Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

PostmodernProphet said:
if you think he said the inspections were working, then YOU were the one who hasn't read the reports.....meanwhile, where's the statement that they had "unfettered access"?.......aren't you going to admit you made it up?......
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I googled it, and all kinds of different speeches & resolutions came up, because that language was used often. Instead of wading through them, I realized I could just use the links that you conveniently provided, which again, Blix stated:

""The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

As early as January, '03. And in March, he went out of his way to say that the initial problems they were having were resolved.

So, if you want to try to split the hair between that and "unfettered", have at it. You've been trounced here, pretty badly, and with your own links.
 
Thing1 said:
Truthfully, I googled it, and all kinds of different speeches & resolutions came up, because that language was used often. Instead of wading through them, I realized I could just use the links that you conveniently provided, which again, Blix stated:

""The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

As early as January, '03. And in March, he went out of his way to say that the initial problems they were having were resolved.

So, if you want to try to split the hair between that and "unfettered", have at it. You've been trounced here, pretty badly, and with your own links.
Click to expand...

hardly....his reports outline incident after incident where the Iraqi government did NOT cooperate and where information was discovered that contradicted what the Iraqi government had provided......obviously you are cherry picking.......

for example, they requested information about over 3000 people involved in Iraq's nuclear development program and got 400 names.....they discovered weapons in bunkers that hadn't even existed in 91.......
 
Thing1 said:
LOL

I guess a facepalm that's been floating around message boards for a decade or so is as creative as it gets for you & that ten cent head of yours.
Click to expand...

Wrong again shit-for-brains; it is an acknowledgement that arguing with an idiot can only end up in the never ending circle of stupidity. Thank you for that constant reminder.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
hardly....his reports outline incident after incident where the Iraqi government did NOT cooperate and where information was discovered that contradicted what the Iraqi government had provided......obviously you are cherry picking.......
Click to expand...

"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

The bolded is kind of key there. And there really isn't any ambiguity in "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."

Sorry.
 
Thing1 said:
Oooh....a call to war!

I'll ignore that you're moving the goalposts, because you got humiliated (we were discussing access to suspected sites, in case you need a reminder). They didn't find WMD's, which were the compelling reason to engage in a 10+ year conflict.

Iraq did not have WMD's.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
maineman said:
it's only a lie when you know what you are saying is not true at the time you are saying it.
Click to expand...


No shit...I've been telling you that for years.....you have to not believe what you claiming to be lying....being wrong is one thing, lying a totally different thing....

You can be absolutely sure of something, totally confident, have no doubt about it, truely believe it.....and be wrong about it....that doesn't make you a liar.

"We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.?...Sen. Edwards (D)

Who is WE?
Does Edwards speak for every American, is that who 'we' is ?
he KNOWS, does that sound ambiguous in the slightest....?

(Of course not, only a pinhead would claim that is what
the man means...)
and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.” .... Clinton
so parse that one...

Does Clinton mean that he had doubt yesterday?
Does he mean he will have doubt tomorrow?
Is he talking about WMD that according to you Clinton never claimed Saddam had?

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons............Sen Byrd

Again, who is 'we'? Everyone? Who does he speak for?
"We are confident"...in the English language, that has one, and only one meaning...not we are somewhat confident, we are a little confident, we have some confidence...
no....its we ARE....nothing ambiguous, listeners far and wide know exactly what the man was claiming and what he meant....

with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction"...Dick Gephardt (MO) Sept. 2002

kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction....Pres. Clinton

How the hell much plainer can it get? Any child understands what these statements mean and what the speaker is conveying ...its a flat out statement that Iraq HAS WMD!
Iraq poses NOW...not in the past, not in the future, but NOW...a rogue state WITH WMD.....


Yet YOU still insist they are not making the claims .... and why ? Because they aren't using certain particular words that YOU think they must say to claim they
believe Saddam in has in his possession WMD ?.....Can't you see what a laughing stock you're becoming...
We all KNOW these quotes were spoken in the context of WMD, Saddam, Iraq and what US options were to stop him....that is the context of each and every quote...

