Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[Said1]

You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...

by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the **** it is had these weapons.....
was it the Iraq regime?
was it Baghdad?
was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....

Those aren't unusual statements. Given that you're so smart, you must have heard people refer to state capitals and not the country when reporting information to the public?

 

[Alpha1]

Those aren't unusual statements. Given that you're so smart, you must have heard people refer to state capitals and not the country when reporting information to the public?

I thought it was plain I was being facetious ..............my bad?

YOu see MM takes every word used and analyzes the shit out of it...what is common plain English to most of us
is parse from heaven to hell by MM to make a minor, inane, and useless point.....
so watch your spelling, etc.

 

[maineman]

I could care less what analysts have come up with since March, 2003.....
The only relevant issue is what Bush was told before the war.....
The NIE of 10/02 says Iraq HAD....HAD...HAD ....HAD...WMD.....]
Thats why we had a war.....
THE NIE IMPLYED CERTAINLY.....thats what they presented to Bush....to Cheney...To the Congress....To Pelosi.....TO US......

analysts have stated that the case was not without doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040209-586175-2,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1168

http://deepblade.net/journal/2005/11/everyone-thought-saddam-had-wmd.html

I could go on...and on...but you get the gist

 

[Said1]

I thought it was plain I was being facetious ..............my bad?

It was obvious. Really obvious.

 

[maineman]

His entire argument depends on doubt, even if ( and I doubt the if) EVERY other report stated doubt on every matter, THIS report has NO doubt.

He has argued that Bush NEVER was told by ANY intel brief that Iraq HAD weapons, only that " he probably" " He might' " we are not sure".

NONE of that is IN this report.

For him to continue to claim other wise is in fact HIM lying per HIS own definition, as I have stated.

quite the contrary. every report would have had to contain NO DOUBT for Bush to claim that there was NO DOUBT. Doubt in any report is, in fact, the presence of doubt. ergo, the statement that there was NO DOUBT was a lie.

If ten weathermen tell me that there is no doubt that it will be sunny tomorrow, and one weatherman tells me it will rain, I cannot turn around and say that there is NO DOUBT that it will be sunny tomorrow...

and when it rains...

 

[Alpha1]

If I would talk about a wooden box I keep matches in, and say....

"My wooden match box is broken"....MM and I would argue for fuckin' days about the issue of "is my wooden box broken" or if I was talking about "wooden matches".......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

analysts have stated that the case was not without doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040209-586175-2,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1168

http://deepblade.net/journal/2005/11/everyone-thought-saddam-had-wmd.html

I could go on...and on...but you get the gist

It does not matter , your entire claim has been that Bush lied because YOU said NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. THIS report has NONE. IT states clearly IRAQ has WMD's, that it has mobile labs, that it has missiles and that it is working on making a nuclear weapon.

It does not even matter if every single report after this one said " we are not sure" ( and I doubt they did) THIS report STATES Iraq has WMDs. Something you have claimed never happened. You have insisted Bush lied because he never was told Iraq had WMD's with out some Caveat. THIS report HAS NONE on the sole issue of whether Iraq had WMD's. In fact the only caveats it has are on only a couple types and that is only on whether the prewar levels have been reached.

Go ahead QUOTE any statement from this report that says Iraq might not have WMD's. AND I don't mean one of a bunch. BUT all WMDs.

The report STARTS with the STATEMENT IRAQ has WMD's. Not maybe, not could have, not any doubt.

 

[maineman]

I thought it was plain I was being facetious ..............my bad?

YOu see MM takes every word used and analyzes the shit out of it...what is common plain English to most of us
is parse from heaven to hell by MM to make a minor, inane, and useless point.....
so watch your spelling, etc.

the words "no doubt" have meaning. If you use them incorrectly, you convey a false impression. that is not parsing, it is simple english grammar.

 

[maineman]

It does not matter , your entire claim has been that Bush lied because YOU said NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. THIS report has NONE. IT states clearly IRAQ has WMD's, that it has mobile labs, that it has missiles and that it is working on making a nuclear weapon.

It does not even matter if every single report after this one said " we are not sure" ( and I doubt they did) THIS report STATES Iraq has WMDs. Something you have claimed never happened. You have insisted Bush lied because he never was told Iraq had WMD's with out some Caveat. THIS report HAS NONE on the sole issue of whether Iraq had WMD's. In fact the only caveats it has are on only a couple types and that is only on whether the prewar levels have been reached.

