Proof that Bush lied!

[peptoabysmal]

That's what I am seeking here... proof. Explain to me how Pres. B. Clinton, the U.N. and Pres. G.W. Bush were all involved in this conspiracy to lie about WMD. Explain what was the U.N. doing in Iraq when supposedly looking for WMD?

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.

The Democrats deeply deranged by anti-Bush fever insist on making the most damning - and implausible - charge possible: that Bush willfully lied to the American people about Iraq.

As I've tried to demonstrate in this space before, the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on - at least - one almost impossible fact: that George W. Bush knew for a certainty that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.

Straightforwardness would defuse WMD issue (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040128.shtml)

[a_unique_person]

Your argument fails instantly.

The UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, as it had not turned up any evidence they existed, and was still investigating the issue. They wanted more time to conclusively prove the issue either way. They were right. An ex Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, a conservative, has stated part of the reason for the war to start when it did was that if Blix was allowed to complete the investigation, then the main pretext for the war was lost.

The head of the IAEA was saying there was no evidence of development of nuclear weapons, and was roundly condemned for doing so. He was right.

'Axis of Deciet' by Andrew Wilkie, and Australian, details the way that the intelligence community was manipulated by the conservative government. An assesment that 'X could possibly be Y' would be changed to say that "X is Y". Qualified statements by professionals were routinely changed to absolutes.

Andrew Wilkie actually resigned from the Intelligence agency he worked for before the war, saying that the war was being started on false pretences, the 'evidence' for WMD was incomplete at best, and in no way indicated a threat to the west or anyone else. He was right. Here is an interview with him, before the war started.

The only thing he got wrong was that he thought there must have been something there. He was absolutely correct about the ability of Iraq to threaten being non-existent.

What he does say is that the US and Australia had been committed to the war from about the middle of 2002. Once set in motion, the march to war was not going to be stopped.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

Remember what the war was about? It was about the war on terror.



What is the basis of his conviction that Iraq does not pose a serious enough threat to justify a war? “Their military is very weak. It’s a fraction of the size it was when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Most of what remains is poorly trained, poorly equipped and of questionable loyalty to the regime. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It’s not a national WMD program like they used to have. Also, I am not convinced that Iraq is actively co-operating with al Qaeda. The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror.�

....

And then there is his “bad-policy� argument. “War must be the last resort. There is still scope to improve the inspections, to re-engineer the sanctions, and to develop inducements to Iraq to come into line. Also, it’s eroding the power and standing of the UN. We can’t afford that. There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.�



Another Australian Intelligence community member, actually tried to go to visit the Prime Minister, John Howard, personally, to tell him the evidence for WMD was not right. He, too, was right.

Dr David Kelly, of Great Britain, was a part of the UN inspection team in Iraq. He failed to provide the required answers on WMD, and paid the price. I am sure others in the intelligence community got the message. Don't rock the boat, tell the boss what he wants to hear.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.
False dichotomy.

First, I think it would be impossible to "prove" Bush lied. Proof does not exist in political matters. Well, rarely.

But your alternative is not the only one. Try this: The Bush Administration had a documented prediliction for invading Iraq. After 911, it became possible to achieve this goal by various means. One was the selective use of supportive information. Another was to ignore (or worse) dissenting opinion. Through the use of such means, the objective was achieved.

In other words, Bush did not lie and the intelligence was not necessarily flawed. But we're still at war. So my return challenge to you is: Prove (using your word) that the Bush Administration used "every possible means" (I think those are the words) cited in the congressional authorization to find an alternative to invasion. And (this part is easier) show on what date the Bush Administration went back to congress for final approval (as required by the authorizing legislation) before commencing military action. Hint: they didn't.

[Charlie Monoxide]

If you Bushites need solid proof that your feurher had an agenda and is sticking to it, forget it. There is no proof. Karl Rove made sure that everyone involved has clean hands.

Get over it. You man won and we all will pay dearly for for it ...

Charlie (I pray to my atheist deity that evangelicals will soon see the light) Monoxide

[fishbob]

Pepto: Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.

Spinning hard to the right. Substitute 'deliberately misled' for 'lied'. Does that make you feel better?

Proof? Nah, I'm just gonna keep in mind the Bush characteristics of ignoring dissenting views, surrounding himself with toadies and yes-men, and arrogance. And the inability to do math.

[hgc]

It doesn't matter what the UN and Clinton thought. Out of all of them, Bush, alone, made the decision to launch a war. Bush is responsible for the consequences of that disastrous decision. Maybe Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD, but he sure didn't think it was a "grave and gathering danger," otherwise he would have started this war. And, um, who was right about that?

Ah, so much for personal responsibility. Everyone has it except the hypicrites screaming loudest about it.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That's what I am seeking here... proof. Explain to me how Pres. B. Clinton, the U.N. and Pres. G.W. Bush were all involved in this conspiracy to lie about WMD. Explain what was the U.N. doing in Iraq when supposedly looking for WMD?

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.


Straightforwardness would defuse WMD issue (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040128.shtml)

Um, no thanks!

I choose to decline this challange since the pro-war Bush lovers often end up saying something like "Well, since Bush was not actually under oath when he said this, that, and the other, it is not really a lie." regardless of the facts presented.

[The idea]

Does anyone say, "Bush lied. He said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I believed that. On that basis, I was willing to accept the invasion of Iraq"?

France has weapons of mass destruction, so are you willing to accept the invasion of France?

If you say that whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is a pivotal issue that makes the invasion of Iraq either justifiable or unjustifiable, then aren't you already saying that there was something seriously wrong with the government that Iraq had?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well dark helmets your semi-correct, but as I have said in the past in Re GII it was a shell game involving plausibility. I am going to keep a series of articles that point out the duplicitous nature of lil' Gorges transgressions and every time someone tries to cleanse the stained reality of one of the worst white house administrations will post it anon.

To wit:"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"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."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."
Neo-con scholar Robert Kagan
The Washington Post op-ed, Apr. 9, 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003

"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden."
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing, May 13, 2003

"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters, May 21, 2003

"Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

"It was a surprise to me then -- it remains a surprise to me now -- that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview, May 30, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I will refine my examples as time goes on.

Your embrace and defence of President Stoopithead is a sword and shield to protect You from the truth that your god is a fallen , no that's not right , a hollow idol and You perceive that reality to be an threat to your worldview. Well sir it is long past time to re-examine your core beliefs. I find that a person who is confronted by reality which is dis-commodious to their view and in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence , who will not give up their fallacious grasp, to be a character flaw.

Meanwhile, "Out damn spot!"

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well dark helmets your semi-correct, but as I have said in the past in Re GII it was a shell game involving plausibility. I am going to keep a series of articles that point out the duplicitous nature of lil' Gorges transgressions and every time someone tries to cleanse the stained reality of one of the worst white house administrations will post it anon.

snip

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I will refine my examples as time goes on.

Your embrace and defence of President Stoopithead is a sword and shield to protect You from the truth that your god is a fallen , no that's not right , a hollow idol and You perceive that reality to be an threat to your worldview. Well sir it is long past time to re-examine your core beliefs. I find that a person who is confronted by reality which is dis-commodious to their view and in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence , who will not give up their fallacious grasp, to be a character flaw.

Meanwhile, "Out damn spot!"

Is your analysis based on the information we had at the time or the information we have now?

[TillEulenspiegel]

It was based on contemporaneous postings(my own ).
I have stated that I and many here had posts that nailed the situation and it's consequences. I don't like to quote myself but if You would like proof , I can provide links and text (as many boards don't preserve many years worth of posts) I preserve all posts as a matter of form as they are occasionally needed to correct misquotes and fabrications. Of course without any interrogatives or answers to said posts , there is a problem of context.

edit ... an example:
Ok I think George Bush is a freaking idiot. I'm not sure we have a democracy anymore it looks more and more every day like an Oligarcy. I disagreed with going to war.

If we consider the realpolitik of the situation that lead to our allies Germany, France and Russia not going to war the reasons are clearer than any claim of humanitarian concern that any of those countries raised.

Russia, with billions of dollars owed it from Iraq and the prospect of billions more in contracts for the oil and power industries Russa would ( and did ) lose a LOT of hard currency, the one thing it needs most as a fledgling democracy.

Germany, Gerhard Schröder had an increasingly dim future for both his government and his party and with regional elections imminent he had to adhere to the popular will to assure personal and policy longevity. To get a grasp of the back ground see the link , thier politics make the Machiavellian plots of the Borgas' look like the pecking order of a 5th grade girls club.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/germ-j27.shtml

AND then there's Phrance, Ahh the Phrench, the inventors of diplomacy and the force frappe', still ripe with illusions of goepolitical relevance, which they have a second, no third, no , heck I lost count..have a shot at again because the EU is now a reality. Thus shall Pffrance take her rightful station as leader of a coalition of nations larger then the United States...blablabla. The duplicitous self serving Phrench. Skeptic and I have a pretty divergent opinion about most things politic but his quote "But I guess you're right: the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France... which is a bit like having to go hunt deer without your accordion." if I were just a creature of politics would deserve signature status.

There is one more thing I agree with him on. Before the stupid , uncalled for war started, I posted that those who did not take part should be excluded from any effort to rebuild after the fighting. I invoked ( for the mentally challenged ) the fable of the little red hen , the one who asked for help at all stages of baking a loaf of bread and was refused, but when the task was accomplished all sought to avail themselves, and the hen said " kiss my ass". Act like children someone said? You must realize that political choices that a democracy has the luxury of making has consequences political, monetary or others. The fact that those respective countries chose to exclude themselves from a rushed war is thier right, but now after billions of American dollars and countless American and other lives you whine about not being cut into a deal financed by the American people? Act like children? See the hen's response above.

One more thing , someone mentioned the socialist tendency's of the P-french and a responder said show me the revolution, when did it happen? It happens every time pensions are lowered or the benefits are cut or government subsidies to pharmers are cut ant the Paris streets glistening with urine are crowded with cretins with hoes and hogs blocking traffic until the government aquiesces. Acting like children you say?

thats 12\03

[Shinytop]

TillEulenspiegel, all your post proves is that many people believed it. Facts are that Bush was responsible for telling the tale and taking the country to war over it. The rest are making political statments, Bush made war.

There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.

[kalen]

It was the best intelligence we had at the time. It was the best intelligence we had at the time. It was the best...........

Well, if you put it all on the table:

1. Chalabi's claims,
2. (Known to be) forged documents from Nigeria,
3. Grainy satellite photos,
4. Signals intercepts with open interpretations,
5. UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq physically checking sites.

Which do you think is the "best intelligence?"

Seems to me the best intelligence was completely ignored.

Therefore Bush lied.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
It was based on contemporaneous postings(my own ).
I have stated that I and many here had posts that nailed the situation and it's consequences. I don't like to quote myself but if You would like proof , I can provide links and text (as many boards don't preserve many years worth of posts) I preserve all posts as a matter of form as they are occasionally needed to correct misquotes and fabrications. Of course without any interrogatives or answers to said posts , there is a problem of context.

snip

One more thing , someone mentioned the socialist tendency's of the P-french and a responder said show me the revolution, when did it happen? It happens every time pensions are lowered or the benefits are cut or government subsidies to pharmers are cut ant the Paris streets glistening with urine are crowded with cretins with hoes and hogs blocking traffic until the government aquiesces. Acting like children you say?

thats 12\03

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.

When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by merphie
When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

We claimed we knew they had them and we knew where they were. We could have conducted a raid to verify. We had enough causes for the war without making one up or using one that was not true. After all, where are they?

We also have not seen one shred of evidence that backs up the claim we knew they had them nd we knew where they were. Now we have people asking for evidence he lied. Sorry, there is no evidence he did not. Good leaders demand to hear all sides before making up their minds. Bush only wanted to hear what supported the plan he had already decided on. And his cabinet is demonstration enough he still only wants yes men. A man who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Shinytop
There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.
Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.

Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by merphie
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Your welcome. However statements I made are no longer opinion by virtue of history. The statements I made before the fact turned out to be true. So as an actualized reality they become nothing but informed correct judgment.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
We claimed we knew they had them and we knew where they were. We could have conducted a raid to verify. We had enough causes for the war without making one up or using one that was not true. After all, where are they?

We also have not seen one shred of evidence that backs up the claim we knew they had them nd we knew where they were. Now we have people asking for evidence he lied. Sorry, there is no evidence he did not. Good leaders demand to hear all sides before making up their minds. Bush only wanted to hear what supported the plan he had already decided on. And his cabinet is demonstration enough he still only wants yes men. A man who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

what you suggest is no better than what was done. Commit an act of war? The only difference between your plan and Bush is he sent more people.

