The Big Lie is Bush Lied

[boedicca]

Yes, they expressed certainty within a greater context that you either dismiss or ignore. There was WIDESPREAD belief that Saddam had WMDs - and the BA's concern was to stop his ability to develop nukes (the latter has, thankfully, been accomplished). The world doesn't need an Iraqi Kim Jong-Il.

 

[maineman]

Yes, they expressed certainty within a greater context that you either dismiss or ignore. There was WIDESPREAD belief that Saddam had WMDs - and the BA's concern was to stop his ability to develop nukes (the latter has, thankfully, been accomplished). The world doesn't need an Iraqi Kim Jong-Il.

they expressed certainty...they stated that there was absolute certainty ...and the intelligence available did not supply that certainty.... when they exprssed it, it was not true. and they knew it was not true. They needed to hype the situation to make their case, and by stating absolute certainty, they lied, because it did not exist.

 

[maineman]

and while we were ******* around deposing a guy who did NOT have any WMD's we allowed a Korean Kim Jong Il to become a nuclear power.

nice move.

 

[boedicca]

Well big fat Duh. There are very few things that are known with irrefutable and complete certainty. Gathering and analyzing intelligence - and then using it for policy decisions requires making judgements with imperfect data. It is about weighing risks. You may argue that Bush applied poor judgement - but calling it a lie is specious.

Saddam was not on trial as a U.S. resident in which he was held innocent until proven guilty beyon a reasonable doubt (which is the standard that the Left tries to apply). Bush's responsibility was to protect our national and economic security from what he perceived was a reasonable risk. IMO, there was enough data to prove a reasonable risk. You are perfectly free to judge otherwise.

 

[boedicca]

and while we were ******* around deposing a guy who did NOT have any WMD's we allowed a Korean Kim Jong Il to become a nuclear power.

nice move.

You can thank Bubbah for that. He's the one who negotiated the agreement which enabled DPRK to continue their program while blackmailing the West for donations to feed their starving population.

 

[maineman]

You can thank Bubbah for that. He's the one who negotiated the agreement which enabled DPRK to continue their program while blackmailing the West for donations to feed their starving population.

no.... the statute of limitation is up on blaming Clinton...we spent all our time and money and men in Iraq and ignored Kim Jong Il...that is on Bush's watch.... pretty soon, you republicans will have to start accepting responsiblitity for your own fuckups.

 

[Rosotar]

You can thank Bubbah for that. He's the one who negotiated the agreement which enabled DPRK to continue their program while blackmailing the West for donations to feed their starving population.

When all else fails

BLAME IT ON THE CLINTONS!

 

[boedicca]

So what you are really saying is that it would have been okay for Bush to attack DPRK to prevent the completion of the nuke program, but pre-empting Saddam's was wrong?

 

[maineman]

Well big fat Duh. There are very few things that are known with irrefutable and complete certainty. Gathering and analyzing intelligence - and then using it for policy decisions requires making judgements with imperfect data. It is about weighing risks. You may argue that Bush applied poor judgement - but calling it a lie is specious.

Saddam was not on trial as a U.S. resident in which he was held innocent until proven guilty beyon a reasonable doubt (which is the standard that the Left tries to apply). Bush's responsibility was to protect our national and economic security from what he perceived was a reasonable risk. IMO, there was enough data to prove a reasonable risk. You are perfectly free to judge otherwise.

well then... if you do not HAVE irrefutable and complete certainty, it would make sense not to express the fact that you did, don't you think?


When Team Bush said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's.... that was a lie.... spin away from it all you want, but it was not a true statement...and they KNEW it was not true when they said it.

 

[boedicca]

You don't understand political rhetoric very well, do you?

 

[maineman]

So what you are really saying is that it would have been okay for Bush to attack DPRK to prevent the completion of the nuke program, but pre-empting Saddam's was wrong?

no....I will not have you put stupid words in MY mouth.

What I am saying is that you do not get to blame Clinton for Bush attacking Saddam and ignoring Kim Jong Il's growing threat.

 

[maineman]

You don't understand political rhetoric very well, do you?

Of course I do.... I understand that when you say there is absolute certainty that Saddam has stockpiles of weapons, that you are making a stupid statement, because there are all sorts of ways to say damned near the same thing without lying about it.

 

[maineman]

You don't understand political rhetoric very well, do you?

you don't understand the definition of the word "lie" very well, do you?

 

[boedicca]

Clinton was President for 8 years. In 1998, his administration adopted a policy of Regime Change for Iraq. In 1994, the CA reached an agreement with the DPRK that the latter would shut down their weapons producing nuclear plants to replace them with energy related efforts. For 6 years, the DPRK continued their nuclear development in violation of the treaty while Clinton did nothing.

It is the responsibility of a departing President to brief and complete a hand-off to his successor. Clinton did a very poor job. No President is going to go through a wholesale reversal on every decision made by a predecessor - the disruption to our country would be unacceptable. Bush foolishly or knowingly, depending upon your viewpoint, focused on a diplomatic solution for DPRK. At the point he assumed power, it might have been too late for pre-emption - we will likely never know.

Bush also, foolishly or knowingly, continued with the Clinton policy of Regime Change for Iraq. If Bush lied - then you should make the same claim about Bubbah.

 

[Rosotar]

Well big fat Duh. There are very few things that are known with irrefutable and complete certainty. Gathering and analyzing intelligence - and then using it for policy decisions requires making judgements with imperfect data. It is about weighing risks. You may argue that Bush applied poor judgement - but calling it a lie is specious.

I don't think we'll ever know the truth until George Tenet is subpoened out of retirement and put under oath to testify that the intelligence was indeed "faulty" rather than manipulated by the Office of Special Plans.