Some of the questions I pose in blue sound stupid because some of them are stupid, on purpose, to emphasize the point that to parse the words for hidden meaning
or to create some ridiculous spin to imply other than what the speaker certainly means is laughable...we instinctively know what the speakers meaning is....we don't
look for ambiguity hidden in the statements....when the speaker says 'we', no one seriously thinks, who is 'we'....is just a natural 'figure of speech'....
When a speaker says "we know", that too doesn't necessarily equate to and irrefutable law of physics or something...its only a way to convey the speakers level of confidence....how deeply he may believe something..even the words 'no doubt'......why do insist on being a total asshole about this....is it you just can't accept the undeniable fact that these Democrats were saying, in no uncertain terms, that they absolutely believed Saddam had WMD....why is that so hard for you for accept the reality of that ?

No, you must constantly parse every word, and nudge and distort what the dictionary says. Not only look for ambiguities, you actually manufacture them to fit
your preconceived conclusions....its like you're obsessed with proving up is really down....
 
Last edited:
"there is no doubt" is not a statement of opinion, It is a statement of fact. There is no doubt that "there is no doubt" has a different meaning than "I have no doubt". If Team Bush had stuck to the script and all said, repeatedly, "I have no doubt", then no lies would be provable. When they crossed the line and turned their opinion into a statement of fact THAT THEY KNEW TO BE FALSE WHEN THEY SAID IT, it became a LIE.

We've been over this again and again.... I fully understand that the members of Team Bush - and many democrats - who were talking to the press all believed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. That is not in question. THAT is not what team Bush said, however. They said, as a statement of fact, "THERE IS NO DOUBT", and every single one of them who had ever read an NIE knew full well of the existence of doubts concerning the certainty of Saddam's WMD programs and assets.
 
"We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.?...Sen. Edwards (D)

Then WHO EXACTLY is 'we' that Edwards is talking about, that KNOW Saddam has WMD?

'WE' certainly don't mean "I" does it ? and 'know' doesn't mean might does it ?

Does Clinton mean that he had doubt yesterday?
Does he mean he will have doubt tomorrow?
Is he talking about WMD that according to you Clinton never claimed Saddam had?

If I say "there is no doubt" does that mean that
I believe everyone in the world feels the way
I do ?

 When Obama says "you ARE doing God's work"
is he speaking for the entire country? the entire'
world?

 
Last edited:
pronouns obviously refer to individuals and groups... the speakers are implying that the antecedents all share their OPINION.

Expressions of opinion mean something different than statements of fact.

sorry.
 
and Bush didn't need to go to Outer Mongollia to find someone who doubted the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.... he didn't even have to get up out of his chair behind the desk in the oval office.... all he had to do was open up the NIE and see the pages of caveats and qualifiers which clearly delineated the less than certain nature of the intelligence surrounding Saddam's stockpiles. There was doubt sitting right on top of his desk... to then say "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was a lie. Again... if he and his lackeys had all said "I have no doubt", then their opinions would have been wrong, but saying them wouldn't have been lying.
 
maineman said:
pronouns obviously refer to individuals and groups... the speakers are implying that the antecedents all share their OPINION.

Expressions of opinion mean something different than statements of fact.

sorry.
Click to expand...


Hahaha.....So Democrats have opinions, they don't make statements of fact....

'we know that he has chemical and biological weapons" is an opinion but "there is no doubt" is a statement of fact......you are truly pathetic (is that fact or opinion)hahaha...

and of course "we" just implies everyone agrees....but omission of the words "I think" is absolutely intentional and can never be implied....

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction" must be opinion and not a statement of fact that Iraq HAS wmd....

the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction...Pres. Clinton...only opinion, not a statement of fact..because Iraq didn't have wmd in 1998...or Iraq did and they disappeared by 2003, which of course the other Democrats didn't know.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein"....opinion again, not fact..disarm him of imaginary wmd I suppose.
doesn't 'without question' mean 'there is no doubt' ?....I guess not to you...

