Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[mattskramer]

Please spare me....insightful my ass.....]
He argues about the most inane and insignificant crap and when he gets schooled he just digs in harder....

The simple fact that you don't need to get convicted of a crime to be guilty of committing that crime.....THATS A FACT

Notwithstanding what the meaning of is is.....
--------------------------------

I’ve debated him. At least he has the class to admit when he has been proven wrong or when he goes over the top - which is a lot more than I can say for many people here.

 

[Alpha1]

I think we're using both the legal definition of "guilty" and the more common definition of the word, and that is the source of the confusion.

In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court. And during the court process you are presumed innocent. If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word. Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.

As that word is used in every day parlance, though, if you did something criminal, then you are guilty of having done it.

Being guilty
Being charged
Being convicted

These are all different .......

You've heard of innocent people being charged and convicted of crimes?

 

[mattskramer]

In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court. And during the court process you are presumed innocent. If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word. Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.

If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.

 

[Steerpike]

If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.

Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious. Doesn't change any of what I posted, however.

 

[Alpha1]

I’ve debated him. At least he has the class to admit when he has been proven wrong or when he goes over the top - which is a lot more than I can say for many people here.

Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....

You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....

and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....

surely you understand that...
-------------------

Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....

 

[Alpha1]

If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.

Absolutely right

Now we quote MM...

"and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."

--------
So,...you're innocent until proven guilty ?
(Actually you may be innocent even after you're judged to be guilty)

AND

"Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."
(Thats true. But what does that have to do with his guilt or innocence of perjury?....NOTHING)
-------------------

See........We can all play his silly word games....

 

[mattskramer]

Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....

Yes, of course you must show where they are wrong. It is okay to be wrong. That is not my point. My point is that from what I’ve seen, when MM is finally proven to be wrong, he will (sometimes) admit to what has become obvious. That shows class in my book. Some people never seem to admit that they are ever wrong, even when you clearly show that they made a technical error.

You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....

and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....

surely you understand that...

We agree.
-------------------

Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....

Yes, I see your point but until we have mind readers, we must make judgment calls. I made a judgment call about Bush. I think that he read or heard, from at least one person, doubt that Saddam had WMD. I think that he remembered such information and said that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD. I’m not a mind reader. It is possible that I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Even if we had video showing Bush hearing doubt, Bush can still claim that he forgot about hearing such doubt when he made his statement saying that there is no doubt. So, I see your point. To tell a lie, one must know that what he is saying is not true.

I guess that without absolute proof to convict you of telling a lie, the best defense that you have is to claim forgetfulness and ignorance.

 

[mattskramer]

Absolutely right

Now we quote MM...

"and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."

--------
So,...you're innocent until proven guilty ?
(Actually you may be innocent even after you're judged to be guilty)

AND

"Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."
(Thats true. But what does that have to do with his guilt or innocence of perjury?....NOTHING)
-------------------

See........We can all play his silly word games....

I don’t think that you are “hearing” me. I disagree with MM in his definition of perjury but I still think that he shows class.

 

[Alpha1]

Yes, of course you must show where they are wrong. It is okay to be wrong. That is not my point. My point is that from what I’ve seen, when MM is finally proven to be wrong, he will (sometimes) admit to what has become obvious. That shows class in my book. Some people never seem to admit that they are ever wrong, even when you clearly show that they made a technical error.



We agree.
-------------------



Yes, I see your point but until we have mind readers, we must make judgment calls. I made a judgment call about Bush. I think that he read or heard, from at least one person, doubt that Saddam had WMD. I think that he remembered such information and said that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD. I’m not a mind reader. It is possible that I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Even if we had video showing Bush hearing doubt, Bush can still claim that he forgot about hearing such doubt when he made his statement saying that there is no doubt. So, I see your point. To tell a lie, one must know that what he is saying is not true.

I guess that without absolute proof to convict you of telling a lie, the best defense that you have is to claim forgetfulness and ignorance.

We can discuss Bush....
Re-read Post 359......Bush qualified his belief to the intell he was getting ....

There is no doubt about what the 10/2002 NIE said.....

We can talk about what it was Bush actually said, instead of what MM thinks Bush actually said.....we shouldn't put words into anyones mouth to manufacture a biased belief.....

None of us a mindreaders, for sure....

 

[Alpha1]

I don’t think that you are “hearing” me. I disagree with MM in his definition of perjury but I still think that he shows class.

