By all means - as soon as you show where I made that claim.
Regards,
Shodan
Post #195 of this thread. Unless it means something else, in which case, please explain what it means.
Well, since it contains no reference on my part to MoveOn, and no mention of American casualties, and nothing that could be construed as the assertion that “MoveOn wishes death on Americans”, it can’t reasonably be said to say anything resembling what you are alleging.
So I guess my best attempt at explanation would be, “don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.”
Regards,
Shodan
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
OK, so, post 195, the post in question, consist of you quoting two snippets, one from me and one from you. First we have this:
Given that you are quoting me there, I assume that your intent is to use the rest of your post to answer that question. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps you just pulled out two totally unrelated quotes because you felt, artistically, that they went well together. However, I’ll assume that you intended to answer that question.
So, here you are, answering my question. And the only possible way I can think of to read this is that you’re saying “it doesn’t matter if moveon is AS bad as strmfrnt, because they’re both across the Line of Condemnation, one (SF) for racism and one (moveon) for hoping Americans die.” Seriously. I’m not trying to make stuff up here, I just can’t come up with any other reasonable theory as to what they heck your post was talking about.
But if you insist, then I’m going to start debating in the following fashion:
Me: George Bush is just as evil as Jeffrey Dahmer
Some republican: What? How is George Bush just as evil as Jeffrey Dahmer?
Me: Well, killing-people-and-eating-them and torturing-Jewish-babies-with-acid are both so bad that they are across the “Line of Condemnation”
Some republican: Cite that George Bush tortures Jewish babies with acid?
Me: What? Where did I say that? Don’t make shit up and expect me to react to it.
Seriously, dude, help me out here.
What a devious attempt to dilute the irrebutable!
Claiming certainty about something that isn’t true, is lying.
Mr Bush simply excised the caveats and qualifications from what he demanded to be told so as to forward a policy.
That is exclusively because you post as an enemy of this board, opposing evidence based reason at every turn.
For as you freely acknowledge that would compromise support for kin of yours fighting in Iraq.
The merits of such kin can be debated another day. Suffice to say a plating of bronze stars can never stop the basic yellow of the invasion shining through brightly.
That isn’t an assumption, it’s a conclusion. He did say he knew things that he did not know. How is that not lying? He presented a distorted picture of what information he had, distorted in such a way that it is not reasonable to think he wasn’t conscious of it. How does that differ from lying in any way that you care to defend?
Because there is no evidence of good faith on his part. The only faith in evidence is bad. He consciously refused to find out the facts, started a war when the facts were on the verge of becoming irrefutable, refused to consider any alternative interpretations of the facts that were there, even refused to consider any uncertainty in the facts he did seize upon.
Where is this “good faith” you wish us to consider?
Shodan, you keep seeing and hearing “Bushliedbushlied” so often because there are so many like you and Bricker saying “Nohedidn’tnohedidn’t”. Ever consider that?
Sure. A clear majority of the electorate, in fact.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Sevastopol - I am awaiting a ruling from the mods before I respond to your post as it deserves.
Puzzle for you two: Identify the “good faith” not-lying in these statements:
But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush, President
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002
How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. “The first line of defense…should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence–if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs
2/1/2000
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction…In the case of Saddam Hussein, we’ve got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons… A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material – whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability – it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb – that is, biological weapons – is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
MSNBC Interview
1/10/2003
What is unique about Iraq compared to, I would argue, any other country in the world, in this juncture, is the exhaustion of diplomacy thus far, and, No. 2, this intersection of weapons of mass destruction.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NewsHour Interview
1/22/2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
2/8/2003
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world – and we will not allow it.
George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
I am not eager to send young Americans into harm’s way in Iraq, or to see innocent people killed or hurt in military operations. Given all of the facts and circumstances known to us, however, I am convinced that if we wait, a threat will continue to materialize in Iraq that could cause incalculable damage to world peace in general, and to the United States in particular.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Letter to Future of Freedom Foundation
3/1/2003
Iraq is a grave threat to this nation. It desires to acquire and use weapons of mass terror and is run by a despot with a proven record of willingness to use them. Iraq has had 12 years to comply with UN requirements for disarmament and has failed to do so. The president is right to say it’s time has run out.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Speech
3/7/2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
3/7/2003
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime is our best inoculation. Destroying once and for all his weapons of disease and death is a vaccination for the world.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Washington Post op-ed
3/16/2003
Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
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.
