Quinnipiac Poll May 1st, 2007

[RetiredGySgt]

Bush said he there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's. He expressed and his team expressed on numerous occasions the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of Saddam's stockpile of WMD's.

Now...if that statement of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was TRUE statement...if he really was absolutely certain...if there really WAS NO DOUBT, then he should have been able to produce those stockpiles. In FACT, George Tenet explains quite eloquently, that all of the intelligence concerning Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers....this bit of information was from a very old satellite photo...this one was from a single source...this one had conflicting reports that discounted it... and on and on..... those caveats and qualifiers are - by their very nature - PROOF of doubt - PROOF of the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. To state there is NO doubt when some level of doubt does exist...to claim absolute certainty when there was a degree of uncertainty...those statements are LIES.

lie [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.

As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.

If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.

 

[maineman]

Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.

As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.

If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.

are you suggesting that the bush administration did NOT use the terms "there is no doubt" when referring to the presence of stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq?

And if I define a word exactly as the definition is written in the FUCKING DICTIONARY we have no common ground??????

OK then.... I have no fucking idea what language YOU speak, but if the dictionary definition of words in English cannot be common ground for us, then let's just not bother trying to communicate using that language. what other ones you got? I am pretty good en francais and I know enough arabic to get me in trouble. whaddaya recommend? pig latin? carney? you pick.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is simple the intent of your claim that Bush lied is the first definition. And I agree we have no grounds for discussion if your trying to convey that because Bush said something that turned out to be false it was a lie. By that definition you lie all the time on this very board. In fact everyone lies all day long.

By the definitions you have highlighted no one can ever tell the truth.

 

[maineman]

the definition I am using is the second one.

the point is... he was well aware that the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers before he made the statement that "there was no doubt". Knowing one thing and saying another is most definitely serving to convery a false impression. If my dick is five inches long and I know it is five inches long and I tell a lovely lady at the bar that my dick is eleven inches long.... when I know how long it really is..... that's serving to convey a false impression. that is a lie. Bush is briefed...he is told that this bit of intelligence is based on a single source..that bit of intelligence is based on a six year old photo... that one has conflicting sources...and on and on.... that MEANS there is doubt.... there is some level of uncertainty.... knowing that, when he says "there is no doubt" that is a lie. I know you don't want to hear that and will probably continue to adamantly deny that, but it really is a lie.

 

[Rosotar]

Simply not true. The fact you have used this argument would open YOU to me calling you a liar.

As for the 3rd definition, using it to pronounce Bush a liar would mean you and just about everyone else is and continues to be a LIAR. Thus making the term liar irrelavant and useless. Further the 2nd definition is also lacking. It is not a lie if one is unaware that what they are conveying is false. Another definition that makes worthless the word lie.

If this is how you define the term we have no common ground, you have destroyed the purpose of the word in an attempt to have your way.

In other words "right and wrong" is all relative to Ret. Gunny.

From his twisted perspective Dems are always wrong and Republicans are never wrong.

Ret. Gunny has zero credibility to argue these things!

 

[TheStripey1]

Once again some evidence please, one will do. I am simply amazed, Bush is alternately the stupidest President we ever had or the Evil mind controlling Genius of all time.

Last I checked , for the umpteenth time, Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefs from all Intelligence organizations and well from anyone they want. The President has absolutely no control over who the Congress talks to.

Yet in order for Bush to have lied he would have had to have total control over who spoke to Congress, what information they provided AND now 5 years later still control them to prevent them from telling how they were instructed to lie to Congress.

Bush would have had to have total control over what every other intelligence agency in the world was reporting or a mind control ray that kept everyone in Congress and the world from hearing what they REALLY thought.

When Congress had its investigation into the spurious claims he would have had, once again, to use his awesome mind control powers to make everyone agree there was not one shred of evidence that Congress or the People were lied to.

I AM tired of being lied to, BY PEOPLE like you.

Also assuming Bush lied one must also assume Clinton lied for 8 years as President and ordered several attacks on Iraq based on his lying. Now while Clinton is a proven liar I just don't see your type making this claim.

evidence of what? that bush said Saddam had WMD? were you asleep under a rock somewhere during the run up to the war on Iraq? That was ALL he talked about. Saddam's WMD... and how he (bush) was going to rid the world of them... don't you remember that?

so? where are they?

You know nothing about me... cuz I don't like Clinton either... I'm an unafilliated independent that is staunchly anti-bush... so by being in opposition to all you bush lovers it means I swing from the left... but... I'm not a democrat nor am I a liberal... and I'm not a republican anymore either...

I voted for Buchanan in '96... supported George the 1st in his Gulf War... supported George #2 in his war on Afghanistan, but after he said he didn't care where Osama been Forgotten was hiding I began to have my doubts about him... I left the party in '03...

there are a lot of recovering republicans these days, gySgt...

