Did Scooter Libby report to the Grand Jury that Bush's CIA LEAK was about WMD's in Iraq: YES OR NO?
455443
No, this is what he told a prosecutor, and it was about Bush getting even with somebody that dared to question his authority.
67223
I assume you are talking about Iraq having WMD...in that case, I would say that based on the information he had at the time, he didn't lie.
698880
!.) Bush cherry picked WMD evidence\n2.) wrong about a iraq-911 connection\n3.) wrong about a iraq-al-qadea connection\n4.) slow in attacking al-qadea before 911\n5.) al-qadea is now more powerful before 911\n6.) and of course Iraq is a freakin' shitbox
56387
I think just the opposite, because if the country finds out they did lie then they would be out of power.\n\nI am sorry to tell you this,  but George Bush did not lie to you about Iraq and the WMD.  He really believed they were there.  Now yes we didn't find a big giant nuclear missile,  but he thought there were WMD there.\n\nI'm really sorry to tell you this,  but if government didn't want you to find out, they wouldn't tell the reporters who report the story.\n\nEverything you see in the media,  someone was chosen to leak it. It was orchestrated.\n\nThere are no "secrets" that these guys unearth in the media.  Everything you see was chosen by someone to be released.\n\nThey all play a game and dance about how "sources told us" but the reality is there was a decision to get that to the paper to make it a story.
151901
Here is an article from CNN.com discussing this topic:\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/\n\n(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation. \n\nNow it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war. \n\nThat seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking. \n\nPresidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. \n\nFrankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues. \n\nPresident Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction\nReaders may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled. \n\nBush's statements, in chronological order, were: \n\n"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." \n\nUnited Nations address, September 12, 2002 \n\n"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." \n\n"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." \n\nRadio address, October 5, 2002 \n\n"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." \n\n"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." \n\n"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." \n\n"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." \n\nCincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 \n\n"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." \n\nState of the Union Address, January 28, 200
981147
I think we can all savely conclude that Bush is going to do whatever he wants to do no matter WHO speaks out in opposition.\n\nLast year, many CIA and military generals spoke out on the fact they personally told him there were no WMDs in Iraq. Did anybody care? Did it affect Bush? No\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
493013
perhaps, but it is up to us to help push for a full investigation of the administration. Fitzgerald may not have jurisdiction to investigate the entire story (only the leak part), so we need to write congress people and insist on a congressional investigation on this. if democrats get elected this November then this will also help make the investigation possible. these allegations should not be taken lightly nor dismissed as partisan tactics; we are talking about war crimes here. and most of all, i think US troops deserve to know that they were sent to Iraq through legal and legitimate means
380308
Absolutely not!  \nCondi was part of the cabal the put together the Iraq war.  Don't you remember she was the National Security Adviser to Mr. Bush?  When cooler heads, i.e, Colin Powell, spoke up the hot heads prevailed. \nDon't you guys read anything?
1005849
And what about that CIA lady that Rove had killed cause her husband was a critic?  Oh yeah he denied it..so it must not be true...lol.\n\nWhat happened to the guy Cheney shot while hunting with their mistresses?\n\nThat story kinda disappeared.\n\nAnd what IS the deal between Bush and Rice?  lol  cant get that image out of my mind (true or not its just funny)\n\nRemember when the nazis get mad and call names its cause your point hit home.  Maybe one will disagree respectfully?  Not likely...but would be a nice change.\n\nbtw. Liberal simply means free...Con means trick.\n\nPS  just read Larry's post....there it goes again the persistent view that Iraq was connected to the towers...where do they get this info from?  A couple of headlines and these people will want to invade anyplace and kill anyone.  The power of propaganda.\n\nLove your enemy good Christians.
187492
As far as Bush lying about WMD's in Iraq, he didn't.  Please read the first link below.\n\nAs far as Bush lying about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda not being connnected, he didn't.  Please read the second and third links below.\n\nI'm tired of all of the sheep walking around spouting crap.  I'm not the biggest fan of Bush, but I wish people would read for 30 seconds before they open up their mouth.
913475
1) "Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania."\nSeattle Times\n\n2) "Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990 provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that:\n\nA) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, \n\nB) the attack was going to involve airplanes, \n\nC) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States."   Sibel Edmonds\n \n*Would you not expect the FBI would distance themselves from admitting to finding any "hard evidence?"\n\n3) "The Bush administration called on four outside, non-government translators to review the tape, to counter possible claims that the White House had doctored it or provided an inaccurate translation." CNN\n*There seems to still be speculation about the varification of this tape. But some transcrips which followed seemed to add some validity to them.\nI think the jury's still out on this one.\n\n4) *Do not use "intelligence" as a source - it was "intellegence" that told President Kennedy that the Cubans would rise up and oust Fidel Castro if we provided tha needed aid for the Bay of Pigs Invasion - and "intellegence" that had Saddam sitting on a mountain of WMDs.\n\n5) *This statement is not true. Actual quote:\n\n"We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," he said at a news conference, according to Reuters. "It's a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president -- not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America," Bush said.\n\nIn answer to your question, of course not - no one man could pull of such an elaborate plan. Do I think al Qaeda is responsible? Yes. \nDo I think Bin Laden is a major player in al Qaeda? Again, Yes. \nIt's not too difficult to connect the dots.\n\n*my comments.
