the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

Dixie said:
lots and lots of rational people believed that there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's because Team Bush told them exactly that. You really are beginning to get desperate and silly here.

Oh, I know... LOTS of people believed it... France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council, Hans Blix, and at least a half-dozen other intelligence agencies around the world... rumor has it, even Saddam believed he had WMD's!

Bush simply conveyed what we all thought we knew at the time, and there was always uncertainty, that was what made the issue so urgent. We could not afford to trust Saddam, we could not afford having his WMD's fall into the hands of terrorists, and we couldn't positively confirm whether he had them, how many or how advanced, what was going on with his nuclear ambitions, or anything else, because the bastard liked to be deceptive and defiant.

that was impossible to believe, by even the most ignorant moron... you keep explaining it, but it defies logic all the way down the line. I think it all goes back to the original point, there was no tenable justification for Bush to lie to you about Saddam's WMD's. He didn't need to convince you of this, everyone believed he had WMD's, as we've already established. There was no lie told, and no lie was needed.
Click to expand...

"I am not understanding how Bush somehow lied about something"

Easy. Here ya go:


A dishonest Bush: "We know for a FACT saddam has WMD. There's simply NO DOUBT!"


An honest Bush: "We judge that saddam could have chemical or biological weapons, based on some circumstantial evidence. We are fairly certain though, that he doesn't have a nuke program, or collaborative relations with Al Qaeda".
 
maineman said:
"There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's"

"Not only are we certain that he has them, we know where they are"

those are not statements that convey ANY degree of uncertainty whatsoever. Dixie....words have meanings. I suggest you learn them... learn what "certain" "no doubt" and "know" mean...

and then compare them to the alternatives such as "fairly certain" "some degree of doubt" and "think" mean.

I don't know why you say that Bush's statements of certainty were impossible to believe.... Rummy said he knew right where they were... how were Americans to know that he was lying? If you were one of those majority of Americans who, in January of '03, believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 and you came to that belief simply by buying into Team Bush's repetitive innuendo...why is it so impossible to imagine that those same people would believe that Saddam certainly had WMD's when Team Bush flat out told them so - no innuendo....no doubt - but with clarity and certainty?
Click to expand...


Rumy never said he knew right where they were, idiot. You can keep yammering that all you want to, that was not the words he used, and you know it. Our intelligence had satellite pictures of trucks... no one KNEW FOR CERTAIN what was inside the trucks! No one in the administration EVER said that Saddam was responsible in any way, for the attacks on 9/11, in fact, there are numerous accounts of them saying just the damn opposite.

Now, let's take a look at this "certainty" issue. We've already established, the entire world thought he had WMD's. So, how was Bush responsible for making you believe something the whole world already believed? If we had no physical way of confirming what we thought, how could Bush possibly convince people of certainty that was impossible to have existed? Yes, they made statements about what our intelligence, and the intelligence of others were saying, nothing was made up, nothing was lied about, and it didn't convey any idea that wasn't already present among the vast majority of people who examined the information available at the time.

It was "uncertainty" which prompted us to take urgent and immediate action! Don't you recall? "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." So, it was "uncertainty" more than "certainty" which prompted us to war in this case.
 
why do you persist in saying that certainty was impossible to have existed?

Whether it "existed" or not does not change the fact that Team Bush told us THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam was in possession of WMD's. the words "no doubt" mean exactly that. When I say there is no doubt that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1...that means that there is NO DOUBT. An absence of doubt, by definition, means the presence of certainty.

And spin all you want about Bush and Saddam and 9/11. I have read the transcripts.... I know what he said... and I know what he implied....

and over half of America got the implication. That was just the sort of public support he needed to take us to war, not because we needed to, but because HE wanted to.
 
Hans Blix knew the threat was dramatized...

SO did anyone willing to listen with a critical ear!
 
why do you persist in saying that certainty was impossible to have existed?

