My thoughts on the whole Michael Moore thing...

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does anyone know the definition of a lie?

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Where was Bush's "intent to deceive" when he was only following intelligence reports?

Where did Bush "create" a misleading impression?

He didn't. He didn't lie. When he said Saddam had WMD and links to Al-Queda, he believed what he was saying was the truth. That, my friend, is NOT a lie.

So I can say the same about the people who call Bush a liar based on these things. They didn't know the defintion of lying, therefore they believed they were telling the truth. But since you've read this, you can no longer call Bush a liar, because you will be lying yourself.

Now, since I've cleared that up, no more "lying" hogwash.

Definition of a lie:
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

WaPo article">Complete article</a>

Do you remember ANYTHING AT ALL coming from any administration official citing doubts in the intelligence community about the pre-war information? I sure as sh*t don't. I do remember a few hundred appearances from them talking about "mushroom clouds" however. That is lying.

Bush created the false or misleading impression? Why no, no he didn't. That impression was there years before Bush became President and Saddam is the one who was trying to hold up the impression he has massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Once again, do you have any links to any of the main administration officials that were on TV almost daily selling this war stating that there were some serious doubts in regards to the accuracy of the evidence they were using to pump up support? That was there when he started and nothing you can say about Clinton this or Clinton that is relavant at all.

Attempts by you to inject today's knowledge into yesterday's decisions are laughable. The intel and Governments from around the world shared the view that Saddam possessed WMDs. Even the beloved UN stated so repeatedly. So for you and other leftists to claim that it was all made up by Bush is nothing but a lie.(yes, a REAL lie because you have been told the truth yet still continue with your lie)

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does anyone know the definition of a lie?

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Where was Bush's "intent to deceive" when he was only following intelligence reports?

Where did Bush "create" a misleading impression?

He didn't. He didn't lie. When he said Saddam had WMD and links to Al-Queda, he believed what he was saying was the truth. That, my friend, is NOT a lie.

So I can say the same about the people who call Bush a liar based on these things. They didn't know the defintion of lying, therefore they believed they were telling the truth. But since you've read this, you can no longer call Bush a liar, because you will be lying yourself.

Now, since I've cleared that up, no more "lying" hogwash.

Definition of a lie:
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

WaPo article">Complete article</a>

Do you remember ANYTHING AT ALL coming from any administration official citing doubts in the intelligence community about the pre-war information? I sure as sh*t don't. I do remember a few hundred appearances from them talking about "mushroom clouds" however. That is lying.

Bush created the false or misleading impression? Why no, no he didn't. That impression was there years before Bush became President and Saddam is the one who was trying to hold up the impression he has massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Once again, do you have any links to any of the main administration officials that were on TV almost daily selling this war stating that there were some serious doubts in regards to the accuracy of the evidence they were using to pump up support? That was there when he started and nothing you can say about Clinton this or Clinton that is relavant at all.

Attempts by you to inject today's knowledge into yesterday's decisions are laughable. The intel and Governments from around the world shared the view that Saddam possessed WMDs. Even the beloved UN stated so repeatedly. So for you and other leftists to claim that it was all made up by Bush is nothing but a lie.(yes, a REAL lie because you have been told the truth yet still continue with your lie)

Do you even bother to read before making your baseless claims? The article that I linked to a few posts up (and still visable in this reply) states that there were reservations AT THE TIME OF THE PR CAMPAIGN for this war.

Now, I ask once again, can you show any quotes from the Bushies that were selling us this war that stated that some in the intel community had doubts about the claims being made?

What about the UNSCOM inspectors doubts? Didn't hear the administration saying much about that either? If they only pushed one side of the equation without even acknowledging the doubts, they were lying by omission. They tried to make it seem that everyone on the planet supported their position and that is flat out wrong and misleading.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does anyone know the definition of a lie?

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Where was Bush's "intent to deceive" when he was only following intelligence reports?

