You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Seriously man...do you ever get embarassed at all? I mean you are aware pretty much the entire board thinks you are a fucking loon, right?
If A Suitcase Nuke Went Off In NY
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Seriously man...do you ever get embarassed at all? I mean you are aware pretty much the entire board thinks you are a fucking loon, right?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #102
Coming from a liberal like you - I must be hitting a nerve
- Banned
- #103
I think you did...but let's make sure.
Simple question: When Colin Powell said, in February of 2001, at a joint press conference in Cairo with the Egyptian foreign minister, that Iraq was NOT a threat to its neighbors and that, because of inspections and sanctions, Iraq was no longer able to project any power beyond its own borders and was not a threat to the United States...... was he lying?
Yes or No.
The only nerve you hit is the annoyance of having a demented monkey shit over every thread in existence.
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
nope it is what he belived at the the time
Pelosi said on the House floor in October of 2002 — "He (Saddam Hussein) has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." And then a month later — "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
was she lying yes or no?
- Banned
- #106
... I have NEVER suggested that Colin Powell was being anything other than absolutely factual in that press conference....and it turns out that he was right when he said what he said, and she was wrong when she said what she said. Although her statements would be absolutely factual if you would just change the word "has" to the word "had" three times.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
Herein lies a problem. I'm willing to say the administration was proven wrong, once we were in Iraq. What I get depressed about are the accusations of 'lies' by the administration, which was relying on intel, the same as previous administrations and other governments. Were there some warnings that Saddam may have been lying? Yes or perhaps, especially from the UN inspectors and even Blix, that in total lock step with the diplomatic community, put caveats with each report.
- Banned
- #108
again....from my perspective, the only LIE the administration told was when they expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's. Given the caveats and qualifiers that the raw intelligence was laden with, nobody in the intelligence community would EVER have said that....
and it was that certainty that helped make the case for war. I doubt that as many Americans would have supported our invading Iraq if Bush had said, "Saddam could very well possibly have weapons of mass destruction...we think....maybe".
His administration's assertions of certainty when there was none, are lies. pure and simple. They conveyed the false impression that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and conveying a false impression is a lie.
and it was that certainty that helped make the case for war. I doubt that as many Americans would have supported our invading Iraq if Bush had said, "Saddam could very well possibly have weapons of mass destruction...we think....maybe".
His administration's assertions of certainty when there was none, are lies. pure and simple. They conveyed the false impression that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and conveying a false impression is a lie.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
I'm not being facetious, I believe you attended Annapolis? Where did you learn those types of caveats were suggested in a leader? Which is what a President is, especially when going to war.
I wouldn't expect different from a Democratic President, after all, he/she only has what he/she has at their disposal at a given point in time. One must keep in mind that 9/11 was not the causative factor of Iraq War, rather the reason to resume that war, that had been put on hold. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't so much GW was not so much getting revenge for his father, as being stuck being the son of the previous after a attack on the US. Saddam had the 'bad luck' of a proven record of supporting terror in Palestinian territories.
- Banned
- #110
of course...my "Saddam could very well possibly have weapons of mass destruction...we think....maybe" was tongue in cheek. Expressing absolute certainty when none exists is a lie.
He certainly could have said, "Nearly all of our intelligence indicates that Saddam has and is developing Weapons of Mass Destruction", or "We have every reason to believe that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's". Both of those statements are strong, nearly devoid of ambiguity, and, NOT lies.
Saying "There is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", "We are absolutely certain that Saddam has WMD's" "Not only are we certain that he has them, we actually know right where they are"..... those statements ARE lies.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
Ok, then it would behoove thinking Democrats to say,
which are very different from 'Bush lied and soldiers/Iraqis died. Again, would have been politically a good stroke to hit the administration on the 'sure' deal, but that is what the intel suggested.
- Banned
- #112
Thinking democrats were saying nearly exactly that since the time of the Clinton administration.... but have no doubt:
"intelligence suggests that Saddam might have stockpiles of WMD's"
does not rouse support for an invasion like:
"We are absolutely certain that Saddam has WMD's and we know right where they are and if we don't go attack him this very minute, he will undoubtedly give them to Al Qaeda who will cause mushroom clouds to bloom over American cities any day now"
And whether republicans find it destructive or not....the facts remain...Bush DID, in fact, lie...and had he not professed absolute certainty about the WMD stockpiles and the immediacy of the threat they posed (along with not implying a Saddam-9/11 connection), then America would NOT have supported the invasion of Iraq simply with the alternative rationale of "let's invade Iraq and depose Saddam because he has not fully complied with all the terms of the UN ceasefire agreement that is a decade old" or even "let's go invade Iraq and depose Saddam because he is despot who mistreats his people" and had we not gone into Iraq riding the wave of public support that his lie did, in fact, generate, we would have 3628 more soldiers living than we do now.
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
is it possible saddam had them and moved them? ..... he did fly all his jets to iran .....
and if bush lied...then so did pelosi kerry and the rest of the merry pranksters
- Banned
- #114
not so...the LIE was not saying that Saddam had WMD's...the LIE was claiming a degree of total certainly about that information,,,the lie was repeatedly saying that there was no doubt, when there always WAS doubt
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
now there is some serious big ass donkey dick spin.....well done
you know full well this is the biggest lie of all. From our conversations I would say you have a huge problem with it.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #117
Translation - please stop telling the truth about liberals, my head is about to explode
- Banned
- #118
would America have been supportive of an invasion of Iraq if Bush had said "I think that Saddam might have some WMD's"?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #119
Dems said Saddam had them - you ignore that and give them a pass
- Banned
- #120
I give no one a pass on anything. I am furious with every democrat who voted for the use of force resolution.
YOU certainly give Bush a pass, however.
Similar threads
