Discussion about Bush's lies... [Archive]

View Full Version : Discussion about Bush's lies...

ssibal

8th June 2003, 01:03 AM

Many people here seem to be claiming conclusivly that Bush lied about there being WMD in Iraq. My question is, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Granted, no WMD have been found in Iraq but how did you eliminate the possibility of any being found? How did you eliminate the possibility of the intelligence being wrong? How did you eliminate the possibility of Bush being lied to? Lastly, how did you determine that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq and said there were? I am not claiming that Bush did not lie, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that he did. Frankly, I think it is too soon to make that determination and that there is not enough information available to make that determination. So, how did you arrive at your conclusion?

Tony

8th June 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by ssibal
Many people here seem to be claiming conclusivly that Bush lied about there being WMD in Iraq. My question is, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

If you haven’t noticed, most of the people saying Bush lied are the typical Bush bashers and leftist ideologues. The real skeptics have opted to take the rational approach.

corplinx

8th June 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Tony

If you haven’t noticed, most of the people saying Bush lied are the typical Bush bashers and leftist ideologues. The real skeptics have opted to take the rational approach.

And of course the apologetics. There are certain people who think the mass graves in Iraq forgive the administration for any overemphasizing they may or may not have done on the issue of WMD.

You say rational skeptics, but the rabid bush hater will just claim you are an apologist (which you or I could be).

There is no winning.....

Cain

8th June 2003, 02:31 AM

Even if we find weapons tomorrow (I thought for sure we'd find something by now), the retrospective justification for war does not count. It hardly makes this war "alright."

Former spokeman Ari Fleischer:
We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Bush spoke about thousands of liters 25,000 liters of anthrax, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent, and over 30,000 liters of botulinum toxin. He also said Saddam had the ability to deliver these chemicals.

Instead we have two dubious mobile weapons laboratories (before the war, Iraq turned over a couple of videotapes on mobile weapons laboratories: http://www.iht.com/articles/89951.html ).

Nicholas D. Kristof's column the other day from the Times:

On Day 78 of the Search for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up.

Spooks are spitting mad at the way their work was manipulated to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, and they are thus surprisingly loquacious (delighting those of us in journalism). They emphasize that even if weapons of mass destruction still turn up, there is a fundamental problem —not within the intelligence community itself, but with senior administration officials — particularly in the Pentagon.

"As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq," one of my informants rages. Some others see a pattern not so much of lying as of self-delusion — and of subjecting the intelligence agencies to those delusions.

But hey, it's not like he lied about blowjobs!

Tricky

8th June 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Tony

If you haven’t noticed, most of the people saying Bush lied are the typical Bush bashers and leftist ideologues. The real skeptics have opted to take the rational approach.
Since you are new here, Tony, I'll key you in on another kind of logical fallacy which you have just committed called an ad hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem) which means you attack the arguer instead of the argument. In plainer terms, you wold say "name calling".

While it is certainly true that there are various camps of thought here that tend to cluster on "left" and "right" sides of the issue, this in no way makes their arguments invalid, just as I don't consider anyone's arguments invalid simply because they are a conservative.

You would be better served (and more convincing) if you would state your reasons and present your evidence for why you believe Bush told the truth rather that directing ad hominems at those who are presenting their evidence for why they think he lied.

Reasoned debate takes a while to learn, but I have confidence that you will eventually get the knack of it.

Malachi151

8th June 2003, 07:37 AM

Tony

8th June 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Since you are new here, Tony, I'll key you in on another kind of logical fallacy which you have just committed called an ad hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem) which means you attack the arguer instead of the argument. In plainer terms, you wold say "name calling".

Thanks Tricky, I was aware of that.

While it is certainly true that there are various camps of thought here that tend to cluster on "left" and "right" sides of the issue, this in no way makes their arguments invalid, just as I don't consider anyone's arguments invalid simply because they are a conservative.

I never said that the argument was invalid. On the contrary, they have very valid arguments. But I think they ruin they're argument when they jump the gun.

You would be better served (and more convincing) if you would state your reasons and present your evidence for why you believe Bush told the truth rather that directing ad hominems at those who are presenting their evidence for why they think he lied.

I don’t necessarily think Bush told the truth, in fact, I had a feeling Bush was exaggerating the WMD aspect before the war started. I am just not going to conclusively say he lied until more time has passed and more information is available. Furthermore, if he did lie, I don’t care; I supported the war for reasons other than WMD.

I think it was a bad move to emphasis the WMD aspect as much as he did, IMO if he would have put more emphasis on the humanitarian reasons for the war, he would have broader support.

no one in particular

8th June 2003, 07:39 AM

DavidJames

8th June 2003, 07:59 AM

"That “liar” limb is shaky; I am not going to walk out on it just yet."

I agree and I don't think we will ever be able to call him a liar on this issue any more than I can say Reagan was a liar claiming ignorance of Iran/Contra. As with Reagan, I suspect that there were people who knew what Bush wanted and delivered it. The old plausible deniability device.

The president is at the mercy of those that actually do the legwork, the research and intelligence gathering. If they feed him crap, then we get crap policy decision. I would hope the president would know crap when he sees it, but I have no idea if that happened. This might sound like I'm giving Bush a pass on this issue, I'm not. I blame Bush because he hired those that may have fabricated or exaggerated the issues with Iraq, so he is ultimately responsible.

KelvinG

8th June 2003, 08:56 AM

I'm willing to bet that even if they never find WMD and more evidence points towards deception on the part of Bush and his administration, no Bush supporter will ever acknowledge that Bush lied.
They will have scores of reasons why he was misled or deceived , but they'll always stick up for ole Dubya and hail him as a great and wonderful president.
So, please me spare this garabage about how it is the left that are showing biased thinking.

And to be honest, I haven't totally ruled out the possibility that WMD's will be found. But, considering they haven't been popping up everywhere, nor has any evidence of a nuclear program been found, I'm very suspect of the ominous claims Bush made before the war about the imminent dangers of Iraq to American safety.
That was a load of garabage that was meant to frighten the American people into a false sense of paranoia and for them to support the war when a majority of the rest of the world did not.

EvilYeti

8th June 2003, 09:22 AM

I think the worst the administration can be accused of is "cherry-picking" intelligence reports to overstate the threat Iraq posed. I think Bush, Rumsfeld, etal. really believed that they would find at least some stockpiled WMD's after Iraq was invaded, otherwise they wouldn't have harped on the issue so much.

Bush strikes me as a fairly weak-minded person whom can be easily deluded (he's a fundie after all) so I would not be surprised if he ended up believing his own ********.

Remeber the immortal words of George Castanza, "It's not a lie if you believe it!"