Where did Bush "create" a misleading impression?

He didn't. He didn't lie. When he said Saddam had WMD and links to Al-Queda, he believed what he was saying was the truth. That, my friend, is NOT a lie.

So I can say the same about the people who call Bush a liar based on these things. They didn't know the defintion of lying, therefore they believed they were telling the truth. But since you've read this, you can no longer call Bush a liar, because you will be lying yourself.

Now, since I've cleared that up, no more "lying" hogwash.

Definition of a lie:
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

WaPo article">Complete article</a>

Do you remember ANYTHING AT ALL coming from any administration official citing doubts in the intelligence community about the pre-war information? I sure as sh*t don't. I do remember a few hundred appearances from them talking about "mushroom clouds" however. That is lying.

Bush created the false or misleading impression? Why no, no he didn't. That impression was there years before Bush became President and Saddam is the one who was trying to hold up the impression he has massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Once again, do you have any links to any of the main administration officials that were on TV almost daily selling this war stating that there were some serious doubts in regards to the accuracy of the evidence they were using to pump up support? That was there when he started and nothing you can say about Clinton this or Clinton that is relavant at all.

Attempts by you to inject today's knowledge into yesterday's decisions are laughable. The intel and Governments from around the world shared the view that Saddam possessed WMDs. Even the beloved UN stated so repeatedly. So for you and other leftists to claim that it was all made up by Bush is nothing but a lie.(yes, a REAL lie because you have been told the truth yet still continue with your lie)

Do you even bother to read before making your baseless claims? The article that I linked to a few posts up (and still visable in this reply) states that there were reservations AT THE TIME OF THE PR CAMPAIGN for this war.

Now, I ask once again, can you show any quotes from the Bushies that were selling us this war that stated that some in the intel community had doubts about the claims being made?

What about the UNSCOM inspectors doubts? Didn't hear the administration saying much about that either? If they only pushed one side of the equation without even acknowledging the doubts, they were lying by omission. They tried to make it seem that everyone on the planet supported their position and that is flat out wrong and misleading.

And some intel agencies didn't have reservations. You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve. You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because, RightIsWrong was attempting to suggest there was widespread doubt, which isn't quite the case. Sure there was some but to say they all or even most had doubts would be to trying to rewrite history.

Sorry, but it is fact. Lying needs intent and no intent has been proven.

Again, no intent has been proven. You can try to spin it with how you claim to see what Bush said but that doesn't mean it's true. Also while you claim Bush lied and made claims, you convienently ignore the FACT that Clinton, other democrats, and even the UN were saying these things. The numbers Bush gave out didn't come from nowhere, they came from the UN, the IAEA, and other places. For you and your ilk to keep trying to say Bush created or fabricated these sorts of things is flat out garbage and you know it.

So keep trying to make claims about lies if you wish, but rational people know the truth of the matter is that you people are being dishonest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because, RightIsWrong was attempting to suggest there was widespread doubt, which isn't quite the case. Sure there was some but to say they all or even most had doubts would be to trying to rewrite history.

So you're conceding your assertion, "some intel agencies didn't have reservations", is untrue?

Sorry, but it is fact. Lying needs intent and no intent has been proven.

Sorry dear, but no matter how much your ego cries otherwise, your opinion simply, inarguably is not fact. That no intent has been proven to your satisfaction does not prove the intent wasn't there. Absence of proof is not proof ... period. There is certainly plenty of evidence of BushCo's intent to deceive. It may not be enough proof for you, but I doubt there is any amount of evidence you would accept as "proof".

Again, no intent has been proven. You can try to spin it with how you claim to see what Bush said but that doesn't mean it's true. Also while you claim Bush lied and made claims, you convienently ignore the FACT that Clinton, other democrats, and even the UN were saying these things.