Oh I "hear" ya Matts.....

It was only a few days ago MM was claiming Clinton was never charged or tryed on the perjury charges....after schooling him on that, he never admitted being wrong....(so you're mistaken on the class, he has little to none)

And its not his definition of perjury thats in question...its his attempt to muddy the issue with his underhanded crap about

being guilty or not quilty of a crime,
proven to being quilty or not guilty of a crime,
innocent until proven guilty of crime,
etc....
All superfluous crap to disguise issues he is clearly losing on and will never give in to.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I ask YOU again, are we ALL not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Therefore, isn't Clinton innocent of the crime of perjury?

THAT is a profoundly easy question.

And again... I have NOT suggested that Bush's statements about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were a crime. I have only stated that they WERE lies, in that they served to convey a false impression.

Clinton is not innocent because he ADMITTED he did it. He was never convicted of it, but he did it.

 

[maineman]

Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....

You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....

and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....

surely you understand that...
-------------------

Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....

you need to be convicted of a crime to be GUILTY of a crime.

YOU do not need to be convicted of a crime to perhaps have participated in illegal or criminal behavior.

Clinton lied under oath. No one is suggesting otherwise. He is NOT, however, GUILTY of any crime, because, in American justice in every state except Louisiana I think, the law is based upon English common law, in which the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. Clinton, therefore, is innocent of the crime of perjury until he is proven guilty in a court of law.

And AGAIN...just because there are some phrases in the 2002 NIE that show no doubt in Saddam's WMD stockpiles does NOT mean that there was not plenty of doubt in the intelligence community about that very thing. And, by all accounts, Bush was privy to those reports and KNEW that there were varying levels of doubt and uncertainty about Saddam's stockpiles. Whether he himself was sure or not, he could not honestly say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT", when, in fact, there was. He could have said, "there is very little doubt"...or..."I personally have no doubt"... or... "I completely believe"... and those would not have been lies. To say that "there is no doubt" when that is simply not true, is a lie.

 

[maineman]

Clinton is not innocent because he ADMITTED he did it. He was never convicted of it, but he did it.

his "admission" is irrelevant. He was never found guilty of the crime, ergo he is innocent of it in the eyes of the law.

 

[maineman]

Oh I "hear" ya Matts.....

It was only a few days ago MM was claiming Clinton was never charged or tryed on the perjury charges....after schooling him on that, he never admitted being wrong....(so you're mistaken on the class, he has little to none)

And its not his definition of perjury thats in question...its his attempt to muddy the issue with his underhanded crap about

being guilty or not quilty of a crime,
proven to being quilty or not guilty of a crime,
innocent until proven guilty of crime,
etc....
All superfluous crap to disguise issues he is clearly losing on and will never give in to.....

I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial. If they had impeached him, he would not have become a felon, or convicted of any crime...he would have merely been removed from office in a non-judicial legislative proceeding.

And the point is not about Clinton's lies, it is about Bush's....any mention of Clinton in this discussion is clearly obfuscation.

 

[Steerpike]

I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial.

Impeachment proceedings are often said to be quasi-criminal in nature. The trial isn't really a civil or criminal trial. It has some characteristics of criminal trials, I suppose, but it has some important differences as well:

1. The impeached official does not have a right to trial by Jury, which the Constitution guarantees in criminal cases;

2. The Presidential pardon power does not extend to impeachments, though it does extend to any "criminal" offense;

3. The Federal Rules of Evidence don't apply in an Impeachment trial;

4. Conviction in an impeachment trial does not require a unanimous decision.

So it's not really a criminal trial. It is its own sort of trial - separate from either criminal or civil trials.

 

[maineman]

Impeachment proceedings are often said to be quasi-criminal in nature. The trial isn't really a civil or criminal trial. It has some characteristics of criminal trials, I suppose, but it has some important differences as well:

1. The impeached official does not have a right to trial by Jury, which the Constitution guarantees in criminal cases;

2. The Presidential pardon power does not extend to impeachments, though it does extend to any "criminal" offense;

3. The Federal Rules of Evidence don't apply in an Impeachment trial;

4. Conviction in an impeachment trial does not require a unanimous decision.

So it's not really a criminal trial. It is its own sort of trial - separate from either criminal or civil trials.

I concur

 

[Shogun]

I invite all the "Bush didn't lie about phantom WMDs" people to wear that on their shit while voting in the primaries tomorrow.


