery in a few hours using Google.

Presented as "Incompetency or Lying?" and the case is rock solid.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Nitpicky is good.

You are correct that we need to back up every statement. One misstatement, even unintentional, and the whole thing can be dismissed.

I thought it had been determined that the Niger documents were forgeries in October 2002, but Powell's report plagiarism was discovered a few days after his UN presentation in February, by using Google. Do I have my dates wrong?

Let me know. I want to correct this so that it's unassailable.

Just to be safe, I've made some corrections to the parenthetical statements that are less reliant on foreknowledge of the forgery. Try downloading the flyer again and see if you like the new version.

[Brotherjohn]

11. Yes. Much more effective, I think. (that was quick!)

I wouldn't equivocate quite that much on the Powell WMD counter-claim, though. It almost sounds like you're saying WMDs WERE found (yes, they found three old shells, but you don't want to make it appear that anything that meant anything was found). I'd say something like "Chemical munitions were NOT found at those locations, nor were any of the promised large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons found anywhere in Iraq." That way, you're making the case that nothing like what they claimed has been found (without giving any credence to the idea that a few loose shells amounts to a "find"). It might also help to italicize where he says "sure" signs. Because, obviously, they were not.

You may also want to add Rumsfeld's blatant lie about "we know where they (WMDs) are. In the area around Tikrit, to the N, S, E and W..." (not an exact quote, but time shows that he certainly didn't "know"). But if yu want to limit it to one quote per liar, I understand (there are so many to choose from!).

I think the re-write of the Condi lie makes it particularly more effective.

As for the forgery thing, I don't think there is any record of the Niger claim being publicly proven a forgery until the IAEA said so in March 2003 (before the war, it should be noted). None of the warnings from the CIA make reference to forgeries, either (just that they felt the reporting was unsubstantiated). Of course, if the CIA and the WH were not able to determine this themselves, then they are pitifully incompetent. But that's another issue. Cheney, of course, when confronted with Mohamed El Baradei's conclusion that the Niger papers were forged, said "We believe, frankly, that Mr. El Baradei is wrong." So even AFTER being presented with them as forgeries, he held onto the claim.

My memory of the Powell report was that, yes, much of it was quickly found to be based on a plagiarized report. Not sure if/how Google was involved with this, but I know the IAEA at least said that a search on Google could have (if not did) show that the names on the Niger docs were not accurate for those officials' in Niger at that time.

Thanks for taking the constructive criticism in the spirit it was meant. With the media the way it is these days, I think we need to make our critiques as rock-solid as possible. Your flyer has me thinking of doing something similar entitled:
Lying or Incompetence? You decide.

[Qutzupalotl]

13. Thanks--good suggestions.

Because I had posted an earlier version, I wanted to jump on it before a lot of people downloaded a version that could be taken apart. So rather than do more research or incorporate the incompetence angle, I backed off on some of my comments, maybe too far. I like your suggestion on the Powell quote, and I'll have a new version up very shortly.

Your point that the forgeries were discovered in March and we went ahead and invaded anyway is a good one. I think that could be its own flyer.

Your Lying/Incompentence flyer sounds like a good idea. When you're done, there's a thread in Activism/Events called "Post your flyers here!" and you can, um, post your flyer there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=9545#9554

[Brotherjohn]

17. Looks great!! Thanks for the suggestion re posting flyers.

Don't know when I'll have time, but if/when I get it done, I'll post it there.

Again, looks great. Thanks for being big about the critique (I half expected to be labelled a troll!).

[Qutzupalotl]

15. New version is up, as of 3PM PDT.

I included part of the other Rumsfeld quote we liked. I had to leave off the NSEW part due to space constraints. But together, the quotes say, "we know they have weapons," and "we know where they are."

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Slight modification, 3:30 PM PDT.

Took out the cheesy underline in the headline because it didn't match the distressed look of the typeface.

I'll stop now. :)

[senseandsensibility]

7. Can you send a version of this

to CNN as part of our virtual protest today? Demand to know why they haven't called these repukes on their lies, even as they spread more lies about Kerry through the swiftboat liars. I think it would be very effective.:toast: Great post.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. Tell you what...

I'll let you use this text in any way you see fit. Here it is, in a copy-able format:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
—Dick Cheney, Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
(There were numerous doubts. Cheney secretly met with the CIA to ensure they produced intelligence to justify invading Iraq.)