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"? to you, Not opinion, just an innocent mistake -- but this one IS a statement of fact for some unfathomable reason....

Yeah....you are pathetic...

Sorry comrade....those Dems are making declarative statements of what they believe is fact, pure and simple....and every statement taken in context, is stating that Saddam has wmd....no ambiguity at all.....
and Hillary did, without doubt, state that Iraq was aiding AQ....without question.

but when Rep's made that very same SUGGESTION that it MIGHT be true, they lied
I can't recall a Rep. making the kind of flat out statement of fact like Hillary did...
maybe you can dig something up.......
 
Last edited:
are you suggesting that there were NOT caveats and qualifiers and descriptions of the varying degrees of doubt concerning the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles in the NIE's given to the president?

All of those quotes above are expressions of opinion... except the Clinton line about AQ... which was in error. It would be a lie if she knew if was in error when she said it. I can imagine that the vagaries of the relationship between OBL and Zarqawi were not really all that well understood by most folks in DC back then... so I doubt she knew she was misspeaking when she said that.

Bush, on the other hand, knew full well what the NIE's all said.... and none of them were devoid of doubt.

again... this isn't graduate level english.... it's basic stuff. Is english your second language perhaps? did your folks speak pig latin in the home?
 
NOVA said:
those Dems are making declarative statements of what they believe is fact, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

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.

In the grand scheme of things, it really won't matter much. I will always know that my president lied to me and to this country and misled us into a war we should not have fought. I will always know that there will be ass lickers such as yourself who will go to your graves defending him and saying that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was just his own personally held opinion and the rules of the English language are not really as strict as some might have you believe.... I understand. I will STILL either piss on his grave or exact promises from my sons on my deathbed to piss on his grave if I go before him... He'll get a pint of Maine piss poured on him regardless. Not much else I can do other than make sure you ass lickers don't deify the moronic chimp without some pushback.... that, and make sure that folks who say he didn't lie about WMD's have the statements of him and his team rammed up their asses along with English grammar books. So ya got that to look forward to. Bon appetit!
 
the inspections must not have been working, according to PiMP, because they had failed to uncover Saddam's prolific stockpiles, I reckon. ;)
 
maineman said:
are you suggesting that there were NOT caveats and qualifiers and descriptions of the varying degrees of doubt concerning the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles in the NIE's given to the president?

All of those quotes above are expressions of opinion... except the Clinton line about AQ... which was in error. It would be a lie if she knew if was in error when she said it. I can imagine that the vagaries of the relationship between OBL and Zarqawi were not really all that well understood by most folks in DC back then... so I doubt she knew she was misspeaking when she said that.

Bush, on the other hand, knew full well what the NIE's all said.... and none of them were devoid of doubt.

again... this isn't graduate level english.... it's basic stuff. Is english your second language perhaps? did your folks speak pig latin in the home?
Click to expand...


Try spelling English with an upper case E....as is customary and correct. Basic spelling ya know...

Caveats and qualifiers? There better be...intelligence is nothing but a guessing game...and recommendations are nothing
best guesses and estimates....and its up the reader to conclude what he will from them, to make up his own mind. And if
that conclusion he comes to says, there is no doubt about something, that the way it is.

Bush, had intelligence from all over Europe, the British, Germans, French, Italians, and the US.....and in his opinion, the total sum of all that intelligence led him...HIM, to believe there was no doubt Saddam had WMD, exactly as the Democrats had stated, unambiguously and continually, for the previous 6 to 8 years....all simple declarations stating the same conclusion....Iraq possessed wmd....not might, not in their opinion, not maybe, not could, and further, what are we going to do about it.

Including President Bill Clinton himself, his Vice President, his Sec. of State and at least 15 or more of his high profile followers in the Senate and House are on the record.....only a far left wing asshole, like yourself would interpenetrate any of the statements in such a narrow-minded and totally partisan manner and claim them only opinion.......thems the facts junior, like it or not....

Now we know the bottom line...all of them were wrong, the UN and every country involved in voting unanimously Resolutions against Saddam, Bush, Blair, Clinton and a whole host of others that believed.......totally wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top