George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
The United States . . . is now at war “so we will not ever see” what terrorists could do “if supplied with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.”
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Debate
3/20/2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
3/21/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003
I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
We simply cannot live in fear of a ruthless dictator, aggressor and terrorist such as Saddam Hussein, who possesses the world’s most deadly weapons.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Speech to American Israel Political Action Committee
3/31/2003
We still need to find and secure Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq’s borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003
You bet we’re concerned about it. And one of the reasons it’s important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction … and terrorist groups – networks – is a critical link. And the thought that … some of those materials could leave the country and in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn’t happen.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find – and there will be plenty.
Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar
Washington Post op-ed
4/9/2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
But make no mistake – as I said earlier – we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country. Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ``Oh, well, there’s actually another site,’’ and we’ll find it there, I’m
not sure.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Fox New
4/13/2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003
I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003
We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003
U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003
I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago – I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago – whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
5/13/2003
We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you’d have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with Australian Broadcasting
5/13/2003
Continued from last post:
Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
5/21/2003
It’s going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we’re going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
5/26/2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
5/27/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that’s borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That’s proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
5/29/2003
We have teams of people that are out looking. They’ve investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Infinity Radio Interview
5/30/2003
You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons …They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two…And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on.
George W. Bush, President
Press Briefing
5/30/2003
It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there.
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
5/30/2003
Q: The fact that there hasn’t been substantial cache of weapons of mass destruction – is that an embarrassment?
Wolfowitz: No. Is it an embarrassment to people on the other side that we’ve discovered these biological production vans, which the defector told us about?
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
CNN Interview
5/31/2003
This wasn’t material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing
6/2/2003
We know that some of them, especially the biological weapons, were being destroyed," Hastert said, adding that it would "take a little while to find weapons of mass destruction… and we’re going to continue to do it.
Dennis Hastert, House Speaker R-IL
Press Briefing
6/4/2003
We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he’s got a big country in which to hide them. We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth
George W. Bush, President
CAMP SAYLIYA, Qatar
6/5/2003
I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, “Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?” Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Fox News Interview
6/8/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
What the president has said is because it’s been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions…And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
6/9/2003
Iraq had a weapons program…Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we’ll find out they did have a weapons program.
George W. Bush, President
Comment to Reporters
6/9/2003
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn’t find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
Those documents were only one piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence suggesting that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa … The issue of Iraq’s pursuit of uranium in Africa is supported by multiple sources of intelligence. The other sources of evidence did and do support the president’s statement.
Sean McCormack, National Security Council Spokesman
Statement to press
6/13/2003
My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I’m sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003
I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that’s just a matter of time…It’s now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Pentagon media briefing.
6/24/2003
MS. BLOCK: There were no toxins found in those trailers. SECRETARY POWELL: Which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn’t been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. It may well be that they hadn’t been used yet.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
All Things Considered, Interview
6/27/2003
That was the concern we had with Saddam Hussein. Not only did he have weapons – and we’ll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs – he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
All Things Considered, Interview
6/27/2003
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
Oh, right, Elvis, go and make a big deal about a couple of off-handed remarks by a few people vaguely associated with the Bush administration! And note: nowhere is the word “imminent” used! Not once! You see, in the post-Sept 11 world of after Sept 11, which was irrevocably changed by Sept. 11, and the events of Sept. 11…
Dude -
We are not gucks. We are not stupid. We elected a proven leader. We did not try to get a traitor elected into the White House.
Before you run so freely around calling us stupid gucks, you might try taking a look at what your party has done over the last four years. The Dems flat out don’t give a rat’s ass; as long as their position is anti-Bush, then God’s in his heaven and all is right with the world. Totally disregarding the damage that they can or will do to our nation and the world with that position, of course.
Your entire post smacks of nothing more than continued sour grapes, we-lost-the-election whining.
OK, I have time for a few. Maybe you will get the idea after a while.
The “not-lying” part here is that we have found banned weapons in Iraq. Specifically sarin gas missiles and centrifuge parts.
The “not-lying part” here is that the US doesn’t want to be subjected to nuclear attack.
The “not-lying” part here is that if Iraq acquires WMD, we would have to rely on a strategy of deterrance, and that is less desirable than if she were disarmed.
The “not-lying” part is that the first sentence is fairly obviously true. Are you alleging that possible link-ups between terrorists and regimes that have WMD is not a matter for public concern? I think that is a fairly odd statement.
