Quickie for "Bush lied on WMD" crowd

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: mechsiah
Does anyone have any proof that our President knowingly lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Well... It seems like none of us are above jumping to conclusions without the kind of proof you're now asking for.

As each day passes, it's harder and harder for us not to face the fact that Iraq had no where near the arsenal of WMD that George W assured us they possessed. If George W can decide to make war on a country without absolute proof, then I suppose it's okay for a few of his detractors to decide he is lying without absolute proof. The consequences if they are mistaken are a lot less dire.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dari

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

Haha... you actually buy that? How did this war help us?

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?

As a Republican, I don't see anything wrong with holding Republicans to the same standard that Republicans held Bill Clinton to.

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.

...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

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

I'm not missing anything, I know exactly the importance that you and this administration felt this war had, and I disagree.

And since when did being a liar (that's what you said) make you unfit to be president?

When it is done in an attempt to decieve and scare people into supporting an unecessary war.

What president hasn't lied? George Washington? A politician is, by nature, a professional liar.

You're right, forgive me. Sometimes I forget and try to hold the leader of the free world to a higher standard.

You weren't born yesterday, were you?

Nope, I'm probably older than you. At least I hope so.

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.

Indeed they can, which offers a lot of leeway to decieve without expressly lying now doesn't it?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here is a Washington Post Article on the aluminum tubes. There is some debate on their useage.
Evidence on Iraq Challenged - Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

konichiwa - you might also be thinking about the British Dossier on the Iraq intelligence network that was plagiarized verbatim from a PhD student and passed off as British Intelligence. It was also cited by Powell when he gave his speech to the UN.

Downing St admits blunder on Iraq dossier

I think GWB truly believes in what he is doing. He may have to dress the pig up in order to sell it but he is going to put the best spin out there and fill in the rest later.
I don't know if he out and out lied. I truely believe he believes what he is saying so it's a matter of what happens next and if they do find the WMD.

 

[Moonbeam]

What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

 

[Czar]

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.

according to specialists the order was detailed, as in the mesurements were exact, and to modify them for use in uraniuim enrichment would reqire some major modifications. so its highly unlikely that they were going to be used for that.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2978666.stm
Iraq had tried to import thousands of tubes which could be used in centrifuges to separate enriched uranium, a claim made in the CIA file. The IAEA reported that the tubes could have been designed for manufacturing small rockets.

 

[sandorski]

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.

"Illegal aluminum tubes"? The only way the tubes could be "illegal" is if they were being used as alleged, since they were unsuitable for that purpose, they were not "illegal".

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush absolutely lied by proclaiming that Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S.. The threat was a far bigger lie than just the BS about WMD. He cited WMD and connections to Bin Laden as proof of the threat. Neither was backed by definitive intel. Bush had to know that there was no hard evidence, but he persisted in stating these wishful presumptions as fact. With intent and by design, he fabricated a senerio that suggested more 9/11s if we did not act immediately. To lie to the American people about their safety to advance a personal and party agenda is discusting.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

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.

according to specialists the order was detailed, as in the mesurements were exact, and to modify them for use in uraniuim enrichment would reqire some major modifications. so its highly unlikely that they were going to be used for that.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2978666.stm
Iraq had tried to import thousands of tubes which could be used in centrifuges to separate enriched uranium, a claim made in the CIA file. The IAEA reported that the tubes could have been designed for manufacturing small rockets.

The IAEA also did admit that they could be modified for use in uranium enrichment. However, we still do not know what they were used for.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 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

It is up to an full inquiry to find the truth. You certainly can't expect the Amrican people individually to conduct an inquiry. It's up to the legislative branch to do so. They have the power and the resources, not us. This is why the framers of the Constitution have three branches in our federal government. Checks and balances.

It's time for a full inquiry into this mess. Only then will we have the opportunity to find the truth.

 

[BOBDN]

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.

Bush quotes:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Capitulate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

Remember this if someone you love is injured in a crime. You can argue that it is hypocritical to give him a stiff sentence when someone who runs a red light gets relatively nothing.

