Just to continue with this thought real quick, the economic and trade sanctions themselves were ‘bullying’ as well. We were TRYING to ‘bully’ Iraq into compliance with the cease fire and the various inspection resolutions passed…and to honestly keep them down so they wouldn’t try anything again. The no-fly zones were just another aspect to that.
-XT
Well, the meat of your cite is this:
The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established." Which is an unsupporter assertion by that columnist.
In response, I would cite this just for this bit: * On March 3, General Schwartzkopf sat down with the Iraqi military and dictated the terms for the cease-fire. Allied forces would remain in defensive positions in the area of Iraq they currently occupied. Iraqi forces would be allowed to leave this area, but would not take any of their equipment or supplies. In addition, no aircraft would be allowed to operate in an area near U.S. forces, and other flights were strictly limited.*
or this Under the terms of the cease-fire, which established no-fly zones in the north and south, Iraqis could not attack the Shias with airplanes, but could use helicopters, which they did to great effect. Spontaneous and loosely organized, the rebellion was crushed almost as quickly as it arose.
Just for a quick third one 3. As a result of the cease-fire terms, Iraq had to accept the imposition of “no-fly zones” over her territory and United Nations weapons inspection teams sifting through her nuclear and other weapons programs.
Here is a congressional brief on the subject. Another factor contributing to the recent confrontation was Iraqi violation of the no-fly zones imposed by the United States and its allies over portions of northern and southern Iraq. U.S. and British aircraft (and formerly French aircraft) have conducted overflights of northern and southern Iraq since 1991 and 1992, respectively, to enforce the bans on Iraqi aircraft in these zones. The allied overflights are known as Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch and are designed to exclude Iraqi aircraft from flying north of the
36th parallel and south of the 33rd parallel, respectively. The southern zone, covering 227,277 square kilometers (87,729 square miles) is larger than the northern zone, which covers 43,707 square kilometers (16,871 square miles), but Iraqi air defenses reportedly are thicker in the northern zone. Together, these zones cover 270,985 square kilometers (104,600 square miles), or 62% of Iraqi territory.
U.S. officials base the no-fly zones primarily on U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, which demands that Iraq end repression of its population (notably Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south), and on the military cease-fire agreements after the Gulf war (the Safwan Accords), which forbid Iraq to interfere with allied air operations over Iraq. Some countries question this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 688 was not passed under Chapter VII provisions (peace and security) and does not by itself permit military action to enforce its terms. Iraq maintains that the no-fly zones constitute an illegal infringement on its sovereignty and has occasionally fired on allied planes conducting overflights to enforce these zones.
Here is a more longwhinded and legalese discussion of the issue. While it concludes that the legal basis for the no fly zones is not valid, it does lay out a good case for both sides. I won’t quote the whole thing here, but look at the section titled “The Legality of the No Fly Zones”.
So, the UN provided resolutions for the use of force in prosectuting the Gulf war. That war ended with a cease fire which included provisions about limiting Iraqi air movement. Those provisions (and the UN resolutions which lead to them) were used as justification for the No Fly Zones which were in opperation since just after the Gulf War.
Now, one could make a decent case that the No Fly Zones were not technically legal (the last cite I gave does just this). However, it is not true that my summary, shortened to fit the limits of this thread, demonstrated any sort of lack of knowledge on my part. Which, after all, is the only thing I care about. 
I’m not sure I agree with you escept for the last point. WWI was already hot and this does make a difference. However, Wilson clearly published the Zimerman telegram and mentioned it in his request for a Declaration of War in order to enter the war. I disagree that no comparison can be made to the WMD intelligence. At the time of publication (indeed until the Germans admitted it) the authenticity of the telegram was completely unsupported. In fact, unlike the WMD intelligence, I don’t think leading members of congress were let in on how the Brittish had intercepted it. I’m not sure if Administration members were told, but even if they were, they were forbiden from revealing it. So we have a very analogous situation. The president using intelligence which was arguably dubious. The main difference was that Wilson’s intelligence was correct and Bush’s was not. But I’m not sure that constitutes enough of a difference to decide if one was a lie and the other not.
If this is a highjack, I’ll gladly give you the last word. But I think the uncertainty of the intelligence in both cases bears a striking similarity.
Despite your continued protestations to the contrary, you’re clearly one of the self-appointed official Bush apologist on this site, xtime. But fer Christ’s sake, man, believe your lying eyes every once in a while!
