the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And for yet another time, we've already established, everyone on the planet who isn't retarded, including Saddam, thought he had WMD's. You can't give a "false impression" of something everyone already believes!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This is not true. The UN had passed 14 resolutions condemning Saddam's WMD programs, and ordering compliance with prior resolutions, before Bush was ever elected. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, two years before Bush was president. Not only had we condemned Saddam, we already had plans for how to replace him with a democratic government.
Now... Do weapons capable of killing thousands of innocent unsuspecting civilians, become a more serious problem after 9/11? Most certainly!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay, take note, you were the one who brought this subject up, not me. I have never claimed you were a pedophile, but if I did, that is not something out of the realm of possibility. Many older men, who once held, or currently hold position of authority, are often found to be pedophiles.
We are discussing the possibility of the existence of "absolute certainty" regarding Saddam and his WMD programs. Without any people in the country, how can that possibly be? Logic dictates, it simply can't be. There was no possible way for Cheney or Bush to be absolutely certain, or any one else, for that matter. You are claiming he told you a lie that was fundamentally impossible to believe, in the context you are presenting it.
It would be equivalent to me claiming, not only are you a pedophile, but a computer bot, as well! In fact, that's what makes you so dangerous, you are a bot and a pedophile! (see, it's impossible for you to be a computer and sexual human predator at the same time.)
maineman
Banned
the false impression was the existence of certainty.
Team Bush told America there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's
Team Bush told America that they were certain that Saddam had WMD's and that they even knew where they were.
Those are demonstrably false impressions. They are, therefore, LIES
maineman
Banned
what the fuck are you talking about???? Are you saying that there was NO WAY that Team Bush could have told America that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's????? THAT IS WHAT THEY DID, IN FACT, TELL AMERICA, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Are you suggesting that there was NO WAY for Team Bush to tell America that, not only was it absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's, but that we knew where they were???? THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID, IN FACT, TELL AMERICA YOU RACIST REDNECK SLANDEROUS MORON!!!!!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
what the fuck are you talking about???? Are you saying that there was NO WAY that Team Bush could have told America that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's????? THAT IS WHAT THEY DID, IN FACT, TELL AMERICA, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Are you suggesting that there was NO WAY for Team Bush to tell America that, not only was it absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's, but that we knew where they were???? THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID, IN FACT, TELL AMERICA YOU &$#%#@ MORON!!!!!
You keep telling us this, but it defies logic. How could they be convincing us of something we already believed? How could he lie about something impossible to believe?
As we've determined, the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's. Bush didn't convince them of this, they already believed it. Absolute certainty was impossible to have, it was the fundamental purpose of inspectors, and most not-retarded people can understand, we never had absolute certainty, and couldn't have it. So, Bush's supposed "lie" is something that was impossible to believe or accept, and contradictory to the very need and urgency to act. We had to invade, precisely because there was not certainty.
You keep telling us this, but it defies logic. How could they be convincing us of something we already believed? How could he lie about something impossible to believe?
As we've determined, the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's. Bush didn't convince them of this, they already believed it. Absolute certainty was impossible to have, it was the fundamental purpose of inspectors, and most not-retarded people can understand, we never had absolute certainty, and couldn't have it. So, Bush's supposed "lie" is something that was impossible to believe or accept, and contradictory to the very need and urgency to act. We had to invade, precisely because there was not certainty.
maineman
Banned
NO DOUBT is a phrase that connotes absolute certainty.
Americans believing what this chimp says defies logic...but it happened nonetheless. We had to invade because we were certain he had them and the only question in the eyes of the koolaid suckers like you was WHEN - not IF -Saddam was going to give a nuke to Osama that would cause the proverbial mushroom cloud over an American city.
And PLEASE just accept the fact that there is a difference between BELIEVING something and KNOWING something with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Bush believed that Saddam had WMD's but, as I have shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, Team Bush did NOT tell America that they BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's they told us that they KNEW he had WMDs...that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's ...that they were CERTAIN he had WMD's.... and those assertions created a false impression... that of certainty and lack of doubt where uncertainty and doubt actually existed.
I have no doubt that Team Bush BELIEVED that Saddam probably had WMD's. When they sold that to America as a certainty and a fact devoid of doubt... THAT was a lie
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
NO DOUBT is a phrase that connotes absolute certainty.