You are digging yourself into a pit if you wish to argue equivalence for what Clinton and Bush did. As far as realism goes, I have seen it, and it is not pretty. We either get to the bottom of this and go for the throat if needed, or we will forever roll over and play dead for any contemplated government action. Want reality in this context? Your leaders will get away with whatever they wish if not held to a high standard. Lower that, and you get what you deserve. Johnson forgiven. Nixon? Ah, well that's politics. Is that what you wish? That is what you are asking for.

 

[BOBDN]

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.

I love your logic. Someone attacks Bush or puts him in a "negative light" and you're ready to start a war over it (is your real name Bush?).

Conservatives attacked Clinton mercilessly for 8 LONG YEARS and all they could come up with after wasting $60 million of taxpayer's money was consentual oral sex. Bush invades another nation on the basis of a lie and you're complaining about attacking him and putting him in a "negative light."

What a hypocrite.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."
------------------------------
Well Hayabusarider already said the important things to this but let me too in the flavor that comes to me:

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. (I take this as an admission and confession. You are a utilitarian and a relativist and boastful as I suggested) It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. (This is of course your lunatic, realist assumption. You are an elitist who KNOWS what is the best interest of America. Actually you could better be described as a sociopath possessed of a deviant and abnormal amorality, and to which fact you are very proud.) Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. (The illusion that circumstantial evidence can not be damming or that the dalliance in the appearance of corruption in a politician isn't as bad as the reality.) The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. (What facts, he's shown us only lies) Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story. (It's the same story, I'm afraid)

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another. (It's amazing how saying something doesn't make it true.)
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue." A wiser man said that we see the mote in the eye of the other but not the beam in our own.

 

[LunarRay]

A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

Virtue worries neither about vice nor hypocrisy. The latter two feed on themselves while the former need no sating.

 

[Moonbeam]

I remember when I discovered that virtue was its only reward. Nothing like having the greatest reward there can possibly be.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I remember when I discovered that virtue was its only reward. Nothing like having the greatest reward there can possibly be.

:beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

There's no room on this planet for the nation you describe. Expect more 9/11s.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

There's no room on this planet for the nation you describe. Expect more 9/11s.

that's too simplistic to argue over.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

Who even knows WHAT bush's motives were for the war? It certainly didn't make us any safer.

 

[Moonbeam]

sandorski, here's Dari from a similar thread:

"you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality."
------------------------------
Even if you pinned him down, he's just change his opinion to something else that said you were wrong. You are wrong by definition because your truth is threatening. Hehe, "if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality." Never have I seen the reality that is psychosis so well defined.

 

[sandorski]

Yup, Dari is part of the "Might is Right" crowd. It doesn't matter whether it's Ghandi or Hitler, if the ability to enforce one's words exists, then they are obviously "Morally Superior".

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you doing here, Dari, presenting an amoral utilitarian view of life? You seem to have no principle other than self interest of which you seem to sound rather proud.

No, I'm a realist. And for that I am proud. It's ironic that you guys are trying to defame this president at every opportunity when he acted out of american interest. Besides, no one can conclusively prove that he fabricated anything. The man showed you guys the facts and he used it to come to a conclusion that, given the current environment, was totally justifiable. Whether or not our intel on iraq was spotty is another story.

It's amazing how the hypocrites (liberals) are preaching about morality in one instance while trumphing free-speech or tolerance over morality in another.
A wise frenchman once wrote: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

Can you prove he acted out of American interest?

 

[Alistar7]

well it wasnt only US intelligence, it was all that was made available, including british (the 45 minutes to use WMD came from UK intelligence) and stuff from the UN. Why was the claim made that tons of WMD were unaccounted for? How did they know how much? The UN, and that info came from Saddam himself. Is anyone going to sit here and suggest George Bush is the only person, other than Saddam of course, to say Iraq has WMD? Can I have some of that good stuff youre smoking please..... What was the UN looking for anyway, why did they never end the sanctions? Could it be because there were still tons of WMD unaccounted for? What was the point of continuing inspections as they wanted? To find them, why did they want more time to look for something that you insist was not even there, maybe they are smoking the better stuff, someones not thinking clearly though.