Modern Mainstream Oxymorons

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

(This has been refuted a dozen times here -- in depth -- but let's do a quick review, one more time.)

The problem is the Bush administration did NOT merely limit its claims to "we suspect Iraq still retains some WMD capabilities." Instead, it loudly and repeatedly insisted as unquestionable fact that Iraq had "massive stockpiles", "thousands of liters", a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program", a fleet of UAVs ready to strike the American mainland, aluminum tubes "only suitable" for use in an enrichment centrifuge, and an imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud". There was Rumsfeld's "We know where they are." and Powell's "These are facts, not assertions."

The truth, however, is that our intelligence agencies were NOT presenting these claims as unquestionable facts. They presented a wide range of estimates and speculative worst-case scenarios, loaded with caveats and qualifications. BushCo cherry-picked the worst of those, further exaggerated them in some documented cases, ignored all the footnotes and disclaimers, and publically declared their speculation as fact. BushCo engaged in blatant fear-mongering, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting both the extent of and their certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. In short, BushCo lied. Period.

The only reason Bush has not been held accountable is because the Republicans control Congress and have squelched any attempts for a full and independent investigation. Hell, they have yet to even deliver their partisan "investigation" into possible Bush administration misuse of intelligence data -- the Phase II report -- something they initially promised to deliver two years ago. The Republicans' single greatest nightmare right now is Democrats with subpoena power. That's one of the reasons I expect them to do anything and everything to maintain control in November.

Anyone else?

 

[Stunt]

Are you quoting yourself?
You act as if you were the one who discovered no wmd's...lol :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Are you quoting yourself?

Yes. I'm still waiting for all the apologists who insist the Bush administration didn't lie to address it. This is only about the tenth time I've posted something like it. Every time, the Bushies disappeared.

You act as if you were the one who discovered no wmd's...lol :roll:

If you say so.

 

[Stunt]

I'm not a big fan of Bush or many of his policies, but personally i think the administration honestly believed there were WMD. The proof? No more information than you have gathered, but I do have confidence in Clinton, and Blair. Blair is a smart man, and not the type to jump into wars (he's a labour guy) without significant evidence. Also, if you go back into Clinton's old quotes from interviews you will see he believed there were WMD's in Iraq as well. Could it all have been faulty evidence? sure. But this wouldn't be a new mistake if it was, this idea was believed by many nations and other administrations. The fact of the matter is, Bush refuses to admit the mistake...although this is very typical of many politicians; spin some dirt before admitting you were wrong. Look at Clinton and the Lewinsky thing, he was willing to lie to save face.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish...i mean if people are willing to look past fact and still support a crappy president, they will never change.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not a big fan of Bush or many of his policies, but personally i think the administration honestly believed there were WMD. The proof? No more information than you have gathered, but I do have confidence in Clinton, and Blair. Blair is a smart man, and not the type to jump into wars (he's a labour guy) without significant evidence. Also, if you go back into Clinton's old quotes from interviews you will see he believed there were WMD's in Iraq as well. Could it all have been faulty evidence? sure. But this wouldn't be a new mistake if it was, this idea was believed by many nations and other administrations. The fact of the matter is, Bush refuses to admit the mistake...although this is very typical of many politicians; spin some dirt before admitting you were wrong. Look at Clinton and the Lewinsky thing, he was willing to lie to save face.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish...i mean if people are willing to look past fact and still support a crappy president, they will never change.

I agree that Bush sincerely believed Iraq had some remaining WMD capabities, but that's a different issue. As I pointed out, Bush&Co didn't limit their claims to "We believe Iraq has some WMDs." Instead, they stated as fact all of the things I said above. They were lies. Not mistakes, but willful lies, deliberately misrepresenting the extent of and their certainty about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

What I'm trying to accomplish is two-fold. First, refute the "BushCo didn't lie" propaganda (i.e., lie) whenever it's floated. The claims of "bad intel" are a red herring from the real issue. Second, to hold Bush and his administration accountable for their lies, lies that not only killed some 2,500 Americans but also led us into an unprovoked and illegal invasion, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, cost us perhaps a trillion dollars or more, and made the U.S. the most hated country on the planet, damaging our postion in the world and increasing our risk of terrorism. If Clinton can be impeached for a consensual sex act, it certainly seems reasonable to hold Bush responsible for his lies.

 

[Stunt]

If Bush, Clinton, Blair all had the same intelligence and came to the conclusion Saddam had WMD...I have little doubt the evidence showed this. Leading up to the war Bush did sincerely believe in the existence of WMD's, but that should not be considered lying or deliberate intent to mislead. You yourself agree Bush was "sincere" in his beliefs...that doesn't equal "deliberately misrepresent".