Because, we had no operatives in Iraq, no agents, no special forces, no spies, not even an ambassador, and no way to confirm or deny anything that went on there. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell, had not been to Iraq, were not in Iraq, and had no physical way of knowing anything with complete certainty. It is impossible for absolute certainty to have existed.

Whether it "existed" or not does not change the fact that Team Bush told us THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam was in possession of WMD's.

Which is what the vast majority of intelligence evidence suggested, and what the vast majority of non-retarded people on earth, believed at that time. "Team Bush" was not the only group of people claiming this, it was also supported by Tony Blair... (not a member of "Team Bush") As well as the intelligence agencies of a half-dozen middle eastern countries... (also not on "Team Bush") It was the consensus of the UN Security Council (not members of "Team Bush") when they passed UNR1440 unanimously. John Kerry said, "If you don't think Saddam is a threat with WMD's, you shouldn't vote for me!" So, John Kerry (not a member of "Team Bush") ALSO believed Saddam had WMD's and was a threat with them.

It seems to me, what you want to do is, pin it all on Bush! You want to act like, the only reason ANY person believed ANY thing, is because Bush made them believe it, and nothing more. That is simply dishonest and wrong. Furthermore, you want to insist that Bush made them believe things that were impossible to believe, and fly in the face of logic to believe. You want to pretend Bush said things he didn't say, conveyed things he never conveyed, and took positions that were impossible for any rational person to believe.

You've managed to bull your way through this thread, and stubbornly insist you've proven points you haven't proven. There was no tenable justification for Bush to lie, you've not presented one, and you can't. Your made up scenarios of what the PNAC Neocons thought, are not based in any reality or logic, and completely contradict any intelligent political thinking with regard to strategy.

You have cobbled together a bunch of liberal rhetoric, with knee-jerk emotional response, without any regard for logic, common sense, reason or rationale. You can't make your case, because your case is not supported by logic or fact, yet you insist you have made your case over and over. You just want people to ignore common sense, and believe things that were impossible to believe, or that Bush alone, convinced them of what they did believe. Amazingly, he managed to get them to believe shit by saying the exact opposite in some cases, like Saddam's connection to 9/11, and not being able to wait for "final proof".

Your premise, indeed your entire argument, is completely full of holes... like Swiss cheese! You have no tenable justification for Bush to lie... you claim that hyping legitimate information is somehow telling a lie... The administration telling you exactly what the entire world believed at the time, is supposedly a lie... Your PNAC conspiracy theory doesn't offer any more help, you just step into it deeper, and somehow think we are to believe this powerful political entity decided it would best advance their cause to tell a bunch of bold faced lies that could be easily disproved... lies that certainly didn't HAVE to be told, to take the action Bush took.... and lies that were, frankly stupid, if they were concocted!

It's too overwhelming to overcome, even WITH the non-stop pinhead rhetoric! You simply have to defy all common sense and logic, to conclude that President Bush intentionally lied to the American people, to go to war in Iraq.
 
stop it...I gave you plenty of justification why Bush would want to rile up America to attack Saddam....you keep running around the same stupid pole.... do you or do you not know what the words "no doubt" mean? they mean - BY DEFINITION - a total absence of doubt. A total absence of doubt is synonymous with saying total presence of certainty. No one is arguing against the fact that Team Bush had no business claiming certainty when there was none.... but the fact remains, they did claim it. They misled us with fear. They served to convey a false impression. ergo: They lied.
 
Hans Blix knew the threat was dramatized...

Why did he think the UN even needed to continue inspections then?

Why did he lobby the UN Security council, to force Saddam's compliance with the weapons inspectors?

Seems odd for a man who didn't believe Saddam had weapons, doesn't it?

AS has been pointed out, at the time, most non-retards believed Saddam had WMD's. Rumor has it, even Saddam believed he had WMD's. So, how is Bush telling you, we believe he has WMD's, a lie? Bush told you what the entire world thought it knew at the time... as it turns out, some of it was wrong. Bush didn't somehow "KNOW" something the rest of the non-retard world didn't know... How the hell could he? And even if he DID know something... why would he allow the entire basis of his war to be established on something he knew was false?