Your point? Even if what you say is correct, having many people repeat the same lies doesn't make them magically true. You also ignore differences in extent, certainty, and access to unfiltered intelligence data. Please show quotes from 2002 or 2003 where Clinton or the U.N. makes the same assertions about the extent of and certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. Remember, BushCo didn't just say, "We think Iraq may have some remaining WMDs." They stated as fact Iraq had massive stockpiles and a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and a fleet of UAVs ready to strike mainland America. Turns out their facts are as bogus as yours.

The numbers Bush gave out didn't come from nowhere, they came from the UN, the IAEA, and other places. For you and your ilk to keep trying to say Bush created or fabricated these sorts of things is flat out garbage and you know it.

Actually, much of what BushCo presented as fact was fabricated. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and say that for you and the other Bush faithful to insist otherwise is simple partisan ignorance.

Much of the BushCo "fact" came from taking worst-case projections based on old, unrealistic assumptions, and inflating them into the scariest number they could rationalize. For example, as I remember it, BushCo claimed Iraq had 30,000 liters of (somthing). This number came from an intelligence report that said if Iraq had continued to produce (something) at its former rate, and if they had increased production capacity by xx% per year, then Iraq might have from 8,000 to 22,000 liters of (something). BushCo took that unrealistic projection, rounded it up substantially, and repeatedly presented it as a factual certainty. They lied.

If you want the specifics, you'll have to search for them yourself. It was documented in one or more threads here.

So keep trying to make claims about lies if you wish, but rational people know the truth of the matter is that you people are being dishonest.

The only people who consider the Bush drones "rational" on this subject are the other Bush drones. Most of the country now realizes we were deceived into invading Iraq.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because, RightIsWrong was attempting to suggest there was widespread doubt, which isn't quite the case. Sure there was some but to say they all or even most had doubts would be to trying to rewrite history.

So you're conceding your assertion, "some intel agencies didn't have reservations", is untrue?

Sorry, but it is fact. Lying needs intent and no intent has been proven.

Sorry dear, but no matter how much your ego cries otherwise, your opinion simply, inarguably is not fact. That no intent has been proven to your satisfaction does not prove the intent wasn't there. Absence of proof is not proof ... period. There is certainly plenty of evidence of BushCo's intent to deceive. It may not be enough proof for you, but I doubt there is any amount of evidence you would accept as "proof".

Again, no intent has been proven. You can try to spin it with how you claim to see what Bush said but that doesn't mean it's true. Also while you claim Bush lied and made claims, you convienently ignore the FACT that Clinton, other democrats, and even the UN were saying these things.

Your point? Even if what you say is correct, having many people repeat the same lies doesn't make them magically true. You also ignore differences in extent, certainty, and access to unfiltered intelligence data. Please show quotes from 2002 or 2003 where Clinton or the U.N. makes the same assertions about the extent of and certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. Remember, BushCo didn't just say, "We think Iraq may have some remaining WMDs." They stated as fact Iraq had massive stockpiles and a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and a fleet of UAVs ready to strike mainland America. Turns out their facts are as bogus as yours.

The numbers Bush gave out didn't come from nowhere, they came from the UN, the IAEA, and other places. For you and your ilk to keep trying to say Bush created or fabricated these sorts of things is flat out garbage and you know it.

Actually, much of what BushCo presented as fact was fabricated. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and say that for you and the other Bush faithful to insist otherwise is simple partisan ignorance. Much of the BushCo "fact" came from taking worst-case projections based on old, unrealistic assumptions, and inflating it into the scariest number they could rationalize. For example, as I remember it, BushCo claimed Iraq had 30,000 liters of (somthing). This number came from an intelligence report that said if Iraq had continued to produce (something) at its former rate, and if they had increased production capacity by xx% per year, then Iraq []imight[/i] have from 8,000 to 22,000 liters of (something). BushCo took that unrealistic projection, rounded it up substantially, and repeatedly presented it as a factual certainty. They lied.

If you want the specifics, you'll have to search for them yourself. It was documented in one or more threads here.