You can wear your "Blame Clinton" long johns right underneath.

 

[Alpha1]

So lets play the MainemanSillyGame.....


MAINEMAN......."his "admission" is irrelevant. He was never found guilty of the crime, ergo he is innocent of it in the eyes of the law."

What super spin.....Notice...NO ONE ever claimed Clinton was found guilty of a crime...or that he was guilty in the eyes of the law in the first place.......
So MM comes off as telling us ....well, nothing we didn't know before.....

Because Clinton wasn't 'found guilty' has absolutely nothing to do with him being guilty.....HE IS GUILTY, HE SAID HE LIED, lying under oath is a crime, being tried or convicted is irrelevant.......He admitted his lying, ergo his guilt....
To claim under oath in a sworn deposition that "I was never alone with Ms. Lowinsky" is plainly a lie, his guilt is undeniable.......

MAINEMAN....."I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial. If they had impeached him, he would not have become a felon, or convicted of any crime.."

...And here we go again...NO ONE claimed that impeachment proceedings are any sort of "criminal" trail.....but it is a trial nonetheless....and one of the charges was perjury.....So MM comes off as telling us ....well, nothing we didn't know before.....Clinton was charged and tried....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's exact words....................

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

And thats EXACTLY what the US intell said , as PROVEN by the conclusions of the 16 intell groups that make up the NIE report .....
No doubts in this report, just clear, plain, and simple words that define certainty....the word HAS....

The belief that Bush heard, or was made privy to doubts, ideas, etc. presented by others, including, but not limited to, Huey, Dewy and Louie....Tinkerbell and Ted Kennedy, Larry, Moe and Hillary, or anyone else is irrelevant.....

What matters is what he said.....Our intelligence and the intelligence from numerous others nations... led Bush to conclude, and re-enforce his belief that Iraq possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt .... no doubt to whom, you ask....

He didn't say "leaves no doubt anywhere in the world"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Americans"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Democrats"

So lacking a specific entity or identifying any particular group.......Bush would have to be speaking for himself.....simply because HE is the speaker...
Those lacking common sense might disagree....but that just makes them wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

Bush's exact words....................

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

And thats EXACTLY what the US intell said , as PROVEN by the conclusions of the 16 intell groups that make up the NIE report .....
No doubts in this report, just clear, plain, and simple words that define certainty....the word HAS....

The belief that Bush heard, or was made privy to doubts, ideas, etc. presented by others, including, but not limited to, Huey, Dewy and Louie....Tinkerbell and Ted Kennedy, Larry, Moe and Hillary, or anyone else is irrelevant.....

What matters is what he said.....Our intelligence and the intelligence from numerous others nations... led Bush to conclude, and re-enforce his belief that Iraq possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt .... no doubt to whom, you ask....

He didn't say "leaves no doubt anywhere in the world"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Americans"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Democrats"

So lacking a specific entity or identifying any particular group.......Bush would have to be speaking for himself.....simply because HE is the speaker...
Those lacking common sense might disagree....but that just makes them wrong.

I disagree with your interpretation of Bush’s statement. Without there being a modifier, “no doubt” is to be taken globally. It is as if he were saying that there is no doubt with anyone anywhere.

 

[Alpha1]

I disagree with your interpretation of Bush’s statement. Without there being a modifier, “no doubt” is to be taken globally. It is as if he were saying that there is no doubt with anyone anywhere.

I don't like the global aspect just because the intell wasn't available globally....but was available to him....
I'll not disagree with your interpretation, if its your position not to allow the speaker some leeway in parsing the quote, thats within your rights .....so lets look closer, at the exact words and parse away........

Bush's exact words....................

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

So what is Bush saying here....? Is it really WHO has or has not doubt....
What leaves no doubt?.....the intelligence gathered ?

The NIE report shows just that....but it doesn't speak to other governments.....Bush is saying that our intell leaves no doubt and the NIE report says Iraq HAS....not might have, could have or will have....

So why not take his words exactly as stated.....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt.....

Read the NIE report and that is true..the report doesn't have qualifers or caveats......that covers our intell...
Neither of us can know what 'other governments' intell said, or how their conclusions were worded......ergo....Bush is not lying....

He makes no claims about others having doubt, he speaks about the intell he was given ...... not about what other individuals claimed.....