‘MEASURED RESPONSE’ OR ‘STATE TERRORISM’?
Is Mr von Sponeck enough of an “expert” for you? Or does the fact that he criticizes the US ruin his expertise for you?
And who said I was “laying this all at GW’s doorstep”? Plenty of guilt to go around. However, there’s a clear difference of scale between what Clinton and Dubya did with regards to Iraq.
The only thing you appear to care about in this thread, is to try to defend the indefensible.
His opinion is entirely valid and he certainly does have expertise in the field. The only thing which would settle the issue, however would be a UN resolution denouncing the no fly zones. If they are so blatently illegal, why was this not done at some point over the past decade or more?
Not a security council resolution, mind you, just a resolution from the body as a whole.
Until that time, the opinions of other should be considered at the very least plausible. Its just inappropriate to dismiss them as ignorant without even addressing them. Read through that last cite I provided. He offers a much more coherent argument for you side than you have thus far.
‘self-appointed official Bush apologist’ and ‘lying eyes’ ehe? Yeah, this is certainly calculated to bring me to my senses and make me want to engage in debate with you. :rolleyes: I thought there was a policy for this kind of thing on the board, but maybe it simply slipped thru. I hadn’t realized we were headed pitward in this thread. You seem bound and determined to be insulting though.
Since you didn’t actually respond to my post but to my perceived Bush Supportedness™ and Lying Eyes(LLC), I don’t really feel compelled to continue with you Red…frankly I’m tired of you. You have been getting increasingly nasty lately and, well, its frankly boring. You didn’t even go to the trouble of responding to what I wrote…so I’ll do likewise. If anyone else less ridiculously hostile would care to put forth the assertions you are making, hopefully in a less hostile way, and if Pervert doesn’t beat me to the punch, I’ll respond to those. Ado.
-XT
Sentiment’s mutual. Time to give the scrollwheel a workout.
Perhaps then xtisme, you might do me the courtesy of at long last explaining how the Rumsfeld interview is not evidence of lying by the Bush administration. I have asked now three times. Or perhaps I am just making a mountain out of a molehill. You could at least state as much directly.
Of course, after hearing the author of On Bullshit today on Al Franken’s show, perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they were bullshitting, since they really had no regard for the truth one way or the other, but simply wanted to sway opinions towards attacking Iraq. I’d say that was worse than just lying.
Sorry Hentor, I wasn’t avoiding you. I didn’t realize you had asked me this in that other thread, nor that your post earlier was directed at me…I only caught your, er, ‘BUSHLIED!’ dig and didnt really go beyond that. Appologies.
So no one has to go back (like I just did) and search for your earlier post, here is the link.
IMHO must of this is pure politician double talk by Rumsfeld. Was he deceitful? Certainly he was…especially when he says stuff like this: “Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade…” This is clearly double speak…its true they had intelligence, however he is obviously portraying it as much more solid than it was. This is commonly refered to as ‘spin’ when it comes out of a politicians mouth. If you want to only look at this as black and white though, I conceed that much of what Rummy says in that interview could be considered ‘lieing’. It was certainly decietful though.
If you have some specific points you want me to address in that interview I’d be happy too. I started to go paragraph by paragraph but I tend to blather on and I’m trying not to do that as much anymore.
-XT
I appreciate the effort, and apologize for not giving another link. The only other point I would ask you to address is whether, if it can be said that Rumsfeld was lying, is the point raised by the reporter that a concerted effort involving Rumsfeld, Rice and Fleischer all putting out the same information at the same time.
If Rumsfeld is lying, aren’t Rice and Fleischer lying as well? And if they, all being key members of the Bush administration at the time, were lying, isn’t it clear that it is an orchestrated effort by the Bush administration to lie? Keep in mind the timing of the orchestrated effort - only a couple weeks before the Senate vote, in which many Senators expressed part of their decision making was based on links between Iraq and al Queda.
To flip it around, how can you absolve Bush of lying if three of his key players are spreading the same lie over a two day period?
I know I should not wade into this thread again, but I think I can answer your question. I think Rumsfeld did so in that interview.
Rumsfeld: No, no, what we’re doing is we’re – we’re saying is, in response to questions and an enormous appetite on this subject, we’re trying to be very, very careful about saying what we think we can say that is useful to the public, not inaccurate, precisely phrased and defendable, without compromising sources or methods.
and
Rumsfeld: So when Ari Fleischer uses words that are quite similar to those that we’ve cleared, one ought not to be surprised, and – nor should one say it’s an orchestration or a symphony or an opera or anything else.
