Question for Iraq war supporters

[AllieBaba]

You guys never get tired of bringing up lies that might make you all look better than the truth...

 

[Shogun]

Gee.. we probably DONT say the same thing about your side when the eternal cycle of dick morris penis envy comes around and we find ourselves back on the clinton blowjob topic again.

 

[AllieBaba]

And yet your side is the side that so enjoys bringing it up.

 

[maineman]

Pretty hard to prove, though, isn't it?

If he was certain at the time, that's not a lie.

He KNEW there was no certainty, because all of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's CAME with uncertainty attached.

geez...quit being so purposefully obtuse.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How many Quotes do you want that are words from his own mouth that states the CERTAINLY of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as an IMMINENT THREAT, allie?


For real.. You might as well insist that Strom Thurman was only working with available knowledge when fillibustering civil rights legislation.

Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.

I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

I suppose one could construe the statement above as saying "with absolute certainty" was implied, but no where does it say "with absolute certainty"

 

[AllieBaba]

Once again, claiming absolute certainty, and then being proven wrong is not perpetuating a lie. I can be absolutely certain it's going to be cold today. If it isn't, was I lying?

 

[maineman]

Once again, claiming absolute certainty, and then being proven wrong is not perpetuating a lie. I can be absolutely certain it's going to be cold today. If it isn't, was I lying?

Of course you were. It is impossible to predict weather with absolute certainty. To claim absolute certainty about something that you are not absolutely certain of is a lie.... it conveys the false impression that you have absolute certainty which you do not.

Bush KNEW there was not absolute certainty, yet he and his team portrayed it as such...they conveyed the impression to the American people that there was absolutely no doubt as to the stockpiles of WMD's in Saddam's possession. That was a lie. When you combine that lie with the false implications told by Cheney and others that Saddam had been in cahoots with the very guy who led the 9/11 attacks months before 9/11, you create in the average American the presumption that Saddam could very well give those WMD's THAT WE WERE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN HE HAD, to Al Qaeda, who our Vice President and others had connected to Iraq in a nefarious way going back to even before the 9/11 attacks. That presumption fueled the public support for Bush's immediate invasion, conquest and occupation.

 

[AllieBaba]

And you know he knew...how?

And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.

 

[maineman]

And you know he knew...how?

And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.

To suggest he did not know that there were caveats and qualifiers attached to intelligence summaries about Iraqi WMD's is to suggest that he did not know how to READ.

Is that your position?

 

[maineman]

And you know he knew...how?

And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.

and again (and again and again and again!) the LIE is not the claim that Saddam had WMD's...the LIE is the claim that there was NO DOUBT that he had WMD's.

You cannot be this thick...it has to be an act, so please stop it.

 

[maineman]

Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.

I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

I suppose one could construe the statement above as saying "with absolute certainty" was implied, but no where does it say "with absolute certainty"

a good read.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm

 

[AllieBaba]

And AGAIN...the concept that there was no doubt was a misconception.

Not a lie.

Are you this dense?

 

[maineman]

And AGAIN...the concept that there was no doubt was a misconception.

Not a lie.

Are you this dense?

whose misconception?

the analysts gave Bush documents which contained doubts. He turned around and claimed there were NO doubts. LIE.

 

[AllieBaba]

He had no doubt, despite what he had. Not a lie.

 

[Shogun]

Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.

I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

I suppose one could construe the statement above as saying "with absolute certainty" was implied, but no where does it say "with absolute certainty"

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.


Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.


We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html



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. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Q Sir, in honor of your guest, I'll ask it in Australian, if that's all right. (Laughter.) Is there a possibility that you may never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how would that square with your rationale for going to war?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- the question is about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The United States -- United Nations Security Council voted 1441, which made the declaration it had weapons of mass destruction. It's well-known it had weapons of mass destruction. And we've also got to recognize that he spent 14 years hiding weapons of mass destruction. I mean, he spent an entire decade making sure that inspectors would never find them. Iraq's the size of the state of California. It's got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes. We'll find them. And it's just going to be a matter of time to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503-1.html



Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?


Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

Q Let me see if I can further -- if you could further define what you just called this important moment we're in, since you've made it clear just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed, and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort. Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're still in the final stages of diplomacy. I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed. Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction, as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html




Would you like quotes from the cabinet too? Ole Don said some awfully stupid things, yes? Would you like to explain how the above was not cheerleading to the iraq war ON THE CLAIM OF IRAQI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet none of what he said was a lie, imagine that.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. because claiming that Saddam had WMDs and was an actual threat WASNT A LIE!


fuckoff, dickwad, unless you have something to add.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yea.. because claiming that Saddam had WMDs and was an actual threat WASNT A LIE!


fuckoff, dickwad, unless you have something to add.

Once again for the truly IGNORANT. In order for what Bush said before the Invasion in regards WMD's to have been a lie, then a HOST of powerful leading Democrats also are liars, all the Intelligence Agencies of the World are liars.

Further I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and read what was said. Iraq was a threat, not because Bush claimed tomorrow they would attack us, but because left in power he would eventually attack us. Bush did not claim Iraq was an imminent threat, he said he was not going to wait until it was.

 

[Shogun]

And i'd throw every single ******* dem under the bus who voted for war so I guess your blame the dems strawman really isn't all that impressive after all, eh shit for brains?

I QUOTED the ******* mans very own words. You can take your half assed interpretations of these uncomfortable hindsight quotes and have a nice glass of prove me the **** wrong. OR, you can sit there like a feeble waste of retirement benefits and chatter on until your falsies fall out of your ******* mouth. Read what i've posted again, dupshit. You'll find "imminent threat", Weapons of MASS Destruction" and "Chemo and Bio weapons". Don't blame me if your bifocals are crusted over with liquid stupidity.

 

[maineman]

And yet none of what he said was a lie, imagine that.

of course it was.

When Team Bush said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's, that was a lie. There WAS doubt.... lots and lots of analysts had doubts and had delivered those doubts to the president in every single bit of intelligence he ever got on Iraqi WMD's. They have repeatedly told us that. Even the DCI has said that everything came laden with caveats and qualifiers.