Correct, and at that time, there was no doubt in the vast intelligence community of the world, and indeed, most non-retarded people on the planet, that Saddam did in fact have WMD's. It would have contradicted logic for Bush to have said anything else.
Americans believing what this chimp says defies logic...but it happened nonetheless.
Well, no... Americans already believed Saddam had WMD's, the whole world, who wasn't retarded, believed he had WMD's.
We had to invade because we were certain he had them and the only question in the eyes of the koolaid suckers like you was WHEN - not IF -Saddam was going to give a nuke to Osama that would cause the proverbial mushroom cloud over an American city.
Our intelligence WAS certain... "slam dunk" certain, as a matter of fact. How many times do we have to go through this? It's like a 'who's on first' routine.
And PLEASE just accept the fact that there is a difference between BELIEVING something and KNOWING something with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
Well, ya... I'd love to just accept something that defies logic, so I could see things your way, but I don't think I can. This is the point YOU need to understand! It was fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been "absolutely certain" of anything in Iraq. It was reasonable to believe, given the information available at the time, that Saddam had WMD's.
Bush believed that Saddam had WMD's but, as I have shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, Team Bush did NOT tell America that they BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's they told us that they KNEW he had WMDs...that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's ...that they were CERTAIN he had WMD's.... and those assertions created a false impression... that of certainty and lack of doubt where uncertainty and doubt actually existed.
Who had doubt besides the retarded? We've already covered the list of people who had no doubt, and believed he did have WMD's... France, Germany, the UN Security Council, Saddam, John Kerry... I mean, there isn't a list of people who didn't believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Saddam had WMD's.
I have no doubt that Team Bush BELIEVED that Saddam probably had WMD's. When they sold that to America as a certainty and a fact devoid of doubt... THAT was a lie
Again, they can't sell something that is impossible. There was no fundamental way to "be absolutely certain" about Saddam and Iraq, short of invading. Yes, Team Bush, Tony Blair, The Coalition, The UN, Hans, Saddam, and Kerry, all BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's... we've established this... so where is the "lie?"
Correct, and at that time, there was no doubt in the vast intelligence community of the world, and indeed, most non-retarded people on the planet, that Saddam did in fact have WMD's. It would have contradicted logic for Bush to have said anything else.
Americans believing what this chimp says defies logic...but it happened nonetheless.
Well, no... Americans already believed Saddam had WMD's, the whole world, who wasn't retarded, believed he had WMD's.
We had to invade because we were certain he had them and the only question in the eyes of the koolaid suckers like you was WHEN - not IF -Saddam was going to give a nuke to Osama that would cause the proverbial mushroom cloud over an American city.
Our intelligence WAS certain... "slam dunk" certain, as a matter of fact. How many times do we have to go through this? It's like a 'who's on first' routine.
And PLEASE just accept the fact that there is a difference between BELIEVING something and KNOWING something with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
Well, ya... I'd love to just accept something that defies logic, so I could see things your way, but I don't think I can. This is the point YOU need to understand! It was fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been "absolutely certain" of anything in Iraq. It was reasonable to believe, given the information available at the time, that Saddam had WMD's.
Bush believed that Saddam had WMD's but, as I have shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, Team Bush did NOT tell America that they BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's they told us that they KNEW he had WMDs...that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's ...that they were CERTAIN he had WMD's.... and those assertions created a false impression... that of certainty and lack of doubt where uncertainty and doubt actually existed.
Who had doubt besides the retarded? We've already covered the list of people who had no doubt, and believed he did have WMD's... France, Germany, the UN Security Council, Saddam, John Kerry... I mean, there isn't a list of people who didn't believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Saddam had WMD's.
I have no doubt that Team Bush BELIEVED that Saddam probably had WMD's. When they sold that to America as a certainty and a fact devoid of doubt... THAT was a lie
Again, they can't sell something that is impossible. There was no fundamental way to "be absolutely certain" about Saddam and Iraq, short of invading. Yes, Team Bush, Tony Blair, The Coalition, The UN, Hans, Saddam, and Kerry, all BELIEVED Saddam had WMD's... we've established this... so where is the "lie?"
