11/7 So does anyone really believe anymore that Bush lied about WMD? The
Duelfer report proved 2 things:
1) Iraq didn't have WMD's
2) Had we infiltrated Saddam's top level of generals, we still would
have though he had WMD's.
\_ He sure as hell didn't tell the truth. Look up the word "lie"
in the dictionary and I think it is obvious that he lied according
to definition number 2. It is what is called in linguistics as a
"contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
v "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
that the word has multiple definitions.
\_ Everyone knows what "lie" means. We don't need you to help us
parse what the definition of "is" is. Thanks.
\_ Au contraire. I have posted the definition of it and
had people insist that it was wrong or inapplicable
in this case. The op is trying to do this right now.
Do you admit that Bush lied?
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ In other words you're upset that Bush was 'wrong'. All
the claims about lying did not use this definition but the
one where the lie is to intentionally deceive. Are you now
saying Bush didn't intentionally deceive anyone?
\_ No, all the claims did not say that Bush intentionally
decieved. You just decided to read it that way.
I have no idea if Bush deliberatly decieved. I know
that he spoke with reckless disregard for the truth,
in that he claimed certaintly when he had no business
doing so, but I doubt that he knew he was uttering
a falsehood when he did so.
\_ Um, his claims about WMD's would have been verified
by Saddam's own generals. They were confirmed by
every intelligence organization in the world. If you
define this as lying, you're a fucking moron.
\_ Except for all those intelligence organizations
that said they didn't have them, oh and the
WEAPONS INSPECTORS. You know, the guys who
were responsible for KNOWING THIS STUFF. But
hey history is hard, lets make up facts later.
The fact is Bush and his administration gave
solid data about where and how many WMDs were
in Iraq and it was ALL WRONG. But rather than
let weapons inspectors do their jobs they
insisted we go to war right now, and look
where that got us.
\_ If you read "Plan of Attack", you'd find that
Dubya's people were telling him that Blix was
pooching the WMD hunt. Dubya's people were
convinced Saddam had WMDs -- and Dubya wasn't
going to take the chance of Blix reporting
Saddam didn't have anything, especially when
Tenet said he had them for sure.
\_ No they were not confirmed by every intelligence
agency in the world. Either you are badly
misinformed or simply lying, it is hard to say
which. Every intelligence agency in the world,
including the CIA, said that they did not have
enough information to tell one way or another.
And I see no evidence that Saddam's own generals
believed that he had WMD. Is this another one
of your fantasies? Here is the relavent quote
from your own source: "ISG found no credible
evidence that any field elements knew about
plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
It is amazing to me that in your twisted
view of reality Bush telling an untruth
is actully him telling the truth. You are truly
a brainwashed sheeple. War is Peace?
\_ "The whold world thought we'd find stockpiles"
- GW Bush
Dubya could be lying right here, but I don't
remember Kerry ever having challenged him on
this sentence.
this sentence. -Depressed Liberal
\_ Yeah, hence his downfall. But then again,
the only politician I remember being
outspoken in oppositiion to this was
Barbara Lee and look what happened to her.
\_ Yeah, and you wonder why Edwards didn't
take "no doubt" Cheney quotes and roast
him on those during the VP debate.
\_ She got re-elected?
\_ Bush was responsible for knowing more about the Iraqi military
capabilities than the Iraqi generals before invading. No more blood
for big oil! And no more posting quots from Clinton, Gore,
Albright, various UN officials, or any other foreign leaders who
said the same things Bush said about Iraqi WMD. Bush lied! Men
died! No more war for oil! Down with the moronic bible thumping
pig fucking red neck Republicans! AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
\_ Another trash talking anonymous Republican troll.
You are pathetic. -ausman
You are pathetic. You can't even shut up for a minute,
as even President Bush has asked us to do, to try and
help bring the country back together. -ausman
\_ Wow an anonymous taunting Republican coward on the motd.
What a novelty. Both Bush and Kerry have asked people to
try and bring this country together, but you just can't
help yourself, can you? -ausman
\_ A salute Bush for not caring what his critics in the
reality based community say. - danh
\_ Please. The man wanted to invade Iraq so much that he pressured
the CIA to provide intel to support his plans. All contradicting
evidence was ignored. He lied.