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Your welcome. However statements I made are no longer opinion by virtue of history. The statements I made before the fact turned out to be true. So as an actualized reality they become nothing but informed correct judgment.

I don't agree with all of your statement. You make the world so black and white.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by SezMe
Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.

Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.


Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

Lying was not necessary.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by merphie
what you suggest is no better than what was done. Commit an act of war? The only difference between your plan and Bush is he sent more people.

A raid is no better than a war? The raid and being sure was proposed to be better than starting a war over a lie. The war was needed.

But the difference is that I think any leader who treats the people with the contempt with which Bush sold the war should be tossed out on his ear, ya ear, that's the ticket.

I have too much respect for the people of this country and the men and women of our armed forces to accept expending their money and lives for a lie. When the expenditure is worth it, it is also worth honesty.

[kalen]

Originally posted by merphie
He had 12 years. Plenty of time.


.....to collect the best intelligence on Iraqi WMD which was then subsequently ignored.

I am beginning to see parallels between the war apologists and the woo-woo mentality discussed elsewhere on this site: choose to highlight the "hits" and ignore the "misses." One can end up believing some pretty whacked-out s**8 with that attitude.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

Lying was not necessary.

Well, you know, some wars have been started for very petty reasons ... er, excuses, and lying was not necessary either. I guess you can add this one to the list. No, wait ... he lied.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. An attempted murder is justification for the USA to invade Iraq? You gotta be kidding me. Can you see the Bush Administration trying to sell this: "Hey, he tried to kill my daddy so I'm going in there to kick his butt." Nobody, even right wing idealoges like Limbaugh or Hannity or North ever trotted out this as a reason to invade another country. I gotta give it to you, Shinytop, you get the cojones award for this one.

Originally posted by Shinytop
Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

And, if I remember correctly, missed every time. And we blasted any radar and/or missile sites that were involved.

But, hey, we gotta defend our honor. Let's throw thousands of USA lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded and disabled on all sides into the meat grinder just to make sure that ***hole doesn't shoot at us anymore.

Originally posted by Shinytop
Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

So, we are justified in invading every country that has not lived up to UN resolutions. Do I have that right? How 'bout Israel? They are in violation of numerous UN resolutions? I am sure there are numerous other nations that have not complied with UN resolutions. I would even guess that the good 'ol US of A is in violation of some. Should we invade us?

Nice try...wanna take another shot at it?

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by kalen
Well, you know, some wars have been started for very petty reasons ... er, excuses, and lying was not necessary either. I guess you can add this one to the list. No, wait ... he lied.

I am so glad you agree!

Petty reasons, I feel you are calling the reasons I listed petty. But facts are that you can travel the world only if other countries know you defend your citizens. Your soldiers can only be respected if your enemies know they will bring down the wrath of Hell if they harm them. And a nation cannot keep the respect of other nations when they allow their leaders and former leaders to be assassinated by thug states. Petty? I think not.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't agree with all of your statement. You make the world so black and white.
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?

[Charlie Monoxide]

I remember a conversation with a right-wing co-worker at the time of the invasion. I was the "token" Canadian, and was called on to defend Canada's refusal to join the "Coalition of the Duped". I asked my co-worker "what if no WMD's are found?". His reply was "then everything's off", meaning Bush truly screwed up and presumably he'd stop supporting Bush.

In the Reno Gazette a few days ago they put quotes from citizens regarding current news. One Bush supporter said in defense of the lack of WMD's found (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Bush is a great leader who makes decisons. It's better to make a wrong decision then fix it rather than do nothing at all".

Charlie (Iraq is broken, please fix it) Monoxide

[TillEulenspiegel]

"Bush is a great leader who makes decisions. It's better to make a wrong decision then fix it rather than do nothing at all".



That is more telling and grievous that anything I could ever say...>sigh<

[SezMe]

Pepto is notably absent since starting this thread. Maybe he's at TAM3?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by SezMe
So, we are justified in invading every country that has not lived up to UN resolutions. Do I have that right? How 'bout Israel? They are in violation of numerous UN resolutions? I am sure there are numerous other nations that have not complied with UN resolutions. I would even guess that the good 'ol US of A is in violation of some. Should we invade us?


What a complete strawman. General assembly resolutions (the kind that routinely criticise Israel but never lift a finger for, say, China's oppression of Tibet, Iran's torturing of dissidents, etc. - but let's not call that bias what it really is, antisemitism) carry no weight beyond PR, and rightly so. Very few countries are actually in violation of security council resolutions, and Israel and the US are certainly not on that list. Can you name any other country where the UN security council promised severe consequences if they did not comply? I doubt it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Your argument fails instantly.
What argument? I'm asking for proof that Bush lied.

The UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, as it had not turned up any evidence they existed, and was still investigating the issue. They wanted more time to conclusively prove the issue either way. They were right. An ex Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, a conservative, has stated part of the reason for the war to start when it did was that if Blix was allowed to complete the investigation, then the main pretext for the war was lost.
If the UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, how does this prove that Bush knew there were no WMD?

The head of the IAEA was saying there was no evidence of development of nuclear weapons, and was roundly condemned for doing so. He was right.
Show me where anyone says this war was just about finding nuclear weapons.

'Axis of Deciet' by Andrew Wilkie, and Australian, details the way that the intelligence community was manipulated by the conservative government. An assesment that 'X could possibly be Y' would be changed to say that "X is Y". Qualified statements by professionals were routinely changed to absolutes.

Andrew Wilkie actually resigned from the Intelligence agency he worked for before the war, saying that the war was being started on false pretences, the 'evidence' for WMD was incomplete at best, and in no way indicated a threat to the west or anyone else. He was right. Here is an interview with him, before the war started.

Form your link, Willikie's main concern was that Saddam would leave behind a scorched Earth, about which Willikie was wrong.

The only thing he got wrong was that he thought there must have been something there. He was absolutely correct about the ability of Iraq to threaten being non-existent.
And this is the only important part to this discussion. No one knew for certain the state of Saddam's WMD, not even Saddam himself, how could G.W. Bush (whom the left thinks is stupid anyway) know something the rest of the world did not know?

What he does say is that the US and Australia had been committed to the war from about the middle of 2002. Once set in motion, the march to war was not going to be stopped.
It's called follow-through. Make up your mind to do something and do it.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

Remember what the war was about? It was about the war on terror.
Yes. This is not a discussion on what the war was about, or if the war was justified. Where is the proof that Bush lied?


Another Australian Intelligence community member, actually tried to go to visit the Prime Minister, John Howard, personally, to tell him the evidence for WMD was not right. He, too, was right.
Again, how does this affect the Bush administration? How does this prove that Bush lied?


Dr David Kelly, of Great Britain, was a part of the UN inspection team in Iraq. He failed to provide the required answers on WMD, and paid the price. I am sure others in the intelligence community got the message. Don't rock the boat, tell the boss what he wants to hear.
If this is is true, so what? How does this prove that anyone knew anything before the war?

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

Lots. The fact he looked for 12 years and asked for more time suggest he thought there was something to find. I believe it would be difficult with your government babysitters in tow.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by SezMe
False dichotomy.
You are incorrect. The question is "Did Bush lie about WMD?". The answer is "yes" or "no".

First, I think it would be impossible to "prove" Bush lied. Proof does not exist in political matters. Well, rarely.
A witness to Bush stating that he knew there were no WMD, but he was going ahead with the war would be damning evidence, not necessarily proof. Documents or recordings of high administrative meetings where the discussion was that they knew there no WMD, but they were going to lie about it woould be proof.

But your alternative is not the only one. Try this: The Bush Administration had a documented prediliction for invading Iraq. After 911, it became possible to achieve this goal by various means. One was the selective use of supportive information. Another was to ignore (or worse) dissenting opinion. Through the use of such means, the objective was achieved.

So what? Clinton and most of the Democratic Senators had a stiffy to take out Saddam also. As long as were talking conspiracy, consider that maybe who was president didn't matter a twig and that our government has been planning this for a long time on both sides of the party line. That makes the Democrats turncoats.


In other words, Bush did not lie and the intelligence was not necessarily flawed. But we're still at war. So my return challenge to you is: Prove (using your word) that the Bush Administration used "every possible means" (I think those are the words) cited in the congressional authorization to find an alternative to invasion. And (this part is easier) show on what date the Bush Administration went back to congress for final approval (as required by the authorizing legislation) before commencing military action. Hint: they didn't.
I don't believe that the Bush administration used every possible means to avoid the war, quite the opposite. I happen to agree that taking Saddam out of power was and is a good thing. If you are trying to get me to admit that Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power, don't bother, I already agree. We have established motive that would temp Bush to lie, where is the proof that he did lie?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
If you Bushites need solid proof that your feurher had an agenda and is sticking to it, forget it. There is no proof. Karl Rove made sure that everyone involved has clean hands.
There is no proof, so I'll throw out some more conspiracy...

Get over it. You man won and we all will pay dearly for for it ...
Consider the possibility that we might have a slightly better world for it. Only time will tell.


Charlie (I pray to my atheist deity that evangelicals will soon see the light) Monoxide

[Kopji]

Is only believing what you want to believe lying or being a fool?


Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

If anything has surfaced after this war had begun, it is that the U.N. could not be trusted regarding Iraq. Who cares what Mr. Blix had to say?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kopji
Is only believing what you want to believe lying or being a fool?

Huh? Whatever point you are trying to support, you are not helping it with nonsense.

[Kopji]

peptobysmal
So what evidence would convince you? Nothing
Wake up people, Bush has a cult following. How's that for nonsense?

I sat in front of my TV during Bush's State of the Union address and watched him lie, manipulating everyone at a key war decision point by including the part on nuclear weapons even though they were already being openly questioned and discounted on the internet. Recommended against inclusion by his own staff.

Bush is not only a liar he is a dangerous kind of liar who believes he knows the Truth. He subsidizes and employs liars. He gives them a safe home by eliminating people who tell the truth.

But we endorsed him, so what does it matter if he told the truth or not? In his wild thinking, we had our one chance to complain and it is gone.

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831621/


Is there a rational way to discuss someone who is a tyrant? Sure, he doesn't lie all the time. But what does it matter?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Kopji
Is there a rational way to discuss someone who is a tyrant?

Sure. What about Saddam do you wish to discuss?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If anything has surfaced after this war had begun, it is that the U.N. could not be trusted regarding Iraq. Who cares what Mr. Blix had to say?

weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

Blix was right that Iraq didn't have an ongoing nuclear program in 2003. He was wrong about Iraq's nuclear program before the first gulf war (and in fact HIS spectacularly stupid decision regarding monitoring of spent fuel rods enabled Iraq to start their crash program), and he was wrong about Libya's nuclear weapons program (he thought it nonexistant). I'd call his record spotty at best.

[Kopji]

Politicans lie. This is not all that surprising or even bothersome. Perhaps at the core of diplomacy is a need to be 'creatively truthful'.

It should be apparent by now that considerable self deception took place by George W Bush and those he chose to surround himself with: Presented with evidence that supported more than one conclusion, evidence was only used to reinforce what had already been decided.

The business concept behind this is known as 'Positioning'. Bush did not invent the concept of market 'Positioning' but clearly relies upon it, and even brags about his success at applying its principles in politics. The business marketing principle expounded by a guy named Jack Trout. Don't take my word for it, read the book. 'Positioning' creates the future by changing the perspective of your product of the present.

Bush brags about 'creating history' in this manner, in CEO parlance it is not lying. We are being "lied" to in the same way that all marketing is a type of lie.

The same words are not a lie for everyone. There's gonna be people out there who LIKE the product (an Iraq War) so there is no perceived deception. For the rest of us, we are stuck with a product we did not want or need. Far worse, our choice of 'war product' has now eliminated far better and more workable solutions in favor of the market leader.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kopji
peptobysmal
So what evidence would convince you? Nothing
Wake up people, Bush has a cult following. How's that for nonsense?


I would accept any objectively verifiable evidence that G.W. Bush knew that Saddam / Iraq had no WMD and deliberately deceived the American public to go to war.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

I don't care because he is part of an organization who was taking bribes to overlook Saddam's wrongdoings. Blix himself criticised Iraq for not accounting for and producing new VX weapons, but as soon as the US wants to take Saddam out Blix gets all misty-eyed about Saddam just being a misunderstood child. Give me a break.

edited to add: Good job of derailing the thread!

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kopji
Politicans lie. This is not all that surprising or even bothersome. Perhaps at the core of diplomacy is a need to be 'creatively truthful'.