Malachi151

8th June 2003, 09:44 AM

"That “liar” limb is shaky; I am not going to walk out on it just yet."

Okay, so does anyone waht to address these claims?

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

or these claims:

There will be no war if Saddam leaves. This is false. The plan was to invade even if Saddam did leave. The premise for invasion was to be searching for weapons of mass destruction by American forces. So, it didn’t matter if Saddam left or not, the invasion would still have taken place.

The Powell paper that was sited as a source of information for an address to the UN Security Council, and the world, which made statements about the Iraqi regime and its involvement with terrorist organizations and weapons of mass destruction, was later exposed as a paper written by a graduate student from California. Prior to making the statement to the UN Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

The claim that was made that put America on “code orange” and sent millions to the store to buy duct tape and plastic for their windows was later exposed as baseless. The claim was that there was a “significant threat” of a massive chemical weapons attack on American soil “soon”. This news terrified the country and had many running for cover. Within a day though it was later exposed as baseless. Of course there was no problem spreading the lie to promote a sense of fear in the public.

The claim that Iraq had a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could possibly reach America and deliver weapons of mass destruction was quickly circulated in the press, it too turned out to be a lie.
Bush sited a report that stated that the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Iraqis were 6 months away from developing atomic weapons. There was actually no report at all. This was pure fabrication.

I'll dig up links to news stories later, if no one else bothers to, some of these are covered in the link I provided.

Also we have:

"QUESTION: So oil is not a factor?

MR. FLEISCHER: That is not a factor. This is about preserving the peace and saving the lives of Americans.

QUESTION: Saddam Hussein's oil reserves are not at all a factor in any of the geopolitical calculations?

MR. FLEISCHER: No"

Also, are you talking about lies in otder areas of legislation, such as the "Health Forest Initiative", "Clear Skies Act", and his various tax plans? Cause he lied about all those things too.

I am including the Clear Skies initiative here for two reasons, it's obviously not directly related to the war in Iraq or terrorism. One reason is that it very clearly demonstrates the type of deception that the Bush administration deliberately engages in and the other reason is that it demonstrates the Bush administration's strong favoritism towards industry specifically the energy sector, which does indirectly relate to the war in Iraq.

What is so significant about the "Clear Skies" initiative is not so much the proposed legislation itself, but the way that it is presented, as you will see.

What the "Clear Skies" initiative basically proposes is to move back the existing environmental regulation schedule. While doing this the Bush administration then claims that they are improving environmental regulations. This is a slight of hand because their proposals are only an improvement over regulations that are presently in effect, but the laws already on the books have a specific schedule for future regulations that increases cuts in emissions over time. What Bush has done is to reduce the level of those cuts, and then go back and compare their proposals to regulation that are presently in effect, not the regulations that were already on the books for the future.

To better see what I mean let's just look at an example.

Under current law mercury emission levels must be reduced to 15 tons by 2008. Under Bush's proposal mercury emission levels will be reduced to 26 tons by 2010, and 15 tons by 2018, 10 years later then is currently required, and those reductions are voluntary, not mandated.

Now let's look at exactly what Bush's proposal states on this matter:

"Cutting mercury emissions by 69 percent, - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018."

This is obviously a case of intentional deception because the statement is made in such a way that if the audience is not aware of the old law they would never know that this actually increases the level of pollution allowed. Once again, Bush and his administration are full of lies.

In his State of the Union Address the President stated:

"I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years."

In fact this 70% number is again deceiving. Not only do many experts claim that his plan will actually increase pollution by allowing pollution trading, whereby companies can buy pollution credits from other companies that are naturally cleaner, but the cuts in pollution that are already on the books for the next 15 years offer high cuts in pollution then Bush's plan. He's just flat out lying.

Furthermore many of the larger reductions in pollution are part of what is termed "Phase II" of the "Clear Skies" initiative, which is an optional phase that uses voluntary cooperation from companies.

Compare Bush's legislation for your self:

http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20340.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html

He also has spread lies about the estate tax, dividend tax, income tax, etc.

If you guys are too chicken to say it then fine, but I'll say it all day long, Bush is a LIAR, plain and simple. His administration is all bout lies, and twisting the truth with so much spin I consider the statements to be lies. For example:

The whole "double taxation" on dividends issues. Also:

"Since the marginal federal tax rate on savings can reach 68 percent (the 40 percent top income tax rate combined with the effect of the 55 percent top death tax rate and the state death tax credit),"

Well, Bush also is proposing to cut the top tax bracket to 33% instead of the current 39%. Is he unsure of his ability to get that plan through? Why not use his own numbers for the calculations? Secondly, there is no logic in combining income tax rates with inheritance tax rates. In what way are the two related? None, unless he means to imply that if a person earned all their money in the year of 2000, when the top tax rate was 39%, through income and then they died that year and they had earned over 20 million dollars of taxable income (to put them into the highest estate tax bracket), and their estate didn’t take advantage of any exemptions, then yes, his argument might make a bit of sense, but since that is a virtual impossibility his argument is totally without merit and in fact deceptive. Actually, the largest aspect of value of estates that are subject to tax is typically appreciation of assets, which is a value that has never been taxed.

"President Bush believes that the bias of the death tax against the family farm and family business is the antithesis of the American Dream."

That's all well and good, but the main people affected by the estate tax are not farmers or small business owners, they are the heirs of bankers, real estate tycoons, industrialists, and investors, like Bush himself and the entire multi-billion dollar Bush family.

"More than 40% of the people who receive dividends make under $50,000 a year. Many of them are seniors. Three-fourths of the people in America who receive dividends make less than $100,000 a year."

Yes, this is a true statement, yet is says nothing about how the money is apportioned. Many poor and middle class families do have some investment that pays a divided, usually in a tax sheltered retirement account. Most of these people receive a very small amount of income from dividends, so while 40% of the people who receive some divided make under $50,000, they may be making only $10 a year from dividends. In fact I fall into that category. I was given stock for a graduation present several years ago and since that time I have received about $40 a year in divided income from that stock, which was always reinvested. I count as one of the people making up that 40% statistic. Would Bush's plan to remove the tax from dividend have helped me? No, not really, in fact due to the way inflation works its conceivable that it would actually hurt people like me by unbalancing the ratio of income even more in favor of the already wealthy.

For the finer counterpoints of the this issue I will defer to a web site that has already addressed the issue thoroughly, which states:

http://www.fairtaxesforall.org/facts/index.shtml

People with income below $50,000 account for over 40 percent of those receiving dividends, but they get only 18.5 percent of all dividend income.