So keep trying to make claims about lies if you wish, but rational people know the truth of the matter is that you people are being dishonest.

The only people who consider the Bush drones "rational" on this subject are the other Bush drones. Most of the country now realizes we were deceived into invading Iraq.

You can believe whatever you want, you've proven that you will continue to live in the left's alter-reality so continue on if you wish. The claims about Bush lying have not been proven, and no real evidence has ever been shown. All you leftists have is your feelings and talking points that rely on hindsight.
Just because something ends up being untrue in the end does not mean that a person who made the claim or was a supporter of it is a liar, especially when there others were providing the evidence supporting such things.

BTW, I see you've suddenly ignored the other thread about taxes. Interesting.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey



Just because something ends up being untrue in the end does not mean that a person who made the claim or was a supporter of it is a liar

Just because a person can't recognize when they've been lied to doesn't mean they haven't been told a lie.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because, RightIsWrong was attempting to suggest there was widespread doubt, which isn't quite the case. Sure there was some but to say they all or even most had doubts would be to trying to rewrite history.

So you're conceding your assertion, "some intel agencies didn't have reservations", is untrue?

Sorry, but it is fact. Lying needs intent and no intent has been proven.

Sorry dear, but no matter how much your ego cries otherwise, your opinion simply, inarguably is not fact. That no intent has been proven to your satisfaction does not prove the intent wasn't there. Absence of proof is not proof ... period. There is certainly plenty of evidence of BushCo's intent to deceive. It may not be enough proof for you, but I doubt there is any amount of evidence you would accept as "proof".

Again, no intent has been proven. You can try to spin it with how you claim to see what Bush said but that doesn't mean it's true. Also while you claim Bush lied and made claims, you convienently ignore the FACT that Clinton, other democrats, and even the UN were saying these things.

Your point? Even if what you say is correct, having many people repeat the same lies doesn't make them magically true. You also ignore differences in extent, certainty, and access to unfiltered intelligence data. Please show quotes from 2002 or 2003 where Clinton or the U.N. makes the same assertions about the extent of and certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. Remember, BushCo didn't just say, "We think Iraq may have some remaining WMDs." They stated as fact Iraq had massive stockpiles and a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and a fleet of UAVs ready to strike mainland America. Turns out their facts are as bogus as yours.

The numbers Bush gave out didn't come from nowhere, they came from the UN, the IAEA, and other places. For you and your ilk to keep trying to say Bush created or fabricated these sorts of things is flat out garbage and you know it.

Actually, much of what BushCo presented as fact was fabricated. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and say that for you and the other Bush faithful to insist otherwise is simple partisan ignorance. Much of the BushCo "fact" came from taking worst-case projections based on old, unrealistic assumptions, and inflating it into the scariest number they could rationalize. For example, as I remember it, BushCo claimed Iraq had 30,000 liters of (somthing). This number came from an intelligence report that said if Iraq had continued to produce (something) at its former rate, and if they had increased production capacity by xx% per year, then Iraq []imight[/i] have from 8,000 to 22,000 liters of (something). BushCo took that unrealistic projection, rounded it up substantially, and repeatedly presented it as a factual certainty. They lied.

If you want the specifics, you'll have to search for them yourself. It was documented in one or more threads here.

So keep trying to make claims about lies if you wish, but rational people know the truth of the matter is that you people are being dishonest.

The only people who consider the Bush drones "rational" on this subject are the other Bush drones. Most of the country now realizes we were deceived into invading Iraq.

You can believe whatever you want, you've proven that you will continue to live in the left's alter-reality so continue on if you wish. The claims about Bush lying have not been proven, and no real evidence has ever been shown. All you leftists have is your feelings and talking points that rely on hindsight.
Just because something ends up being untrue in the end does not mean that a person who made the claim or was a supporter of it is a liar, especially when there others were providing the evidence supporting such things.

