I have numerous times. Even you admit that no WMD have been found. So by your own criteria Bush lied when he said: "we found the weapons of mass destruction"
Show me the quote. Show me the context.
Which one is that? The one where Beers decided to resign because the Bush admin was acting counter-productively?
The one that had this:
The Bush administration's own yardstick concerning the weapons has changed recently. In asserting on Polish television last week that "we found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, President Bush reduced his administration's assertion that Iraq had large amounts of chemical and biological agents at hand, and a nascent nuclear program, to arguments over two trailers that might have been used as mobile labs.
Wolfowitz, too, offered alternative rationales for the war. He said mass graves found in Iraq prove that "Saddam Hussein was guilty of killing more Muslims than anyone in history.
"There is no question the Iraqi people are far better off without that regime," he said.
Please. Read the first sentence. Analyze much? And the quote: Where did they get it from? I want to see the actual full quote.
saying "I don't know what more evidence we need," (bush, when referring to the non-existant report) is hardly casual when it is a president making the case for war. That's about as far from casual as one can get.
Opinion. He said it once and I saw it. It was not particularly emphatic as you claim it was. He never repeated it. I agree it wasn't a good idea...but a lie? That;s a stretch. There are too many possibilities here. You can't just jump to the conclusion he lied.
Actually, my agruments boil down to
1. the bush intel has now been demonstrated to be wrong on every specific claim
2. many bush claims have been exposed as simple fabrications, such as the niger docs
3. The bush admin consistantly ignored evidence contrary to their aim. The media is buzzing with many intel analysts speaking out about this. A good high-profile example was the claim about aluminium tubes, which they were repeated told were likely not for a nuclear program
4. the large facilities required for a large-scale chem program simply don't exist. These can not be hidden, so you can't argue away from that
5. all evidence from the inspections points to discontinued programs. Everything unaccounted for would have been degraded.
1. The "Bush Intel"? You mean the intel that was presented to him by the intel AGENCIES? How the **** can you call it "Bush Intel"?
2. And are you saying his administration fabricated evidence? Or, are you saying the agencies did? Go ahead...show me the admin knew it was false when they released it. Please.
3. A totally unsupported claim. The White House was not told of the error very quickly if at all:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun11.html
4. You don't know that. We are talking about 150,000 sq. miles and you are ready to close the book in 90 days ? Of course you are. Wait...weren't you and like thinkers arguing for more time for the inspectors? Hmmm.
5. ALL EVIDENCE!?!?!?! That is a totally, 100% incorrect statement. Lack of evidence does not constitute innocence here. This isn't The People's Court, giant.
All evidence. My God.
Let me post this in large text so you see it, jimmac. The burdern of proof for weapons WAS NOT on the United States and Great Britain. It was up to SADDAM to show he had destroyed such weapons.
Show me evidence that he had them shortly before the war.
He was a threat because he may have given WMD to terrorist organization if left unchecked. He possessed and/or sought WMD. He was perhaps the most anti-US stanced leader in the world. Tell me how those things don't equal a threat.
Show me how they were a threat to us.
If you can't there's only one other explaination. There are no other possiblities. Pure and simple. If you can think of one tell me. Come on SDW put your money where your mouth is.
That's shortly before the war because given the circumstances we're talking about that's all that counts. Come on!
No, that's NOT all that counts. Let me make it simple for you:
He had them. He used them. We didn't see him destroy them. We had no reason to think he would destroy them. He had five years to hide them. Now, you are tellinng me I have to PROVE he had them? What kind of thinking is this? jimmac, once something is proven we need to see conclusive and hard evidence for it to be disproven. Contrary to giant's ridiculous claims, we have seen no evidence of disarming.
One cannot approach this debate with no historical context. You cannot apply a criminal judicial standard here. It is YOU who must prove that he destroyed the weapons and that therefore war was not necessary.
s. Stop making excuses for Bush. He's the president. That's where the buck stops!
I'm not amking excuses of any kind. I already mentioned that Bush proably should have focused harder on the other reasons for going to war. I already mentioned he shouldn't have made the IAEA reference. The only thing I've done is state that the WMD case is not closed yet and that there are too many possible explanations for come to a conclusion that Bush lied.