New evidence: CIA and MI6 were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
We'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, it was lying through omission. He was intentionally trying to mislead by insinuating Iraq had active WMD warheads. That is simply not the case, as quoting Blix's full statement would have shown. They were passive components filled with water, violating the letter of U.S. law (not sure about U.N. definitions), but not even close to matching the Bush administration rhetoric about "massive stockpiles", "mushroom cloud", mobile weapons labs, and a fleet of UAVs poised to strike America's heartland.

I guess we will because I don't believe saying something can carry a warhead is, in anyway, insinuating that it has a warhead - not to mention then going on to say that it doesn't need a warhead to count as a US defined WMD. TO me that statement is a far better insinuation that it didn't have a warhead. He certainly made no reference to Bush claims of massive stockpiles etc so I fail to see what point of including that in your statement when discussing your claimed dishonesty
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
images

that guy was great, wonder what ever happened to him. Fox news anchor?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
To be fair - the US does not base its classification on the current contents of the warheads but their ability to potentially carry nuclear/biological/chemical contents thus a warhead capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is a WMD regardless of whether there is a nuclear warhead in it or water.

Puh-leeze! If US law defined day as night, that wouldn't make it true.

What you offer is hair-splitting apologism for leaders who believed their own bullshit, or at least appeared to do so, at best.

Otherwise, it was just straight up exaggeration & lying- take your pick.

I'll pick the latter, given the Bush Whitehouse wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning-

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

"Find me a way." 9/11 was the way, make no mistake about that.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I'm as against the war as someone can reasonably be, but as has been pointed out and ignored, hirelings representing any leader are not credible sources. That's all there is to this.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
No, when all that is happening is insults the thread is useless and bores me. Unless I ignore the stats the left decide to ignore and focus on what the you decide to focus on then I get called an idiot, moron, Fox-watching dunce, racist, bigot, and on and on. You are the one who wanted an apology from the right because one piece of evidence was obtained illegally.

If you only rely on one news source you have a problem... a bit more of a problem if you only rely on Fox News Cable channel
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
What post got him banned? I must've missed it, because I don't remember seeing it. Perhaps in another thread?

No idea, he trolls so much I don't think it's possible to keep up with all the bannable offenses most likely.

I predict another spiral of ban...come back...another ban a day later...come back...another ban a day later..until he's sent away again.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
that guy was great, wonder what ever happened to him. Fox news anchor?


Al-Sahhaf was let go as he wasn't a real Baathist, more like the kind of Baathist that goes with the flow because he didn't want any fingernails ripped out. After brief interrogation, Baghdad Bob and family went to the UAE last I heard.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I wonder if not the proper course of action, in response to not finding WMDs... after how long? Would be to impeach the President. I wonder if that is what we should have done.

We impeached a guy for getting a blow job in the White House and for spooging on a blue dress. If we can impeach a guy for that, surely we can impeach guy for lying to the American public in order to start a war that resulted in the deaths of over 4000 Americans (and the permanent handicapping of thousands more) and cost us trillions of dollars.

Oh, wait. This is prudish America where sex is shocking but where violence and money wasting is OK, silly me.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
We impeached a guy for getting a blow job in the White House and for spooging on a blue dress. If we can impeach a guy for that, surely we can impeach guy for lying to the American public in order to start a war that resulted in the deaths of over 4000 Americans (and the permanent handicapping of thousands more) and cost us trillions of dollars.

Oh, wait. This is prudish America where sex is shocking but where violence and money wasting is OK, silly me.

You know it was for lying to a grand jury. Nobody wanted to impeach Bush because guess who would have taken his place?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You know it was for lying to a grand jury. Nobody wanted to impeach Bush because guess who would have taken his place?

And of course, you know that having sex with an intern had nothing to do with why the special prosecutor was questioning him right?

Of course you did, you just ignore that little fact. Clinton lied yes, but Starr had no business asking those questions. It was just an excuse to grill Clinton on anything and everything that the GOP could think of. A free for all witch hunt by the GOP.

And of course you do realize that Ken Starr himself later said that it was it was too much right? But since you have this double standard, I guess that a GOP witch hunt are OK, just like GOP voter registration fraud is OK. These things are only wrong if they are done TO the GOP in your mind.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You know it was for lying to a grand jury. Nobody wanted to impeach Bush because guess who would have taken his place?

LOL...in Matt1970's view:

Lie about a blowjob: impeachment

Lie about starting a war killing over 100,000 innocent people: oh well, nothing to see here.

You really want to argue that you impeach someone based on who his successor is? Really? That's the best you can do?
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Anyone with 2 brain cells could see that they didn't.

Yeah but Bush didn't have two brain cells... Sadly.