Furthermore, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, people under $50,000 would receive only 6.7 percent of the tax cut from the Administration's proposal to eliminate the taxation of dividends.

Similarly, while people with incomes below $100,000 make up three-fourths of those who receive dividends, they get only 37 percent of all dividend income and would receive only 21 percent of the proposed tax cut on dividends.

"We should also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax laws. It's fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. (Applause.) To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends."

In this case what has to be pointed out is that two thirds of the elderly population will only see a 4% of the dividend tax cut. The fact is that 43% of the benefits will go to the top 2.5% of wealthy elderly Americans, who are already well off and not in need of a tax cut to meet daily living needs, unlike the poor elderly that do need economic relief just to be able to provide for themselves.

Again, Bush's proposals are all based on lies and deception.

Bush is a liar.

Baker

8th June 2003, 10:09 AM

It's a amusing to consider that the same people who refuse to give Bush any credit for his achievement in Iraq used to argue that Bill Clinton could do no wrong because his presidency happened to coincide with a stock-market bubble. Even more amusing is that anyone would think arguing against a war America won is a winning political strategy.

KelvinG

8th June 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Baker
It's a amusing to consider that the same people who refuse to give Bush any credit for his achievement in Iraq used to argue that Bill Clinton could do no wrong because his presidency happened to coincide with a stock-market bubble. Even more amusing is that anyone would think arguing against a war America won is a winning political strategy.

And which people would that be? Are you accusing specific posters of doing this, or are you simply making a generalization?

Baker

8th June 2003, 10:30 AM

Yes it’s a generalization of ant-war side.

KelvinG

8th June 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Baker
Yes it’s a generalization of ant-war side.

Well, just for the record, I have never made that generalization.

Frank Newgent

8th June 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Bush is a liar.

Or, quoting Al Franken, on the press' attitude of mind concerning Bush: "He doesn't know. He doesn't know, leave him alone. He doesn't know".

Malachi151

8th June 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Baker
It's a amusing to consider that the same people who refuse to give Bush any credit for his achievement in Iraq used to argue that Bill Clinton could do no wrong because his presidency happened to coincide with a stock-market bubble. Even more amusing is that anyone would think arguing against a war America won is a winning political strategy.

And this addresses the lies in what way?

Bush is a liar.

Edit: I guess this goes along with all the typical right-wing thoughts. Greed is good. Its okay to lie, as long as you win. Its not a lie if you believe it. "There should be limits to freedom." - George Bush Sr.

corplinx

8th June 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

And this addresses the lies in what way?

Bush is a liar.

Why?

M: Because I wrote a paper on it!

Why?

M: Because he is!

Why?

M: What part of circular reasoning do you not get jack?

chulbert

8th June 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by ssibal Many people here seem to be claiming conclusivly that Bush lied about there being WMD in Iraq. My question is, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Bush lied because he said Iraq certainly had WMD when he didn't know if they certainly did or not.

Granted, no WMD have been found in Iraq but how did you eliminate the possibility of any being found?

If they are found the Bush was "right" by way of luck and coincidence. The point is that he didn't know when he launched us into war.

How did you eliminate the possibility of the intelligence being wrong?

Ultimate responsibility lies with him. In the event it is revealed intelligence was heinously wrong I will withdraw my accusation that he is a liar. However, he is ultimately responsible.

How did you eliminate the possibility of Bush being lied to?

That would have to be a big lie, consistently told by a lot of people. In such a case Bush may or may not be at fault.

Lastly, how did you determine that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq and said there were? I am not claiming that Bush did not lie, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that he did. Frankly, I think it is too soon to make that determination and that there is not enough information available to make that determination. So, how did you arrive at your conclusion?

Again, it's not that he knew there weren't as much as he didn't know there were. He said, "They have WMD!" The truth was that, "We don't really know. We think they do."

That makes it a lie.

Regnad Kcin

8th June 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Cain
But hey, it's not like he lied about blowjobs! I never tire of this retort. :D

KelvinG

8th June 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Why?

M: Because I wrote a paper on it!

Why?

M: Because he is!

Why?

M: What part of circular reasoning do you not get jack?

Have you read the paper in Malachi151's link?
I've spent the last couple hours going over it and it is a real eye-opener.
While there are portions that make subjective assessments, it is generally very well researched and incredibly thourough and detailed.

I think characterizing Malachi151's position as circular reasoning is a cop out.

corplinx

8th June 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Have you read the paper in Malachi151's link?

I'm guessing if I debated the most egregious points in it that I would be subjected to woo woo logic that if you put enough reasons in a paper that even if they are all wrong or distorted or inconclusive that the number of reasons itself is evidence.

I read it, there is are many debatable sections and nothing really conclusive.

Here is a challenge to Malachi. Make your own rebuttal paper. Attempt to balance your accusations with rebuttals. Show each side of each arguement instead of presenting one side and then expecting someone else to all of your many points on a web forum.

KelvinG

8th June 2003, 04:11 PM

Tricky

8th June 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

Bush lied because he said Iraq certainly had WMD when he didn't know if they certainly did or not.

If they are found the Bush was "right" by way of luck and coincidence. The point is that he didn't know when he launched us into war.

Ultimate responsibility lies with him. In the event it is revealed intelligence was heinously wrong I will withdraw my accusation that he is a liar. However, he is ultimately responsible.

That would have to be a big lie, consistently told by a lot of people. In such a case Bush may or may not be at fault.

Again, it's not that he knew there weren't as much as he didn't know there were. He said, "They have WMD!" The truth was that, "We don't really know. We think they do."

That makes it a lie.
Very good points, Chulbert. If I may add my exclamation point, it looks pretty clear the Bush administration (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) pretty much said they were only interested in intelligence that supported their contentions. Maybe Bush himself didn't know about this, after all, it is a family tradition to claim to be "out of the loop" on important matters. If WMDs are not found in approximately the numbers that the administration claimed (and I do not deny that they may yet be) then Bush is either a liar or an idiot. Personally, I'd prefer a liar over an idiot as president, but you can't always get what you want.

Fade

8th June 2003, 07:12 PM

Well thank goodness we have a system set up to impeach the president when he lies.

Right? Right?

Mr Manifesto

8th June 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

I'm guessing if I debated the most egregious points in it that I would be subjected to woo woo logic that if you put enough reasons in a paper that even if they are all wrong or distorted or inconclusive that the number of reasons itself is evidence.

I read it, there is are many debatable sections and nothing really conclusive.

Here is a challenge to Malachi. Make your own rebuttal paper. Attempt to balance your accusations with rebuttals. Show each side of each arguement instead of presenting one side and then expecting someone else to all of your many points on a web forum.