It should be apparent by now that considerable self deception took place by George W Bush and those he chose to surround himself with: Presented with evidence that supported more than one conclusion, evidence was only used to reinforce what had already been decided.

The business concept behind this is known as 'Positioning'. Bush did not invent the concept of market 'Positioning' but clearly relies upon it, and even brags about his success at applying its principles in politics. The business marketing principle expounded by a guy named Jack Trout. Don't take my word for it, read the book. 'Positioning' creates the future by changing the perspective of your product of the present.

Bush brags about 'creating history' in this manner, in CEO parlance it is not lying. We are being "lied" to in the same way that all marketing is a type of lie.

The same words are not a lie for everyone. There's gonna be people out there who LIKE the product (an Iraq War) so there is no perceived deception. For the rest of us, we are stuck with a product we did not want or need. Far worse, our choice of 'war product' has now eliminated far better and more workable solutions in favor of the market leader.

These are all great paranoid fantasies which could be fuel for some great conspiracy talk and all have nothing to do with this thread, which is asking for verifiable evidence that Bush lied.

[peptoabysmal]

Let me take a moment to get this thread back on track.

This thread is not about whether or not there were WMD in Iraq.

This thread is not about whether or not the war in Iraq is a good or bad thing.

This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I don't care because he is part of an organization who was taking bribes to overlook Saddam's wrongdoings. Blix himself criticised Iraq for not accounting for and producing new VX weapons, but as soon as the US wants to take Saddam out Blix gets all misty-eyed about Saddam just being a misunderstood child. Give me a break.

edited to add: Good job of derailing the thread!

Sarcasm noted, can we stick to the facts. Blix was, as time has proved, doing his job.

In an organisation as large and complex as the UN, the surprise would be if there weren't problems in it. Blix, and his work, were open to public scrutiny. The US had free access to his information. If there was anything amiss, it didn't say so, and hasn't shown there to be any. Now, if you want to say that because one part of the UN was dysfunctional, all of it is, is not logical. It's like saying that all people from the US are like you, when they clearly aren't.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?

Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?

I think Iraq was the better of the axis to take care of in this fashion. I don't believe there is really a military option with N Korea or Iran.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
A raid is no better than a war? The raid and being sure was proposed to be better than starting a war over a lie. The war was needed.

But the difference is that I think any leader who treats the people with the contempt with which Bush sold the war should be tossed out on his ear, ya ear, that's the ticket.

I have too much respect for the people of this country and the men and women of our armed forces to accept expending their money and lives for a lie. When the expenditure is worth it, it is also worth honesty.

You still have to show Bush lied. Apparently the majority of people still believe in Bush.

A raid on Iraq. there's a laugh. Send a small hostile force into a hostile country. That's a good plan.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.

But if he wasn't lying doesn't that merely demonstrate incompetence? If not on his part, than surely on that of the many people under his command? Remember that a war was started over this issue. Either way you look at it it's embarrassing.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by merphie
You still have to show Bush lied. Apparently the majority of people still believe in Bush.

A raid on Iraq. there's a laugh. Send a small hostile force into a hostile country. That's a good plan.

Number one a majority of the people preferred Bush to Kerry, that is not the same as you posted.

Number two, raids are always into hostile territory and rely on surprise and speed. Or do you deny raids can be done? Do you deny raids have been done? But you prefer war over a premise that has turned out not to be true. Very good.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sarcasm noted, can we stick to the facts. Blix was, as time has proved, doing his job.

In an organisation as large and complex as the UN, the surprise would be if there weren't problems in it. Blix, and his work, were open to public scrutiny. The US had free access to his information. If there was anything amiss, it didn't say so, and hasn't shown there to be any. Now, if you want to say that because one part of the UN was dysfunctional, all of it is, is not logical. It's like saying that all people from the US are like you, when they clearly aren't.

Does this information you mention clear the air about what Saddam possesed? No, it does not. I've read most of the UNMOVIC reports prior to the war and they raise a lot of questions about what was in Iraq. More questions than answers. Mr. Blix may have his opinions and history may prove him correct, but he had his own credibility problems. He missed a huge nuclear progam and he was very quick to put any dual-use items he found automatically into the civilian use category. Why do you think Pres. Bush should have pinned his decision onto what Br. Blix endorsed?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Does this information you mention clear the air about what Saddam possesed? No, it does not. I've read most of the UNMOVIC reports prior to the war and they raise a lot of questions about what was in Iraq. More questions than answers. Mr. Blix may have his opinions and history may prove him correct, but he had his own credibility problems. He missed a huge nuclear progam and he was very quick to put any dual-use items he found automatically into the civilian use category. Why do you think Pres. Bush should have pinned his decision onto what Br. Blix endorsed?

May prove him correct, you mean has proven him correct.

Huge?

The 'dual-use' items were found to be only for civilian use. To say that anything that could be used for weapons was used for weapons was one of the major frauds of the whole process. Much of the 'dual-use' was ordinary everyday industrial chemicals that would not have raised a moments interest anywhere else in the world.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
he had his own credibility problems.There you have the proof you are looking for:

a: Hans Blix says that Bush did not know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and therefore did not intentionally lied about them.
b: Hans Blix is not credible.
a+b: Bush must have known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and must have intentionally lied about them.

:D

[Giz]

Quote AUP: "There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.�

Firstly, the UN has proven to be about as effective as the old league of nations. Any successes that the UN has chalked up compared to the League can be attributed to:
(a) Lesser challenges
(b) The participation of the USA

"International Community" remains - in the main - a collection of tyrants, corrupt politicians, and narrow self interest.

Secondly, whilst US values are not superior across the world, they are superior to those espoused over large areas of the world.

There should be a UN where only democratic states get a vote, that might actually be a forum worth listening to...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Giz
Quote AUP: "There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.�

Firstly, the UN has proven to be about as effective as the old league of nations. Any successes that the UN has chalked up compared to the League can be attributed to:
(a) Lesser challenges
(b) The participation of the USA



a) That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
b) The UN needs the USA as much as the USA needs the UN. Think about it.



"International Community" remains - in the main - a collection of tyrants, corrupt politicians, and narrow self interest.

Secondly, whilst US values are not superior across the world, they are superior to those espoused over large areas of the world.

There should be a UN where only democratic states get a vote, that might actually be a forum worth listening to...

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
a) That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
b) The UN needs the USA as much as the USA needs the UN. Think about it.

(a) Are you claiming that Iraq in 1991 was as big a challenge as the rise of the facist states and Imperial Ja[an in the 1930's?

Hell, even preventing tragegdy in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda has been beyond the UN... what Kofi Annan and Hans Blix would have made of German rearmament we shall never know... If the UN was seriously credible - rather than a wingeing machine - it would be doing something about the Sudan.

(b) How/Why/In what way do you mean this?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.
Way to skip over the actual quotes provided. Here is one that is particularly good:"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
The intelligence gathered certainly did leave some doubt. Why do you think that Canada was not on board? Canada has loads of economic reasons not to pi$$ off the Americans, and when asked for support and shown evidence, were not convinced. Why? Because the intelligence gathered left doubt. And why did it leave doubt? Because it simply wasn't true.

So, there you have it. Bush said that it leaves no doubt. There was doubt. He lied.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Number one a majority of the people preferred Bush to Kerry, that is not the same as you posted.

Number two, raids are always into hostile territory and rely on surprise and speed. Or do you deny raids can be done? Do you deny raids have been done? But you prefer war over a premise that has turned out not to be true. Very good.

Number one: If everyone believe as you do then they would have preferred Kerry to Bush.

Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

The intelligence is now known to be wrong. You would probably be on your soap box complaining about violations of international laws or something.

So instead we have freed millions of people from a terrible tyrant and given them a real chance for democracy.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Thanz
Way to skip over the actual quotes provided. Here is one that is particularly good:
The intelligence gathered certainly did leave some doubt. Why do you think that Canada was not on board? Canada has loads of economic reasons not to pi$$ off the Americans, and when asked for support and shown evidence, were not convinced. Why? Because the intelligence gathered left doubt. And why did it leave doubt? Because it simply wasn't true.

So, there you have it. Bush said that it leaves no doubt. There was doubt. He lied.

Your proof is based on your assumption of what some country thought? Maybe they couldn't enter any war because it would be political suicide?

Apparently the UK and Austrailia thought the information was credible. So now we have a conspiracy!

You have proved nothing.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by merphie
Your proof is based on your assumption of what some country thought? Maybe they couldn't enter any war because it would be political suicide?

Apparently the UK and Austrailia thought the information was credible. So now we have a conspiracy!

You have proved nothing.
Not an assumption. Chretien wanted to see proof. He didn't get it. So what if Australia and the UK went to war as well. Bush said that the intelligence leaves no doubt: but he knew that there were doubts - from Canada, France, Hans Blix, and the UN. There were doubts, he knew there were doubts and he said there were no doubts - therefore, he lied. And it turns out those with the doubts were correct.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Thanz
Not an assumption. Chretien wanted to see proof. He didn't get it. So what if Australia and the UK went to war as well. Bush said that the intelligence leaves no doubt: but he knew that there were doubts - from Canada, France, Hans Blix, and the UN. There were doubts, he knew there were doubts and he said there were no doubts - therefore, he lied. And it turns out those with the doubts were correct.

So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by merphie
So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.
I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.

So, Bush apparently had rock solid intelligence of things that were not there. Rock solid intelligence that was 100% wrong. Rock solid intelligence that others in the intelligence community did not believe. Either Bush is the most incompetent, willfully blind, gullible president ever or he lied. Take your pick.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.

So, Bush apparently had rock solid intelligence of things that were not there. Rock solid intelligence that was 100% wrong. Rock solid intelligence that others in the intelligence community did not believe. Either Bush is the most incompetent, willfully blind, gullible president ever or he lied. Take your pick.

I'm not playing any game. You are inventing information to support your side. Your entire argument is based on what you think other countries or people thought.

You have not shown at any point where Bush has knowingly decieved.

There are many countries who apparently didn't have any doubt.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.
No he isn't. That the UK joined doesn't prove that there was no doubt, at most it proves that UK feelt that the evidence favoured the possibility that Iraq had non-conventional weapons.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
No he isn't. That the UK joined doesn't prove that there was no doubt, at most it proves that UK feelt that the evidence favoured the possibility that Iraq had non-conventional weapons.

So the UK joining doesn't prove anything, but somehow Canada refusing proves Bush was lying? Nice.

[varwoche]

In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by varwoche
In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course) well said. I think the Bush administration has taken the concept of "plausible deniability" to new heights. Bush is in charge but nothing is his responsibility.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by merphie
So the UK joining doesn't prove anything, but somehow Canada refusing proves Bush was lying? Nice.
Well, yes that is how it works.

If Bob says "this basket has no apples in it" all I have to do is point out the apple on top, in plain view of Bob, to show that he is lying. No matter how many other fruit you point out - telling me that the basket is full of bananas and oranges - it makes not one whit of difference. All I need to show is the apple.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, yes that is how it works.

If Bob says "this basket has no apples in it" all I have to do is point out the apple on top, in plain view of Bob, to show that he is lying. No matter how many other fruit you point out - telling me that the basket is full of bananas and oranges - it makes not one whit of difference. All I need to show is the apple.

So ignore any evidence that might show that you are wrong? You analogy doesn't mean anything because politics are rarely so black and white.

You are making assumptions and ignoring everything else. Not a solid case.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Proof that Bush lied !
Umm I saw his lips move?

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
Ya that'll work.

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Prove that Bush lied

To us? Or to himself?

[TillEulenspiegel]

pardon the OOT dark helmet.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?
merphie


Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?


OK ..... Two for the price of one.

Chirac was also placed on the defensive by the heavy defeats sustained by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s ruling Social Democratic Party in local elections at the weekend. Although not occasioned by his antiwar stance, which remains popular, the 15 percent swing to the Christian Democrats was portrayed by Washington and London as a victory for their line and a signal for a possible shift in position by Germany.

France by herself:

France 75 percent of people are against an attack on Iraq. Chirac’s apparent reluctance to join a US-led war is aimed at shoring up his standing domestically as the true representative of the French nation. He also hopes that his stance will underscore his claim to be the most intransigent spokesman for Europe against the US. By insisting on UN approval, the lesser imperialist powers hope to exercise some form of control over the US, so as to ensure their share of any post-war carve up. Paris, for example, is keen that the favourable deals struck by France’s TotalFinaElf oil company with Saddam Hussein to develop the lucrative Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, are not abrogated or threatened by a future US takeover of the country."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/summ-f08.shtml

Germany by herself

If Herr Schroeder had his way, one assumes, then that's where things would end. Happily, with some nasty American trial lawyers on the case, that's unlikely. And happily, though he tried once more in advance of last Sunday's state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse to rally Germans to his party's cause with anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Schroeder was dealt a humiliating defeat in both states. He should have bought re-privatized Preussag once again. Even the most gullible of German voters saw through his miserable Iraq-war ploy this time around, blamed him for over 10 percent unemployment, and threw his candidates and party into the trash bin.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html

That just two sources there are many more.
If you have opposing views and proof , I would be happy to entertain them.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
pardon the OOT dark helmet.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?
merphie


Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?


