Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

caveats and qualifiers ARE expressions of doubt. If all of our intell were current. If we had had multiple humint sources on the ground that had been proven accurate on several occasions all telling us the locations of WMD stockpiles which we could then verify with current satellite photographs.... if there were high radiation signatures from plants that multiple other sources had told us were being used for nuclear weapons development and assembly... if we had photographs smuggled out by intelligence assets which showed clearly, stockpiles of easily identifiable weapons... there would not be caveats and qualifiers... it WOULD have been a slam dunk, smoking gun, no doubt deal. That was NOT the case. And again... I don't care what Bush did or did not believe... he didn't tell us he BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he said there was NO DOUBT that he had them. NOT that HE HAD NO DOUBT.... BUT THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBT. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the qualitative difference between "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt", we'll ring around this fucking mulberry bush until one of us goes to bed.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
I have no qualms with that statement at all. Beliefs are the same as opinions. You can BELIEVE something deep down in your soul, and even though it is not TRUE, as long as you believe it, and as long as you tell us that you are stating your BELIEFS, then even if it turns out not to BE true, if you BELIEVED it when you said it, then it is not a lie. I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!!!!! If it turns out that the house wasn't actually on fire, but it was just your old uncle smoking one of his smelly cigars, then your statement is not a lie. Now... if you had said, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!... and, even as you said it, you KNEW it was just the cigars, then it would be a lie.

George Bush might very well have believed deep down in his heart that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, regardless of the doubts and uncertainty about the existence of those stockpiles that were contained in the NIE's that his very own intelligence agencies produced for him. If that was his belief, he should have said, "There are those in my administration who are not quite as certain as I am concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's... lots of the intelligence is old, lots of it is based upon speculation and subjective photo analysis... lots of it is based upon single source human intelligence from sources that are not all that trustworthy.... but, regardless, I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD'S" If that had been his position, I could have found nothing to fault in it. He and his team did not say that. They knew about the doubts and the caveats and the qualifiers and they still said, "THERE IS NO DOUBT".... That is not the statement of a deeply held personal belief, that phrase is the statement of a fact. THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE. There WAS doubt. They said there was none. It was right there in his own NIE's. He KNEW there was doubt and said there was none. I could give a FUCK what he personally believed.... if he had made his statement in such a manner that showed that he was stating his personal belief and not issuing a statement of fact, I would have disagreed with him, but I would not have been LIED to. He made a statement of fact concerning the non-existence of doubt and, when he made the statement, he knew that doubt existed. He lied.
Click to expand...
"if you had said, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!... and, even as you said it, you KNEW it was just the cigars, then it would be a lie"....

I can't believe you just posted that....are you getting senile?


Why would any speaker have to stipulate (I) HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD'S

Who the fuck did you think was talking ? You didn't know who was speaking ?....Only an idiot would demand that every thought has to begin with a stipulation that
identifies it is he that is speaking..and who the hell else's belief could he stating if not his own.......you're a moron....
Do you expect one to say, "it is my belief" before every sentence ? Even a child doesn't have to led by nose like that.

There was more to intelligence for him to consider than just the NIE...there is worldwide intelligence that he considers and the thoughts and conclusions of other leaders and allies, and his verdict is rendered on the totality of that intelligence.....Bush didn't say, "the NIE given to me leaves no doubt that Saddam has wmd"....only a moron like you would think that and come to the rediculous conclusions you do based on that single belief....

and even if it were only the NIE it wouldn't matter in the least.....what matters is the conclusion he comes to after considering the intell and that conclusion is what it is....
 
again... as long as you refuse to acknowledge the qualitative difference between "I have no doubt in MY mind" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT", we really are just talking past one another.
 
maineman said:
caveats and qualifiers ARE expressions of doubt. If all of our intell were current. If we had had multiple humint sources on the ground that had been proven accurate on several occasions all telling us the locations of WMD stockpiles which we could then verify with current satellite photographs.... if there were high radiation signatures from plants that multiple other sources had told us were being used for nuclear weapons development and assembly... if we had photographs smuggled out by intelligence assets which showed clearly, stockpiles of easily identifiable weapons... there would not be caveats and qualifiers... it WOULD have been a slam dunk, smoking gun, no doubt deal. That was NOT the case. And again... I don't care what Bush did or did not believe... he didn't tell us he BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he said there was NO DOUBT that he had them. NOT that HE HAD NO DOUBT.... BUT THAT TZHERE WAS NO DOUBT. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the qualitative difference between "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt", we'll ring around this fucking mulberry bush until one of us goes to bed.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt, I have no doubt, just plain no doubt, it all means the same thing....the speaker is expressing his belief, what conclusion he has come to....he is the one
speaking his mind, not what the belief of his intell agents think, not what his staff thinks, not what British intell. thinks and not what you think.....only what he thinks.