Just wait till 9/11 leaks out as a terrorist plot against ourselves to hide billions of missing money.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
We impeached a guy for getting a blow job in the White House and for spooging on a blue dress. If we can impeach a guy for that, surely we can impeach guy for lying to the American public in order to start a war that resulted in the deaths of over 4000 Americans (and the permanent handicapping of thousands more) and cost us trillions of dollars.

Oh, wait. This is prudish America where sex is shocking but where violence and money wasting is OK, silly me.

For the sake argument let's stipulate Bush (intentionally) lied. If it is a 'high crime or misdemeanor' for a politician to lie to the American people all h3ll would break loose in Washington DC and the place would be vacant.

Personally, I don't think he/they lied, just got it wrong. It's irrational to start a war based on a lie about WMD when you know that fact will soon be exposed. I think anybody doing that would make sure the lie remained uncovered by planting WMD.

In any case, your complaints rests with the Dems who controlled of both houses of Congress during 2007 and 2008 while Bush was President. And impeaching now makes no sense to me: (1) Bush is out of office and (2) I believe beyond the reach of impeachment.

Fern
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
LOL..so known lying trolled intentionally lied about moderation? I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Guess his long term ban didn't help with his issues.

You think that prevents him from still posting? Dude probably has 20 alt accounts he uses specifically from his phone.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,272
1,441
136
For the sake argument let's stipulate Bush (intentionally) lied. If it is a 'high crime or misdemeanor' for a politician to lie to the American people all h3ll would break loose in Washington DC and the place would be vacant.

Personally, I don't think he/they lied, just got it wrong. It's irrational to start a war based on a lie about WMD when you know that fact will soon be exposed. I think anybody doing that would make sure the lie remained uncovered by planting WMD.

In any case, your complaints rests with the Dems who controlled of both houses of Congress during 2007 and 2008 while Bush was President. And impeaching now makes no sense to me: (1) Bush is out of office and (2) I believe beyond the reach of impeachment.

Fern

Exactly Bush Administration was essentially guilty of believing bad intelligence and ignoring any intelligence that contradicted what they wanted to believe. Will not be the first or last time a politician goes down this road. Also what can happen is that if the Administration want's something to be true sometimes the intelligence community leaders will try to deliver what they believe since it helps their careers. Generally a messed up situation all around.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
For the sake argument let's stipulate Bush (intentionally) lied. If it is a 'high crime or misdemeanor' for a politician to lie to the American people all h3ll would break loose in Washington DC and the place would be vacant.

Personally, I don't think he/they lied, just got it wrong. It's irrational to start a war based on a lie about WMD when you know that fact will soon be exposed. I think anybody doing that would make sure the lie remained uncovered by planting WMD.

In any case, your complaints rests with the Dems who controlled of both houses of Congress during 2007 and 2008 while Bush was President. And impeaching now makes no sense to me: (1) Bush is out of office and (2) I believe beyond the reach of impeachment.

Fern

You think too much about making excuses for the inexcusable, and thus make it possible for it to happen again.

The Bush Admin had the whole thing dialed in from the start. They didn't need to actually find WMD's, they just needed to switch rationales, which they did beautifully with the whole "Support the Troops!" routine. If you didn't support their vision, and therefore the troops, you were automagically a Terrarist Sympathizer. It worked beautifully, because a favorable response to that stimulus has been ingrained into America with decades of propaganda.

Everything they told us about why they wanted to invade Iraq was a lie, a fabrication, something designed to convince us that it was necessary & right. It never was, because war based on lies never is. Those lies are what make wars of aggression plausible and doable for the aggressor nation's population to go along with it.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Exactly Bush Administration was essentially guilty of believing bad intelligence and ignoring any intelligence that contradicted what they wanted to believe. Will not be the first or last time a politician goes down this road. Also what can happen is that if the Administration want's something to be true sometimes the intelligence community leaders will try to deliver what they believe since it helps their careers. Generally a messed up situation all around.

When the Commander in Chiefs of the worlds largest militaryX10 can be so easily duped into invading and laying waste to other countries, terrorists seem a very very tiny threat
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
For the sake argument let's stipulate Bush (intentionally) lied. If it is a 'high crime or misdemeanor' for a politician to lie to the American people all h3ll would break loose in Washington DC and the place would be vacant.

Personally, I don't think he/they lied, just got it wrong. It's irrational to start a war based on a lie about WMD when you know that fact will soon be exposed. I think anybody doing that would make sure the lie remained uncovered by planting WMD.

In any case, your complaints rests with the Dems who controlled of both houses of Congress during 2007 and 2008 while Bush was President. And impeaching now makes no sense to me: (1) Bush is out of office and (2) I believe beyond the reach of impeachment.

Fern

How many lies by politicians have led directly to the deaths of Americans?