It's like I said, the more a reasonable, rational, non-partisan, intelligent thinker, looks at this whole thing, the more they have to conclude it was inherently impossible for Bush to have lied to America regarding Iraq.
 
Bush didn't say that he BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's.... asshole.... for the umpteenth time, he said he was CERTAIN that Saddam had WMD's

THAT is the LIE. That is conveying a false impression. That makes it a LIE.
 
maineman said:
Bush didn't say that he BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's.... asshole.... for the umpteenth time, he said he was CERTAIN that Saddam had WMD's

THAT is the LIE. That is conveying a false impression. That makes it a LIE.
Click to expand...

Maine, what exactly do you mean by "Is"?
 
Dixie said:
Hans Blix knew the threat was dramatized...

Why did he think the UN even needed to continue inspections then?

Why did he lobby the UN Security council, to force Saddam's compliance with the weapons inspectors?

Seems odd for a man who didn't believe Saddam had weapons, doesn't it?

AS has been pointed out, at the time, most non-retards believed Saddam had WMD's. Rumor has it, even Saddam believed he had WMD's. So, how is Bush telling you, we believe he has WMD's, a lie? Bush told you what the entire world thought it knew at the time... as it turns out, some of it was wrong. Bush didn't somehow "KNOW" something the rest of the non-retard world didn't know... How the hell could he? And even if he DID know something... why would he allow the entire basis of his war to be established on something he knew was false?

It's like I said, the more a reasonable, rational, non-partisan, intelligent thinker, looks at this whole thing, the more they have to conclude it was inherently impossible for Bush to have lied to America regarding Iraq.
Click to expand...

Hell Dixie, you still belive Saddam had WMD! Dont you?
 
stop it...I gave you plenty of justification why Bush would want to rile up America to attack Saddam....you keep running around the same stupid pole....

It's not tenable justification, because Bush didn't require America "being riled" to take action against Saddam. We agreed on this point, so I know it stands. From a political popularity standpoint, again... no tenable justification to lie. It would be political suicide, and there were far more gratifying ways for Bush to commit political suicide, if that was what he wanted. From a PNAC standpoint, no tenable justification to lie... if you are planning on changing the world for a century, you don't start out by telling outright lies, it makes no logical strategic sense, and Neocons would never "plan a war" on the basis of everything working perfectly, they know war almost never works as planned. Every supposed justification or reason you can present, is devoid of logic and common sense. Therefore, no tenable justification remains.

do you or do you not know what the words "no doubt" mean?

Yeah.... they mean... one hot ass blond who can sing!

they mean - BY DEFINITION - a total absence of doubt.

True, and at that time, our intelligence, as well as the intelligence of others, as well as France, Germany, Russia, Saddam and John Kerry, believed Saddam had WMD's.

A total absence of doubt is synonymous with saying total presence of certainty.

Again... at that time, we were indeed certain. In fact, we were correct on many things we were certain of, but you are intentionally ignoring those now.

No one is arguing against the fact that Team Bush had no business claiming certainty when there was none....

Well, yes, you are. In fact, you are insisting it was a deliberate lie. It was also inherently impossible for Bush, or anyone else, to have claimed absolute certainty about anything in Iraq, we've already covered this.

but the fact remains, they did claim it. They misled us with fear. They served to convey a false impression. ergo: They lied.

They couldn't claim something that was impossible to exist, Maine. That is not reality! No one misled you, there was no tenable justification for anyone to mislead you, and the only false impressions that have been presented, are your own. There was no lie, there was no need for a lie, there was no tenable justification to lie, and the lie you want to claim, was something everyone already believed to be the truth at the time.
 
maineman said:
Bush didn't say that he BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's.... asshole.... for the umpteenth time, he said he was CERTAIN that Saddam had WMD's

THAT is the LIE. That is conveying a false impression. That makes it a LIE.
Click to expand...