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Its like Dix and Maine enjoy being at war, they enjoy perpetuating idiocy in order to have an enemy, to be valid. Siddhartha would shake his head.
maineman
Banned
Dixie:
"Well, ya... I'd love to just accept something that defies logic, so I could see things your way, but I don't think I can. This is the point YOU need to understand! It was fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been "absolutely certain" of anything in Iraq. It was reasonable to believe, given the information available at the time, that Saddam had WMD's."
It may very well have BEEN fundamentally impossible for Bush to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, but, as the record clearly and unambiguously shows, that did not stop him from EXPRESSING ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. And, since such absolute certainty was, as you point out, impossible, then the expression of absolute certainty was a FALSE IMPRESSION.
It may be impossible, for example for me to stand 25 feet tall. But that does not stop me from saying, "There is NO DOUBT that I am, in fact, 25 feet tall" And there are some people who will believe me....just like there were some people who believed Team Bush when they said that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. The WAS doubt. As I have said, regardless of how Tenet may have characterized the "case", all the intelligence about Saddam's supposed WMD stockpiles came from intelligence sources that were less than certain... there always was doubt and uncertainty about it...the photos were old... the sources were not corroborated and unreliable... Tenet certainly put together a slam dunk case for Powell to sell his integrity and pitch to the UN, but that does not mean that doubt and uncertainty did not ALWAYS exist about Saddam's WMD programs post Gulf War I. To suggest otherwise is conveying a false impression - i.e. A LIE
"Well, ya... I'd love to just accept something that defies logic, so I could see things your way, but I don't think I can. This is the point YOU need to understand! It was fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been "absolutely certain" of anything in Iraq. It was reasonable to believe, given the information available at the time, that Saddam had WMD's."
It may very well have BEEN fundamentally impossible for Bush to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, but, as the record clearly and unambiguously shows, that did not stop him from EXPRESSING ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. And, since such absolute certainty was, as you point out, impossible, then the expression of absolute certainty was a FALSE IMPRESSION.
It may be impossible, for example for me to stand 25 feet tall. But that does not stop me from saying, "There is NO DOUBT that I am, in fact, 25 feet tall" And there are some people who will believe me....just like there were some people who believed Team Bush when they said that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. The WAS doubt. As I have said, regardless of how Tenet may have characterized the "case", all the intelligence about Saddam's supposed WMD stockpiles came from intelligence sources that were less than certain... there always was doubt and uncertainty about it...the photos were old... the sources were not corroborated and unreliable... Tenet certainly put together a slam dunk case for Powell to sell his integrity and pitch to the UN, but that does not mean that doubt and uncertainty did not ALWAYS exist about Saddam's WMD programs post Gulf War I. To suggest otherwise is conveying a false impression - i.e. A LIE
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It may very well have BEEN fundamentally impossible for Bush to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, but, as the record clearly and unambiguously shows, that did not stop him from EXPRESSING ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. And, since such absolute certainty was, as you point out, impossible, then the expression of absolute certainty was a FALSE IMPRESSION.
Just because you interpreted absolute certainty which couldn't exist, doesn't mean that was what Bush articulated. Absolute certainty was impossible to have, so why would any reasonable rational person believe that, or interpret it to mean that?
What "false impression" are you talking about? The "false impression" the entire world had at the time, that Saddam did indeed have WMD's? How do you give a false impression of something everyone believes?
Just because you interpreted absolute certainty which couldn't exist, doesn't mean that was what Bush articulated. Absolute certainty was impossible to have, so why would any reasonable rational person believe that, or interpret it to mean that?
What "false impression" are you talking about? The "false impression" the entire world had at the time, that Saddam did indeed have WMD's? How do you give a false impression of something everyone believes?
maineman
Banned
the words "no doubt" do not need to be INTERPRETED to mean absolute certainty. The conveyance of that absolute certainty...that total lack of doubt, was the false impression. You cannot be this stupid.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
the words "no doubt" do not need to be INTERPRETED to mean absolute certainty. The conveyance of that absolute certainty...that total lack of doubt, was the false impression. You cannot be this stupid.