OK ..... Two for the price of one.

Chirac was also placed on the defensive by the heavy defeats sustained by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s ruling Social Democratic Party in local elections at the weekend. Although not occasioned by his antiwar stance, which remains popular, the 15 percent swing to the Christian Democrats was portrayed by Washington and London as a victory for their line and a signal for a possible shift in position by Germany.

France by herself:

France 75 percent of people are against an attack on Iraq. Chirac’s apparent reluctance to join a US-led war is aimed at shoring up his standing domestically as the true representative of the French nation. He also hopes that his stance will underscore his claim to be the most intransigent spokesman for Europe against the US. By insisting on UN approval, the lesser imperialist powers hope to exercise some form of control over the US, so as to ensure their share of any post-war carve up. Paris, for example, is keen that the favourable deals struck by France’s TotalFinaElf oil company with Saddam Hussein to develop the lucrative Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, are not abrogated or threatened by a future US takeover of the country."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/summ-f08.shtml

Germany by herself

If Herr Schroeder had his way, one assumes, then that's where things would end. Happily, with some nasty American trial lawyers on the case, that's unlikely. And happily, though he tried once more in advance of last Sunday's state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse to rally Germans to his party's cause with anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Schroeder was dealt a humiliating defeat in both states. He should have bought re-privatized Preussag once again. Even the most gullible of German voters saw through his miserable Iraq-war ploy this time around, blamed him for over 10 percent unemployment, and threw his candidates and party into the trash bin.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html

That just two sources there are many more.
If you have opposing views and proof , I would be happy to entertain them.

That sounds more plausible. I don't agree with some of the points made in the articles.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Giz
(a) Are you claiming that Iraq in 1991 was as big a challenge as the rise of the facist states and Imperial Ja[an in the 1930's?

Hell, even preventing tragegdy in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda has been beyond the UN... what Kofi Annan and Hans Blix would have made of German rearmament we shall never know... If the UN was seriously credible - rather than a wingeing machine - it would be doing something about the Sudan.

(b) How/Why/In what way do you mean this?

a) You are saying the UN is totally ineffective, (which is basically what the League of Nations was). The UN has serious issues to deal with, but it has made two major advances over the League.

1) It has lasted a lot longer, through some very difficult times. When it was more convenient for the members to close down the League, it died. No one has seriously challenged the need for a United Nations today, until now, with the Bush administration on the attack.
2) It has made some major achievements in the global community. If it was to close down today, it will always be remembered for the campaign against smallpox, for example.

It is still making serious contributions to peace around the world. All the peace force activities are listed on the web site. You can point to the failures, and there are many, but don't forget the successes. As to the reason for the failures, it is important to remember the UN does not have it's own standing army. It can only send troops that it's members supply, it will only act on issues that it's members consider important. If the UN is not acting, not just in Sudan, but also the Congo, Haiti, and a host of other places, you have to ask, why do the members of the UN not consider these issues worth acting on, or what are the politics behind the issues that prevent them from acting. Without a UN, these political issues would still be there, preventing action.

b) The UN is a force for moderation. The Iraq invasion, despite the fig leaf of a 'coalition of the billing', is pretty well the work of a United States administration that believes it is some sort of Nietzien superman. All it needs is to be believe it is morally superior, and act accordingly.

It was denouncing the UN, and basically calling for it's end, when Iraq went all wrong, and Dubya was knocking on their door and trying to make up. The UN had been right on the WMD inspections, the US had been wrong. If the neo-cons had just hopped off their high horse for a minute, they would have realised that they were just about to be very embarrassed globally. The UN is flawed, but it does get quite a lot right still. It can be an ally of the US when it needs one, it can be a force of moderation for the US, it legitimises the use of force when it is needed. Ref, the Gulf War.

The UN, of course, needs the US. It is the major source of funds, (when the US pays), it has the most powerful military to provide for peace forces, it has massive diplomatic clout.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by varwoche
In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

Does the Colin Powell speech to the UN count? If we regard it as a multiple choice question test, where the answers are right/wrong, for each claim made.

Now, if the speech was correct on a point, the BA (Bush Administration), gets a tick, otherwise, no. For a list of claims that were honestly right or wrong, you would expect an even distribution, or something like it. That is, they made a claim about mobile biological weapons factories. If the intelligence was honestly right or wrong, fair enough, we would hope that they would get at least half the answers right in hindsight.

For each claim made to the UN, in the case the BA made for invasion, IIRC, they were wrong. This clearly, to me, indicates a pattern of lies. It is a similar methodology to the one Randi uses to test his claimants for the million dollars.

[Art Vandelay]

This thread really shows the silliness of the Bush bashers. Despite "Bush lied" being a major mantra, they can't come up with any defense of it. Look at the replies: AUP shows up to post... well, I'm not sure what his point was. He starts his post with "Your argument fails instantly." then gives absolutely no elaboration. (Oh, and US values ARE better than the values of other nations. Some of them, at least.) SezMe dodges the question with a bunch of sophistry. Charlie Monoxide makes allusions to Rove conspiracy theories. Fishbob moves the goalposts to "deliberately misled". Hgc focuses on one part of the OP, completely ignoring the central question. Crossbow implies that he has this proof, he really does, he just doesn't deign to share it. And on it goes.

AUPAnd the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?It tells me that you are either too ignorant to know, or too dishonest to admit, that they did find plenty. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; that is certain.

ShinytopA raid is no better than a war? The raid and being sure was proposed to be better than starting a war over a lie. The point is that a raid WOULD be a war.

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.
So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

AUPIt tells me that you are either too ignorant to know, or too dishonest to admit, that they did find plenty.

You must be one of the few people to believe that, when the official weapons survey team itself has just given up after two years of finding nothing.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by merphie
Number one: If everyone believe as you do then they would have preferred Kerry to Bush.

Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

The intelligence is now known to be wrong. You would probably be on your soap box complaining about violations of international laws or something.

So instead we have freed millions of people from a terrible tyrant and given them a real chance for democracy.

Merphie, you display more sterotyping, in error, with every post. I voted against Kerry. I still believe Bush has made many serious errors. I just Kerry was even worse, especially with his comments after the war about atrocities.

Bombing raids are the only raids ever conducted? I think not but will not lecture you on history beyond Son Tay. You can look it up.

And Merphie, look at my posts. I defend the war. I thought and think it was the right thing to do. I also feel it indefensible for a president to sell anything on facts he cannot prove and has not proved.

You need to read more and quit lumping everybody together. It really makes your posts pretty meaningless as people realize you read a sentence or two and jump to so many wrong conclusions.

People can be for some policies of a president and realistically be of the opinion he has made mistakes. Are you seriously of the opinion that one cannot criticize somebody they voted for?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Merphie, you display more sterotyping, in error, with every post. I voted against Kerry. I still believe Bush has made many serious errors. I just Kerry was even worse, especially with his comments after the war about atrocities.

I wasn't sterotyping. Since you are jumping on the Bush lied band wagon I figured you for a Kerry supporter.

Bombing raids are the only raids ever conducted? I think not but will not lecture you on history beyond Son Tay. You can look it up.

I never specified the type of raids. Any such action would be considered an act of war and would have been political suicide. Look beyond your 4 walls.

If it was as simple as a raid Israel would have done it years ago. The only choice was to go to war or leave Saddam alone.

And Merphie, look at my posts. I defend the war. I thought and think it was the right thing to do. I also feel it indefensible for a president to sell anything on facts he cannot prove and has not proved.

I think he had a credible case based on the intelligence we had at the time. I don't think he sold anything.

You need to read more and quit lumping everybody together. It really makes your posts pretty meaningless as people realize you read a sentence or two and jump to so many wrong conclusions.

Clearly state your opinion and I won't make meaningless post replying to your meaningless Ad-hominem post. I made one assumption based on your post. I appologize if I was wrong with the one sentence. Dont' take it so personal.

People can be for some policies of a president and realistically be of the opinion he has made mistakes. Are you seriously of the opinion that one cannot criticize somebody they voted for?

Absolutely, I would be more concerned if you agreed to everything one person says.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002



"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"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."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003


"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003


"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003


"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I have edited the list to include only Bush and his official mouthpieces' who express his opinion as part of their job description. I am compiling a list of inconstancy's where stated representations are diametrically opposed to the facts GII had at his disposal. This man even when subject to concrete proof of his judgments and stated position are incorrect , refuses to admit that he was incorrect and change his outlook. That is annoying in anyone, but it is alarming in the character ( or lack of ) of the most powerful man in the world. Some people here live in his fantasy playground tho, I'm afraid.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

snip



Now prove the intent to deceive or are we back to the conspiracy theory?

[Shinytop]

I wasn't sterotyping. Since you are jumping on the Bush lied band wagon I figured you for a Kerry supporter.

That pretty much is the defiition of stereotyping, lumping people together based on one snippet of information.

I never specified the type of raids. Any such action would be considered an act of war and would have been political suicide. Look beyond your 4 walls.

If it was as simple as a raid Israel would have done it years ago. The only choice was to go to war or leave Saddam alone.

Pretty much misstates what I posted. I posted a raid was possible to verify WMD's. Not to replace a war I felt was justified and needed. And the only example of a raid you posted was an air raid.


Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

Gee, not at all what I said or suggested.



Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact.

And a raid, while considered an act of war, might be considered less of an problem to the taxpayer at tax time and to the parents and loved ones of those who lose lives. I am sorry that point was lost on you. There were ways to prove the existence or nonexistence, which is, afterall , what I said.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact. AUP posted He had 12 years. Plenty of time. And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?
He's clearly implying that Saddam did not have any WMD programs DURING ANY TIME IN THE LAST 12 YEARS.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
That pretty much is the defiition of stereotyping, lumping people together based on one snippet of information.

Call it what ever you want. I made an assumption based on your statements. Nothing more.

Pretty much misstates what I posted. I posted a raid was possible to verify WMD's. Not to replace a war I felt was justified and needed. And the only example of a raid you posted was an air raid.

Gee, not at all what I said or suggested.

Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact.

And a raid, while considered an act of war, might be considered less of an problem to the taxpayer at tax time and to the parents and loved ones of those who lose lives. I am sorry that point was lost on you. There were ways to prove the existence or nonexistence, which is, afterall , what I said.


Yes, I know I made an example of an air raid. What you suggesting was foolish.

We had plenty of intelligence on Iraq. Intercepts and defectors. It all seemed to prove wrong.

So in the same sense we could assume N Korea doesn't have WMD either. They have never performed a nuclear test. Why don't we send a raid there?

How about Iran? They have never done test either. Our intelligence could be wrong in both cases. Should we send raids in these countries?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing? Pardon me for interjecting, but seeing this post from the veritable wellspring of semantic bs caused me to do a spit-take all over my desk.

[Shinytop]

Merphie, I never mentioned NK or Iran. The subject is Iraq. If you want to know my opinion on those why not start a thread. Have you learned nothing about jumping to conclusions? You post the raids would be ridiculous and yet you think nothing wrong with attacking when wrong. Sorry, I would rather my country be right before the world than wrong. And announcing WMD as a reason to get support only weakened our country. Myopia in the defense of a wrong president is pretty sad. We had good solid reasons for the war, we did not need to appear fools before the world.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Merphie, I never mentioned NK or Iran. The subject is Iraq. If you want to know my opinion on those why not start a thread. Have you learned nothing about jumping to conclusions? You post the raids would be ridiculous and yet you think nothing wrong with attacking when wrong. Sorry, I would rather my country be right before the world than wrong. And announcing WMD as a reason to get support only weakened our country. Myopia in the defense of a wrong president is pretty sad. We had good solid reasons for the war, we did not need to appear fools before the world.

Sinec no WMD were found the initial reason is bad. However I believe we were justified in going to Iraq for other reasons.

I feel Iran and N Korea is related to the subject at hand. Can't you answer the question? Try leaving out the Ad-hominem. a simple yes or no would be fine to my question.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth


Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by merphie
Sinec no WMD were found the initial reason is bad. However I believe we were justified in going to Iraq for other reasons.

As I have said many times including in this thread.



