Quickie for "Bush lied on WMD" crowd

[mechsiah]

My quick disclaimer: I don't like Bush. I don't especially like his administration. I certainly don't like his policies on many issues. That being said-

Does anyone have any proof that our President knowingly lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction? I have read maybe 20 posts with people talking about impeachment or him lying, but no one has ANY proof (that I have seen).

Exposition:

1) I have little doubt that the administration WANTED to believe in WMD and probably over-looked information to the contrary.

2) I would not be surprised if certain members of the administration actually trumped up information before it was presented, or left out contradictory information. Most people who don't like Bush tend to see him as not-to-bright. Why should it be hard to believe that he was mislead by members of his own staff?

3) Many, many wars (yes, even those involving Democrats) have been undertaken based on some pretty shady stuff. Facts have been over-stated and rationals have been revised.

Please show some thought in your responses.

Mechsiah

 

[glenn1]

It would be hard to establish such a finding in a legal sense, you'd need voice recordings, written documents, or direct testimonial evidence to prove such an allegation. But in the political arena, none of these evidentiary requirements necessarily apply; there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement and the ultimate judge and jury are the voters. The voters are also unbound by any of the requirements of a jury in the legal system, such as being bound by the judge's rulings, legal findings and precedents, and appelate review. The "proof" would be whatever the voters decide it should be, and they can apply their judgement as to whether the proof really matters or not.

 

[konichiwa]

I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

But we never found out what Iraq was doing with those illegal tubes. We cant say they were being used for rocket development or uranium enrichment. We only know they had them.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

you don't know how far into the matrix (or '1984') you really are.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

you don't know how far into the matrix (or '1984') you really are.

Would you disagree, oh ye of many metaphors and few facts? Heads will roll for this WMD hiccup, I gaurantee it, and W.'s won't be one of them.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

But we never found out what Iraq was doing with those illegal tubes. We cant say they were being used for rocket development or uranium enrichment. We only know they had them.

IIRC, the documents themselves that proclaimed the alleged purchase of these tubes were forged, meaning that Iraq never purchased, or attempted to purchase, them at all.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

But we never found out what Iraq was doing with those illegal tubes. We cant say they were being used for rocket development or uranium enrichment. We only know they had them.

IIRC, the documents themselves that proclaimed the alleged purchase of these tubes were forged, meaning that Iraq never purchased, or attempted to purchase, them at all.

You are thinking of forged documents from niger reguarding uranium sales.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

you don't know how far into the matrix (or '1984') you really are.

Would you disagree, oh ye of many metaphors and few facts? Heads will roll for this WMD hiccup, I gaurantee it, and W.'s won't be one of them.

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

 

[glenn1]

IIRC, the documents themselves that proclaimed the alleged purchase of these tubes were forged, meaning that Iraq never purchased, or attempted to purchase, them at all.

I think the forged docs you're referring to may concern an attempted purchase of nuclear material from an African country, not the aluminum tubes. I'm pretty sure the tube order was well-documented fact, only their end-purpose was in question. IIRC, it was also unsure at what level the nuke forgeries originated at, or whether it was an old forgery from years ago dredged up in an effort to find more evidence to present to bolster the administration's WMD case.

 

[konichiwa]

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Okay, you still have yet to address the subject at hand. Guess who's fooled now? I'd say Bush/Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the willing," considering the fact that the main chunk of evidence upon which this invasion was based is slowing starting to erode.

 

[konichiwa]

You are thinking of forged documents from niger reguarding uranium sales.

Yep, you're right.

 

[mechsiah]

>he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some >simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We idiot liberals are not convinced that he ISN'T a simpleton- and on THAT point I think I can provide some evidence.

Please see my above request and the forum rules on personal attacks.

Mechsiah

 

[glenn1]

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

I do find it rather ironic that the same people who believed and stated repeatedly "Bush is a moron," or words to that effect, have now changed their opinion of him and find him fully mentally capable of masterminding (and succeeding in putting in place!) such a diabolical and Machievellian plot to fool the rest of the world.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

The aluminum tubes were not purchased from Niger nor did the forged documents (supplied by the British) refer to aluminum tubes. The documents in question referred to an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium ore.

The high quality and tight tolerance aluminum tubes were (I believe but can't say for sure) purchased from Germany.

edit/ I won't bother making the obvious comments about someone who doesn't even know the basic facts but is willing to condemn in any case.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Okay, you still have yet to address the subject at hand. Guess who's fooled now? I'd say Bush/Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the willing," considering the fact that the main chunk of evidence upon which this invasion was based is slowing starting to erode.

like i said in another thread. this war was planned up to half a decade earlier. all the pieces had to be put together. this administration waited for the right environment and took advantage of iraq's mistakes. There were no lies told here, only "truths" (reasonings).

Show me a quote of Bush or anyone within his administration actually lying and I'll capitulate.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'd say the documents re: aluminum tubes that Saddam allegedly attempted to purchase from Niger, which later turned out to be blatant forgeries are about as close as it comes to actually lying.

But, intentional lie or not, in this day and age we will never see a scandal on the magnitude of watergate. The president can always disavow knowledge of any wrongdoing; there are hundreds of scapegoats lined up from Powell to Tenet to Blair...

The aluminum tubes were not purchased from Niger nor did the forged documents (supplied by the British) refer to aluminum tubes. The documents in question referred to an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium ore.

The high quality and tight tolerance aluminum tubes were (I believe but can't say for sure) purchased from Germany.

edit/ I won't bother making the obvious comments about someone who doesn't even know the basic facts but is willing to condemn in any case.