\_ But the bi-partisan reports said that the "pressure" did not
alter any of the CIA's opinions.
Summary: The CIA thought Saddam had WMDs -- they even thought
the aluminum tubes were dual-use at least (though clearly wrong
in hindsight). The State and Energy departments were the ones
who didn't think the aluminum tubes were nuke related. But,
for Dubya at least, CIA trumps State Department where
intelligence is concerned.
\_ With Rumsfeld breathing heavily in his ear, Dubya was bound to
discount anything Powell had to say; why do you think the
invasion was executed with blatant disregard for the Powell
doctrine? The Pres. wanted what he got, and he got what he
wanted. It's hardly a leap of logic to see that Henry II was
responsible for the death of Sir Thomas a Beckett even though
Henry never actually told anyone to kill him.
\- What if he actually said "Who will rid me of this
troublesome yeast?" ? --psb
\_ Then they killed the wrong prelates; Chimay is on the
other side of the Channel.
\_ If the topic is: "Post-war Iraq, why didn't Dubya follow
the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force?", well, Rumsfeld
was right about Afghanistan even when all the generals were
telling him he was wrong. The same generals were saying
the "same" thing about Iraq. You're Dubya. Who do you
believe? (Yeah, it's a specious argument, but this at
least provides "plausible deniability" -- which is PLENTY
for the True Believers.)
\_ The True Believers don't even need that. They still
believe that Saddam had WMD, and they still believe that
Saddamn was directly responsible for 9/11. See, they
believe these things because the President said as
much, and they will continue to believe him until he
tells them otherwise. You don't need a conspiracy
theory to understand the immense charisma and its
deletorious effects on the ability of his followers to
to see the truth.
\_ Rumsfeld was not right about Afghanistan. The US
lucked out pretty heavily on that one, for one, by
having Germans and Poles ready to pick up some of the
slack while we went on an (unsuccessful) Osama-hunt
through the south. The country has barely managed to
hold together, the central government has little
authority beyond Kabul, opium production is up due to
lack of central control, and people seem to be putting
up with the status quo simply because there's at least
a smidgeon of hope that things will get better. You
simply can't have an invasion with the minimum amount
of force required to win the military victory without
planning for the aftermath, which, in Afghanistan, can
best be described as "amateurish". -John
\_ I think it doesn't do much to condemn Dubya as knowingly (1) having
lied or (2) misled the American people -- without smoking gun
evidence (tapes) of deceit from him. I do think Dubya should be
held accountable for losing world respect from there not being
weapons, Abu Ghraib, and the post-war quagmire.
"The Buck Stops Here".
Of course, everyone who voted for Dubya in 2004 would rather have
Dubya as President than Kerry -- and that's 59 million and counting
-- but that's how democracy works. -liberal
\_ So who was responsible for Omaha beach? And where did that buck
stop?
\_ I am stupid. I compare everything to WW2. Kill me now.
\_ As if infiltrating Saddam's generals is as easy as flipping a
light switch, or putting on a hat. Saddam fed living people into
*plastic* *shredder* *machines*. Sometimes head first, sometimes
feet first. Most who slam Bush for removing Saddam don't mind
abortion either, so I guess torture and mass murder are O.K.
\_ The American people wouldn't have supported Saddam sending
our boys to take out Saddam if he had no WMDs.
Anyways, we're there now, and Dubya supporters want to look
forward, not back.
\_ And the US has already killled 100,000+ civilians. Do you
think the grieving widows care if their husband died in
a shredder or in an air raid?
\_ If it means a safer America, 59+ million Americans think it's
worth it! Anyway, it's probably only 10-40,000 civilians.
Ask Iraqis - they still think it's worth it!
\_ No, probably 100,000+
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
And do the Iraqis still think it was worth it?
I know the latest poll has 97% of them wanting
us to leave. And most Americans no longer
believe the fable that the Iraq war has made
us safer.
\_ "These numbers seem to be inflated" - Human Rights Watch
in the URL you posted.
Yeah, Iraqis want us to leave, but the question was
whether the war was worth it.
You're right about most Americans thinking it didn't
make us safer, but most Americans also think going into
Iraq was the right thing to do. |
http://csua.com/feed/