I feel Iran and N Korea is related to the subject at hand. Can't you answer the question? Try leaving out the Ad-hominem. a simple yes or no would be fine to my question.

I don't think so and have said I will respond in the appropriate thread. How does NK and Iran have any bearing on Bush lying about WMD in Iraq? Sorry, I do not respond to demands I post to your agenda. And I am so sorry that defending my views, that pointing out you are jumping to errant conclusions ABOUT MY VIEWS is seen as an attack on you. I reserve the right to point out such errors and reject defense of words is an attack. I believe in responding to posts, not to words not said and insist I be treated with the same courtesy.

[fishbob]

Pepto: What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing?
I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him. I think his defence of Bush here is on the same level as people defending Clinton as not lying because of some definition of "sexual relations" in some lawsuit.

Bush knew, or should have known, that the 'intelligence' he received was sketchy at best. He oversold that evidence to the American public. He had decided upon a war with Iraq, and then sought evidence to justify it. He used what he thought was the best evidence at the time. But the evidence he used was far from compelling, and his speeches on the threat posed by Saddam were deceining, especially when he invoked the 9/11 trajedy.

But, if pepto wants to play these word parsing semantic BS games, do it to the hilt. Bush said "no doubt" at a time when he knew there were doubts around the globe. That is a lie. Is this seriously what I hang my condemnation of Bush on? Of course not. But if pepto wants to ignore the real issue - that Bush led a march to war and sold a bill of goods to the American public on the reasons why - what else can I do? I play his game. And he has ignored my posts. I wonder why?

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I would accept any objectively verifiable evidence that G.W. Bush knew that Saddam / Iraq had no WMD and deliberately deceived the American public to go to war.

Bush knew in late February that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

An article posted on February 20, 2003

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

[clk]

Originally posted by varwoche

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

The Republicans did an excellent job of milking 9/11 for political gain. I found it amusing that the two of the main arguments at the RNC for re-electing Bush were:
-Bush is able to throw a baseball even when he is wearing a bulletproof jacket!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1755000/images/_1759094_sport-ap-150.jpg

I bet Jimmy Carter couldn't do that!


-Bush will hug little girls who are crying! Is there a better reason to elect him? Didn't think so!

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/hug.jpg


Also, I think this thread should be deleted, and anyone who posted an anti-Bush statement should be banned. Criticizing the President in a time of war is anti-American. The Republicans have repeatedly made this clear. Don't you people know how to read???

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him. I think his defence of Bush here is on the same level as people defending Clinton as not lying because of some definition of "sexual relations" in some lawsuit. I think this really sums it up nicely. The difference being that while I suspect there were some, I know of no one who agreed with Clinton's attempt to minimize or hide his mistake with ML. He f'd up and then tried to dance and play games. he was wrong. Bush supporters, however, dance and play games right in step with Bush. In the debates, Bush told us he made no mistakes and his faithful lap it up like the blind lap dogs they are.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by SezMe
Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.
I made a thread before the invasion of Iraq was launched. My own take on the situation was that Saddam's Iraq was in "material breach" of UNSCR 687. (Remember the term "material breach"??) ;) Here's the link...(there's a snap shot of the salient points below) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904&highlight=since+inception)


Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.
But those countries had not lost a war whose cease fire terms dictated that they not have these kinds of armaments.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.
Again, they have not lost wars whose cease fire agreements stiupulate that they not support terrorism or terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.
But the N. Korea government had not lost a war then thumbed their collective noses at 16 UNSCR's.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.

UNSCR 687 only applies to Saddam's Iraq and applies to no other country. The 12 year long violation of UNSCR 687 admittedly doesn't speak to the need of an immediate invasion. The faulty intel (remember hindsight is 20-20) did....but alas it was faulty.
-z

<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=311187"></iframe>

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002



"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"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."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003


"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003


"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003


"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I have edited the list to include only Bush and his official mouthpieces' who express his opinion as part of their job description. I am compiling a list of inconstancy's where stated representations are diametrically opposed to the facts GII had at his disposal. This man even when subject to concrete proof of his judgments and stated position are incorrect , refuses to admit that he was incorrect and change his outlook. That is annoying in anyone, but it is alarming in the character ( or lack of ) of the most powerful man in the world. Some people here live in his fantasy playground tho, I'm afraid.

Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


...perhaps all these Dems also were part of Bush's conspiracy of deception??

-z

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?


...perhaps all these Dems also were part of Bush's conspiracy of deception??

-z

And did Clinton invade Iraq and conquer it, using the above statements as justification for doing so? That would seem to be the point that makes some people angry about it.

I don't think anyone's surprised that politicians lie. It's what they do with their lies that counts.

[DavidJames]

Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush.

[fishbob]

Rik: I made a thread before the invasion of Iraq was launched. My own take on the situation was that Saddam's Iraq was in "material breach" of UNSCR 687. Before we invaded, Iraq was a UN problem. Now that we have invaded, Iraq is still a UN problem and also a US responsibility.

And Rik - your quotes from after Jan 2001 were made by people that relied on info provided by the current administration - which was cherry-picked. The quotes prior to 2001 did not claim that Saddam actually had WMDs, although the one by Sandy Berger certainly implied it. Yes - there was intel that Saddam was trying to develop weapons. Also there was intel that he was not that far along - and this intel was ignored by the current admin. And the stuff Berger was talking about is the stuff Saddam dropped on the Kurds, which he acquired from the US.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by varwoche
Pardon me for interjecting, but seeing this post from the veritable wellspring of semantic bs caused me to do a spit-take all over my desk. Those who are unfamiliar with varwoche should know that by "semantic bs", he means insisting that "I believe" and "it is somewhat likely" are different. Apparently in varwoche world, those two phrases mean exactly the same thing, and anyone who notices any difference between them is a "hyper-literalist".

Originally posted by fishbob
Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.And yet when THE EXACT SAME LOGIC is used in regards to WMD, suddenly it's weaseling. It's quite possible that there are WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was just intelligent enough to hide them so well that we can't find them, just as it's quite possible that Bush lied, but hid it so well that we can't find proof.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag. I think you're reading stuff into the OP, and you are implying that questioning any charge made against Bush is "apologetic", and anyone who disagrees with you is a Bush fan.

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him.
How can it possibly be semantic BS? At best (or at worst), you EXPECT him to post semantic BS in response to “proof� that Bush lied. You’re attacking him on the basis of what you EXPECT him to say, not on what he’s said (or least, not on what he’s said in this thread). Maybe the word you’re looking for is “disingenuous�.

But, if pepto wants to play these word parsing semantic BS games, do it to the hilt.WHAT word parsing semantic BS games?

But if pepto wants to ignore the real issue - that Bush led a march to war and sold a bill of goods to the American public on the reasons why - what else can I do? I play his game. And he has ignored my posts. I wonder why?So if that’s “the real issue�, why are people insisting on claiming that he lied? And why is pepto not allowed to challenge that assertion?
“Bush lied!�
“No, Bush didn’t lie.�
“Whether Bush lied is not the issue! Quite trying to change the subject!�
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And did Clinton invade Iraq and conquer it, using the above statements as justification for doing so?
�Bush lied!�
“If Bush lied, Clinton must have too!�
“Whether Bush or Clinton lied really isn’t important!�

Originally posted by DavidJames
The difference being that while I suspect there were some, I know of no one who agreed with Clinton's attempt to minimize or hide his mistake with ML.

Really? I’ve seen quite a few people say that it was no one’s business but his and Hillary’s, he had no obligation to testify. and the fact that his privacy was violated justified his lies.

You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.
You need to stop making up these strawmen instead of paying attention to what people are saying. The point is that if these other people believed it too, that suggests that it is possible that Bush believed it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

The fact that Bush lied is fairly supported by the simple existence of times where he spoke and knew the information was suspect or false. Proving his motivation is impossible unless Your a mind reader. The fact that he cant admit error or responsibility in Re many other foul ups, leads me to believe that he could never admit deception.

RZ: "Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?"{/b]

How is quoting spoken words in the public record living in a fantasy land? Cherry pick? That's a sophomoric assertion. I included quotes that support my position . The process of political discourse does not include any obligation on my part to dis-prove my own assertions, that's Your job.

[b]What do you make of these quotes?


Not much .........
Ahhh now really feel at home . No discussion of Bush would be complete without the ole 7 year old girl whine that "Clinton did it first".

As far a a disparate list , you have made one .Remove all the "Dem's" who are not official mouth pieces for the white house , reread the statements. Now show me where (1 Clinton acted as Bush did. In case you forgot Bush was warned that the evidence was wrong on no other then three occasions, and was warned directly not to include that material in his State of the Union Address and (2 where Clinton using known faulty "intelligence" dragged us into a war against the better judgment of his own hi ranking military advisor's.

Now WHO'S living in a fantasy land?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by fishbob
Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.
I'm not sure of that. I'm talking a real impeachable offense here. I voted for the guy, but if I knew for a fact that he knew for a fact and lied to us, all bets are off. What is the likelihood that he (Bush) knew something for a fact something that Saddam's own generals were unsure of?

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.
I'm not interested in "they". The statement "Bush lied" gets thrown around with no challenge. I'm challenging it. Did Bush lie, yes or no?


Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.
Call them errors, whatever you want. I don't expect any Bush-haters to suddenly stop criticizing Bush, nor would I want them to.
This isn't about vindicating Bush, it is about setting the record straight regarding the "Bush lied" mantra.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Again, they have not lost wars whose cease fire agreements stiupulate that they not support terrorism or terrorists.

But the N. Korea government had not lost a war then thumbed their collective noses at 16 UNSCR's.
Hmm.

The Korean War was never officially ended; no peace treaty was ever signed, but rather a ceasefire has been in effect since, erm, the end of the war. (I'm not sure exactly when the ceasefire took effect, because the talks lasted for two years.) I don't know exactly what the terms of the ceasefire agreement are, either.

Anyway, the real problem with invading North Korea is that they have many thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul and could inflict massive damage and casualties there.

Which is unfortunate for the people of North Korea, because it is probably the most repressive regime on the planet. I mean, people there are willing to risk death to escape to China.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush.

The air is mighty thin up there in Colorado, isn't it? :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
How can it possibly be semantic BS? At best (or at worst), you EXPECT him to post semantic BS in response to “proof� that Bush lied. You’re attacking him on the basis of what you EXPECT him to say, not on what he’s said (or least, not on what he’s said in this thread). Maybe the word you’re looking for is “disingenuous�.

Call it what you want. I see pepto harping on the definition of "lie" and demanding a level of proof that some yahoos on an internet message board would in no way be privy to. And he seems to think that unless WE can PROVE Bush lied, he was telling the truth. Which is, of course, BS. As were the stated reasons for going to war.
WHAT word parsing semantic BS games?
See above.
So if that’s “the real issue�, why are people insisting on claiming that he lied? And why is pepto not allowed to challenge that assertion?
“Bush lied!�
“No, Bush didn’t lie.�
“Whether Bush lied is not the issue! Quite trying to change the subject!�
He can challenge it all he likes. But what he is really doing is demanding a level of proof that is ridiculous for an internet message board, and refusing to use logic. Bush and Co. made a series of statements about WMD's that were doubted by other countries, the UN and their chief inspector Blix at the time. They either knew they were telling a pack of lies, were willfully blind to the truth, or were inescapably stupid. The highest you can put it is wilfully blind. They turned normal reasoning on its head. They decided to go to war, then went about trying to assemble a bunch of reasons for it. They didn't get intel of WMD's and then decide we have to do something about it.

And I note that despite his demands for "proof", he has still ignored my posts where I offer him such proof. Interesting, that.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Those who are unfamiliar with varwoche should know that by "semantic bs", he means insisting that "I believe" and "it is somewhat likely" are different. Off topic clarification: this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46628) is the thread I had in mind, actually. ;) And now back to your regularly scheduled program...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush. [/B]

David,

I made 10 points supporting the fact that Saddam's Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687 which in fact was the Gulf War I cease fire instrument. I created that thread before the invasion was launched. The dems on this board have literally had years to refute those bits of evidence and so far have still not done it. Those points show that Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, teaching terrorism, and hiding wanted terrorists. Those points show that Saddam had a history of evading or intimidating UNSCOM inspectors.

The idea that Saddam had WMD was a bi-partisan notion supported by US and UK intelligence services going back many years. Bush did not make up a story about WMD to lead us into a morally wrong war. He did not demonstrably lie about anything. The charge of lying is a hollow partisan smear made by people who have an irrational hatred for Mr. Bush.

