Bush is losing the Bushies

[Truthmatters]

What exactly is right about supporting a war commenced on lies to the American people which is making us less safe, spilling our brave troops blood, putting us and our children in massive debt and losing us Allies all over the world?


The war was commensed on the "slam dunk" evidence the Bush team assembled.
Downing Street memo
Clarkes book
O Niels book
Tennets book
Powells admissions
The fact that nothing was found
The fact that Chenny keep implying there was ties and things found
The fact that people today STILL think the Bush admin says their were ties and WMDs found

Several very respected entities have submitted reports that the war has made us less safe ,not to mention any fool can see that.

Im hoping you are not denying that our Brave Troops are spilling their blood?

Im hoping you are aware of the governments and populations who have admonished us for our actions.

Your turn

 

[maineman]

are you suggesting that the intelligence was presented to the president as being absolutely ironclad. Are you suggesting that none of it came with any caveats and qualifiers? none of it was single sourced? none of it was contradicted by other sources? none of it was based on old satellite photos that were interpreted? Are you suggesting that. really?

If not, then saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when there was a degree of doubt, regardless of how small, is a statement intended to convey a false impression - that false impression was that there were no caveats, no qualifiers, no doubt.... no uncertainty whatsoever. That was conveying a false impression and they knew that it was when they said it.

 

[Gunny]

are you suggesting that the intelligence was presented to the president as being absolutely ironclad. Are you suggesting that none of it came with any caveats and qualifiers? none of it was single sourced? none of it was contradicted by other sources? none of it was based on old satellite photos that were interpreted? Are you suggesting that. really?

No intelligence is ironclad, nor does not have caveats and qualifiers, and if one looks long and hard enough, one can always find an opposing opinion.

Should one be stymied into complete inaction, or make the best decision possible based on the information one DOES have?

If not, then saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when there was a degree of doubt, regardless of how small, is a statement intended to convey a false impression - that false impression was that there were no caveats, no qualifiers, no doubt.... no uncertainty whatsoever. That was conveying a false impression and they knew that it was when they said it.

It is not conveying a false impression when there is no doubt in his opinion. That's what he's being paid for. To make the judgement call based on whatever intel he does have.

I can understand questioning, and or disagreeing with the judgement. We've covered that more than once. I certainly question it.

That still does NOT make it a lie.

 

[maineman]

It is not conveying a false impression when there is no doubt in his opinion. That's what he's being paid for. To make the judgement call based on whatever intel he does have.

I can understand questioning, and or disagreeing with the judgement. We've covered that more than once. I certainly question it.

That still does NOT make it a lie.

there is a substantive, yet subtle difference between saying "I have no doubt" or There is no doubt, in my opinion" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT". There is a difference between saying "I am certain" and "There is absolute certainty".

If Team Bush had used the former phrases and not the latter, we would not be having this discussion. The latter phrases convey false impressions. The english language is wonderfully nuanced... and politicians know how to use it...I believe that no one would have really noticed the difference if he had said the HE had no doubt or that HE was certain, instead of the terms he chose to use instead...but the fact remains, he and his team used words that conveyed a false impression...they conveyed the presence of intelligence so solid, so ironclad that it was devoid of any uncertainty whatsoever. That false impression lent urgency to the war....

 

[Truthmatters]

no answers for me?

Aw come on you can do it!

 

[mattskramer]

How long has it been since Bush sent several thousand more soldiers into Iraq per his troop escalation? There was this big talk about how things would improve if more people were sent into the mess. As I predicted, noting improved. We continue to get reports of heavy casualties, bombs, attacks, and even a recent hostage taking. All that sending more people into Iraq accomplished was to send more people into Iraq.

It is time to wrap things up. Let’s us bring our remaining soldiers home and leave the Iraqi people to take care of their own civil war and tattered nation. At the same time we can use the soldiers and resources to strengthen our own borders and intelligence. We can keep an eye on the Middle East and make sure that the troublemakers stay on their “side of the fence”.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is ample evidence that the intell was cherry picked.

There is ample evidence they wanted to do Iraq from before they took office.

There is very scant evidence it was just judgement.

So if you choose to deside they are merely incompetant that is a choice.

I choose to got where the best evidence leads ,that they are Liars.

 

[Rosotar]

Giving out or acting on information later found to be erroneous is NOT a lie. Supporting one's argument with those facts that favor it is NOT a lie.

Gunny you're stuck on a talking point that not even the hardest-core Neocons can sustain anymore.

We know now that the information wasn't simply "later found to be erroneous." It was manipulated and cherry-picked from by the Office of Special Plans and the White House Information group to build support for war. Current information was witheld, obsolete information was presented as though it was up to date, caveats and qualifiers were omitted and language was shaped to imply a threat that the raw intel said did not exist.