 

[TheStripey1]

Oh, they were gassed alright....they were gassed before Dubya's daddy invaded Iraq the first time.

which sort of blunts that argument about the urgency of going in before Blix had a chance to tell us what we now all know: that Saddam didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's so we didn't need to invade him, throw the region into turmoil, and flush a trilllion dollars and 3500 lives down the shitter.

chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?

 

[red states rule]

chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?

You sound like a typical angry liberal to me

 

[red states rule]

chickenhawks don't care about troopers' lives, maineman... haven't you realized that by now?

Neither do Dems

They have wasted three months on a surrender bill they knew would be vetoed

So much for "supporting" the troops

 

[RetiredGySgt]

evidence of what? that bush said Saddam had WMD? were you asleep under a rock somewhere during the run up to the war on Iraq? That was ALL he talked about. Saddam's WMD... and how he (bush) was going to rid the world of them... don't you remember that?

so? where are they?

You know nothing about me... cuz I don't like Clinton either... I'm an unafilliated independent that is staunchly anti-bush... so by being in opposition to all you bush lovers it means I swing from the left... but... I'm not a democrat nor am I a liberal... and I'm not a republican anymore either...

I voted for Buchanan in '96... supported George the 1st in his Gulf War... supported George #2 in his war on Afghanistan, but after he said he didn't care where Osama been Forgotten was hiding I began to have my doubts about him... I left the party in '03...

there are a lot of recovering republicans these days, gySgt...

So using your definition of lying, just about every country on Earth lied about his WMD's, including the UN, including all the democrats in Congress and the entire Intelligence community of the United States. Got ya... do you wear a tin foil hat and keep a sharp eye out for those black helicopters also?

 

[red states rule]

So using your definition of lying, just about every country on Earth lied about his WMD's, including the UN, including all the democrats in Congress and the entire Intelligence community of the United States. Got ya... do you wear a tin foil hat and keep a sharp eye out for those black helicopters also?

You forgot to tell him to check his phone for taps - Pres Bush does that alot according to the kook left

 

[maineman]

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

Approve 44
Disapprove 54
Unsure 2

"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor 57
Oppose 41
Unsure 2



http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[Truthmatters]

Now ask yourself why we could not get ohter countries to back us in the Iraq war?

Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?

It was known that Sadam didnt have shit, the Bush admin cherry picked evidence and feed it to the Congress and USED the feelings of trust created by 911.

We were Used my friends by people who had ulterior motives.

You can pretend its not true but it will do you and this country about as much good as pretending The whole world was wrong and you are right.

 

[Truthmatters]

It was known that Sadam didnt have shit, the Bush admin cherry picked evidence and feed it to the Congress and USED the feelings of trust created by 911.


oooppsss should read didnt have anything

 

[Truthmatters]

I think I need another cup of tea I grabbed the wrong sentance.

Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now ask yourself why we could not get ohter countries to back us in the Iraq war?

Ask yourself why the Inspectors who were there inspecting said he did have anything?

It was known that Sadam didnt have shit, the Bush admin cherry picked evidence and feed it to the Congress and USED the feelings of trust created by 911.

We were Used my friends by people who had ulterior motives.

You can pretend its not true but it will do you and this country about as much good as pretending The whole world was wrong and you are right.

I suggest YOU get your facts straight, every European country EXCEPT France Germany and Belgium DID support the Invasion. And again lets assume your right and Bush cherry picked HIS intel, how did he ensure that ONLY his cherry picked intel was what Congress and all our allies got?

 

[maineman]

the lie is the creation of the false impression of absolute certainty about that intelligence. If Bush had said "We are pretty sure he's got WMD's" or "I strongly believe he has WMD's" there would be no lie.

His imprecision with the language is his undoing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I repeat, how did he prevent Congress and all those other countries from receiving the "correct" intel?

 

[maineman]

I repeat, how did he prevent Congress and all those other countries from receiving the "correct" intel?

I repeat, for the braindead jarhead: I have never said that the intelligence was different.... I said that it was Bush's assertions as to the absolute certainty and absence of any doubt as to the presence of WMD's that constituted the lie.

NO ONE ELSE was saying that there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and that, dovetailed with the great sales job that got 65% of Americans in January of '03to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 gave Bush all the support he needed to invade a countrty where UN inspectors were ON SITE and would have determined within months what we all know now: that the absolute certainty was a lie.... and that we have become bogged down in a war in a country that was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.

 

[red states rule]

the lie is the creation of the false impression of absolute certainty about that intelligence. If Bush had said "We are pretty sure he's got WMD's" or "I strongly believe he has WMD's" there would be no lie.

His imprecision with the language is his undoing.

Dems said the same thing about WMD's and Saddam