We were right to be concerned about Saddam's Iraq knowing their history of deciet (and this was before oil for fraud came to light), and any US president dem or rep would have had to face some very hard facts post 9/11. Would Al Gore have declined to go after Saddam? Maybe, maybe not...but a post 9/11 world with Saddam playing his usual game and the oil for fraud debacle still on-going...and the repression and murder of Iraqi political prisoners (remember Scott Ritter's report of chemical agents being tested on political prisoners)...would still be in full swing. I would hope that Mr. Gore would have done something...and I suspect he would have. The protection of the American people post 9/11 would be an awesome responsibility for any American president. With the available intel on Saddam it's quite reasonable that any number of other people would come to the same conclusion as did Bush, regardless of their politics.

The reason that I posted all those earlier quotes is to show you and others that GWB did not make up the WMD allegations. The information existed long before his term began. Since Clinton's term was pre-9/11 he could certainly be forgiven for not taking more drastic measures...but post 9/11 was a whole different paradigm. (hate that word)

I see no hypocrisy inherrent in pointing out to you these facts. They are facts. The accusations that Bush lied are not.

-z

Edited to add: In your post you said Bush lied, then claimed he "made a mistake"...so which is it? There is certainly objective information showing he made a mistake, if you are claiming he told a bald faced lie as Thanz is then where is the proof of this?

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla

I made 10 points supporting the fact that Saddam's Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687 which in fact was the Gulf War I cease fire instrument. I created that thread before the invasion was launched. The dems on this board have literally had years to refute those bits of evidence and so far have still not done it. Those points show that Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, teaching terrorism, and hiding wanted terrorists. Those points show that Saddam had a history of evading or intimidating UNSCOM inspectors.

The idea that Saddam had WMD was a bi-partisan notion supported by US and UK intelligence services going back many years. Bush did not make up a story about WMD to lead us into a morally wrong war. He did not demonstrably lie about anything. The charge of lying is a hollow partisan smear made by people who have an irrational hatred for Mr. Bush.

We were right to be concerned about Saddam's Iraq knowing their history of deciet (and this was before oil for fraud came to light), and any US president dem or rep would have had to face some very hard facts post 9/11. Would Al Gore have declined to go after Saddam? Maybe, maybe not...but a post 9/11 world with Saddam playing his usual game and the oil for fraud debacle still on-going...and the repression and murder of Iraqi political prisoners (remember Scott Ritter's report of chemical agents being tested on political prisoners)...would still be in full swing. I would hope that Mr. Gore would have done something...and I suspect he would have. The protection of the American people post 9/11 would be an awesome responsibility for any American president. With the available intel on Saddam it's quite reasonable that any number of other people would come to the same conclusion as did Bush, regardless of their politics.

The reason that I posted all those earlier quotes is to show you and others that GWB did not make up the WMD allegations. The information existed long before his term began. Since Clinton's term was pre-9/11 he could certainly be forgiven for not taking more drastic measures...but post 9/11 was a whole different paradigm. (hate that word)

I see no hypocrisy inherrent in pointing out to you these facts. They are facts. The accusations that Bush lied are not.

-z

Edited to add: In your post you said Bush lied, then claimed he "made a mistake"...so which is it? There is certainly objective information showing he made a mistake, if you are claiming he told a bald faced lie as Thanz is then where is the proof of this?

It's funny: Bush put a microscope on Iraq, and all he could find was faulty, old, and inaccurate intelligence about WMD, as well as a few weak ties to terrorists. What if he had put the same microscope on Saudi Arabia? What do you think he would have found? For every supposed link to Al Queda you can find in Iraq, there are 100 real links to Al Queda in Saudi Arabia. I've said it before: Iraq was never a threat to the US. Here is the list of top threats to US national security (before the war):
1. Al Queda
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. Iraq (assuming they have WMD)

As I have said before, Bush knew in February that much of his intelligence about WMD was flat out wrong, and that there was a good chance that Saddam had no WMD. So what did he do? Did he do the rational thing, which is put more inspectors in Iraq and initiate a thorough search process? No.
Did he withdraw troops from around Iraq and put more pressure on Al Queda in Afghanistan? No.
Did he pressure Saudi Arabia for funding Al Queda? No. He rushed to war and invaded a country that was not even the 5th biggest threat to the US. If Saddam doesn't have WMD, it's arguable that he is not even in the top 10 list of threats to the US.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Why is that hard to understand? As Richard Clarke said: Bush invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Also, I find it amusing and ironic that the Repubs are now using UNSCR 687 as a crutch against the argument that we had no right to invade Iraq. What gives? I thought the UN was irrelevant??

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by clk
It's funny: Bush put a microscope on Iraq, and all he could find was faulty, old, and inaccurate intelligence about WMD, as well as a few weak ties to terrorists. What if he had put the same microscope on Saudi Arabia? What do you think he would have found? For every supposed link to Al Queda you can find in Iraq, there are 100 real links to Al Queda in Saudi Arabia. I've said it before: Iraq was never a threat to the US. Here is the list of top threats to US national security (before the war):
1. Al Queda
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. Iraq (assuming they have WMD)

As I have said before, Bush knew in February that much of his intelligence about WMD was flat out wrong, and that there was a good chance that Saddam had no WMD. So what did he do? Did he do the rational thing, which is put more inspectors in Iraq and initiate a thorough search process? No.
Did he withdraw troops from around Iraq and put more pressure on Al Queda in Afghanistan? No.
Did he pressure Saudi Arabia for funding Al Queda? No. He rushed to war and invaded a country that was not even the 5th biggest threat to the US. If Saddam doesn't have WMD, it's arguable that he is not even in the top 10 list of threats to the US.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Why is that hard to understand? As Richard Clarke said: Bush invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Also, I find it amusing and ironic that the Repubs are now using UNSCR 687 as a crutch against the argument that we had no right to invade Iraq. What gives? I thought the UN was irrelevant??

It's funny,...I made alot of points that you either ignored or failed to properly address. Then you made alot of claims supported by vague references to the partisan self-serving Clarke tell all book.

Why don't you go back and look at the points I made? None of them were based on biased info from political cranks. My main source was Scott Ritter (hero of the left....since his legal troubles began that is). It was Ritter who detailed stumbling upon the Mukhabarrat's terrorism school....it was Ritter who found evidence of Saddam using weaponized chemical agents on political prisoners! Can you think of anything more heinous? More indicative of WMD research and development? Why did you ignore this? Why do you continue to?

One more thing, isn't this thread about actual evidence that Bush lied, and the dearth of such evidence?

Is the UN irrelevant? Obviously there is evidence they have become so. But when UNSCR 687 was first agreed to by Saddam's government this was not the case. The UN's inability, or unwillingness to enforce their resolutions coupled with their unaccountability and institutional corruption have caused the marginalization of that once august institution. The Repubs have only pointed that fact out. The fact that the UN cannot be trusted to do anything well or without massive corruption is not the fault of Republicans.

-z

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla
It's funny,...I made alot of points that you either ignored or failed to properly address.


Such as?


Then you made alot of claims supported by vague references to the partisan self-serving Clarke tell all book.


So anyone who criticizes Bush in print is a self-serving partisan? If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?

I'm curious about your opinion of John O'Neill, the leader of the SBVT. Was he a self-serving partisan?



Why don't you go back and look at the points I made? None of them were based on biased info from political cranks. My main source was Scott Ritter (hero of the left....since his legal troubles began that is). It was Ritter who detailed stumbling upon the Mukhabarrat's terrorism school....it was Ritter who found evidence of Saddam using weaponized chemical agents on political prisoners! Can you think of anything more heinous? More indicative of WMD research and development? Why did you ignore this? Why do you continue to?


Why do you ignore the fact that Saddam having WMD in 1993 doesn't make it smart for the US to invade Iraq in 2003? The ties Saddam had to terrorists or WMD in the early to mid 90s are not really relevant. Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?



One more thing, isn't this thread about actual evidence that Bush lied, and the dearth of such evidence?


As I said before, Bush knew in late February (2003) that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong. Yet, just a few weeks later, he states:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.


He knew very well that there were serious doubts as to whether Iraq continued to possess WMD. So at best, he was being dishonest. At worst, he was lying. So which is it? Was he dishonest, or was he lying?


Is the UN irrelevant? Obviously there is evidence they have become so. But when UNSCR 687 was first agreed to by Saddam's government this was not the case. The UN's inability, or unwillingness to enforce their resolutions coupled with their unaccountability and institutional corruption have caused the marginalization of that once august institution. The Repubs have only pointed that fact out. The fact that the UN cannot be trusted to do anything well or without massive corruption is not the fault of Republicans.


So basically, if a UN document helps the case to war, then use it in your argument! Otherwise, the UN is irrelevant, right? Also, there is still debate as to whether the Iraq war was legal. Kofi Annan seems to think not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
But then again, he's irrelevant. Unless he says something pro-war, that is.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by clk
Such as?

Must I? After all, all you need to do is go back a few posts and look at the snapshot I provided...or the post before that and look at the link to the thread I already provided. Listen, I'll debate you, but only if you actually show some evidence of having actually read my posts. Otherwise this is like Randi answering e-mails from dowsers....and like him I don't feel the need.

-z

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberately lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

Sorry dark helmet I seem to have mislaid a few paragraphs.
1. lie, prevarication -- (a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth)
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=lie
If you want to argue with the definition argue with Princeton. Their's is the first definition of a google search.

Secondly,
The fact the he lied is proved by the utterance of intelligence he was told was faulty and untrue. In fact he ( and his cabinet officers*) went on to embellish the bad information crafting it to a greater certainty and making it more ominous That is proof enough, as far as knowing his motivations it would take a mind reader or an admission by the President. Seeing his inability to admit error and take responsibility in any other example, admission of prevarication or obfuscation in this question is more then highly unlikely.

You have also moved the goal post . Your original statement was "Prove that Bush lied". Stated two times with no mention of motivation.The Yellow cake BS. The Al-Quida BS. You can label it a hundred ways but that three letter word demonstrates it best. Lie.

* Dr.Rice on the "aluminum tubes "sept 2, in committee . She raises the specter of the mushroom cloud and went on to say that the tubes were not usable for anything but gas centrifuges. The white house was told that was not the case in fact the intelligence ( 1 year old )was that they were crude and could not be used for centrifuges but were battlefield rocket casings. Rice "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

"But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Must I? After all, all you need to do is go back a few posts and look at the snapshot I provided...or the post before that and look at the link to the thread I already provided. Listen, I'll debate you, but only if you actually show some evidence of having actually read my posts. Otherwise this is like Randi answering e-mails from dowsers....and like him I don't feel the need.


I have already rebutted your 'snapshot'. I'll repeat it again: With the years and years of intelligence gathered on Iraq, the best you could do was come up with a list of 10 links to terrorism. Who knows how accurate the intelligence is on some of them? Maybe it's as poor as the intelligence we had on WMD.
I will give you a list of 15 ties to terrorists for Saudi Arabia, but I don't need a microscope:
Abdulaziz Alomari
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Wail M. Alshehri
Waleed M. Alshehri
Marwan al-Shehhi
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Hani Hanjour
Salem Alhazmi
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Majed Moqed
Nawaf Al-Hazmi
Oh yeah, and some guy named Osama Bin Laden

Again: Iraq was not even the 5 biggest threat at the time of war.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Also, you ignored the other points made in my post:

If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?

Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?

Bush at the very least was dishonest when he claimed:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.


Would you agree?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by clk
I have already rebutted your 'snapshot'. I'll repeat it again: With the years and years of intelligence gathered on Iraq, the best you could do was come up with a list of 10 links to terrorism.
Yeah, I could have stayed at it and had a list much longer, but why? You will please note that my 10 points were posted prior to the actual invasion....and yet stand to this date.

Who knows how accurate the intelligence is on some of them? Maybe it's as poor as the intelligence we had on WMD.
I will give you a list of 15 ties to terrorists for Saudi Arabia, but I don't need a microscope:
Abdulaziz Alomari
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Wail M. Alshehri
Waleed M. Alshehri
Marwan al-Shehhi
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Hani Hanjour
Salem Alhazmi
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Majed Moqed
Nawaf Al-Hazmi
Oh yeah, and some guy named Osama Bin Laden

Apples and oranges. The terrorists I named were honored guests of the Iraqi government. The ones you named were Saudis, but show me again your evidence that the Saudi government sponsored, aided, or otherwise abetted these jihadis? Hmm? As I said in my thread, put up or shut up.