Post invasion the evidence is clear...there were no WMD, hindsight is 20/20. You are expecting too much from your politicians if you think they will apoligize or give you the percentage accuracy in everything they say. I get what you are trying to do...but you are coming off as a lunatic with a complex...a Bush complex...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If Bush, Clinton, Blair all had the same intelligence and came to the conclusion Saddam had WMD...I have little doubt the evidence showed this. Leading up to the war Bush did sincerely believe in the existence of WMD's, but that should not be considered lying or deliberate intent to mislead. You yourself agree Bush was "sincere" in his beliefs...that doesn't equal "deliberately misrepresent".

Post invasion the evidence is clear...there were no WMD, hindsight is 20/20. You are expecting too much from your politicians if you think they will apoligize or give you the percentage accuracy in everything they say. I get what you are trying to do...but you are coming off as a lunatic with a complex...a Bush complex...

I still think you are missing my point, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. In brief, the lie wasn't a belief in Iraq's WMD's, it was the deliberate deception about the quantities and the certainty of their information.

(I'll also point out that this isn't just 20/20 hindsight. There were plenty of people before the invasion who said Iraq had no significant remaining WMD capabilities, and our own intelligence agencies wrapped plenty of disclaimers and qualifications around their analysis. Part of the BushCo lie was cherry-picking the intelligence they could use to scare Americans into supporting their attack.)

A lie is any act or statement intended to deceive. Bush deliberately deceived us. Bush lied. I think he should be held accountable for the horrific consequences of his lies. I don't expect it as long as the Repubs control Congress, of course, but that doesn't mean I won't express my opinion. If that means I sound like a lunatic to some people, so be it. I can live with that.

 

[jackschmittusa]

If Bush really wanted to know about WMD in Iraq, he would not have pulled the inspecters just as they had been granted unfettered access to any place they wanted to go. I think he was afraid they would turn up nothing and his chance to invade would be lost.

Perhaps one of the most well documented pieces of bogused up intel is the aluminum tubes. Perhaps the most knowlagable people on the planet on building uranium enrichment centrafuges are employed by the U.S. government. To a man, after analysing the tube specs, they declared they were rocket bodies, totally unsuitable for uranium enrichment. These assessments were completely discarded, and intead, the Administration took the assumption of one single (unqualified) CIA analyst that they were for a nuclear program, and announced it as indisputable fact.

Sorry, but that is a blantant lie in my book.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Libertarian Communism has always amused me.

 

[Red Dawn]

White Supremacist

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
White Supremacist

beloved patriot mofo, whatutalkinbout?

 

[RMich]

I think I qualify as a Bush-hater, but even I don't think he *lied* about WMD in Iraq, as lying is usually defined. He lied about the strength of the evidence supporting that assessment. He exhibited very bad judgment in starting a war which was not necessary even if there had been WMD and for cutting short United Nations attempts to determine the truth before the UN had had an opportunity to complete their work.

I think he was convinced that Saddam had WMD (Clinton, after all, also suspected Saddam had them) and that the Intelligence agencies were simply covering their asses by refusing to absolutely confirm what he assumed was a fact. He then used hucksterism to sell Americans on the supposed presence of WMD. Do I approve of his actions? NO! But to me, *lying about WMD* would mean he KNEW there were no WMD and then told the American people they were present. More accurate, IMHO, to say he deluded himself and others into believing something that was untrue.

Not that I think Bush doesn't lie. "We only tap phones when we have a warrant" -- Now THAT was a clear-cut lie. I just don't think his saying there were WMD in Iraq was a case where he self-consciously told the American public something he knew (or even suspected, IMHO) was not true.

EDIT -- Now I see others have jumped in to make this point. Should have read page 2 before posting.

 

[ScudRunner]

:disgust::thumbsdown:

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RMich
I think I qualify as a Bush-hater, but even I don't think he *lied* about WMD in Iraq, as lying is usually defined. He lied about the strength of the evidence supporting that assessment. He exhibited very bad judgment in starting a war which was not necessary even if there had been WMD and for cutting short United Nations attempts to determine the truth before the UN had had an opportunity to complete their work.

I think he was convinced that Saddam had WMD (Clinton, after all, also suspected Saddam had them) and that the Intelligence agencies were simply covering their asses by refusing to absolutely confirm what he assumed was a fact. He then used hucksterism to sell Americans on the supposed presence of WMD. Do I approve of his actions? NO! But to me, *lying about WMD* would mean he KNEW there were no WMD and then told the American people they were present. More accurate, IMHO, to say he deluded himself and others into believing something that was untrue.

It's still lying even if you are lying to yourself along with everyone else. For example:

I could say "I know you are Asian"; but that would be a lie. I could sight evidence that you picked an avatar that looks Asian, and can argue that it isn't like I KNEW you weren't Asian. However, even if you are Asian, claiming "I know you are Asian" is still a lie; I'm simply going off what I have found evidence to suggest, and lying by presenting my speculation as fact.

Get it?