Yes, the words "no doubt" need to be interpreted to mean "absolute certainty" if you are going to claim they mean the same thing here. It was fundamentally impossible to be absolutely certain, as we've established. It was not fundamentally impossible to believe something to be the case, with reasonable certainty. You continue to argue the "certainty" is what made it a lie, but it was impossible to have absolute certainty, thus impossible for there to have been a lie.
Yes, the words "no doubt" need to be interpreted to mean "absolute certainty" if you are going to claim they mean the same thing here. It was fundamentally impossible to be absolutely certain, as we've established. It was not fundamentally impossible to believe something to be the case, with reasonable certainty. You continue to argue the "certainty" is what made it a lie, but it was impossible to have absolute certainty, thus impossible for there to have been a lie.
maineman
Banned
I am absolutely certain of my name and where I live and where I am right now. absolutely certain. Absolute certainty is not impoosible.
You need to go look up the word 'doubt"...and realize that the absence of it is the definition of "certainty"
And once more for the mentally handicapped in the peanut gallery.... it may very well have been inpossible for Team Bush to have absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's...but it was NOT impossible for Team Bush to give the false impression that they DID have absolute certainty. There is nothing impossible about speech. If I say there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's... whether I have any legitimate reason to express such a statement of absolute certainty or not...I said it. That is what makes it a lie....
now please quit running around this issue... you are looking more and more like a moron and I am beginning to question my own sanity for continuing to try to beat something so obvious into a brain that is bound and determined not to accept it.
You need to go look up the word 'doubt"...and realize that the absence of it is the definition of "certainty"
And once more for the mentally handicapped in the peanut gallery.... it may very well have been inpossible for Team Bush to have absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's...but it was NOT impossible for Team Bush to give the false impression that they DID have absolute certainty. There is nothing impossible about speech. If I say there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's... whether I have any legitimate reason to express such a statement of absolute certainty or not...I said it. That is what makes it a lie....
now please quit running around this issue... you are looking more and more like a moron and I am beginning to question my own sanity for continuing to try to beat something so obvious into a brain that is bound and determined not to accept it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I am absolutely certain of my name and where I live and where I am right now. absolutely certain. Absolute certainty is not impoosible.
Bush was absolutely certain of his name and where he lived too, you are right, there are some things which can be of absolute certainty. It was not possible to have absolute certainty regarding Iraq. You've given me 'intelligence information' that you live in Maine, I have no reason to doubt you are telling the truth, so, while I can be reasonably sure that you are indeed living in Maine, I can't be absolutely certain, you can be, but I can't, it's impossible.
You need to go look up the word 'doubt"...and realize that the absence of it is the definition of "certainty"
Right, and at that particular point in time, there was very little doubt about Saddam's WMD's. It was the consensus among virtually everyone on the planet, that he did have them, the question was, how many and how advanced, and where were they... Again, there is a difference between reasonable certainty and absolute certainty, and this is what you are failing to understand.
And once more for the mentally handicapped in the peanut gallery.... it may very well have been impossible for Team Bush to have absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's...but it was NOT impossible for Team Bush to give the false impression that they DID have absolute certainty.
They didn't, you interpreted it wrongly, as absolute certainty. As we've established, this was impossible to exist, so anyone who formed that opinion based on what was said, was a moron who defied logic to deduce that conclusion. There was no false impression given, it was pretty much a consensus opinion that he had WMD's.
There is nothing impossible about speech. If I say there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's... whether I have any legitimate reason to express such a statement of absolute certainty or not...I said it. That is what makes it a lie....
You do have a point, if YOU say it, it's probably a lie! Bush did have a legitimate reason to say it, his intelligence said it was a "slam dunk"... The UN Security Council passed unanimous resolutions on it... It was what the consensus of the world intelligence community believed to be true at that time. None of these entities had 'absolute certainty', and anyone who derived absolute certainty from what they said, was defying logic to conclude it.
now please quit running around this issue... you are looking more and more like a moron and I am beginning to question my own sanity for continuing to try to beat something so obvious into a brain that is bound and determined not to accept it.
Yeah, I imagine, after being totally schooled for days on this, you are really ready to just move on and forget about it. I'm not the one looking like a moron here, you seem to be taking the 'moron' stance... believing shit that was impossible to believe... interpreting things that were impossible to convey... developing theories and scenarios that defy logic and reason...