Again: Iraq was not even the 5 biggest threat at the time of war.
[b] Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
Doesn't mean it wasn't either. So you now agree the invasion was legit? That's mighty enlightened of you man. :rolleyes:
[quote]
Also, you ignored the other points made in my post:

Like I said....me/you = Randi/dowser :yawn:

If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?
Dunno, why don't you ask him. Asking me is fairly pointless. Maybe he needed the work? Maybe he didn't want to lose his vacation or dental plan?

Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?

Well thanks to GWB all Saddam has now is a rumpled suit and a US Army toothbrush. (Allah knows he needs it...you see his teeth? yech!)

Bush at the very least was dishonest when he claimed:


Would you agree?

No, I would not...but you knoew that already. You and others here have failed to show any solid evidence that GWB knew Saddam's WMD bag was empty. I guess those 5,000 rotting Kurds are playing possum?

-z

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Apples and oranges. The terrorists I named were honored guests of the Iraqi government. The ones you named were Saudis, but show me again your evidence that the Saudi government sponsored, aided, or otherwise abetted these jihadis? Hmm? As I said in my thread, put up or shut up.


The 9/11 commission report clearly stated that Saudi Arabia “was a place where Al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities,� and indicated that “charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship,� diverted funding to Al Qaeda


Dunno, why don't you ask him. Asking me is fairly pointless. Maybe he needed the work? Maybe he didn't want to lose his vacation or dental plan?


Oh come on! Clarke isn't stupid, he could have easily gone into academia. He would not have served under three Republican presidents if he was the partisan shill you claim he is. Also, when a new administration takes office, they get rid of all of the partisans...Bush I and Bush II would not have kept him if he is what you claim he is.



No, I would not...but you knoew that already. You and others here have failed to show any solid evidence that GWB knew Saddam's WMD bag was empty. I guess those 5,000 rotting Kurds are playing possum?


Everyone knows Saddam had WMD in the early nineties. That is not the point! Bush knew in February 2003 that a large amount of his intelligence was wrong and that there was a good chance Saddam no longer possessed WMD. So why did he claim in March 2003 that there was 'no doubt' Saddam had WMD? How is that not dishonest?

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That's what I am seeking here... proof. Um. His mouth was open.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Thanz
Call it what you want. I see pepto harping on the definition of "lie" and demanding a level of proof that some yahoos on an internet message board would in no way be privy to. And he seems to think that unless WE can PROVE Bush lied, he was telling the truth. Which is, of course, BS. As were the stated reasons for going to war.


Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this. I'll bet he has doubts now. And really, this is nitpicking and would not stand up in an impeachment trial. Leaders often say they have no doubts, when you know they do in private. It is one of the qualities of leadership. I wonder what Colonel William Barret Travis said at the Alamo right before they all died? Do you think he had doubts?

I'm not saying anyone here has special information. Clinton lied and it was eventually revealed. Nixon lied and it was eventually revealed. This stuff comes out sooner or later. Someone close to Bush will talk if Bush indeed planned from the beginning to decieve the American public.

Until such a time, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I think Bush lied" or "I feel Bush lied". I won't accept the flat statement "Bush lied" without solid evidence.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
Bush knew in late February that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

An article posted on February 20, 2003

[QUOTE][B]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An article posted on February 20, 2003

Read the full report. It states that they don't have the intelligence facilities that a large government agency like the CIA does and so have to rely on the findings in the few areas that they were allowed in. They go on to state in every document that they aren't sure what Saddam has. It is not an ironclad case. Certainly not enough for the President to hang his decision on. Don't forget that these reports come from the same agency (UN) who was involved in taking bribes to look the other way. Oil-for-food - the largest scandal in world history.

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Don't forget that these reports come from the same agency (UN) who was involved in taking bribes to look the other way. Oil-for-food - the largest scandal in world history.

Uh, wasn't this before the whole Oil for Food scandal was revealed? At the time, there was no reason to distrust the UN. Even if there was, are you honestly implying that the weapons inspectors were somehow being paid off by Saddam?
I actually expected you to say "the report is from CBS, it's biased!!!", but instead you gave an equally lame excuse about the UN and Oil for Food. Regardless, the facts remain:
FACT: Bush knew in late February that a large percentage of his intelligence on Iraq was wrong, and that there was a chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD.
FACT: In March, Bush administration repeatedly claimed that there was no doubt Iraq possessed WMD, even though they damn well knew there were some serious doubts.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-Bush in March 03



There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
-Franks in March 03


Even if you give Bush the benefit of doubt, he was still being dishonest. At worst, he was lying. So which is it? Was he dishonest, or was he lying?

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this.


Are you kidding me?


I'll bet he has doubts now.


It's a little too late for that, don't you think?



Until such a time, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I think Bush lied" or "I feel Bush lied". I won't accept the flat statement "Bush lied" without solid evidence.

The 'solid evidence' was already provided to you in my post above. But you will continue to ignore it, because we all know that Bush is incapable of lying...

This wasn't some company picnic party. This is a war we are talking about. The President received information that cast doubt on the entire basis for his war, but he continued to claim that there was 'no doubt' Saddam had WMD. Do you think the American people would have agreed to the war if Bush said there were 'serious doubts' about Saddam possessing WMD? I don't think so. That's why Bush lied and continued to claim 'no doubt'.

[a_unique_person]

This CBS story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Hmmm, no horde of bloggers leaping out of the woodwork demanding the resignation of everyone associated with this story.



(CBS) In February, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a surprising admission.

He told The Washington Post that he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.

Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau. “I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction,� says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations last February.

“I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation."

Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 years. His last job at the State Department was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.

He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.�

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.�

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,� says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium -- fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,� recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,� says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

......

"There's plenty of blame to go around. The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show," says Thielmann.

"They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials."

This week, President Bush said an independent commission will investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq.



Independent commission. What a laugh. Of course it blamed the intelligence service, despite their protestations even before it sat at what was being done to their work. As they said on 'yes minister', never hold an enquiry unless you already know what it's conclusion will be.

Australia and Britain both have similar experiences. Intelligence officers reporting one thing, their reports being twisted into affirmations of the leaders' desires, and the invasion proceeding as it must.

In each case, of course, there were inquiries into the failure to have the correct intelligence before the war started, and surprise, surprise, in each case, it was the intelligence communities who were to blame.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Shinytop
I don't think so and have said I will respond in the appropriate thread. How does NK and Iran have any bearing on Bush lying about WMD in Iraq? Sorry, I do not respond to demands I post to your agenda. And I am so sorry that defending my views, that pointing out you are jumping to errant conclusions ABOUT MY VIEWS is seen as an attack on you. I reserve the right to point out such errors and reject defense of words is an attack. I believe in responding to posts, not to words not said and insist I be treated with the same courtesy.

You don't have to answer. It doesn't matter to me. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who dodges questions.

I wasn't referring to comments you made about me having the wrong assumption. I guess I am not the only one who makes incorrect assumptions.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it. No one has proved any intent to deceive.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it. LOL - when it came to the swifties you lapped up their 30 your old stories like an obedient pussycat. Now, when the claim is against Bush you want "hard evidence". :rolleyes:

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by merphie
No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it. No one has proved any intent to deceive.

No that's factually incorrect, look at the topic and the particulars in the first post. That was exactly the request, later re-stated with different constraints.

The interpretation You have may correct , I know when I state something I know is untrue my intent is not to deceive no siree bob! it's to broadly demonstrate what I perceive to be a reality that ordinary people just don't seem to understand..Ya, That's it and You can ask my wife Morgan Fairchild she'll vouch for me , ya, vouch. ( American reference)

Evidence : told info untrue or faulty do not use , Presentation : %100 surety that the case was true.

Some of You need to stick to R and P or Homeopathy or ID, because it seems that you couldn't recognize a truth anti-thetical to your beliefs, regardless of evidence if it walked up and smacked You in the face.

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this. I'll bet he has doubts now. And really, this is nitpicking and would not stand up in an impeachment trial. Leaders often say they have no doubts, when you know they do in private. It is one of the qualities of leadership. I wonder what Colonel William Barret Travis said at the Alamo right before they all died? Do you think he had doubts?

By pepboy's standards, Bill Clinton wasn't really lying when he claimed: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", because Clinton privately believed that BJs did not constitute sexual relations.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DavidJames
LOL - when it came to the swifties you lapped up their 30 your old stories like an obedient pussycat. Now, when the claim is against Bush you want "hard evidence". :rolleyes:

Don't go there unless you want to hear how Christmas in Cambodia was "burned into" John Kerry's memory. :D

Kerry's 'Christmas in Cambodia' (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm)

John Kerry is a proven liar.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
By pepboy's standards, Bill Clinton wasn't really lying when he claimed: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", because Clinton privately believed that BJs did not constitute sexual relations.

Wrong. I don't have to prove that Clinton lied, because Clinton admitted lying. (Not to mention the testimony of Monica and others)

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.



http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
Uh, wasn't this before the whole Oil for Food scandal was revealed? At the time, there was no reason to distrust the UN. Even if there was, are you honestly implying that the weapons inspectors were somehow being paid off by Saddam?


Yes, I do believe that Blix's group was complicit in helping cover up Saddam's intentions. Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component. Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91. Not exactly the stellar record some would have you believe. I think our government was becoming aware that something was rotten in Denmark...

However; this falls into the same category as the "Bush lied" dogma, conspiracy theory and drug the thread off course.

Where is the evidence which could impeach Bush for lying to the American public to start the Iraq war? Do you not believe this is an impeachable offense if it were true?

[peptoabysmal]

My apologies for not being able to monitor this thread more. I just wanted to go through and see if I could indeed find any solid evidence.

There is evidence to suggest possible wrongdoing on the part of President Bush and if you have a natural inclination to hate him, I can see how easy it is to believe that he did lie.

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.

For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

edited to add: My apologies for not keeping up with this thread, life gets busy sometimes =).

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense.


A lie that costs over 1000 American lives, over 10000 Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is NOT an impeachable offense, but a lie about a BJ that costs nothing IS an impeachable offense? You Republicans sure have some strange standards....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
My apologies for not being able to monitor this thread more. I just wanted to go through and see if I could indeed find any solid evidence.

There is evidence to suggest possible wrongdoing on the part of President Bush and if you have a natural inclination to hate him, I can see how easy it is to believe that he did lie.

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.

For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

edited to add: My apologies for not keeping up with this thread, life gets busy sometimes =).

According to the book by that watergate guy, (forget his name now), the war was already going to happen, he just wanted someone to tell him that there were WMD as a reasonable sounding excuse. Tenet let him know it was a 'slam dunk', meaning that of course they could whip up a case for him. The whole WMD was just post hoc, and had no actual part in the reason for the war. As it was, if you look at the CBS story in my previous links, the agents that do the real work, and copped the blame for the 'intelligence failure' never believed for a minute the crap that Powell was spouting at the UN.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Yes, I do believe that Blix's group was complicit in helping cover up Saddam's intentions. Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component. Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91. Not exactly the stellar record some would have you believe. I think our government was becoming aware that something was rotten in Denmark...

However; this falls into the same category as the "Bush lied" dogma, conspiracy theory and drug the thread off course.

Where is the evidence which could impeach Bush for lying to the American public to start the Iraq war? Do you not believe this is an impeachable offense if it were true?

Do you know what 'dual use' even means. Half the American manufacturing industries use 'dual use' materials. Iraq could not function as an industrial state without them.

[Earthborn]

Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component.A dual use component is exactly what it says it is, so it cannot be used as evidence for the existence of WMD. Blix took note of them, told everybody about them and searched a bit further. He had the job of looking for evidence of WMD, dual use components are not evidence of WMD. So what did you expect him to do about them?Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91.Remember that at that time he was not a weapons inspector. He was an inspector for the IAEA. He didn't find a secret nuclear program, because he wasn't looking for secret nuclear programs. In fact at that time, no one was looking for secret programs because in the political climate of the day allowing international inspectors to search through a country's secret facilities was considered an acceptable breach of national sovereignty.However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.By stating it like that, all you do is show how poorly developed the concept of political responsibility is in the US. In most other democratic countries high government officials or even entire cabinets would have been impeached or thrown out of office merely for being as wrong as the Bush administration was. It is usually considered completely irrelevant whether they lie delibrately or presented information they should have known to be inaccurate.

It is notoriously difficult to prove any untruth was a deliberate lie, because it is often impossible to know exactly what knowledge people had in the past and how they intended their actions. But it shouldn't matter.

I personally believe that Hans Blix gives us the simplest explanation: the Bush administration really, really, honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq. It means that there is something very wrong going on somewhere in the US government making it possible that they could be so profoundly wrong. It also appears that little is done to find out what went wrong or to correct it.