You haven't actually attacked any of Malachi's arguments. You've said he uses circular logic- without providing any examples (but you used a very witty script so full marks there). You've said that if you rebutted any of his points you'd be subject to 'woo woo logic'- but haven't rebutted any of his points. Why should Malachi do your work for you if you can't rebutt a single point of his/hers?

DialecticMaterialist

8th June 2003, 08:37 PM

You haven't actually attacked any of Malachi's arguments.

And you haven't actually defended any of them. Nor have any arguments been made, simply a "reference" to a paper that covers a myriad of subjects, some relevant and some not(the Nazi-Xian connection for example.)

Most of it is simply non sequiturs and spurrious claims used to support spurrious claims anyways.

In any event, unless some exact points are made, openly and shown the be relevant to the dsicussion concerning the war or any at hand, the "article" is simply a proof surrogate.

Regnad Kcin

8th June 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
... Maybe Bush himself didn't know about this, after all, it is a family tradition to claim to be "out of the loop" on important matters.Ouch! :)

Baker

9th June 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

And this addresses the lies in what way?

Bush is a liar.

Edit: I guess this goes along with all the typical right-wing thoughts. Greed is good. Its okay to lie, as long as you win. Its not a lie if you believe it. "There should be limits to freedom." - George Bush Sr.

Many on this forum keep saying that but so for have yet to show any proof of him lying.

Crossbow

9th June 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by ssibal
Many people here seem to be claiming conclusivly that Bush lied about there being WMD in Iraq. My question is, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Granted, no WMD have been found in Iraq but how did you eliminate the possibility of any being found? How did you eliminate the possibility of the intelligence being wrong? How did you eliminate the possibility of Bush being lied to? Lastly, how did you determine that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq and said there were? I am not claiming that Bush did not lie, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that he did. Frankly, I think it is too soon to make that determination and that there is not enough information available to make that determination. So, how did you arrive at your conclusion?

I for one, do think that Bush lied in order to clear the Iraq issue once and for all.

I think that he was desperate to finish the job his dad started,
I think that he was really ticked that Saddam tried to kill his dad,
I think that he really wanted to place his personal stamp on US Foreign Policy, and
I think the that he knew the intelligence was ambiguous.

However, I also think that he thought that he would be able to justify the war all the same (due to someone like Saddam running Iraq and the War on Terrorism) so it would be case of now (prior to the harsh Iraqi summer weather and after the mid-term elections) or never (before the economic problems get any worse and the term elections) if he was going to be the one to resolve the Iraq issue.

KelvinG

9th June 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Many on this forum keep saying that but so for have yet to show any proof of him lying.

Actually, you are right Baker. No one can say for absolute certainty that Bush blantantly and knowingly lied. Down the road we might be able to say that with certainty, but right now it is difficult.

However, based on the evidence I've seen I'm willing to say that it doesn't look good for him.

No one can definitely prove that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife, but it doesn't look good either. My common sense draws me to the conclusion that he almost certainly did it.
But, I suppose I'll never be able to prove it definitely.

Same goes for Bush.

Although, if they find a warehouse full of WMD tomorrow, I suppose I'll have to modify my conclusions.

Crossbow

9th June 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Baker
Many on this forum keep saying that but so for have yet to show any proof of him lying.

To actually prove such a thing would require an in-depth investigation with full access to all notes, correspondence, witnesses deposed, full cooperation from the White House, and so on. This level of data is needed to ascertain, as Sen. Baker once asked of Pres. Nixon during the Watergate Hearings, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?".

I seriously doubt that such an investigation will ever take place, therefore I, nor anyone else, can ever provide such proof.

However, it is abundantly clear that the original intelligence that the Bush Administration and the other Pro-war boosters regarding how Iraq had massive amounts of WMDs and that they were ready to use them was in serious error.

Malachi151

9th June 2003, 08:58 AM

Well, the alternatives are really just:

A) Bush did not lie, but he was intentionally deceptive.

and/or

B) Bush did not lie because he thought that some of the things he said were true, even though they were not.

What about statements like the ones I pointed out where the administrated that teh war had absolutly nothing to do with oil, then Wolfowitz comes out and said that it had a lot ot do with oil.

How do you not call that a lie? I think that in a court of law that would be considered purgery.

What about Bush siteing a report from the Atomic Energy comission that does not exist? Did he lie, or do you claim that he was lied to?

What about :

"This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."

http://www.rense.com/general35/tearr.htm

What about:

And of course there was the British intelligence report, sent by Tony Blair to Powell who commended it in his UN speech as particularly "fine". The report turned out to be a series of plagiarisms from old articles from Jane's, and from a paper on Iraqi politics written by a student called Ibrahim al Marashi, at the Monterey Institute for International Studies.

Prior to making the statement to the UN Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00076.htm

What about:

On September 26, IAEA challenged a statement by President Bush that the IAEA had concluded Iraq was six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons in 1998. An IAEA spokesman stated that no such IAEA report existed.[1] The Agency also took issue with the conclusion of a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), released earlier this month. The IISS report posited that if Iraq “were to obtain fissile material from abroad --- steal it or buy it in some way --- we certainly believe [Saddam] has the ability to put together a nuclear weapon very quickly, in a matter of months.”[2]

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-pr9302002.htm

What about:

“We have discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet” of unmanned aircraft, Bush said in his Cincinnati speech. He added that there was concern that these drones would be used for “targeting the United States.”

In each case, Bush either invented or deliberately distorted the evidence. In the case of the unmanned aircraft claim, the CIA issued a report earlier this month stating that the Iraqis were conducting an “experiment” with the device that could prove “a serious threat to Iraq’s neighbors and to international military forces in the region” but had no capability of crossing the Atlantic and striking American targets.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/iraq-o24.shtml

Of course you will slam the sources, but I've seen it all on more credible sources too, I just didn't feel like searching for hours to find them at the moment, plus I had links to some of these that are now broken, it appears that CNN and the BBCC have removed some of these stories, at least that the links I had are now broken, yet I have mnay other links to soties that still work.

Baker

10th June 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Well, the alternatives are really just:

A) Bush did not lie, but he was intentionally deceptive.

and/or

B) Bush did not lie because he thought that some of the things he said were true, even though they were not.

What about statements like the ones I pointed out where the administrated that teh war had absolutly nothing to do with oil, then Wolfowitz comes out and said that it had a lot ot do with oil.

How do you not call that a lie? I think that in a court of law that would be considered purgery.

What about Bush siteing a report from the Atomic Energy comission that does not exist? Did he lie, or do you claim that he was lied to?