I've simply stated my case, and made some valid points you can't refute. You continue to respond with the same idiocy, and insist you are right and I'm wrong, while you've agreed with practically every point I've made, which completely debunk all your theories and myths.
You agree that Bush didn't need to convince you with a lie, to take the action he took, yet that's what you insist he lied to do... You agree that it was impossible to be absolutely certain about Iraq, but this is what you claim you understood Bush to say... You agree that the entire freakin world thought Saddam had WMD's, but this is the supposed "false perception" from Bush.
You've failed to give any tenable justification for Bush to lie, or for the Neocons in the PNAC Conspiracy Theory you concocted. In fact, the concept of what you argued, flies in the face of common sense and reason, and defies any logic in viable political strategy.
These points made... AGAIN... by me, will of course be met with the usual barrage of personal insults and ad hominem attacks, because you really have nothing left to argue, you have been defeated in debate, and instead of admitting defeat, it's your nature to get mad and start hurling insults. That's fine with me, I don't do this for recognition, most of the time I am content with letting you show what a hypocrite ass you are, and letting it go at that.
Bush was absolutely certain of his name and where he lived too, you are right, there are some things which can be of absolute certainty. It was not possible to have absolute certainty regarding Iraq. You've given me 'intelligence information' that you live in Maine, I have no reason to doubt you are telling the truth, so, while I can be reasonably sure that you are indeed living in Maine, I can't be absolutely certain, you can be, but I can't, it's impossible.
You need to go look up the word 'doubt"...and realize that the absence of it is the definition of "certainty"
Right, and at that particular point in time, there was very little doubt about Saddam's WMD's. It was the consensus among virtually everyone on the planet, that he did have them, the question was, how many and how advanced, and where were they... Again, there is a difference between reasonable certainty and absolute certainty, and this is what you are failing to understand.
And once more for the mentally handicapped in the peanut gallery.... it may very well have been impossible for Team Bush to have absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's...but it was NOT impossible for Team Bush to give the false impression that they DID have absolute certainty.
They didn't, you interpreted it wrongly, as absolute certainty. As we've established, this was impossible to exist, so anyone who formed that opinion based on what was said, was a moron who defied logic to deduce that conclusion. There was no false impression given, it was pretty much a consensus opinion that he had WMD's.
There is nothing impossible about speech. If I say there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's... whether I have any legitimate reason to express such a statement of absolute certainty or not...I said it. That is what makes it a lie....
You do have a point, if YOU say it, it's probably a lie! Bush did have a legitimate reason to say it, his intelligence said it was a "slam dunk"... The UN Security Council passed unanimous resolutions on it... It was what the consensus of the world intelligence community believed to be true at that time. None of these entities had 'absolute certainty', and anyone who derived absolute certainty from what they said, was defying logic to conclude it.
now please quit running around this issue... you are looking more and more like a moron and I am beginning to question my own sanity for continuing to try to beat something so obvious into a brain that is bound and determined not to accept it.
Yeah, I imagine, after being totally schooled for days on this, you are really ready to just move on and forget about it. I'm not the one looking like a moron here, you seem to be taking the 'moron' stance... believing shit that was impossible to believe... interpreting things that were impossible to convey... developing theories and scenarios that defy logic and reason...
I've simply stated my case, and made some valid points you can't refute. You continue to respond with the same idiocy, and insist you are right and I'm wrong, while you've agreed with practically every point I've made, which completely debunk all your theories and myths.
You agree that Bush didn't need to convince you with a lie, to take the action he took, yet that's what you insist he lied to do... You agree that it was impossible to be absolutely certain about Iraq, but this is what you claim you understood Bush to say... You agree that the entire freakin world thought Saddam had WMD's, but this is the supposed "false perception" from Bush.
You've failed to give any tenable justification for Bush to lie, or for the Neocons in the PNAC Conspiracy Theory you concocted. In fact, the concept of what you argued, flies in the face of common sense and reason, and defies any logic in viable political strategy.
These points made... AGAIN... by me, will of course be met with the usual barrage of personal insults and ad hominem attacks, because you really have nothing left to argue, you have been defeated in debate, and instead of admitting defeat, it's your nature to get mad and start hurling insults. That's fine with me, I don't do this for recognition, most of the time I am content with letting you show what a hypocrite ass you are, and letting it go at that.