“On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.”
—Colin Powell, Remarks to the United Nations, Feb. 5, 2003
(No chemical munitions were found where he indicated.)

“We know that he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons.”
—Donald Rumsfeld, Interview with Infinity-CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002
(They “knew” nothing of the kind.)

“In retrospect, knowing that some of the documents...were, indeed, forgeries...had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in. And had there been even a peep that…the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”
—Condoleeza Rice, Face the Nation, CBS, July 13, 2003
(The director of Central Intelligence had written Ms. Rice in October 2002 that the claim was in doubt. CIA Director Tenet also called Ms. Rice’s deputy to warn against using the claim. They used it anyway to bolster their case for a war.)

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
(Bush had been told the Niger uranium claim was in doubt, but needed to justify invading Iraq. Our government misled the British government.)

___________________

You might also mention Rumsfeld saying, "We know where the weapons are," and Rice saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Kinda hard to make a mushroom cloud without nuclear weapons, isn't it?

[senseandsensibility]

12. Thanks

B-)

[oasis]

9. Thanks. I'm going to make good use of the linked printable flyer.

[Kukesa]

14. Fantastic Flyer; Thanks! N/T

[keyzersoze13]

16. Well Done

Great job, NRK.

[texastoast]

18. Thanks!!!

I'm sending this out to those in denial. This is great!

[JPJones]

20. Excellent flyer n/t

[VOX]

21. Wow! I mean WOW!

Great work, NRK!

Many thanks for your good efforts -- :toast:

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Thank you, all.

I can't take credit for the idea. Scott Ritter explained in a speech that the State of the Union is an address to congress, and reminded us that lying to congress is a felony. "Condoleeza Rice LIED," he said. "Donald Rumsfeld LIED. Colin Powell LIED. They ALL LIED."

When I heard the speech, I remembered I had just seen a website that lets you search by Liar and by Topic. I'll post the link if I can find it again. House.gov or something like that. With that, it was a simple operation to pick the most egregious lies by each of these distinguished dignitaries.

That was months ago. I had been putting off buying a webspace. This weekend I realized I already had one that I wasn't using. D'oh! But maybe it's just the right time now to get this out.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Link for search-by-liar

and the source for these quotes

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

check it out!

[SayitAintSo]

23. Good stuff ... thanks ... great job...

Where can we find the final version ?

[Qutzupalotl]

24. I have been updating the file linked in the original post

...so you can use the same link. It points to: http://members.ispwest.com/kbs/Photos/TheyAllLied.pdf

To download to your hard drive, right-click the link and select "Save Target As..." or "Download Link to Disk".

[SayitAintSo]

34. THANKS !!!!! n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

25. Kick

:kick:

[Karenina]

26. Superb work!

:kick:

[dennis4868]

27. The Flyer would be 100% accurate......

if it said the following:

Bush and the White House all said at one time or another the following statements that are not supported by any National Intelligence Estimate or any other intelligence agency:

1. Iraq HAS unmanned aerial vehicles that can carry WMD to the United States;

2. We could be hit by Iraq in 45 MINUTES;

3. Iraq will have nuclear weapons in 6 MONTHS;

4. MASSIVE stockpile of biological weapons;

5. Iraq/911/al Qaeda CONNESTION;

6. Saddam will give WMD to other TERRORIST;

7. Saddam will use his WMD against the USA UNPROVOKED;

None of the above statements made by Bush and other top administration officials are not based upon any intelligence agency's information!

So who misled who? The CIA certainly cannot be blamed for the above statements/allegation made by Bush.

Bush lied (and exxagerated) and PEOPLE DIED!

[Qutzupalotl]

29. Thank you.

I think this would make a great flyer of its own, or as a version #2.

Would you like to work together on this? I would like to provide sources for the quotes so people can confirm them. Most people won't, but it adds weight when you can point to specifics.

I'd like you to use your memory of these quotes and see if you can find exact quotes, dates, and venues. Maybe we'll put the exact quotes after each of your numbered items, so that what you are emphasizing will stand out.