So, if you can say that the information cleared for release was a lie, then you could say it was a lie orchestrated during this clearing. That is, by the administration. Does that answer your question.
For myself, I did not see that much deciet in the interview. There was clearly some hemming and hawing, but it seemed a pretty honest revelation of the administration’s beliefs about the intelligence at the time.
I guess what I’m saying is that if some of the things in that interview were lies, and others in the administration said them also, then they were all lying. However, I don’t really think they were lies.
You regularly make similar assertions on this topic, and ultimately, after quite a bit of equivocation, fail to defend them. Are you here to debate an issue, or are you here to produce ameliorative propaganda? To date, you have provided more support for the latter theory, just so you know.
In other words, when someone makes the evident claim that Bush and his administration were involved in lies (to continue using the somewhat simplistic term) you seem to agree, then mysteriously shift right over to ameliorating the image that these “lies” convey of the president. How many times do you think a person can hear “Oh, he lied, but it wasn’t that bad. And, actually, he didn’t really lie” before being violently ill?
I object to whitewashing the issue of accountability the way you seem intent on doing. That’s why my line has been the same since before the Iraq affair: find the evidence, then go or don’t go to war accordingly. The information necessary to make a decision on this matter has been available for years (or, significantly, it hasn’t, when it came to WMD claims). Perhaps that’s why Bush’s various antics on this subject are so painfully transparent to some of us.
As already pointed out, and as you already admitted, there simply wasn’t evidence to support the claims Bush and co advanced over Iraq. Remember the resignantion of Robin Cook? We’ve known at least since then that Bush wasn’t playing straight. There’s absolutely no revisionism involved. Do some research on old threads in GD, and you’ll find a pretty consistent line of thinking over the years since the start of this affair, such as this thread from the start of the war (where I say “Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. Up until the start of the war it was not demonstrated that Iraq had WMD” – and it certainly was not afterwards). The revisionist bullshit is contained primarily in the apologetic spins that have been coming out to blanket this sordid affair.
That remains your opinion and is far from demonstrated. I think Bush was wrong, and in my corner I have a conspicuous absence of incriminating evidence, and the predictably high cost of the war, among other things. Do you think Bush really regarded that crappy intel as accurate? Come on, this is the most powerful man on the planet. If I could see through the sloppy claims and piss-poor intel, if Robin Cook could, if France could, why not Bush and his thousands of professionals?
Well, the easy answer is that he’s a moron, which may be true… but I just don’t see how he couldn’t have known, moron or not.
No, the majority of the evidence pointed to no such things. Suspicions pointed that way, but no solid corroboration was ever provided for those suspicions. The intel provided to support the claims that were crucial to fulfilling Bush’s rush to war were fabricated or deeply flawed, yet employed regardless. I trust we do not need to go over yellowcake, aluminium tubes, and all that stuff yet again? I notice you attempt to drag my arguments down with inapplicable terms such as “revisionism”, but you steer clear of actually tackling the evidence that according to you supports your viewpoint.
Friendly hint: don’t accuse me of being a revisionist unless you can (and do) lay it out and support your accusation.
Claims of circumstantial evidence such as aluminium tubes intended for conventional rocket construction were bad enough, but when it turned out that it stank to high heaven that should have provided some hefty clues. But no, in the words of probably the most famous article to expose this rank dishonesty, the White house embraced the “evidence” (THE NUCLEAR CARD: The Aluminum Tube Story – A special report.; How White House Embraced Suspect Iraq Arms Intelligence, that you can purchase here at the NYT. An excellent read).
Indeed, that has always been my line and the line of various people in this thread.
Again, you’re the only one doing the revising here. I couldn’t give a fetid dingo’s kidneys, to steal a famous line, about what “a lot of people” were convinced of according to you. I wasn’t convinced. Most governments weren’t convinced. Most populatons weren’t convinced. Most experts (including Jane’s Defence, who pointed out more than once how faulty much of this intel was) weren’t convinced. The UN and, more importantly, IAEA weren’t convinced at all. In the US, people who were convinced were convinced primarily on the strength of such illustrious items as Bushite information/propaganda and/or the transatlantic populist leverage obtained by the abysmal British dossier orchestrated by Blair’s propaganda minister.