What about :

http://www.rense.com/general35/tearr.htm

What about:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00076.htm

What about:

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-pr9302002.htm

What about:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/iraq-o24.shtml

Of course you will slam the sources, but I've seen it all on more credible sources too, I just didn't feel like searching for hours to find them at the moment, plus I had links to some of these that are now broken, it appears that CNN and the BBCC have removed some of these stories, at least that the links I had are now broken, yet I have mnay other links to soties that still work.

Malachi do you have a more reliable news source then Jeff Rense?
Can you find these stories in a mainstream news site?

Let me share a good article on the subject.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

The inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown.

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

10th June 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Tony

If you haven’t noticed, most of the people saying Bush lied are the typical Bush bashers and leftist ideologues. The real skeptics have opted to take the rational approach.

Yeah, Tony, this is roughly equal to you saying "real skeptics don't question".

Um, there's a bit of a problem there, eh?

Look. I am not sure if Bush lied, or if he remained willfully ignorant.

I don't much care. He lied to congress, either by commission or omission, just like Mr. Bill.

He should be impeached, and given that his crime was much more serious, caused many deaths both in the USA and outside, he should stand much more of a chance of conviction.

The saddest thing is that he HAD lots of reasons to squash Iraq, but didn't pick the ones that were solid.

shanek

10th June 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Baker
It's a amusing to consider that the same people who refuse to give Bush any credit for his achievement in Iraq used to argue that Bill Clinton could do no wrong

More ad hominems. I challenge you to find even a single instance of me mentioning Bill Clinton in a favorable light.

This is your only position: insult your opposition, because you have no real answer to the very real and documented and provable lies of George W. Bush and his administration!

Even more amusing is that anyone would think arguing against a war America won is a winning political strategy.

Oh, it's about winning! It's like a horse race!!! And truth, and what's right, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Nope, as long as you're on the winning side in the end, that's all that matters.

You're a coward.

Baker

10th June 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by shanek

More ad hominems. I challenge you to find even a single instance of me mentioning Bill Clinton in a favorable light.

I didn’t realize that I was speaking solely to you.
How was my comment a ad hominem?

This is your only position: insult your opposition, because you have no real answer to the very real and documented and provable lies of George W. Bush and his administration!

I was just making a statement if it came out as an insult I apologize.

Oh, it's about winning! It's like a horse race!!! And truth, and what's right, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Nope, as long as you're on the winning side in the end, that's all that matters.

You're a coward.

So you accuse me of insulting people and using ad hominem’s then counter my statement with both.
I was complaining that some are using this as a political tool.

10th June 2003, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baker

I didn’t realize that I was speaking solely to you.
How was my comment a ad hominem?

You could as well be talking to me. Insisting that people who are pointing out Bush's misdemeanors and/or high crimes supported Mr. Bill is purely ad-hominem. Mr. Bill was a dip, and as far as I can tell, so is Shrub.

I was just making a statement if it came out as an insult I apologize.

Well, it's a lot like people who argued "people against the war aren't americans', Baker, you imply that those who disagree with you are somehow stigmatized by some kind of disreputable property.
[QUOTE]

Now, I understand Shanek's frustration in this matter. If you want to have a civil conversation, one of the first things you can do is stop demonizing the people who don't agree with you.

Baker

10th June 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by jj

You could as well be talking to me. Insisting that people who are pointing out Bush's misdemeanors and/or high crimes supported Mr. Bill is purely ad-hominem. Mr. Bill was a dip, and as far as I can tell, so is Shrub..

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
:confused:

Well, it's a lot like people who argued "people against the war aren't americans',

When did I say people against the war aren't Americans?

Baker, you imply that those who disagree with you are somehow stigmatized by some kind of disreputable property.

Can you provide an example for me I'm still not sure what you are referring to.

Now, I understand Shanek's frustration in this matter. If you want to have a civil conversation, one of the first things you can do is stop demonizing the people who don't agree with you.

Just how am I demonizing the people?

a_unique_person

10th June 2003, 05:18 PM

So, it now appears that the evidence will be of a WMD program. Already the hard evidence is being given up on. This will be dragged out as long as possible to allow it to fade from memory, and the program will be all that is left to justify.

CIA aware of dubious war motive
June 11 2003
By Suzanne Goldenberg
Washington

The debunking of the Bush Administration's prewar certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings that did not shore up the case for war.

The interrogation reports of two senior al-Qaeda members, both in US custody, showed that the CIA had reason to doubt the allegations of a connection between Saddam's regime and the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

Such assertions, promoted vigorously by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were used as an additional justification for war, after the central argument that Iraq's arsenal of banned weapons posed an imminent danger.

.....

And National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while declaring on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that she believed such weapons would be found, said it would take some time "to put together a full picture of his weapons of mass destruction programs".

Critics say the word "program" is too imprecise to be meaningful. Retired CIA analyst Mel Goodman said: "It can mean documents, anything, no matter how benign."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055220593386.html

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 06:00 PM

Malachi do you have a more reliable news source then Jeff Rense?

You can find the same stories on other web sites, that was just what came up first, so I grabbed it. Now are you going to address the information or poke at the wbe host?

ssibal

10th June 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

Bush lied because he said Iraq certainly had WMD when he didn't know if they certainly did or not.

Again, it's not that he knew there weren't as much as he didn't know there were. He said, "They have WMD!" The truth was that, "We don't really know. We think they do."

That makes it a lie.

I disagree, you can say that something false is certainly true without lying. Am I a liar because I told someone that I did very well on a test and ended up failing? I certainly believed that I did well, but that turned out to be wrong. Bush said, Iraq certainly had WMD, perhaps he really believed they did?

ssibal

10th June 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
"That “liar” limb is shaky; I am not going to walk out on it just yet."

Okay, so does anyone waht to address these claims?

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

Not a very credible source when the first 'evidence' of a lie is:
Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication

This thread was supposed to be about Bush's lies concerning WMD, not his lies concerning taxes and not members of his administration's lies concerning anything. But it seems to have degenerated into an argument of left vs right.

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Not a very credible source when the first 'evidence' of a lie is:

This thread was supposed to be about Bush's lies concerning WMD, not his lies concerning taxes and not members of his administration's lies concerning anything. But it seems to have degenerated into an argument of left vs right.

Well, its a matter of credibility. Showing that he has lied about one thing is realted to the possibility that he lied about another.

Also, why should it be about WMDs only? There are other war related things asside from WMDs, such as the claims about unmanned aircrafts that could drop bombs on America, which did not exist, about the planned chemcial weapons attack on America that put the country on code orange, which was unsupported, etc. Those are lies that led to war and are just as important as the WMD lies.