BTW, I see you've suddenly ignored the other thread about taxes. Interesting.

Dear god you're a moran, assuming he using "talking points" you've done nothing to defeat them in anyway.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
BTW, I see you've suddenly ignored the other thread about taxes. Interesting.

What's interesting about it? I'm not here to facilitate your self-gratification. I made my points and you've offered nothing to refute them, instead spouting repetitive nonsense about money and emotional value. You've provided nothing new to discuss. If I see someone who's interested in thoughtful discussion addresses my points in a meaningful way, I'll pick it up again. Until then, you're a waste of time and electrons.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
BTW, I see you've suddenly ignored the other thread about taxes. Interesting.

What's interesting about it? I'm not here to facilitate your self-gratification. I made my points and you've offered nothing to refute them, instead spouting repetitive nonsense about money and emotional value. You've provided nothing new to discuss. If I see someone who's interested in thoughtful discussion addresses my points in a meaningful way, I'll pick it up again. Until then, you're a waste of time and electrons.

Figures, you continue to flippantly dismiss what I post and ignore or refuse to answer the questions.

You are right on one account though, you are a waste of time and electrons as you don't address my points in a meaningful way.

 

[randym431]

Proceeded to leave Flint - never coming back - never giving a penny to the poor in Flint.

Not true...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
And some intel agencies didn't have reservations.

Really? Prove it. Which ones had NO reservations? What's your basis for that claim?

You trying to suggest that since there were some reservations that somehow that means anyone who "sold" the war is a liar is an absurd piece of "logic". You have the benifit of hindsight and you can't project that backwards to claim someone lied.
The fact is, that Bush neither created the falsehoods nor did he intend to decieve.

Sorry, that's not a fact at all. That is your purely partisan and 100% predictable opinion.

You can claim that since there were some who doubted, that it means Bush knew and intended to decieve but that doesn't hold water when you look at the reality that existed back in 2002/2003.

Nonsense. We've covered this so many times before, but just for old times sake:

1. The Bushies' definition of "lie' is too restrictive, slanted in a way that favors BushCo. One does not need to present false information in order to lie. For example, one can lie by omission or by playing semantics games. These are the favorite lies of politicians and other expert liars; they have a plausible escape strategy if they are later cornered with hard facts. Therefore, in my opinion, a more accurate definition of "lie" is:
   
   A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
   
2. Most debates about BushCo lying get sidetracked into endless quibbling about precisely what BushCo knew and when they knew it, with comments like "the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs" before the invasion. That is a red herring in my opinion, a diversion from what we know for sure. For example, we know BushCo did NOT limit their Iraq WMD claims to the facts, i.e., that the intelligence community was divided in their estimates on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Instead, BushCo repeatedly asserted as fact that not only did Iraq have WMDs -- "these are facts, not assertions" -- but that Iraq had WMD quantities and capabilities far greater than anything supported by their (flawed) intel. They lied. They lied about the certainty about and extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities.
   
   The other favorite BushCo deception technique is lying through innuendo. The best example of this is their association of Iraq with 9/11 and 9/11 terrorism even thought they knew full well there was no evidence to support any substantive links. They never came out and directly claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11 -- though Cheney danced awfully close to that line -- resorting instead to incessantly intermixing the two in their comments to imply a connection through innuendo. It was quite effective for a long time, really unravelling only when Bush got directly cornered about it in one of the debates.

Based on your other posts, I can't imagine you will even try to respond directly and intelligently to the points I raise above. I'd love to be wrong about this ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because, RightIsWrong was attempting to suggest there was widespread doubt, which isn't quite the case. Sure there was some but to say they all or even most had doubts would be to trying to rewrite history.

So you're conceding your assertion, "some intel agencies didn't have reservations", is untrue?

Sorry, but it is fact. Lying needs intent and no intent has been proven.

