Wrong, flatly wrong. The majority of us did not. The UN inspectors were just two weeks away from concluding and reporting that, making it imperative for Bush to start his war within that time frame, which he did.
Either you left out a “not”, or you have access to some information that no one else does.
Impeachment impeashment, he should be tried for treason.
As Elvis pointed out, not everyone believed it. There were people saying there were no active WMD programs in Iraq.
But I’ll admit it. I believed it at the time. I thought Iraq had active WMD programs in 2003 and I supported the invasion.
But here’s the big point. I had no direct knowledge of the facts. The reason I believed there were active WMD program in Iraq was because President Bush said there were. I accepted the idea that he had access to more information than I had and he had evidence that what he was saying was true.
And that’s true for most of the people who supported the invasion. We did it because we believed Bush.
But there were no active WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. Which means Bush could not have had credible evidence that there were. He either intentionally lied or he was massively incompetent. Either way, he demonstrated he was not fit to be President.
WMD’s was total, absolute BS. If this was even partially true, we would have invaded North Korea 10 years ago.
No, this was reported in the press. It’s been cited more than once; another won’t do any good.
The Rockefeller inquiry found that the notion that Saddam had a WMD program was “generally supported by the evidence”. Also cited more than once.
Regards,
Shodan
Generally supported by the evidence, huh? I bet you were thinking nobody would go check your claim, weren’t you? Wrong.
Because the Rockefeller inquiry actually found the exact opposite of what you’re saying. Here’s the first paragraph of their conclusions:
And it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies:
The report details how the intelligence community found no substantial evidence of Iraqi WMD programs. But the Bush administration kept ordering them to keep looking until they found some evidence.
Here’s the report. You have to access it as a PDF file.
“This” being what? “Starting an unwise war” isn’t a crime, and the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being arrested or otherwise punished anything they say in session or vote for.
When did Bush ever levy war against the United States or adhere to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort?
Nice try with the straw man. Revealing an active spy’s identity (Valerie Plame) is treason. Starting a war under false pretenses and essentially murdering thousands of young Americans should be. Fixing elections is also a serious crime, if not treason. War profiteering is definitely treason. There’s probably full lists at dailykos, I know a few popped up right after the 2006 elections.
Nice try at an ad hominem attack. Whether I can prove it or not, you will either say my proof is insufficient or my lack of proof is proof I am wrong. Conversely, I challenge you to prove I am wrong.
I’ve got a 4th degree black belt in rhetoric my friend, just move along. Write it off as a learning experience and call Rush to ask for advice about what to do next time.
[QUOTE=US Constitution, Article III, Section 3]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
[/QUOTE]
None of the accusations you have made against Bush meet the definition of treason as defined in the supreme law of the land.
Therefore, you are wrong, and I’m not sure you know what “ad hominem” means either.
See? Exactly as I predicted. Dude, you are so outmatched it’s not even close. Again, prove to me, in proof you yourself would accept, that I am wrong.
I’ll throw you a softball: prove that Bush had no knowledge that Valarie Plame’s name would be revealed by his subordinates. In fact, prove to me that he didn’t order it revealed himself.
You are wrong because the accusations you are levying do not meet the standard for treason established by the Constitution.
Irrelevant, because even if he had, it does not meet the Constitutional standard of treason.
Sorry, the correct answer is “you can’t prove a negative.”
It’s been fun, but seriously if you want to learn more, I want to get paid for it.
I don’t have to prove a negative. All I have to do is reiterate that you have not accused Bush of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort.
Sigh. Ok, here’s a freebie: when you say “you didn’t” it’s ad homenim by definition. Attack the argument, not the person.
And yes (freebie 2) you don’t have to prove a negative. All you have to do is say “a negative can’t be proved.”
I usually charge $60/hour for instruction, fyi.
Your argument is that Bush committed treason.
You have not made any allegations of any offenses by Bush that rise to the standard of treason.
It is not ad hominem to point out that you haven’t even made a claim for me to refute.
Wow, I needed a second to LOL at that. Yes, that’s exactly why I made that claim. I am still waiting for you to prove that it is not treason to reveal an active spy’s identity.
It is a straw man to try and make me prove bush did what you claim is treason, and it is ad homenim to say i didn’t.
Because revealing an active spy’s identity is neither levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
On which note, do you believe Edward Snowden should be charged with treason?
So in other words;
Glad we’ve got that out of the way, then.
Again straw man. Snowden has nothing to do with Bush. Should one drug addict have a different sentence than a second? Saying everything I say is false is ad homenim. Again, you have not proved that I am wrong, only throwing in other examples and misleading accusations. Is that what Rush is teaching nowadays? The man should be ashamed. Back in the day, he used to keep us unbalanced by creating new fictional arguments on an hourly basis.