Oh give me a break; I confused two related incidents and was quick to admit my mistake. Get over yourself.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: konichiwa

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Okay, you still have yet to address the subject at hand. Guess who's fooled now? I'd say Bush/Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the willing," considering the fact that the main chunk of evidence upon which this invasion was based is slowing starting to erode.

like i said in another thread. this war was planned up to half a decade earlier. all the pieces had to be put together. this administration waited for the right environment and took advantage of iraq's mistakes. There were no lies told here, only "truths" (reasonings).

Show me a quote of Bush or anyone within his administration actually lying and I'll capitulate.

Capitulate to what? I didn't say he "actually lied"

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: konichiwa

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Okay, you still have yet to address the subject at hand. Guess who's fooled now? I'd say Bush/Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the willing," considering the fact that the main chunk of evidence upon which this invasion was based is slowing starting to erode.

like i said in another thread. this war was planned up to half a decade earlier. all the pieces had to be put together. this administration waited for the right environment and took advantage of iraq's mistakes. There were no lies told here, only "truths" (reasonings).

Show me a quote of Bush or anyone within his administration actually lying and I'll capitulate.

Capitulate to what? I didn't say he "actually lied"

look at the title of this thread. now what is your opinion on this whole WMD issue? the fact is there were facts, but different people had different deductions based upon interests.

in the world of global politics, don't go looking for moralists or evildoers. Everyone is in it for themselves (or their constituents). You trying to accuse bush of lying or fibbing is like accusing him of looking after his country.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: glenn1

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

I do find it rather ironic that the same people who believed and stated repeatedly "Bush is a moron," or words to that effect, have now changed their opinion of him and find him fully mentally capable of masterminding (and succeeding in putting in place!) such a diabolical and Machievellian plot to fool the rest of the world.

Hey, my opinion hasn't changed, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you might be better off lying to get what you want.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dari

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Well, there's a well-formed argument if I've ever seen one. Have you even read konichiwa's posts? You're going off on him/her when all konichiwa said was that the closest thing to proof of Bush lying was the forged uranium orders! Sure doesn't sound like he/she's saying that Bush definitely lied. You seem way too anxious to argue... perhaps you should go down to your local bar and argue with some drunks about it? You might even win.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Dari

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Well, there's a well-formed argument if I've ever seen one. Have you even read konichiwa's posts? You're going off on him/her when all konichiwa said was that the closest thing to proof of Bush lying was the forged uranium orders! Sure doesn't sound like he/she's saying that Bush definitely lied. You seem way too anxious to argue... perhaps you should go down to your local bar and argue with some drunks about it? You might even win.

what does his/her name-calling of bush have to do with his/her fallacies about the uranium tubes?

And as far as the accusation of bush lying is concerned, he either did it or he didn't. There are no grey areas when it comes to action. And this isn't the only thread where he/she has attacked Bush or put him in a negative light. I'm guessing it won't be the last either.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Dari

he won't be one of them because idiot liberals like you have passed him off as some simpleton who doesn't know what's going on. Guess who's fooled now.

Well, there's a well-formed argument if I've ever seen one. Have you even read konichiwa's posts? You're going off on him/her when all konichiwa said was that the closest thing to proof of Bush lying was the forged uranium orders! Sure doesn't sound like he/she's saying that Bush definitely lied. You seem way too anxious to argue... perhaps you should go down to your local bar and argue with some drunks about it? You might even win.

what does his/her name-calling of bush have to do with his/her fallacies about the uranium tubes?

And as far as the accusation of bush lying is concerned, he either did it or he didn't. There are no grey areas when it comes to action. And this isn't the only thread where he/she has attacked Bush or put him in a negative light. I'm guessing it won't be the last either.

So essentially what he said is that there is no solid evidence that Bush lied... so I guess he's supporting your side then? I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. He didn't say Bush definitely lied. I know there are no grey areas - Bush either lied or he didn't. But you know what? We don't know if he did or didn't! If you're not open to the POSSIBILITY that Bush lied, you're deluding yourself. And so what if he "attacked bush or put him in a negative light?" He's not allowed to do that? Bush is above reproach? I'm a conservative/Republican, and I think this war was the biggest screw-up of Bush's presidency.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Lying is a very black and white issue, it's just too bad not everybody agrees where the white stops and the black starts.

Is misrepresenting the truth to suit your own agenda a lie?
Is neglecting to state a truth that may have negative results a lie?
Is purposely keeping yourself ignorant of truth so you can say the opposite a lie?

I don't think anyone would disagree that all of the above are used to deceptive ends, and in my book that makes them all a lie. Now Bush may not be guilty of a single one, but if he's not, the only other explaination for what has come out of the man's mouth is that he was fooled into saying it. So he's either a liar, or he's inept, and IMO either one makes him unfit to be president of the US.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Lying is a very black and white issue, it's just too bad not everybody agrees where the white stops and the black starts.

Is misrepresenting the truth to suit your own agenda a lie?
Is neglecting to state a truth that may have negative results a lie?
Is purposely keeping yourself ignorant of truth so you can say the opposite a lie?

I don't think anyone would disagree that all of the above are used to deceptive ends, and in my book that makes them all a lie. Now Bush may not be guilty of a single one, but if he's not, the only other explaination for what has come out of the man's mouth is that he was fooled into saying it. So he's either a liar, or he's inept, and IMO either one makes him unfit to be president of the US.

you're missing the whole point of this war and its strategic importance to the United States.

And since when did being a liar (that's what you said) make you unfit to be president? What president hasn't lied? George Washington? A politician is, by nature, a professional liar. You weren't born yesterday, were you?

Now, I'm not saying bush lied. But another point you guys are missing entirely is that facts can be interpreted into whatever truth you want it to be.