A lie requires intent. If you cannot prove intent; which, if you could, Bush would already have been impeached, then there is no lie. Just your politically-biased speculation.

Do you honestly believe the GOP mafia we liked to call Congress before 2006 would have ever considered impeachment of Bush for anything? You'll notice that the new Democrat controlled Congress now mentions the "I" word occasionally and what is the standard Conservative response to any mention of it........

WAAAAAAAAH!!!!!

Just wait until his GOP imposed deadline comes and goes in September. Then you'll get your wish. Democrats and Republicans will join together and talk seriously about impeachment.

I don't want to hear any whining from you then OK? You've said yourself that if he was "REALLY" guilty he would be impeached so when and if it happens that should be all you need to prove guilt.

No lame excuses!

 

[Bern80]

there is a substantive, yet subtle difference between saying "I have no doubt" or There is no doubt, in my opinion" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT". There is a difference between saying "I am certain" and "There is absolute certainty".

If Team Bush had used the former phrases and not the latter, we would not be having this discussion. The latter phrases convey false impressions. The english language is wonderfully nuanced... and politicians know how to use it...I believe that no one would have really noticed the difference if he had said the HE had no doubt or that HE was certain, instead of the terms he chose to use instead...but the fact remains, he and his team used words that conveyed a false impression...they conveyed the presence of intelligence so solid, so ironclad that it was devoid of any uncertainty whatsoever. That false impression lent urgency to the war....

there is a very easy way to clear up this lie thing. Again to lie Bush would've had to know that intel he received was wrong.

So Maineman, do you honestly think Bush knew with 100% certainty that Iraq didn't have WMD's?

 

[Care4all]

there is a very easy way to clear up this lie thing. Again to lie Bush would've had to know that intel he received was wrong.

So Maineman, do you honestly think Bush knew with 100% certainty that Iraq didn't have WMD's?

yes, not nuclear...imo.

anyway, i agree with maineman...

''there is NO DOUBT'' is a pretty solid statement made on only conjecture as intel...

it was a lie..... i'm afraid it really was a lie....

a statement made to deceive or mislead is a lie.... so it was a lie... and lies.

care

 

[Rosotar]

there is a very easy way to clear up this lie thing. Again to lie Bush would've had to know that intel he received was wrong.

So Maineman, do you honestly think Bush knew with 100% certainty that Iraq didn't have WMD's?

Well, the fact that he has never held anyone else responsible for the ah...."mistruths" would kind of indicate that he must have been in on it also.

Wouldn't you say?

 

[Bern80]

yes, not nuclear...imo.

and exactlety how would he or anyone for that matter been able to know that with 100% certainty. WMDs are not confined to just nukes either.

anyway, i agree with maineman...

''there is NO DOUBT'' is a pretty solid statement made on only conjecture as intel...

it was a lie..... i'm afraid it really was a lie....

One, how do you know it was made on conjecute? I realize this is all very easy in hind sight Two, perhaps bush really did beleive that.

a statement made to deceive or mislead is a lie.... so it was a lie... and lies.

care

One can deceive without leing very easily. they are not one in the same. Again being wrong about something after the fact is not lieing. Saying something that you know for certain is not accurate is a lie. there is no proof what so ever of the later.

 

[Rosotar]

and exactlety how would he or anyone for that matter been able to know that with 100% certainty. WMDs are not confined to just nukes either.

Before a U.S. President sends American troops into harms way he'd better have at least a little more certainty than Bush acted on!

One, how do you know it was made on conjecute? I realize this is all very easy in hind sight Two, perhaps bush really did beleive that..

So I guess you're saying that instead of being a liar he's just an incurious, non-intellectual, idiot?

One can deceive without leing very easily. they are not one in the same. Again being wrong about something after the fact is not lieing. Saying something that you know for certain is not accurate is a lie. there is no proof what so ever of the later.

Yes there is Bern! Libs see it but Cons deny it. They just can't bear the fact that one of their own is this guilty.

BTW what standard of "proof" would it take to convince you that you've been duped by one of your own?

 

[Bern80]

So I guess you're saying that instead of being a liar he's just an incurious, non-intellectual, idiot?

We're talking about two different things. First, did he lie. Know one knows. Was he as prudent as he could have been in making this decision? Probably not, but then again neither were Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. In fact Hillary has used the exact same words when she spoke of her support in invading Iraq.

Yes there is Bern! Libs see it but Cons deny it. They just can't bear the fact that one of their own is this guilty.

When are you guys gonna get this through your thick skulls? Bush is not a conservative so he is most certainly not one of our own. yet you insisnt on using that terminology for ease of argument.

BTW what standard of "proof" would it take to convince you that you've been duped by one of your own?