Go ahead QUOTE any statement from this report that says Iraq might not have WMD's. AND I don't mean one of a bunch. BUT all WMDs.

The report STARTS with the STATEMENT IRAQ has WMD's. Not maybe, not could have, not any doubt.

no. I have never said that NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. Doubt does not have to be universal to exist. He was told of SOME doubts, he stated that there were none. that was a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

quite the contrary. every report would have had to contain NO DOUBT for Bush to claim that there was NO DOUBT. Doubt in any report is, in fact, the presence of doubt. ergo, the statement that there was NO DOUBT was a lie.

If ten weathermen tell me that there is no doubt that it will be sunny tomorrow, and one weatherman tells me it will rain, I cannot turn around and say that there is NO DOUBT that it will be sunny tomorrow...

and when it rains...

WRONG and you know it. YOU have stated NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's with out a caveat. YOUR entire claim depends on him never having been told the weapons existed with out a doubt. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.

Now once again we are back to, since BUSH was told Iraq had WMD's you have to show he did not believe that to be true. Or else he did not lie. Your entire claim is based on him never having been told for sure Iraq had WMD's.

Once again if 10 guys tell me something and an 11th guy tells me the opposite, if I believe the 11th guy, I am not lying if I state I believe him. I am not lying if I state with NO uncertainty what he said.

 

[maineman]

If I would talk about a wooden box I keep matches in, and say....

"My wooden match box is broken"....MM and I would argue for fuckin' days about the issue of "is my wooden box broken" or if I was talking about "wooden matches".......

obfuscation.

again...if ten weathermen predicted sun and one predicted rain, if I were to say that there were no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow, that would not be true.

especially when it rained!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. I have never said that NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. Doubt does not have to be universal to exist. He was told of SOME doubts, he stated that there were none. that was a lie.

You are a liar by your own definition.

 

[maineman]

You are a liar by your own definition.

no. I am not. I have not tried to convey a false impression.

answer the question: if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow? yes or no?

doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt. On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt". No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.

 

[Alpha1]

no. I am not. I have not tried to convey a false impression.

answer the question: if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow? yes or no?

doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt. On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt". No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.

The better question would be ....if ten weatherman claimed it would rain in DipShit, Maine tomorrow and it doesn't .....ARE THEY LIARS?

That is the question......are they?


Of course not...they are mistaken.....they made an inaccurate claim....they were wrong.....

They truely believed it would rain in DipShit, Maine but it didn't.....big fuckin' whooop!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. I am not. I have not tried to convey a false impression.

answer the question: if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow? yes or no?

doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt. On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt". No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.

And you know your wrong, Bush was told they had weapons. Bush believed they had weapons. It does not matter what 10 guys say if I do not believe them. If I believe what I am saying is true then I am not lying. You have to show he KNEW it was not true. Not that someone had some doubts, not that you had doubts. Not that Some other Country had doubts ( and based on this report I am betting most of those other Countries had no doubts either. And I am betting all the reports from the CIA all said he had weapons, we even have the head of the CIA STATING it was a slam Dunk when ask if Saddam had weapons.

Now the ball is in your court, YOU have made the claim he lied, provide us with evidence, something that actually proves he lied. Not the nefarious "someone may have told him there was doubt" How hard can it be? Ohh wait I already know, it is impossible, that would be WHY no congressional panel has ever AGREED with you.

 

[maineman]

And you know your wrong, Bush was told they had weapons. Bush believed they had weapons. It does not matter what 10 guys say if I do not believe them. If I believe what I am saying is true then I am not lying. You have to show he KNEW it was not true. Not that someone had some doubts, not that you had doubts. Not that Some other Country had doubts ( and based on this report I am betting most of those other Countries had no doubts either. And I am betting all the reports from the CIA all said he had weapons, we even have the head of the CIA STATING it was a slam Dunk when ask if Saddam had weapons.