Are you not "certain" in what you "believe"? Do you not "believe" in what you are "certain" of? ....isn't that what they mean by synonymous?

False impression? How did Bush give the non-retard world a false impression? Everyone believed Saddam had WMD's... Everyone! Down to Saddam himself! So, where is this "false impression" Bush gave us?
 
True, and at that time, our intelligence, as well as the intelligence of others, as well as France, Germany, Russia, Saddam and John Kerry, believed Saddam had WMD's.


The difference is they did not lead us into a pre-emptive war based on that thought! If they truely believed it, as you say!
 
At the time Sadam used WMD's we (republican leadership) officially had no comment. We did not condemn Sadam for using WMD's till years later when it became convenient for Bush's war.
 
Dixie said:
Are you not "certain" in what you "believe"? Do you not "believe" in what you are "certain" of? ....isn't that what they mean by synonymous?

False impression? How did Bush give the non-retard world a false impression? Everyone believed Saddam had WMD's... Everyone! Down to Saddam himself! So, where is this "false impression" Bush gave us?
Click to expand...

for yet another time...the FALSE IMPRESSION was the level of certainty that he had. Team Bush repeatedly said there was NO DOUBT.

That is a lie.

how is the fishy smelling cigar, Dix.... or does that depend on the definition of the word "is"?
 
Dixie said:
stop it...I gave you plenty of justification why Bush would want to rile up America to attack Saddam....you keep running around the same stupid pole....

It's not tenable justification, because Bush didn't require America "being riled" to take action against Saddam. We agreed on this point, so I know it stands. From a political popularity standpoint, again... no tenable justification to lie. It would be political suicide, and there were far more gratifying ways for Bush to commit political suicide, if that was what he wanted. From a PNAC standpoint, no tenable justification to lie... if you are planning on changing the world for a century, you don't start out by telling outright lies, it makes no logical strategic sense, and Neocons would never "plan a war" on the basis of everything working perfectly, they know war almost never works as planned. Every supposed justification or reason you can present, is devoid of logic and common sense. Therefore, no tenable justification remains.

do you or do you not know what the words "no doubt" mean?

Yeah.... they mean... one hot ass blond who can sing!

they mean - BY DEFINITION - a total absence of doubt.

True, and at that time, our intelligence, as well as the intelligence of others, as well as France, Germany, Russia, Saddam and John Kerry, believed Saddam had WMD's.

A total absence of doubt is synonymous with saying total presence of certainty.

Again... at that time, we were indeed certain. In fact, we were correct on many things we were certain of, but you are intentionally ignoring those now.

No one is arguing against the fact that Team Bush had no business claiming certainty when there was none....

Well, yes, you are. In fact, you are insisting it was a deliberate lie. It was also inherently impossible for Bush, or anyone else, to have claimed absolute certainty about anything in Iraq, we've already covered this.

but the fact remains, they did claim it. They misled us with fear. They served to convey a false impression. ergo: They lied.

They couldn't claim something that was impossible to exist, Maine. That is not reality! No one misled you, there was no tenable justification for anyone to mislead you, and the only false impressions that have been presented, are your own. There was no lie, there was no need for a lie, there was no tenable justification to lie, and the lie you want to claim, was something everyone already believed to be the truth at the time.
Click to expand...

you're like the tarbaby Dixie.... and even dumber.

Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and yell really loud andrefuse to admit there was ample justification for Bush to get us riled up and whip up the bloodlust and the fear in America so that we would somehow go after a secular country with no citizens among the 9/11 hijackers in order to jumpstart the PNAC agenda does not mean that such is the case. There was justification and you have yet to refute it.

They did claim that there was no doubt. There did claim that there was certainty. they did claim they not only knew he had WMD's but knew where they were. those were false impressions, Dix....those were lies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top