Also, the fact that he quoted a report stating that Iraq was 6 months away from a nuclear bomb was a lie, that report didn't even exist. That a WMD lie.

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 08:22 PM

Tricky

10th June 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by ssibal
I disagree, you can say that something false is certainly true without lying. Am I a liar because I told someone that I did very well on a test and ended up failing? I certainly believed that I did well, but that turned out to be wrong. Bush said, Iraq certainly had WMD, perhaps he really believed they did?

Yes, a person can repeat information that is not false because he is a liar, or because he is ignorant. Which would you prefer in a president?

There are many sources claiming that the Bush administration wouldn't accept "no" for an answer to the question, "is there proof of WMDs?". Was Bush willfully and persistantly ignorant, or did he lie? Either answer is scary.

a_unique_person

10th June 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, a person can repeat information that is not false because he is a liar, or because he is ignorant. Which would you prefer in a president?

There are many sources claiming that the Bush administration wouldn't accept "no" for an answer to the question, "is there proof of WMDs?". Was Bush willfully and persistantly ignorant, or did he lie? Either answer is scary.

"Plausible Deniability", invented the Richard Nixon, IIRC, and adopted by politicians around the world.

Then, after the spooks tell him there may not be anything there, and he ignores them, he blames them for not providing good intelligence.

Elektrix

10th June 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Malachi do you have a more reliable news source then Jeff Rense?
Can you find these stories in a mainstream news site?

Let me share a good article on the subject.

I'm confused, why has this post by Baker seemingly been ignored?

Do people here believe also then that Bill Clinton was lying in 1998:

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

Do people believe that the other people before that were lying?

Do people believe that Blix was lying when he reported to the UN, as described there, that Iraq still hadn't accounted for many of the biological weapons?

I am just curious about this. Are people here going to say that Clinton was lying in 98 about this? Or that Blix was lying in January?

-Elektrix

ssibal

10th June 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Well, its a matter of credibility. Showing that he has lied about one thing is realted to the possibility that he lied about another.

But nobody is doubting that it is possible that he lied. If Bush lied about taxes or whatever else, that does not constitute as evidence that he lied about Iraq having WMD.

Also, why should it be about WMDs only?

Uhm, because I saw the claim about Bush lying about there being WMD in Iraq being thrown around frequently here with little or no evidence to support it. And frankly I do not care to discuss whether or not Bush lied about taxes, I do not find that to be interesting.

There are other war related things asside from WMDs, such as the claims about unmanned aircrafts that could drop bombs on America, which did not exist,

So the L-29s did not exist? The claim was:
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

So, exactly what is the lie by Bush in these statements and how did you conclude that it was a lie?

about the planned chemcial weapons attack on America that put the country on code orange, which was unsupported, etc. Those are lies that led to war and are just as important as the WMD lies.

Maybe it is because I do not pay attention to the color code, but I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the claim that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD.

Also, the fact that he quoted a report stating that Iraq was 6 months away from a nuclear bomb was a lie, that report didn't even exist. That a WMD lie.

Right, "he lied" is the only possible explanation. ....:rolleyes:

ssibal

10th June 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

He said that he had proof. He obviously did not have proof.

My mother believes that a god exists, she says she has proof. There is no evidence for the existence of a god, does this make my mother a liar?

ssibal

10th June 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, a person can repeat information that is not false because he is a liar, or because he is ignorant. Which would you prefer in a president?

There are many sources claiming that the Bush administration wouldn't accept "no" for an answer to the question, "is there proof of WMDs?". Was Bush willfully and persistantly ignorant, or did he lie? Either answer is scary.

Are those the anonymous sources? Frankly, I do not see much of a difference between those and anonymous sources that say the government is covering up aliens from outer space. As for Bush being ignorant or a liar, I think that he is more ignorant than he is a liar. Though, like everyone else he lies, I just have not seen any evidence of him lying about the claim that Iraq had WMD.

a_unique_person

10th June 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Elektrix

I'm confused, why has this post by Baker seemingly been ignored?

Do people here believe also then that Bill Clinton was lying in 1998:

Do people believe that the other people before that were lying?

Do people believe that Blix was lying when he reported to the UN, as described there, that Iraq still hadn't accounted for many of the biological weapons?

I am just curious about this. Are people here going to say that Clinton was lying in 98 about this? Or that Blix was lying in January?

-Elektrix

Apparently, the biological weapons, especially of the quality Saddaam had, degrade very quickly. After five years, they would no longer be potent. Also, Bill was not using this intelligence to drum up a war, just day to day chest thumping.

corplinx

10th June 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Apparently, the biological weapons, especially of the quality Saddaam had, degrade very quickly.

Is this also true for the chemical agents? The various gases? It brings up an interesting point.

If Saddam had 38,000 liters of inert anthrax, why not just come clean with them to put off war. A false sacrifice like this would have been enough to sway world opinion (and thereby Britain) to put off war and give inspectors more time.

very curious....

a_unique_person

10th June 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Is this also true for the chemical agents? The various gases? It brings up an interesting point.

If Saddam had 38,000 liters of inert anthrax, why not just come clean with them to put off war. A false sacrifice like this would have been enough to sway world opinion (and thereby Britain) to put off war and give inspectors more time.

very curious....

I thought he did, but was not "believed". That is, he was hardly likely to hold onto that much antrax, even for sentimental reasons. They would have tipped it out years ago.

Malachi151

11th June 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by ssibal

My mother believes that a god exists, she says she has proof. There is no evidence for the existence of a god, does this make my mother a liar?

Yes it does.

The PROOF is what must exist if you claim that you have it. He was lying about the PROOF. If your mom says that she has PROOF of God then she is either telling the truth and has PROOF that can be verified, or she is lying and does not have proof that can be verified.

The issue here is not god at all, its the proof.

Malachi151

11th June 2003, 06:21 AM

So the L-29s did not exist? The claim was:

We all know they existed, but to say that they had anything to do with capability for targeting the United States was a lie.

about the planned chemcial weapons attack on America that put the country on code orange, which was unsupported, etc. Those are lies that led to war and are just as important as the WMD lies.

The claim was that the US was endanger of an attack, whch they were supposedly liking to Saddam. Obviously it was intended to sacre people into supportign war. "Oh s**t, they are trying to kill us, quick go kill them first!"

Come on, are you really this niave?

Right, "he lied" is the only possible explanation.

And the other explanation is? That he was given faulty intelligence?

See, this is where the issues comes in. The Bush administration made about 10 claims realting to war in Iraq, and every single one turend out to be false. Now, if you get 1 or 2 or even 3 out of 10 wrong, okay, I can live with that, but when 10 out of 10 claims are false, sorry, that's bulls**t.