The second part is based on Iraq’s past history. The third is, again, pretty self-evidently true. If you are alleging that Iraq was really a close personal friend of the US, I am afraid I disagree that statements to the contradictory are lies.
Probably based on the estimates of the US intelligence community. You are aware, no doubt, that George Tenet said the case for Iraqi WMD was a slam-dunk.
Same answer. Fleischer is relying, I expect, on the estimates of the intelligence community.
(long snip of various other quotes you apparently cut and pasted from another website without attribution.)
Essentially, same answer to most or all of the remaining. (I admit I didn’t bother to read much of it.)
OK, my turn.
Please point out how the following quotes are “not-lying”. (All from here.)
Plenty more where that came from.
Regards,
Shodan
A part, that had been buried for ten years. Evidence that there was sarin gas in that empty container is dubious. Yet the administration, and you, call that fact.
No shit. The lying part is the implication that Iraq could do it.
The lying part is the “if” presented to mean “when”.
It’s an odd statement that Iraq had anything to do with it.
[qutoe]The second part is based on Iraq’s past history. The third is, again, pretty self-evidently true. If you are alleging that Iraq was really a close personal friend of the US, I am afraid I disagree that statements to the contradictory are lies.
[/quote]
Ever see the pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand as they closed the deal by which we sent him the shit?
You are aware, no doubt, that Tenet was lying too. Nobody ever said that only Bush lied.
Note the lack of qualifiers which we know the “intelligence community” (actually several contending communities) gave him. Obvious intent: To present a possibility as fact.
What a surprise. Some ignorance just refuses to be fought.
Fish in a barrel. Start by observing that none of the persons you quote started a war, even when they were in a position to do so. The man whose lies you refuse to acknowledge did. But here goes
Going on the same false information that Bush provided to the rest of us. There was indeed a time when that statement was true, but a decade of UN control had eliminated it. That was not known at the time, but the return of the inspectors was about to make it known. Gore was advocating that step, quite properly, but not going to war until the facts were known. Next?
[quote"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. [/quote]
The term is “search for”. Yes, Saddam still wanted the shit and was still trying to get some. No question. But he *didn’t * have it, and Gore wasn’t saying he did.
Seeking, that is? See above.
See above.
That is true. Saddam *was * working to get it. The timeline about when he could get it is speculatory. But Rockefeller is also saying the shit did not exist at that time and therefore that any threat was in the future, not imminent or even grave.
Now, what point are you trying to make? What lies or bad faith do you see? You say there’s more; you had better hope there’s something that can meet the definition somewhere. And, btw, would you like to see some quotes from the Republican leadership during Clinton’s own attempts to get Osama and stop genocide in the Balkans? Were they as loyal to their nation and determined to present a united front behind its President? You know better.
The quotes I gave you are public domain, btw, and are available at many places. But it’s still incessantly “Nohedidn’tNohedidn’t”, combined here with “I refuse to read cites and explanations of where he did from you so I can keep claiming that all you have is ‘BushliedBushlied’, nyah nyah” from you no matter what, isn’t it?
A searchable database of Bush lies about Iraq compiled by Henry Waxman and staff. The returned quotes for “Bush” and “urgent threat” (let’s not be distracted by the lack of the specific synonym “imminent” instead, shall we?):
Stand down, Clothahump. Gucks does not equal Republicans. Gucks is a term I use to describe the voters who decide the issue primarily on the basis of sound bites, mostly seen on TV headline news, or what their friends tell them is being reported on the news. There are Democratic gucks AND Republican gucks. In fact, most gucks are not strongly affiliated in therms of party … takes to much effort to remember which party they belong to. I would say the Pubbies got more guck votes than the Dems in 2004, because the Dems have not been pitching their message to the gucks. Hence my paraphrase of what that message should be.
See, here is the problem. You claim it is a lie to say that we found banned weapons. Then when banned weapons are found, you try to move the goal posts and say, “well, that doesn’t count”. And you call me a liar!
And here is another part of the problem. When you change the words to mean what you want, that does not make anyone a liar.
Anyone else, that is.
And more problems. If Tenet lied, and Bush (and Kerry and Clinton and Hilary and so on) believed him, then Bush (and Kerry and Clinton and Hilary and so on) did not lie. A lie implies bad faith, as you understood above. Or pretended to. Now you are contradicting that definition.
Well, the estimation of a fanatically irrational Bush-ophobe is not much to base anything on.