1142279
Frontline just aired a special called THE DARK SIDE on the non-existent WMD program and how intelligence was manipulated, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld's role in it.\n\nGo to   www.pbs.org   right now for a repeat of the telecast and further info.
1024063
No - the President did not blunder - he only lied.\nHis intention was to invade Iraq regardless of WMD - the reasons put out were just a smoke screen of lies.
662703
Yes I do and I hope he implicates George Bush as Libby would not be stupid enough to do it on his own. Bush would! That's a no brainer.\n\nHow many before Libby have fallen on their sword for Bush?
1085568
We gotta remember what this is all about really... Joe Wilson  was supposed to do the investigation into Niger's supposed uranium sales to Saddam, this was done at the request of the vice president's office. Wilson told the truth that the whole idea was a sham designed to build up reasons to invade the helpless Iraqis.  When Wilson failed, the Neo-cons outed his wife as punishment for disobeying.  After that, Cheney traveled repeatedly to the CIA during 2002. More than any other vice-president has EVER, basically to muscle those leftover after Plamegate to tow the line that Iraq had WMDs..All a lie, all a sham and Wilson is a patriot for telling the truth.  If only the troops had such courage, to stand up agains this lie, this sham of a war that they are fighting.  Only then could America have a restored honor, only then would the uniform mean something again.
458879
Yes where is Bin Laden, at Bush's house having cocktails, and barbecue with Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the GOP boys. I am still waiting for WMD's and they don't seem to be coming. This whole thing has been lie after lie. Congress changes this fall, and I hope to see several investigations going on.
369530
Absolutely.  Every "lie" I've checked out has turned to be a lie manufactured by Democrats.  \n\nA few examples:\n\n1) 'Hussein's govt tied to the planning of 9/11' -- he NEVER said that!  (I've read his speeches and it just isn't there.  From the beginning he spoke about the regime's various ways of supporting terrorists with money, camps, logistics, etc, NOT specifically the planning of 9/11..  and he said on Sept 22 2001 that he would go after states that HARBOR terrorists --as Iraq did!) \n\n2) 'Sent us to war only for WMDs.'  Again, I have read the actual resolution Congress passed authorizing him (have you read any of these things??!)and it lists MANY reasons; similarly, Bush gave a number of reasons (and was, in fact, criticized by the press at the time for NOT focusing on just ONE clear reason!)\n\n3) 'Said Iraq had WMDs, when he KNEW they did not.' It takes virtually NO research to discover that the Clinton administration, most in our intelligenct agencies, and major governments & intelligence agencies around the world widely agreed that Hussein DID have WMDs... for YEARS before Bush became President \n\n4) Going back to the one that started it all -- 'Stole' the 2000 election -- no, Gore TRIED to steal that election (though he NEVER led in a single recount, cherry-picked heavily Dem counties with Dems running the machinery for his recounts; said he wanted 'every vote counted' then fought to throw out hundreds of military absentee ballots on every manner of technicality; expressed outrage over claims of 'disenfranchisement' though a LIBERALLY dominated Civil Rights Commission could find NO evidence of this, started numerous court cases [and lost in EVERY court but the Florida Supreme which was ALL liberal Democrats])   [Also, DEMS have lied about the final Supreme Court decision which, on the SUBSTANCE of the complaints voted 7-2 in Bush's favor; the 5-4 decision was simply that there was not enough time for the problem to be remedied]\n\n5) Add all the other DEM lies & deceits  -- about the NSA program as 'domestic spying' (it is not) or being in violation of the law (FISA judges and the Supreme Court have said otherwise); talking about how horrible the economy is (ignoring widespread growth and VERY low unemployment) and presenting ONLY the difficulties in Iraq, not its successes (claiming that Bush declared it would all be a 'cakewalk'.. when he in fact said it would be difficult!);  offering support to Michael Moore (whose movie, even a number of liberal reviewers acknowledged was full of errors and deceitful inuendos [e.g. the whole Afghan pipeline thing, which happened under Clinton and ENDED in 1998!])\n\nSo, no, it is not BUSH's credibility I call into question!  (and this list was just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head thing)  I do not agree with all his policies (esp. allowing spending programs to grow unchecked), but went he announces a decision he IS a man of his word and doesn't blow with the poll winds to help his numbers ... like some.\n\nI love the fact that on the internet it is possible to research a lot of these claims -- to go back and read ACTUAL speeches, laws, reports, etc.  and find out what was REALLY said,  not what the Dems and those in the media pushing their views claim was said.  (Before that I often had questions -- now I can read these things for myself.)