I told you, I would have to knew before hand that the reasons he was giving for going to war were not accurate.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny you're stuck on a talking point that not even the hardest-core Neocons can sustain anymore.

We know now that the information wasn't simply "later found to be erroneous." It was manipulated and cherry-picked from by the Office of Special Plans and the White House Information group to build support for war. Current information was witheld, obsolete information was presented as though it was up to date, caveats and qualifiers were omitted and language was shaped to imply a threat that the raw intel said did not exist.

The raw intelligence that the most of the world had that "didn't exist?" I think not. Hindsight's 20/20. And THAT is what this is all about. You're trying to convict today based on hindsight.


Do you honestly believe the GOP mafia we liked to call Congress before 2006 would have ever considered impeachment of Bush for anything? You'll notice that the new Democrat controlled Congress now mentions the "I" word occasionally and what is the standard Conservative response to any mention of it........

WAAAAAAAAH!!!!!

Just wait until his GOP imposed deadline comes and goes in September. Then you'll get your wish. Democrats and Republicans will join together and talk seriously about impeachment.

I don't want to hear any whining from you then OK? You've said yourself that if he was "REALLY" guilty he would be impeached so when and if it happens that should be all you need to prove guilt.

No lame excuses!

The Republicans have shown themselves more than willing to eat their own on nothing more than an accusation. Why do you assume it's different when it's Bush? The facts do not support your statement.

I don't whine, nor make lame excuses. If there are grounds for impeachment backed by evidence, bring them into the daylight and let's see 'em.

The deadline you attempt to set is not a qualifier for impeachment. What are they going to impeach him for? Refusing to bow down to the Dem Congress?

Good luck.

 

[Gunny]

Well, the fact that he has never held anyone else responsible for the ah...."mistruths" would kind of indicate that he must have been in on it also.

Wouldn't you say?

Some people aren't all about having a scapegoat to hang. It is indicative of nothing.

Fixing the problem is paramount. Burning someone who made a mistake at the stake is pointless.

 

[Rosotar]

Fixing the problem is paramount. Burning someone who made a mistake at the stake is pointless.

So it's alright with you that our troops are dying everyday for somebody's "mistake?"

There's no reason to hold that "somebody" accountable?

 

[Gunny]

So it's alright with you that our troops are dying everyday for somebody's "mistake?"

There's no reason to hold that "somebody" accountable?

It is NOT alright that our troops are dying every day; however, I don't attribute that to Bush as you do. I attribute it to the sorry-ass tactics being used.

I have no problem holding someone accountable within the context of their actions. You want to hold Bush accountable for acting on what most of the world's intelligence agencies believed. And to this day, there are tons of unaccounted for bio and chem agents and/or their percursors.

Wonder where that shit might be? It seems in the left's zeal to point a partisan finger, y'all aren't asking the more important question.

 

[maineman]

there is a very easy way to clear up this lie thing. Again to lie Bush would've had to know that intel he received was wrong.

So Maineman, do you honestly think Bush knew with 100% certainty that Iraq didn't have WMD's?

that is not thge case at all...what I am saying is not the Bush KNEW his intelligence was wrong...what he KNEW was that it was not CERTAIN..that is was WITHOUT DOUBT.

Why do you neocons act dumb as boxes of rocks when it comes to the english language?

If Bush had said, "I believe, given all that I have seen, that Saddam has WMD's" if Bush had said "there is no doubt IN MY MIND that Saddam has WMD's" those statements may very well have been true. Those statements would NOT have been lies. But when Bush and his minions say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" and "WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Saddam has WMD's.... those arestatements that serve to mislead. They give the impression that there is an absolute certainty... that there is a absolute lack of doubt...when such is not the case. It is the impression of lack of doubt that makes the assertions a lie. You really cannot spin away from that.

 

[Rosotar]

The Republicans have shown themselves more than willing to eat their own on nothing more than an accusation. Why do you assume it's different when it's Bush? The facts do not support your statement..

Oh really?

Care to show me one example since 2000 when Republicans have "eaten their own?"

I'll be waiting for that one!

You haven't yet provided any "facts" Gunny. Just because you say something that don't make it a fact.

I don't whine, nor make lame excuses. If there are grounds for impeachment backed by evidence, bring them into the daylight and let's see 'em.

Congressional Republicans have always done a damn good job of obstructing legitimate inquiries into the "facts" while Bush has been in office. That's about to change though as more and more Republicans grow impatient with Bush and start thinking about their own re-elections. You should be careful with those words because there's a good chance you'll be eating them soon.

The deadline you attempt to set is not a qualifier for impeachment. What are they going to impeach him for? Refusing to bow down to the Dem Congress?

Good luck.

Well for starters how about refusing to work with Congress and thumbing his nose at the American people?

He is an elected public servant after all....not a dictator!