If the weatherman says "it will rain tomorrow" and it doesn't....is he now a liar...?
If he says "there is no doubt it will rain tomorrow" and it doesn't...is he even a bigger liar ?
Does he have to stipulate, "I have no doubt it will rain tomorrow"...so you know who it is...?

To be consistent, you'd have call him a big liar....and come across looking as stupid as you are....sane people would laugh in your face.
 
NOVA said:
There is no doubt, I have no doubt, just plain no doubt, it all means the same thing....the speaker is expressing his belief, what conclusion he has come to....he is the one
speaking his mind, not what the belief of his intell agents think, not what his staff thinks, not what British intell. thinks and not what you think.....only what he thinks.

If the weatherman says "it will rain tomorrow" and it doesn't....is he now a liar...?
If he says "there is no doubt it will rain tomorrow" and it doesn't...is he even a bigger liar ?
Does he have to stipulate, "I have no doubt it will rain tomorrow"...so you know who it is...?

To be consistent, you'd have call him a big liar....and come across looking as stupid as you are....sane people would laugh in your face.
Click to expand...

Sane people don't rush nations into an unnecessary war.

Bush should have never been President.
 
maineman said:
To say that doubt was non-existent when his own NIE contained doubt, is clearly a lie. end of story.
Click to expand...


Doubt WAS non-existent to him and thats what determines a lie....if doubt did exist for him and he still made the claim, thats totally different...remember the cigar smoke?

Are you seriously gonna tell someone what they believe.....what exists in their minds....are you our new all knowing Messiah ?
 
NOVA said:
There is no doubt, I have no doubt, just plain no doubt, it all means the same thing....the speaker is expressing his belief, what conclusion he has come to....he is the one
speaking his mind, not what the belief of his intell agents think, not what his staff thinks, not what British intell. thinks and not what you think.....only what he thinks.
Click to expand...

actually, it does not all mean the same thing. THERE IS NO DOUBT, is a statement that says that doubt is non-existent. I have no doubt is a statement of personal opinion.

If the weatherman says it will rain tomorrow and it doesn't....is he now a liar...?
Click to expand...

no. He made what he thought was an accurate prediction
If he says "there is no doubt it will rain tomorrow" and it doesn't...is he even a bigger liar ?
Click to expand...
If the area in question was not in the beginnings of a tropical weather system that would absolutely continue raining for days, yes, he would be telling a falsehood.
Does he have to stipulate, "I have no doubt it will rain tomorrow"...so you know who it is...?
Click to expand...
if he said that he personally had no doubt, and it ended up raining the next day, he would NOT be a liar, just a lousy weatherman
To be consistent, you'd have call him a big liar....and come across looking as stupid as you are....sane people would laugh in your face.
Click to expand...

consistent? You listed several different scenarios... some would be lies, others would not be.
 
NOVA said:
Doubt WAS non-existent to him and thats what determines a lie....if doubt did exist for him and he still made the claim, thats totally different...remember the cigar smoke?

Are you seriously gonna tell someone what they believe.....what exists in their minds....are you our new all knowing Messiah ?
Click to expand...

all he had to do was to open his NIE and see pages of doubt. He KNEW it existed. He lied when he said it did not.

Again... we will go round and round as long as you refuse to acknowledge that the statement "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt" are NOT synonymous - even though you really really really really WANT them to be.
 
maineman said:
again... as long as you refuse to acknowledge the qualitative difference between "I have no doubt in MY mind" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT", we really are just talking past one another.
Click to expand...

As long as you refuse to acknowledge that a speaker is by definition speaking his own mind and only the very stupid would imagine that that fact must be
stipulated....people don't speak for others, nor try to state what is in another persona mind or what someone else believes or thinks.

there is no difference between "I have no doubt in MY mind" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT".....its understood the speaker is speaking and its silly to have to say "I"
its also understood whatever he/she says is there thoughts and belief not someone else....

Bush isn't speaking about what any particular NIE says or concludes, or what any one intell source says or concludes,...he speaking about what HE concludes after considering ALL sources of intelligence....and his conclusion was "there is no doubt, etc....which was just the same as all the Dems concluded, using different phraseology...