Here are a couple of sites to help you find the quotes:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

And just so I'm clear...you're saying that a flyer like this would be 100% accurate, not that mine has an inaccuracy, correct? My original post here had some assertions I couldn't substantiate, so I took them out. If you see anything else wrong with my flyer, let me know here or PM me and I'll correct it. (That goes for all of you here. :))

The latest version of the printable flyer will stay here:
http://members.ispwest.com/kbs/Photos/TheyAllLied.pdf

[dennis4868]

30. Sure I will help you out.....

send me your email address....and YES....all of the allegation/statements I described in my earlier post were made by Bush and the rest of the thugs in the White House.....for example, Bush said that Iraq HAD unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)....the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) only said that Iraq was working on a program to create the UAVs. Also, the NIE stated that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear weapons program and could have a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years. However, Bush during a press conference with Blair in September 2002 said that Iraq will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months....or he will say that Iraq could have a nuclear weapon at any time.....there are so many examples of Bush and his thugs saying things to the american people and to congress (Senator Bill Nelson of Florida confirmed this) that was not supported by any NIE or intelligence agency.

So it is not the case that the CIA misled Bush....that is not true. Bush misled the country scaring us with lies to get his war....I do believe that the October 2002 NIE was hyped....but Bush and his thugs then hyped the hype of the NIE and even flat out lied about what was included in the NIE!

[Qutzupalotl]

33. Good. I thought that's what happened.

It's been hard to find articles that say Cheney leaned on the intelligence community. Jim Hoagland wrote a column in October 2002, I think, saying this--but he later backed off. I guess they got to him!

Keep them lies comin'! The more outlandish the better!

[Amaya]

31. Very cool!

:) :bounce:

[TWiley]

32. I wish that I had this yesterday

I would have pelted parked cars at the bush speech with them.

[Qutzupalotl]

54. Good idea!

That's a good way to use this and things like it. I hope others in the path of Hurricane George will take note.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. And why did they say that?

Because they were lied to. Good luck trying to respect your president.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. Thank you for kicking this thread.

That helps to spread the flyer far and wide.

[Norquist Nemesis]

40. Bye! (that was quick)

[Qutzupalotl]

41. Allow me to dance on your grave.

:hi: :bounce: :bounce: :headbang:

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Qutzupalotl]

42. Want to know a secret?

Sure, we all do! It's human nature. Nobody likes secretive people unless they're "in" on the secret. Then they're your blood brothers & sisters.

So that's why I changed the wording on this flyer today. I had, "Cheney repeatedly visited the CIA in secret." Now it says, "Cheney had clandestine meetings with the CIA". That has more of a cloak-and-dagger feel to it, because it implies a coverup of illicit behavior.

Another change today: Regarding knowing where the WMDs were, I used to have, "They 'knew' nothing of the kind." Now it says, "They knew no such thing." Like ghosts or the tooth fairy, there's no such thing as WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

Isn't this fun??

Words are weapons.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

45. The White House admitted

that those 16 words were based on a forged document.

Do you think Iraq ever could have attacked us in 45 minutes?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

50. Inspections are cheaper

in lives and dollars, and they were working. They were working too well for Bush's timetable, though. He had to make them more intrusive, in order to provoke an incident that they could point to, and say, "See! They're obstructing the inspectors!"

Isn't it ironic that we had to ignore international law in order to enforce a U.N. resolution?

[govegan]

46. Patronizing, vacillating speculation.

This bureaucratic use of patronizing, vacillating speculation as equivalent to "learned" is typical neofascist propaganda. Designed to instill awe and fear in those who can be easily duped by such balderdash.

That is a nice poster, by the way.

[barb162]

44. Excellent!

lock em' all up.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qutzupalotl]

48. Funny, you have the same quotes as the last cowardly freeper.

Same typos, too.

The big difference here is that the Democrats didn't lean on the intelligence community to tilt reports in favor of war, like Cheney did. They were listening to the Republican-orchestrated disinformation campaign. Ever hear of PNAC?

[Qutzupalotl]

51. How did those 16 words get into the president's speech?

President George W. Bush prepares his State of the Union speech in the Oval Office Thursday, January 23, 2003.
White House photo by Eric Draper

[Qutzupalotl]

52. Alternate version of the flyer

with that photo and caption in the lower right. Just twistin' the knife. :)

http://members.ispwest.com/kbs/Photos/TheyAllLied2.pdf

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. Woo hoo and you SOO upset the freepers with this

maybe their heads will explode