1- Proof of vast underground stockpiles of WMDs, they have found no vast underground anything yet, much less WMDs.

2- A fleet of unmanned aircraft that are for bombing the US with WMDs, all they had was an non-operational test unit, and no specs for anything that would have range to cross the ocean, nothing was even in production.

3- Significant connections to Al-Queda, never been proven, most intelligence people claim the opposite.

4- Threat of in imminent WMD attack on the US that sent people buying duct tape and plastic, turned out to just be a raving of a prisoner that wanted to get out of jail, yet they didn't investigate the claim until after they made the statement.

5- Powell's speach to the UN, which heavily quoted a college student 10 year old paper. Powell claimed prior to makein the statem that this was all based on the best US intelligence.

6- Mobile Biological weapons labs, still have not found a single one, just a few things that people claim could be used for that, or about 10 other purposes.

7- Repeatedly moving the goal post for the conditions for war, then claiming that they would not invade if Saddam left, yet they then later made a statement that if Saddam left the US would have to invade to search for WMDs anyway.

8- The claim that they had a report that said Saddam was 6 months away from having a nuclear bomb, the report never existed.

9- The claim that Saddam had missiles that violated the treaty, yet they really did not, they were just improperly tested. (w/o payload or programming)

Edit:, Oh I forgot the biggest claim.

10- The claim that they did not have plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, when in fact they did. That's the mother of all lies right there.

Now, can you provide a list of the claims that they made which have been proven to be true?

To claim this is all a problem with fact checking and intelligence is highly problematic, ESPECIALLY when members of the intelligence community, are coming out saying that Bush is not correctly reporting the information they are giving him. Several members of the intelligence comunity resigned, several have spoken out saying they thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea that will only cause problems, several have said that Bush is lying.

So, the adminisrtation is either really f**king stupid, or liars. I think they are not stupid, thus must be liars.

Tricky

11th June 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by ssibal

Are those the anonymous sources? Frankly, I do not see much of a difference between those and anonymous sources that say the government is covering up aliens from outer space. As for Bush being ignorant or a liar, I think that he is more ignorant than he is a liar. Though, like everyone else he lies, I just have not seen any evidence of him lying about the claim that Iraq had WMD.
No, they are not anonymous. In this recent Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1#BODY) we had,

Greg Thielmann, flatly told NEWSWEEK that inside the government, “there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused.

And

Thielmann, who had recently resigned from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)—whose duties included tracking Iraq’s WMD program—read the text in the newspaper. Bush had cited British intelligence reports that Saddam was trying to purchase “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Thielmann was floored. “When I saw that, it really blew me away,” Thielmann told NEWSWEEK. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible—and made that point clear to Powell’s office.
And
In two reports to Powell, INR concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear program at all. “These were not weaselly worded,” said Thielmann. “They were as definitive as these things go.”

There were lots of other indications by unnamed sources, but Thielmann is a pretty good one. I think Blix is on record too as contradicting if not the existence, at least the volume and kind of WMDs claimed by the US.

Baker

11th June 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
So the L-29s did not exist? The claim was:

We all know they existed, but to say that they had anything to do with capability for targeting the United States was a lie.

about the planned chemcial weapons attack on America that put the country on code orange, which was unsupported, etc. Those are lies that led to war and are just as important as the WMD lies.

The claim was that the US was endanger of an attack, whch they were supposedly liking to Saddam. Obviously it was intended to sacre people into supportign war. "Oh s**t, they are trying to kill us, quick go kill them first!"

Come on, are you really this niave?

Right, "he lied" is the only possible explanation.

And the other explanation is? That he was given faulty intelligence?

See, this is where the issues comes in. The Bush administration made about 10 claims realting to war in Iraq, and every single one turend out to be false. Now, if you get 1 or 2 or even 3 out of 10 wrong, okay, I can live with that, but when 10 out of 10 claims are false, sorry, that's bulls**t.

1- Proof of vast underground stockpiles of WMDs, they have found no vast underground anything yet, much less WMDs.

2- A fleet of unmanned aircraft that are for bombing the US with WMDs, all they had was an non-operational test unit, and no specs for anything that would have range to cross the ocean, nothing was even in production.

3- Significant connections to Al-Queda, never been proven, most intelligence people claim the opposite.

4- Threat of in imminent WMD attack on the US that sent people buying duct tape and plastic, turned out to just be a raving of a prisoner that wanted to get out of jail, yet they didn't investigate the claim until after they made the statement.

5- Powell's speach to the UN, which heavily quoted a college student 10 year old paper. Powell claimed prior to makein the statem that this was all based on the best US intelligence.

6- Mobile Biological weapons labs, still have not found a single one, just a few things that people claim could be used for that, or about 10 other purposes.

7- Repeatedly moving the goal post for the conditions for war, then claiming that they would not invade if Saddam left, yet they then later made a statement that if Saddam left the US would have to invade to search for WMDs anyway.

8- The claim that they had a report that said Saddam was 6 months away from having a nuclear bomb, the report never existed.

9- The claim that Saddam had missiles that violated the treaty, yet they really did not, they were just improperly tested. (w/o payload or programming)

Edit:, Oh I forgot the biggest claim.

10- The claim that they did not have plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, when in fact they did. That's the mother of all lies right there.

Now, can you provide a list of the claims that they made which have been proven to be true?

To claim this is all a problem with fact checking and intelligence is highly problematic, ESPECIALLY when members of the intelligence community, are coming out saying that Bush is not correctly reporting the information they are giving him. Several members of the intelligence comunity resigned, several have spoken out saying they thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea that will only cause problems, several have said that Bush is lying.

So, the adminisrtation is either really f**king stupid, or liars. I think they are not stupid, thus must be liars.

Why don’t you answer the questions I brought up the other day?

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

DrChinese

11th June 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Why don’t you answer the questions I brought up the other day?

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

The difference is that there was no NEW information from back then that indicated there was a NEW or GREATER threat. None of those you mentioned felt the "threat" was enough to wage a war over, because they didn't wage such a war when they had the chance. And before he was elected, and on essentially the same evidence as is available today, Bush specifically said he would NOT act in Iraq because we are not the world's policeman.

Bush went to war because he wanted to wage a war he could win, not because of the arrival of evidence of a threat to the US or the world at large. Iraq was a convenient target with no-one protecting it.

E.J.Armstrong

11th June 2003, 02:52 PM

originally posted by Baker
Why don’t you answer the questions I brought up the other day?

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program...
Be sure to let us know when the WOMD have been found. With all that intelligence of how and when they were moved that will be any time now - right?