Maybe Bush was convinced there was a danger, maybe he wasn’t. That is irrelevant. If he was convinced, he pressed poor evidence into service, effectively making a case that did not exist. If he wasn’t convinced that’s even worse, but as I said it’s irrelevant.
You’re splitting hairs. Either Bush didn’t know jack about WMDs in Iraq and simply propagandized in order to pursue his war for his own reasons, or he knew there most likely weren’t the various items and plans he alleged, and pressed ahead anyway. Either way, sloppy evidence was collected and manipulated to support a set of claims that were insupportable. This is the lie that is so often referred.
See the NYT report linked earlier for evidence of the view that Bush needed reasons to pursue his agenda, and accepted anything and everything that came his way – even items that no self-respecting intelligence agency could look at with a straight face, such as the matter of the aluminium tubes (which were quite a nice little scandal in the intelligence community).
Yes, all this is “making his case look stronger”, I agree. It is also a prime example of the active application of convenient falsehood. The lie. It’s the difference between getting a job on your ability, or getting a job by lying about your university degree (Savour this moment, because I seldom go near arguments by analogies).
On the contrary, before the Iraq invasion I was fully prepared to consider that Iraq had such WMDs, and given the appropriate evidence I could have concluded that it had such WMDs. I suppose I was blinded for a moment in the initial run-up to war by the various claims being thrown up by the administration. However that blindness was very quickly fixed wth some research – research showing that no concrete evidence to support Bush’s claims actually existed. Smoke and mirrors there were aplenty, but substance was grievously lacking.
What’s changed since then? Nothing except maybe your opinion.
The onus of proof was on the side making the claim, which in this case was the side claiming WMD threats, stockpiles, etc. No corroboration for these claims ever turned up. We were told various times that the US knew where the weapons were, but that was the extent of the information released. We were subjected to scare tactics including the constant juxtaposition of 9/11 and al Qaeda with Iraq in various speeches and addresses and interviews, but nothing concrete came up (aside from tenuous links dug up by the State Department, which were laughable). Other scare/pressure tactics involved ludicruous claims such as not being able to wait for evidence because the evidence would come in the form of a mushroom cloud – cheap and vulgar theatrics designed to influence the masses. We were told that there was no doubt that aluminiun tubes (which were wholly unsuitable to nuclear weaponry development) were in fact only usable for nuclear weapon development. We were told Saddam was trying to obtain that famous heavy metal from Africa, and again the evidence was extremely sloppy. And so forth.
The reality is that the invasion confirmed exactly the status of the available (not fabricated or manipulated) evidence pre-invasion, at least for those people willing to examine the evidence rather than regularly crane their heads back for the propaganda force-feeding.
When the American faction of the weapons inspectors turned out to be spying for their government rather than carrying out their politically neutral mandate under the auspices of the UN, the process was compromised. Saddam was quite correct in throwing the inspectors out that time – anyone would have done the same --and as a bonus the expulsion helped ensure a tighter and more efficient weapons inspection procedure next time they returned. He unwittingly gave the process of weapons inspections a boost.
Clinton, we know, had some intelligence on Iraq, but nothing he could actually use to take the US to war (particularly mired in controversy as he was at the time, courtesy of Republican efforts to demonize him through sex). It took Bush’s determination to accomplish war without just cause.
I couldn’t care less what Bush trusted. This is not about Bush’s trust (or faith and ego-centrism) but about the Security Council, led by the US, assigning a team of neutral international professionals to do a job, and then hampering their progress when it became clear they were not finding the specific evidence required by Bush. It’s the difference between credibility, and being regarded as a dishonest and manipulative ruler who is immune to accountability.
There is no evidence of such, beyond some minor squabbles between Iraq and IAEA, most of which were eventually resolved. These are regular occurrences, as you see with Iran for example.
Just because we don’t know that Saddam didn’t manage to hide stuff in the desert, doesn’t mean that he did. You are falling into a classic appeal to ignorance fallacy.
The inspectors had the authority to inspect any site in Iraq. If the US suspected anything – and let’s remember that this is the nation with the most advanced surveillance capabilities – they were free to point the inspectors in the right direction. Again, Bush might have had legitimate suspicions, but all he provided was smoke. Saying, “oh, there may have been weapons somewhere” is intellectually useless, because the whole point of the inspections and UN engagement was to determine if evidence of specific threats existed, not hand-wave about them.