[C.J.]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

Been following the thread with interest, and there is I think a valid point made by pepto in earlier posts. If we are talking about lying as involving intent to deceive, then we cannot now and likely never will be able to definitively say that Bush lied; he can always claim (truthfully or not) that he really believed in the presence of WMD's, and unless someone has developed psychic powers or we find a diary entry that owns up to it, we are in no position to say any different.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Don't go there unless you want to hear how Christmas in Cambodia was "burned into" John Kerry's memory.

Kerry's 'Christmas in Cambodia'

John Kerry is a proven liar.
I'd like to note to pepto, though, that in the above message you are engaging in exactly the same behavior you accuse others of. There is no evidence in the article linked to that Kerry intended to deceive anyone. He may simply have a poor memory or was mistaken in his location. You may find that unlikely, but you cannot condemn others for their means of attacking a politician you approve of and then use those same tactics to attack those you don't and expect to have your argument taken seriously.

Finally,
Originally posted by peptoabysmal
...this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.
While we may not be able to say that Bush lied based on an "intent test," I believe that enough evidence has been presented in this thread to argue that he did mislead the world, in that his statements did not accurately convey the uncertainty inherent in the information the administration possessed.

[TillEulenspiegel]

First I would like to know who this nebulous "We" are and second ( in true Bush fashion ) the goalpost has gone from "prove he lied" to "prove he intended to deceive" to "show us an impeachable offense".

I knew the difference between a lie and the truth before kindergarten.


...the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/Bush/corn2.html

Lie #1--They Attacked Us: Iraq Supported Al Qaeda. Astonishingly, President Bush, in a rare moment of candor, finally admitted half a year after the invasion that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein's Iraq had any links to the 9/11 attacks, undermining eighteen months of implying the exact opposite

Lies #2 and #3--Imminent Threats: Iraq's Bio-Chem and Nuclear Weapons Programs. A year after using his 2003 State of the Union address to paint Iraq's allegedly vast arsenal of WMD as a grave threat to the United States and the world, Bush wisely avoided mentioning anything about uranium there--though he did spend a great deal of his latest SOTU defending the war on the grounds that "had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

Lie #5--The Moral Justification: Iraq as a Democratic Model. As the other lies upon which this war were based have been crumbling, this one has moved to the forefront. For war apologists such as the New York Time's Thomas Friedman, if we can "bring democracy to Iraq,"
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040329&s=scheer

In July, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a controversial report blaming the CIA for the mess. The panel conveniently refuses to evaluate what the White House did with the information it was given or how the White House set up its own special team of Pentagon political appointees (called the Office of Special Plans) to circumvent well-established intelligence channels. And Vice President Dick Chaney continues to say without a shred of proof that there is “overwhelming evidence� justifying the administration’s pre-war charges...

There are tens more examples of the exact path of obsfucation the white house took, from reputable sources that I have showcased in previous posts ( Washington Post, N.Y. Times , etc. ) this is just a first page google search.

He was warned intel was bad, he kept insisting that it was concrete, he used his "concrete evidence" to prosecute a war before exhausting the search for WMD- which didn't exist '. Period.

Many say Kerry lost, get over it , well Bush lied get over it. As far as impeachment the statutory guidelines are " for high crimes and misdemeanors", so under the law it is possible to remove a sitting President for jaywalking.


Edit: construction

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
A lie that costs over 1000 American lives, over 10000 Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is NOT an impeachable offense, but a lie about a BJ that costs nothing IS an impeachable offense? You Republicans sure have some strange standards....

I agree, a BJ is not an impeachable offense. Clinton made a laughing stock of the highest office in this land by his actions and that's the part I don't like about that incident.

Perjury before a Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice are impeachable offenses. The impeachment succeeded in the House and failed in the Senate. It is my understanding that the House and Senate contain both parties. Show me where this was a strictly Republican action.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
According to the book by that watergate guy, (forget his name now), the war was already going to happen, he just wanted someone to tell him that there were WMD as a reasonable sounding excuse. Tenet let him know it was a 'slam dunk', meaning that of course they could whip up a case for him. The whole WMD was just post hoc, and had no actual part in the reason for the war. As it was, if you look at the CBS story in my previous links, the agents that do the real work, and copped the blame for the 'intelligence failure' never believed for a minute the crap that Powell was spouting at the UN.


Again, I see nothing in that story which incriminates Bush.

Are you accusing Powell of lying about WMD? If it were true, how does this prove "Bush lied"?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A dual use component is exactly what it says it is, so it cannot be used as evidence for the existence of WMD. Blix took note of them, told everybody about them and searched a bit further. He had the job of looking for evidence of WMD, dual use components are not evidence of WMD. So what did you expect him to do about them?
Show me one single civilian use for HDX.

Remember that at that time he was not a weapons inspector. He was an inspector for the IAEA. He didn't find a secret nuclear program, because he wasn't looking for secret nuclear programs. In fact at that time, no one was looking for secret programs because in the political climate of the day allowing international inspectors to search through a country's secret facilities was considered an acceptable breach of national sovereignty.By stating it like that, all you do is show how poorly developed the concept of political responsibility is in the US. In most other democratic countries high government officials or even entire cabinets would have been impeached or thrown out of office merely for being as wrong as the Bush administration was. It is usually considered completely irrelevant whether they lie delibrately or presented information they should have known to be inaccurate.
And the IAEA does what? What else would he have been looking for, a good bagel shop? As to the second part of your statement, that's what I'm getting at here, an impeachable offense.


It is notoriously difficult to prove any untruth was a deliberate lie, because it is often impossible to know exactly what knowledge people had in the past and how they intended their actions. But it shouldn't matter.
I completely accept the statement "I feel that Bush lied".


I personally believe that Hans Blix gives us the simplest explanation: the Bush administration really, really, honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq. It means that there is something very wrong going on somewhere in the US government making it possible that they could be so profoundly wrong. It also appears that little is done to find out what went wrong or to correct it.
Show me where Mr. Blix gives this explanation. You read Blix's words and process with your own filter, I'm afraid. You may suffer from a bad case of AUP.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by C.J.
Been following the thread with interest, and there is I think a valid point made by pepto in earlier posts. If we are talking about lying as involving intent to deceive, then we cannot now and likely never will be able to definitively say that Bush lied; he can always claim (truthfully or not) that he really believed in the presence of WMD's, and unless someone has developed psychic powers or we find a diary entry that owns up to it, we are in no position to say any different.
It could come out from someone who was close to him. It has for other presidents who lied.

I'd like to note to pepto, though, that in the above message you are engaging in exactly the same behavior you accuse others of. There is no evidence in the article linked to that Kerry intended to deceive anyone. He may simply have a poor memory or was mistaken in his location. You may find that unlikely, but you cannot condemn others for their means of attacking a politician you approve of and then use those same tactics to attack those you don't and expect to have your argument taken seriously.

Kerry's direct quote:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html
If this isn't a lie, what is?

While we may not be able to say that Bush lied based on an "intent test," I believe that enough evidence has been presented in this thread to argue that he did mislead the world, in that his statements did not accurately convey the uncertainty inherent in the information the administration possessed.
This is stretching the definition of mislead to its furthest elasticity.
You can say he was wrong, I don't have a problem with that. The common definition of mislead requires malice.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Again, I see nothing in that story which incriminates Bush.

Are you accusing Powell of lying about WMD? If it were true, how does this prove "Bush lied"?

Powell was just obeying orders.

[Earthborn]

Show me one single civilian use for HDX.Oh, you mean the stuff that was behind IAEA lock and seal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qa'qaa_high_explosives_controversy

I hear they are sometimes used in demolition and in mining. Obviously with the stuff locked away and sealed, Iraq couldn't have used it for that.And the IAEA does what?Inspect nuclear facilities. During that time they didn't look for secret nuclear facilities. Only after they were found did people start to realize that someone should be doing that.I completely accept the statement "I feel that Bush lied".Do you? I get a feeling thatthey don't.Show me where Mr. Blix gives this explanation.I read it in here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375423028/102-6969320-1252120).You read Blix's words and process with your own filter, I'm afraid.Could be. The guy is not a great writer so his words sometimes need some interpretation. I'm pretty sure that he argued that the US administration believed its own faulty intelligence though.

[C.J.]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
It could come out from someone who was close to him. It has for other presidents who lied.
A good point.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Kerry's direct quote:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug23.html
If this isn't a lie, what is?

It's an indicator that people have terrible memories, even ones that are seared--seared into them. People can feel quite confident that they have genuine memories of things that, when subject to objective scrutiny, never happened. A well-regarded cognitive psychologist (Ulrich Neisser) "remembers" having a baseball game on the radio interrupted to announce the bombing of Pearl Harbor when, of corse, the season was well over. During his time in office, former President Reagan "remembered" being with the liberators of death camps in WWII, something he had only seen in film footage. The thing is, both really believed what they "remembered" to be true. If lying requires intent to decieve, as you contend, you wouldn't consider either of these people liars. You want to call Kerry one, however, even though his behavior can be explained the same way. Why? Because of his certainty? It's no different than anyone else who is "crystal clear" about remembering things that didn't happen. Please don't let it be about politics.

I maintain that you cannot reasonably call Kerry a liar unless you prove he intended to deceive, and the quote provided does not do so.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
This is stretching the definition of mislead to its furthest elasticity.
You can say he was wrong, I don't have a problem with that. The common definition of mislead requires malice.

To the contrary. Mislead, according to two definitions and one very quick search:
American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.com)
mis·lead
1) To lead in the wrong direction.
2) To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.
So intention to deceive is helpful but not necessary
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (http://dictionary.com)
Main Entry: mis·lead
transitive verb : to lead into a mistaken action or belief : to cause to have a false impression
intransitive verb : to create a false impression
Given that the information on the presence of WMD's in Iraq was equivocal and The President presented it to the American public as certain, it can easily and accurately be said that he mislead us.

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Kerry's direct quote:

If this isn't a lie, what is?




http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cheney.htm
In accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, Cheney closed his speech with a moving description of the helicopter ride he used to take from Andrews Air Force Base to the Pentagon when he was Secretary of Defense.

He described the power of the various monuments of Washington in the order the chopper passes them, ending with the famous military cemetery that abuts the Pentagon.

"Just before you settle down on the landing pad, you look upon Arlington National Cemetery...its gentle slopes and crosses row on row," Cheney said. "I never once made that trip without being reminded how enormously fortunate we all are to be Americans, and what a terrible price thousands have paid so that all of us...and millions more around the world...might live in freedom."

But Cheney's memory is slightly off. The graves in Arlington are marked with white headstones, rounded at the top.


Was Cheney lying?


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

CNN transcript of a Bush interview:

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.



Was Bush lying?


I don't think Kerry or Cheney or Bush were lying in the incidents we are talking about. Your memory can play tricks on you, especially if you are trying to remember something from a long time ago where you were in a chaotic environment (like war).

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Oh, you mean the stuff that was behind IAEA lock and seal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qa'qaa_high_explosives_controversy
Yes.

I hear they are sometimes used in demolition and in mining. Obviously with the stuff locked away and sealed, Iraq couldn't have used it for that.Inspect nuclear facilities.
Nope. That's RDX and there are better civilian alternatives that don't involve risk of nerve damage of the user. HDX is used to make explosive lenses for thermonuclear weapons and it takes a lot of heat and pressure provided by other explosives to set it off.


During that time they didn't look for secret nuclear facilities. Only after they were found did people start to realize that someone should be doing that.Do you? I get a feeling thatthey don't.I read it in here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375423028/102-6969320-1252120).Could be. The guy is not a great writer so his words sometimes need some interpretation. I'm pretty sure that he argued that the US administration believed its own faulty intelligence though.
So, at that time, the IAEA's job was to look for good bagel shops?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
Was Cheney lying?

Was Bush lying?

I don't think Kerry or Cheney or Bush were lying in the incidents we are talking about. Your memory can play tricks on you, especially if you are trying to remember something from a long time ago where you were in a chaotic environment (like war).

I'll buy the argument in the Cheney case. He could have seen crosses in his mind... who gives a sh*t?

In Bush's case, Bush did not state that he saw the first plane hit. You are assuming that he was not observing the second plane hit. He only states that he was told about the second plane hitting.

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I'll buy the argument in the Cheney case. He could have seen crosses in his mind... who gives a sh*t?


Who gives a sh*t whether Kerry was in Cambodia in January instead of December?


In Bush's case, Bush did not state that he saw the first plane hit. You are assuming that he was not observing the second plane hit. He only states that he was told about the second plane hitting.

Bush said:

actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."


Where did he say he was told about the plane hitting? From what he said, it sounds like he remembers seeing the plane hit the tower on television.