Now the ball is in your court, YOU have made the claim he lied, provide us with evidence, something that actually proves he lied. Not the nefarious "someone may have told him there was doubt" How hard can it be? Ohh wait I already know, it is impossible, that would be WHY no congressional panel has ever AGREED with you.

again. we are not talking about what Bush believed, but what he was told. You have claimed that the statement "there is no doubt" is a statement of belief. I disagree, and think, instead, that it is a statement of fact. As long as you see his statements as ones of personal belief, then we will always be talking about two different things. In the english language I was taught from gradeschool on, the phrase "there is no doubt" means something different than ""I personally have no doubts" YOu keep claiming he said - or meant to say - the latter, when in fact, he said the former. And, given the clear presence of doubt in intelligence the reporting that was presented to him, the former is a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

again. we are not talking about what Bush believed, but what he was told. You have claimed that the statement "there is no doubt" is a statement of belief. I disagree, and think, instead, that it is a statement of fact. As long as you see his statements as ones of personal belief, then we will always be talking about two different things. In the english language I was taught from gradeschool on, the phrase "there is no doubt" means something different than ""I personally have no doubts" YOu keep claiming he said - or meant to say - the latter, when in fact, he said the former. And, given the clear presence of doubt in intelligence the reporting that was presented to him, the former is a lie.

And your wrong. WE have a report that CLEARLY states NO DOUBT. It does not say Saddam may have had WMD's, It does not say Saddam COULD have had them, there are NO caveats at all on the statement he had WMDs, your entire argument depends on no report ever existing that STATES NO DOUBT.

Further I am betting that before the fall of Baghdad all or most of the actual reports Bush got ARE the same. You keep claiming nefarious others put Caveats, prove it, provide us with these reports. Your claim that because Fred has doubts means I must have doubts is ignorant at best. Fred is not ME. What Fred believes is not important to what I believe.

And yes if only ONE weather man states there will be no rain tomorrow and I BELIEVE him, I can say THERE is NO DOUBT. Because for me, THERE IS NO DOUBT. What I believe DOES matter.

 

[mattskramer]

And your wrong. WE have a report that CLEARLY states NO DOUBT. It does not say Saddam may have had WMD's, It does not say Saddam COULD have had them, there are NO caveats at all on the statement he had WMDs, your entire argument depends on no report ever existing that STATES NO DOUBT.

Wouldn’t the president have reviewed more than one report before deciding to have soldiers invade Iraq? Did he ever hear doubt from anyone at all? Did he ever ask for a second opinion? Geee. I guess that he went with the first report that he had and, coincidentally, it stated no doubt. That seems to be rather reckless to me.

And yes if only ONE weather man states there will be no rain tomorrow and I BELIEVE him, I can say THERE is NO DOUBT. Because for me, THERE IS NO DOUBT. What I believe DOES matter.

Based on my experience with watching predictive weather reports and the rate at which they are wrong, if I were planning an important outdoors event, I would ask for a second opinion – just to be more confident. If you were going to experience a major, expensive, life-threatening surgical operation based on your first doctor’s opinion, wouldn’t you look for a second or even a third opinion before deciding to do under the knife? I sure would.

By the way, with respect to the weather report, just because you do not see a newscast say that there will be no rain, does not mean that there exists no doubt among some meteorologists that there will be rain. It just means that you decided to go with the first weather report that you saw. You might have no doubt but you did not check out opinions from other weathermen. That does not mean that, nowhere in the world is there doubt. Do weathermen ever disagree on what the weather is going to do? I think so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wouldn’t the president have reviewed more than one report before deciding to have soldiers invade Iraq? Did he ever hear doubt from anyone at all? Did he ever ask for a second opinion? Geee. I guess that he went with the first report that he had and, coincidentally, it stated no doubt. That seems to be rather reckless to me.



Based on my experience with watching predictive weather reports and the rate at which they are wrong, if I were planning an important outdoors event, I would ask for a second opinion – just to be more confident. If you were going to experience a major, expensive, life-threatening surgical operation based on your first doctor’s opinion, wouldn’t you look for a second or even a third opinion before deciding to do under the knife? I sure would.

By the way, with respect to the weather report, just because you do not see a newscast say that there will be no rain, does not mean that there exists no doubt among some meteorologists that there will be rain. It just means that you decided to go with the first weather report that you saw. You might have no doubt but you did not check out opinions from other weathermen. That does not mean that, nowhere in the world is there doubt. Do weathermen ever disagree on what the weather is going to do? I think so.

None of which has anything to do with this conversation.

 

[mattskramer]

None of which has anything to do with this conversation.

I’m simply having fun and showing where you are wrong in your comments. “There is no doubt” and “For me, there is no doubt” are not synonymous.