Additionally, after a few weeks of excellent progress the inspectors weren’t even allowed to finish their job, because the US side-stepped the Security Council and barged ahead once it became obvious that no evidentiary support from IAEA was forthcoming, and, indeed, that prolonged IAEA activity in Iraq would confirm that Iraq lacked the items and programmes alleged by the US and required for an invasion.
Same flip-flopping story with the much-vaunted second resolution that the US stated it would seek. That became history once it was clear that Security Council members were not swallowing Bushite bullshit, and would not sanction automatic war under any circumstance (but only as prescribed by the resolutions in effect).
Oil for food had little to do with weapons inspectors, since it was an aid programme. The latest inspection team was headed by Hans Blix, a man that the US fully approved of, trusted and supported when he was nominated to his role. Hans Blix was quite careful to point out repeatedly, during and after the Iraq affair, that there was no evidence of the alleged WMDs, but he was certainly not a man who acted lightly towards Iraq, which is obvious when you consider that he never flinched from listing even the most minute lack of cooperation from the Iraqs. And minute technicalities were ultimately all that Bush could use as the final excuse to wage war, something that always strikes me as a disgusting perversion of the objective scientific process.
Again, I really couldn’t care less about feelings, this is about facts. The weapon inspectors went to Iraq on the US’s recommendation and with the US’s blessing. They had a mandate that was organized and voted by the US. How convenient that this trust and authority the US had invested should suddenly collapse as the evidence Bush needed became more and more imaginary.
Rather, it’s not my fault that you insist on providing post-hoc rationalizations. I understand your point. I just happen to think, as I already explained, that it is inapplicable without a stiff dose of wishful thinking.
No, rather YOU provide evidence and we’ll then discuss yet again whether it is rubbish. Or just use the search function and find the dozens and dozens of threads where this has already been addressed. I’ve already mentioned the yellowcake uranium, the aluminium tubes, the State Dept claims regarding al Qaeda ties, and so forth, items that the intelligence community considered rather less than a smoking gun, to say the bloody least. If you have anything to add submit it for further discussion. I’d be surprised if something emerged that hasn’t already been deconstructed in a previous thread.
As I stated before: the conscious use of falsehood is the issue here. That’s what a lie is. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had WMDs stockpiles or programmes. The lie under examination is that Iraq DID have WMDs stockpiles and/or programmes. I don’t care about vague suspicions, beliefs, and feelings, because you can no more establish those than I can.
As I have explained in the face of your repeated equivocations, the process is simple: make a claim, support it with adequate evidence, act accordingly. Bush’s claim was not supported with adequate evidence, yet the claim was repeated again and again – indeed, just about the closest thing to evidence Bush had was his tireless repetition on this issue, something that seemed to suffice for altogether far too many individuals.
That you have a hard time defending an indefensible position is not my problem. My problem emerges when I see you needlessly equivocating on an issue that has more contrast than the uniform grey you keep trying to paint over it. Why do you do this, I wonder?
So, is it possible that you could argue something of substance on this matter, or must we expect your usual fare on the matter of the President and Iraq?
I repeat: there was grievously insufficient evidence to conclude what Bush concluded, what he crammed down the throats of everyone who would listen and those wou wouldn’t. He did so for his own reasons – I really don’t care why (or rather, I do, but that is outside the scope of this discussion). Bush leveraged fake evidence and manipulated other evidence to point to a conclusion unsupported by proper scrutiny of the facts, and then went to war on it (which, you agree, was a serious mistake).
Once again, the best apologist defence boils down to “someone else did something similar too!”. This isn’t “The Presidents of the United States of America Review”, it’s not a contest or pageant, it’s a discussion on Bush and his application of falsehoods. Also, but only if you insist, point out one other president who undertook action on the scale of the Iraq war on the basis of false and manipulated evidence (and who got away with it!).
No, XT, once again you are the one revising. Look at the evidence in review and let me know what isn’t clear. All I wanted since this affair started was the evidence. With the evidence, the US could have gone ahead and invaded, with UN support, international support, and so forth. And (more or less) everyone could have been happy. All it would have taken was some evidence that a moderately informed person could scrutinize and regard as acceptable. Another month of weapon inspections in Iraq, since they had been there only a few weeks, maybe another two or three months. Is that so much to ask? Of course not. But it would have led to a rather different conclusion for Bush.