English Fundamentals 101 (schools out for today)
 
Thing1 said:
Man - some posters just don't know when they're beat.

What exactly about inspectors having access to every suspected site "isn't working"? I'm all ears, warmonger.
Click to expand...

read the reports dimwit.....your hero Blix is the one telling you the problems.......demonstrations interfering with inspections, delays, obstacles, finding new bunkers that hadn't even been in existence in 93, movements during the night......long and short of it, as of March not all of the weapons inventoried in 93 had been accounted for........including over a thousand tons of chemical weapons.....
 
did a quarter of a million armed troops have any better luck finding them after we invaded to disarm him? Pimp?

It should have been SO easy, after all. I mean, we knew with absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Rumsfeld told the world he knew right where they were. What's been the holdup?
 
NOVA said:
As long as you refuse to acknowledge that a speaker is by definition speaking his own mind and only the very stupid would imagine that that fact must be
stipulated....people don't speak for others, nor try to state what is in another persona mind or what someone else believes or thinks.

there is no difference between "I have no doubt in MY mind" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT".....its understood the speaker is speaking and its silly to have to say "I"
its also understood whatever he/she says is there thoughts and belief not someone else....

Bush isn't speaking about what any particular NIE says or concludes, or what any one intell source says or concludes,...he speaking about what HE concludes after considering ALL sources of intelligence....and his conclusion was "there is no doubt, etc....which was just the same as all the Dems concluded, using different phraseology...

English Fundamentals 101 (schools out for today)
Click to expand...


You are wrong. "I have no doubt" is a statement of opinion and "there is no doubt" is a statement of fact, and even though you would rewrite every English composition textbook ever written if you could just to change that fact, the two statements are different. One means one thing and one means another. And when the president of the united states speaks, he speaks for his administration... he is the voice of our government. He lied to us. He said that doubt did not exist, even though it was sitting there on his desk in the NIE folder. There WAS doubt.... the intelligence was old, single sourced, based upon subjective photo analysis.... it was NOT a slam dunk. Nonetheless, Team Bush sold it that way... and they scared us with lies about Saddam and Al Qaeda being in cahoots even before 9/11. They scared us with stories of mushroom clouds over American cities. They led with fear. They will all rot in hell, if MY prayers are answered. So will you. Landlubber. Wog. Coward. Liar.
 
maineman said:
did a quarter of a million armed troops have any better luck finding them after we invaded to disarm him? Pimp?

It should have been SO easy, after all. I mean, we knew with absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Rumsfeld told the world he knew right where they were. What's been the holdup?
Click to expand...
no, cunt...they were never located......they were inventoried in 93 and Iraq was ordered to destroy them.....apparently they were so incompetent they had no records they did so and until the war was completed everyone believed they were hiding them somewhere....Saddam played games instead of coming forward with the facts and he ended up dead because of it.......sucks to be Saddam....
 
sucks to be the fools that flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter invading a country to disarm them when they didn't have any arms to begin with, pimp.

and it must really suck to be YOU- still sucking on Bush's rectum this many years after the fact....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, cunt...they were never located......they were inventoried in 93 and Iraq was ordered to destroy them.....apparently they were so incompetent they had no records they did so and until the war was completed everyone believed they were hiding them somewhere....Saddam played games instead of coming forward with the facts and he ended up dead because of it.......sucks to be Saddam....
Click to expand...

I feel like that dude in "Princess Bride" who was like, "Are you still trying to win?"

Inspections were workING. You seem to think I said they workED, and we were done. While they were workING, a competent admin would have held off on starting a 10-year conflict that was costly for both lives & cash.

As to the latter point, it not only sucked to be Saddam; it sucked to be one of the 10's of thousands of innocents who lost their lives, or one of the thousands of US soldiers who were killed or maimed, or one of the millions who were displaced & basically became refugees.
 
Thing1 said:
I feel like that dude in "Princess Bride" who was like, "Are you still trying to win?"
Click to expand...

Odd reference given that Inigo Montoya was still trying to win and in the end killed the seven fingered man... whom you feel like... hmmm...

I guess that is what you get for killing his father... prepare to die!

\
 
maineman said:
sucks to be the fools that flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter invading a country to disarm them when they didn't have any arms to begin with, pimp.

and it must really suck to be YOU- still sucking on Bush's rectum this many years after the fact....
Click to expand...

He had to be removed, just ask Bill Clinton or his wife or most top democrats from that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top