Saddam was not on trial as a U.S. resident in which he was held innocent until proven guilty beyon a reasonable doubt (which is the standard that the Left tries to apply) .

Actually boedicca that's the standard that the United States Constitution and the Geneva Conventions apply. Have you ever read these documents?

Bush's responsibility was to protect our national and economic security from what he perceived was a reasonable risk. IMO, there was enough data to prove a reasonable risk. You are perfectly free to judge otherwise.

Then according to your own standard Bush failed in his duty.

He misjudged the threat. As a result we're losing four or five soldiers a day in a war that the evidence shows didn't even need to be fought in the first place.

Don't you think any leader should be held accountable and have to face some consequence for mistakes of this magnitude?

 

[boedicca]

you don't understand the definition of the word "lie" very well, do you?

I know that it doesn't mean telling an untruth when there is strong international agreement regarding the interpretation intelligence data.

 

[maineman]

Clinton was President for 8 years. In 1998, his administration adopted a policy of Regime Change for Iraq. In 1994, the CA reached an agreement with the DPRK that the latter would shut down their weapons producing nuclear plants to replace them with energy related efforts. For 6 years, the DPRK continued their nuclear development in violation of the treaty while Clinton did nothing.

It is the responsibility of a departing President to brief and complete a hand-off to his successor. Clinton did a very poor job. No President is going to go through a wholesale reversal on every decision made by a predecessor - the disruption to our country would be unacceptable. Bush foolishly or knowingly, depending upon your viewpoint, focused on a diplomatic solution for DPRK. At the point he assumed power, it might have been too late for pre-emption - we will likely never know.

Bush also, foolishly or knowingly, continued with the Clinton policy of Regime Change for Iraq. If Bush lied - then you should make the same claim about Bubbah.

forget about Clinton. YOu really need to let it go....he has not been the president for over six years now.... give it up. The buck stops at Bush's desk. My GOD. Bush lied about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. WHen you say "there is no doubt" about something - anything - it means what it means. It does NOT mean there is VERY LITTLE DOUBT...it doesn't mean we are ALMOST certain.... it means that there IS NO DOUBT. Now you can call a lie political rhetoric if you like, but we both know that is pretty repugnant spin.

 

[boedicca]

I don't think we'll ever know the truth until George Tenet is subpoened out of retirement and put under oath to testify that the intelligence was indeed "faulty" rather than manipulated by the Office of Special Plans.




Actually boedicca that's the standard that the United States Constitution and the Geneva Conventions apply. Have you ever read these documents?

The Constiution does not apply resident/citizen individual rights to other nations. In fact, the Constiutional provision of Congress approving military action was fulfilled.

Nor was the Geneva Convention violated by this action.

Then according to your own standard Bush failed in his duty.

He misjudged the threat. As a result we're losing four or five soldiers a day in a war that the evidence shows didn't even need to be fought in the first place.

No, he did not fail according to my own standard. Saddam was removed from power - he did not have a chance to complete his nuclear aspirations - which is beneficial to the world at large.

People die in wars. It is a sad fact. This one could have been better managed - as most things could have been in HINDSIGHT. Perhaps we would have been more successful in this one if the Left and the MSM had not provided so much aid and comfort to the enemy.

Don't you think any leader should be held accountable and have to face some consequence for mistakes of this magnitude?

Mistakes should be judged within the framework of history - which is not complete at this time. Using your logic, we should have just bailed out engaging in WWII after Pearl Harbor.

 

[Rosotar]

The Constiution does not apply resident/citizen individual rights to other nations. In fact, the Constiutional provision of Congress approving military action was fulfilled.

Therein lies the rub to quote the bard.

Congress did it's duty but did the president do his?

Nor was the Geneva Convention violated by this action..

I beg to differ.

According to the very international laws that the United States helped write, preemptive war is illegal. So is invading other sovereign nations and deposing leaders in order to install an alien form of government.

No, he did not fail according to my own standard. Saddam was removed from power - he did not have a chance to complete his nuclear aspirations - which is beneficial to the world at large.

Removing Saddam from power was not the primary justification that Bush used to sell this war to Congress. It was the ex post facto justification. Congress voted to disarm Saddam but since he had no WMD that quickly became a moot point.

The findings of the Iraq Survey Group and the last two NIE's confirm without a doubt that UN sanctions were quite effective in curbing Saddam's weapons programs. There was no need for an invasion to secure objectives that had already been obtained by other means. According to our own intelligence agencies the world is not in fact "better off" without Saddam Hussein in power. That is simply one of Dick Cheney's over used, worn out talking points. The war in Iraq has made us and our interests less safe.

I don't just pull that fact out of thin air. It's in the last two NIEs and it is the conclusion of the Baker group. I suggest you read these reports.

People die in wars. It is a sad fact.

Precisely! That is why presidents who launch reckless, unnecessary wars that kill U.S. soldiers should be impeached and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This one could have been better managed - as most things could have been in HINDSIGHT. Perhaps we would have been more successful in this one if the Left and the MSM had not provided so much aid and comfort to the enemy.

Once again this is just a cheap, Republican ruse. It's a shell game. Support the Republican president and his incompetent policies at all cost. Rather than ever having to admit you're wrong you blame the failed policies on the very people who dared criticize them and call them wrong in the first place.

Doesn't this logic seem a bit strange to you?




Mistakes should be judged within the framework of history - which is not complete at this time. Using your logic, we should have just bailed out engaging in WWII after Pearl Harbor.[/QUOTE]

 

[red states rule]

you don't understand the definition of the word "lie" very well, do you?

after eight years of Clinton everyone know what the word lie means