How true. Especially from the fanatically irrational.
Oopsie, wrong again! Kerry voted in favor of starting a war, which is where he made the statement you would like to overlook. Clinton lobbed missiles at Iraq, which certainly sounds like an act of war to me.
So, as always, if Bush lied, so did Clinton and Hilary and Kerry and so on. And, since you class only Bush as a liar, and not anyone else, your standards of what constitutes a lie are worthless.
Oops, special pleading. Clinton did not rely on information Bush gave him when he bombed Iraq - just the estimates of the same intelligence community as Bush relied on. Kerry was a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, IIRC - name some intelligence source that he didn’t have access to.
Then, as has been pointed out, Saddam was in violation of the inspection regime, and the invasion fully justified.
I don’t see any. You do, and proclaim it loudly. For Bush and Republicans. The same statements, based on the same evidence, and leading to the same conclusions, you say are “lies” from Republicans and “not-lies” from Democrats.
Why would I care? You are never going to be convinced, you lack that capability. The rest of the country already considered the facts - and re-elected the President.
Better than what - better than to let you try to change the subject as soon as your nonsense is refuted?
Actually, yes I have. Same old shit from the same old shit-slingers.
Bye-bye!
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, because what was found was not weapons, and certainly not a threat to anyone, including us.
[quoteAnd here is another part of the problem. When you change the words to mean what you want, that does not make anyone a liar. [/quote]
:rolleyes: See your own tactic, above.
Got an actual argument?
[quotepAnd more problems. If Tenet lied, and Bush (and Kerry and Clinton and Hilary and so on) believed him, then Bush (and Kerry and Clinton and Hilary and so on) did not lie.[/quote]
You know damn well Tenet told Bush what he knew Bush wanted to hear, and wouldn’t hear if it was anything else. Yes, Tenet lied too.
Got an actual argument?
Wrong again. The resolution was not in favor of starting a war, although you folks love to tell each other that particular lie so often that you believe it yourselves. Read it sometime - it demands full use of the UN’s authority, and gives the President a stick to help back up the UN’s authority. Have you ever read it?
Have you ever heard of the containment operation that was a continuance of Gulf War 1? Ever?
None so blind.
After asking all the necessary probing questions, considering doubt, and calling off a number of operations that seemed dubious to him. Read Clarke.
To the same extent Bush did? Every single one.
The UN inspection regime, defined by the UN, controlled by the UN, the same UN which would have voted against him if the cards were laid on the table, as Bush put it? Bush ignored the UN’s wishes in the name of supporting a UN resolution. How’s that work?
As carefully explained, in a wasted effort, they are not.
So you agree with **Bricker ** that factuality is determined by vote? What kind of principle is that? You have no idea what morality is, do you?
But then, you know all this. It has been patiently pointed out to you many times, but you simply refuse to let your ignorance be fought. You purport to be an adult. Are you *proud * of your behavior here? Would you like your children to grow up modeling their own behavior after yours?
When come back, bring argument. If no argument, no come back. Say Hi to the gang at FreeRepublic.
The democrats tried to get a traitor elected to the white house? Cite?
This is just flat out ridiculous. Obviously, most liberals really really really don’t like Bush, and he get criticized a lot, but there are plenty of examples, both big and small, of democrats and liberals supporting things he’s done. For a small example, cast your mind back to the thread where someone attacked him for lowering the flag to half mast for the tsunami victims, and lots of liberals responded saying “I don’t like Bush, but I see nothing wrong with that”. For a big example, how about the entire Afghan war? And, for that matter, most things that Bush did from 9/12 for the next 6 months or so?
Oh, and Shodan, respond to post #204 already! Don’t make me call you out!
Oh, and Elvis: I think you’re making a mistake by focusing so strongly on whether or not Bush lied. If you argue and argue and argue about that, and end up getting nowhere, it ends up seeming that the whole issue is somewhat arguable. Whereas there are really only two choices:
(1) Bush led the country to war based on a lie
(2) Bush led the country to war based on unbelievably bad information, and has weaseled around and refused to take responsibility for it
Even if it’s (2) and not (1) that’s the case, it’s not like that’s something for the republicans to be PROUD of. By focusing solely on (1), you’re missing the broader picture.
And even ignoring the WHYs of the war, let’s not ignore how terribly its been managed, the various scandals associated with it, etc. Even if God himself came down and told me that Bush never lied, I sure as hell wouldn’t suddenly start supporting him.