I will outline the argument yet again. The US administration and her various apologists claim that no UN consensus on war could have been reached, but that is of course nonsense as argued at least 300 times on these boards (France’s objections were to a resolution allowing “automatic” war, not to any war at all). That means Bush pushed ahead with war and effectively put a stop to weapons inspections for one of these reasons:
Bush was genuinely scared of Saddam and of the WMDs for which no concrete evidence existed, in a country crippled by sanctions and under constant surveillance, “protected” by a ragged impoverished military, beset by no-fly zones and areas full of armed Kurds, etc. Afraid that Saddam would build or deploy weapons by the time the UN inspections (that the US voted for and supported) came to a close, Bush decided there was no time to lose, so he cut the inspections short and invaded in order to save the day.
Bush was correctly afraid that if weapons inspections came to a close turning up so little, there would be no case for war on the basis of a clear threat to the US and her allies. Therefore he needed to act fast before he missed his window of opportunity, particularly as his attempt to bully the UN into cooperation failed miserably.
Feel free to add other options for examination.
Now, which strikes you as the more likely, especially considering the reams of manipulated evidence that were clumsily thrown on the table? Even assuming option 1, which is a painful stretch, you still cannot make the case that Bush did not lie – you can at best argue that he lied for what he believed was a good cause.
hah, no disagreement there from me, however I seem to insist on accountability somewhat more than you do. The last thing I wonder is why I keep seeing you unsuccessfully equivocate for Bush along the same lines in multiple threads.
Have you noticed that it’s rather more than the “left/Dems” who are pinning (quite successfully too!) this particular idiocy on him? Are you calling me a leftie or a democrat? Do you think this set of people is the only one to share such views?
Your cover might be slipping. If so you do a pretty decent job of keeping it on during the apologies though, I have to hand it to you.
True as far as you are concerned: if you continue to equivocate what is in fact rather more clear than you make it out to be, I doubt you will conclude that Bush and co deliberately embraced faulty evidence, manipulated it, inflated it to a significantly greater size, then put it to use knowing it was of rather poor quality.
That’s been done thoroughly, though you make it sound like it hasn’t and the people who should be doing it are simply playing a finger-pointing game. Oh no! You may think differently, but there are a lot of people who would actually like a leader to be accountable – not untouchable. And that’s why I am irritated by apologies; though I can’t speak for anyone else, I suspect I am not alone in this regard.
Two points.
Why did anyone believe President Bush when he made the claims about Iraq’s weapons?
Did he furnish evidence before the public? No he did not.
Did he make availiable the unedited analysis of his intelligence professionals? No he did not.
Did he await the reports and intelligence of the relevant investigative body? No he did not.
Why then did anyone believe him? I submit the answer is that he said so.
He said so. Now, from Kanicbird to xtisme and everyone in between, all know the value of President Bush’s say-so.
Contrast the say-so of the esteemed cast of this board, the people who were right, who were correct.
You who believed President Bush, you must now acknowledge the better say-so of those who detracted on this board. Why must you accept that President Bush is a liar. Say so bound your opinion then. It binds it now. You accept because we say so.
Now point 2. It’s not important. It’'s an interesting exercise in formal logic but in terms of the significance, there isn’t much. The agreed fact is that the President was wrong on the major factual issue in the largest decision of his term.
That’s staggering, that he lied is minute by comparison.
Lastly an addendum. The deal was always; there are weapons or Bush is lying. It’s poor form to try to weasel out now.
Okay, pervert, xtisme here’s what turned out to be the truth of the matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Here’s the lies given by administrative officials all over a two to three day period in September, 2002.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/
From the Rumsfeld press conference, selected portions regarding the nature of the information:
Where is ol kanic?
Because all it took was an internet connection to know that the great majority of “evidence” presented by the Bushclan prior to the invasion was at best, wild-eyed exaggerations, and at worst, flat out lies – yes, there’s that word again.
To wit. Here’s a random site debunking most of the paraniod crapola put forth by your heroes. Note the date of same, prior to the invasion:
Top 30 Bush - Iraq Lies: A Reference For Seekers of Truth
:rolleyes:
And on and on and on it goes…
Wasn’t that ‘single source’ of Rumsfeld’s later discredited as a torture victim?
Besides which, there isn’t much in the way of a straight answer anywhere in that so-called statement - it is mostly doubletalk to avoid giving straight answers IMO.
PS-Good stuff, Abe. Sadly, I doubt it’ll make the slightest bit of difference in the Faith-based Community.