Sorry dear, but no matter how much your ego cries otherwise, your opinion simply, inarguably is not fact. That no intent has been proven to your satisfaction does not prove the intent wasn't there. Absence of proof is not proof ... period. There is certainly plenty of evidence of BushCo's intent to deceive. It may not be enough proof for you, but I doubt there is any amount of evidence you would accept as "proof".

Again, no intent has been proven. You can try to spin it with how you claim to see what Bush said but that doesn't mean it's true. Also while you claim Bush lied and made claims, you convienently ignore the FACT that Clinton, other democrats, and even the UN were saying these things.

Your point? Even if what you say is correct, having many people repeat the same lies doesn't make them magically true. You also ignore differences in extent, certainty, and access to unfiltered intelligence data. Please show quotes from 2002 or 2003 where Clinton or the U.N. makes the same assertions about the extent of and certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. Remember, BushCo didn't just say, "We think Iraq may have some remaining WMDs." They stated as fact Iraq had massive stockpiles and a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and a fleet of UAVs ready to strike mainland America. Turns out their facts are as bogus as yours.

The numbers Bush gave out didn't come from nowhere, they came from the UN, the IAEA, and other places. For you and your ilk to keep trying to say Bush created or fabricated these sorts of things is flat out garbage and you know it.

Actually, much of what BushCo presented as fact was fabricated. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and say that for you and the other Bush faithful to insist otherwise is simple partisan ignorance.

Much of the BushCo "fact" came from taking worst-case projections based on old, unrealistic assumptions, and inflating them into the scariest number they could rationalize. For example, as I remember it, BushCo claimed Iraq had 30,000 liters of (somthing). This number came from an intelligence report that said if Iraq had continued to produce (something) at its former rate, and if they had increased production capacity by xx% per year, then Iraq might have from 8,000 to 22,000 liters of (something). BushCo took that unrealistic projection, rounded it up substantially, and repeatedly presented it as a factual certainty. They lied.

If you want the specifics, you'll have to search for them yourself. It was documented in one or more threads here.

So keep trying to make claims about lies if you wish, but rational people know the truth of the matter is that you people are being dishonest.

The only people who consider the Bush drones "rational" on this subject are the other Bush drones. Most of the country now realizes we were deceived into invading Iraq.

[Edit: specifically, from CsG's new poll thread, 64% of America thinks BushCo was deceptive about Iraq's WMDs before the invasion, either due to "Mostly lying" or to "Hiding important elements". ]

Note edit above for additional information. It looks like 64% of Americans are the "rational people who know the truth of the matter", and SoG ain't one of them.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Moore hates Bush so much that he'll do anything to bring him down, and that is his aim. He doesn't care who he runs over getting there or how much it damages the country, he just wants Bush out.
Same as the typical liberal.
I've seen so much of the "bring down the president" threads here on AT and other places I get the impression that the liberals only want Bush out and some liberal in, regardless of the cost. Just power hungry and sore that they lost elections.

My 2 cents

 

[imported_Condor]

M. Moore <= Pp! Would have used the other word, but the cookies wouldn't have worked out.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Moore hates Bush so much that he'll do anything to bring him down, and that is his aim. He doesn't care who he runs over getting there or how much it damages the country, he just wants Bush out.
Same as the typical liberal.
I've seen so much of the "bring down the president" threads here on AT and other places I get the impression that the liberals only want Bush out and some liberal in, regardless of the cost. Just power hungry and sore that they lost elections.

My 2 cents

Not to put words into their mouths, but have you ever stopped to think that MAYBE the people who want Bush out have a goal beyond power for their side? That maybe they think that would really be the best thing for the country? People are so quick to assume only their motives are good, everyone else must be evil or petty or political or have some other motivation. Nobody ever assumes that we're all motivated by the same thing, we just disagree about how best to achieve it.

Personally I think not understanding that concept is the sign of a small mind. But what do I know, I'm just an evil liberal who hates Bush more than I love this country. Or whatever idiot nonsense you people believe...