Just one teensy weensy question - if the USA was watching the WOMD being moved around how come they don't know where it was moved to? Is that too obviously simple?

Baker

11th June 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Be sure to let us know when the WOMD have been found. With all that intelligence of how and when they were moved that will be any time now - right?

Just one teensy weensy question - if the USA was watching the WOMD being moved around how come they don't know where it was moved to? Is that too obviously simple?

So where all of those on my list lying?
Where is the proof that all of these unaccounted for WMD were destroyed?

ssibal

11th June 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Yes it does.

The PROOF is what must exist if you claim that you have it. He was lying about the PROOF. If your mom says that she has PROOF of God then she is either telling the truth and has PROOF that can be verified, or she is lying and does not have proof that can be verified.

The issue here is not god at all, its the proof.

But she does have the 'proof' it just is not very reliable (personal experience, the Bible,...etc). If she or anyone else believes what they say, it is not a lie. They have reached a conclusion based on their own 'proof.' Now most people may think that the conclusion is wrong, but that does not make the person a liar.

ssibal

11th June 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
We all know they existed, but to say that they had anything to do with capability for targeting the United States was a lie.

Sorry, what is the lie? I provided the exact quote of what Bush said, so where was he lying and what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

The claim was that the US was endanger of an attack, whch they were supposedly liking to Saddam. Obviously it was intended to sacre people into supportign war. "Oh s**t, they are trying to kill us, quick go kill them first!"

Come on, are you really this niave?

Are you really this paranoid? Could you please provide the relevant quotes where Bush linked the alleged chemical attack to Saddam. Could you provide evidence that the reason for raising the "threat level" was to scare people into supporting war (why would he even have to do that?)

And the other explanation is? That he was given faulty intelligence?

What about he did not understand the intelligence? People in the intelligence community lied? People closer to Bush lied? People close to Bush interpreted the intelligence incorrectly? There are many possibilites.

See, this is where the issues comes in. The Bush administration made about 10 claims realting to war in Iraq, and every single one turend out to be false. Now, if you get 1 or 2 or even 3 out of 10 wrong, okay, I can live with that, but when 10 out of 10 claims are false, sorry, that's bulls**t.

1- Proof of vast underground stockpiles of WMDs, they have found no vast underground anything yet, much less WMDs.

2- A fleet of unmanned aircraft that are for bombing the US with WMDs, all they had was an non-operational test unit, and no specs for anything that would have range to cross the ocean, nothing was even in production.

3- Significant connections to Al-Queda, never been proven, most intelligence people claim the opposite.

4- Threat of in imminent WMD attack on the US that sent people buying duct tape and plastic, turned out to just be a raving of a prisoner that wanted to get out of jail, yet they didn't investigate the claim until after they made the statement.

5- Powell's speach to the UN, which heavily quoted a college student 10 year old paper. Powell claimed prior to makein the statem that this was all based on the best US intelligence.

6- Mobile Biological weapons labs, still have not found a single one, just a few things that people claim could be used for that, or about 10 other purposes.

7- Repeatedly moving the goal post for the conditions for war, then claiming that they would not invade if Saddam left, yet they then later made a statement that if Saddam left the US would have to invade to search for WMDs anyway.

8- The claim that they had a report that said Saddam was 6 months away from having a nuclear bomb, the report never existed.

9- The claim that Saddam had missiles that violated the treaty, yet they really did not, they were just improperly tested. (w/o payload or programming)

Edit:, Oh I forgot the biggest claim.

10- The claim that they did not have plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, when in fact they did. That's the mother of all lies right there.

Uhm, this thread is supposed to be about Bush only. And the administration, or whomever being wrong about every single claim does not constitute as evidence that they lied about every claim. How about providing the relevant Bush quotes for each of those claims as well as the evidence that demonstrates that he lied?

Now, can you provide a list of the claims that they made which have been proven to be true?

What for? I am not making any claims about anything they said being proven to be true. In fact I stated in the first post that it is too early and not enough information is available to make a determination.

To claim this is all a problem with fact checking and intelligence is highly problematic, ESPECIALLY when members of the intelligence community, are coming out saying that Bush is not correctly reporting the information they are giving him. Several members of the intelligence comunity resigned, several have spoken out saying they thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea that will only cause problems, several have said that Bush is lying.

OK, well how about they provide the evidence that Bush lied if they accuse him of lying?

So, the adminisrtation is either really f**king stupid, or liars. I think they are not stupid, thus must be liars.

False dichotomy.

ssibal

11th June 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

No, they are not anonymous. In this recent Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1#BODY) we had,

And

And

There were lots of other indications by unnamed sources, but Thielmann is a pretty good one. I think Blix is on record too as contradicting if not the existence, at least the volume and kind of WMDs claimed by the US.

I am not saying that everything the U.S. claimed has been correct. I never believed that Iraq was a threat and I really did not see the connections to al Qaeda as being strong. But the issue is, did Bush simply make all these things up knowing that they were not true? Did he lie? The article seems to support the notion that people arrived at bad conclusions based on the available intelligence more than the notion that people were outright lying.

Tricky

11th June 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

I am not saying that everything the U.S. claimed has been correct. I never believed that Iraq was a threat and I really did not see the connections to al Qaeda as being strong. But the issue is, did Bush simply make all these things up knowing that they were not true? Did he lie? The article seems to support the notion that people arrived at bad conclusions based on the available intelligence more than the notion that people were outright lying.
No, the article implies very strongly that the Bush administration was looking only for a single answer. Now if they put their fingers in their ears and shouted "Na na na na I can't hear your" when the answers they didn't like were being revealed, then it is possible that they truly were uninformed. The available evidence mostly showed that Iraq was not a threat to the US or any country more than a hundred miles from them.

Yes, there was some contradictory "intellegence", but we never heard a word from the Bush admin. about any possibilities other that the one that the US touted. Was all contradictory evidence suppressed, or was he simply unaware of it? If it was the latter, then Bush is too stupid to be trusted with sharp objects, much less a nuclear arsenal. As I say, I prefer to think that he is a liar rather than an idiot.

E.J.Armstrong

13th June 2003, 08:13 AM

originally posted by Baker
So where all of those on my list lying?

Exactly. When you find them do let us know. After all if Bush knows they exist and can see them being moved shouldn't he also know to where they were moved? Or is that too simple?

Crossbow

13th June 2003, 09:19 AM

Just to make my opinion known, I would say that Bush is a liar.

I think that he was itching to fight Iraq and therefore he did just about everything that he could do (including the approval of questionable intelligence that supported his plans, and the disapproving of intelligence that did not support his plans) in order to make his ideas into reality.

This sort of thing has happened with several presidents in the past as well.