Lies and the Presidency - Page 11  

tacky, tacky, giant!

You must be ****ing kidding. You get called out for not reading the article before commenting, and then you continue to show you can't inform yourself by writing something totally unrelated.

I point out that Beers speaks out about why he left the bush admin and is now working to remove bush from power, and somehow me pointing that out is a judgement call about the state of american news media?

Go job at making an ass of yourself. Again

Generally speaking, the media is that bad. Getting whipsawed by what is essentially a press release just plain gets old after a while.

....more later, I must go---arguing is such sweet sorrow that I would bicker till it be morrow.

Caio.

Giant enough with personal attack. It's not because you are absolutely sure of your arguments that others people are oblige to agree.
Same apply to any members here. Is this so important to have the last word ? There is nothing to win here. The AI staff will not send a prize for the best poster

And likely visa versa...

Lets stick to the issue.

Ena: Four issues regarding the "proofs" of WoMDs

-The nigerian connection.
-The non-mobile bomb factories.
-The student desk report regarding Iraqi WoMDs from early 90s.
-The trucks

The three first was proven to be false proofs within a few days to one week after the speech at the UN SC. The last was proven by british government investigators to be excatly what the Iraqis said they were: Hydrogen factories for military balloons.

Now we could chose to consider these examples coinsciedences. But the student report wasn´t just found on a toilet at waterloo station. And the nigerian uran report was considered bogus by the agencies. Why was all information presented in their worst case senario and in a lot of cases beond that to the UN SC, the congress and allies around the world as facts? Even Grover agree with this. How will you defend this?

But that not what we are talking about! We are discussing ONE particular article, which you responded to by claiming it didn't say why when the whole article was Beers sayingexactly why. That was the entire point of the interview!

This is just like last week when you claimed that the UN press release announcing the adoption of 1441 was a statement that Iraq breached 1441, even though the title clearly stated that it was the adoption of 1441!


I'll work on it. It is hard not to comment on a train wreck when it's right there, but it can be done.

alright, I'm downloading an update for omnipage, so I can get back in here....


I think the about the best evidence thus far, probably about the best thing they have---is the vests--not quite CBN! On the evidence presented, between the buearcracy, and the deisre to get that "worst case scenario", they may have screwed up along the way. It's hard to get a whole staff "going in the same direction" and even harder to keep track of who has what and what got approved to show the press and the UN (which may or may not have included the same stuff).

It's like fact-checking a textbook, there's always going to be a 2nd ed. just for the typos and wrong answers.

The thing with "lying" is that it would be suicide for GWB to do that. If he doesn't produce the goods for the world and the voters in the US--then he's finished. They'll have to let the UN carry their water on their nuke program, because the credibility would be gone.

A bad thing. Bad for the war on terror, bad for Powell---and every politician on his/her way up, bad for the party---it would be a monumental screwup of epic proportions.

At any rate they're still shooting at each other over there, so it will take some time to sort it all out.

If it were me, if I were an evil dictator of a small country who knew he was about to get his ass kicked, I'd get rid of every scrap of evidence just to spite the bastard who defied the word to attack me.

But then that's just me.


my download is done! bye.

Except for the fact that it is not physically possible. There is always residue, there is always some remnant. The facilties need to exist if you are to have a large program.

Then there is the everpresent though oft ignored fact that all available evidence from the inspection process demonstrates clearly that Iraq's weapons programs hardly existed if at all.

Oh, and what military doesn't have some chemical suits? Note that not only were there not very many found, but there were no chem weapons deployed. If there were no chem weapons deployed, then the suits were obviously defensive. So sorry, but that not at all proof of anything.

So if the "best evidence" they have is no evidence at all, then it's clear what the logical conclusion is.

So you are going for the "coinscidence" escape. The naive route. Grover is smarter than you then...



CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2003. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closest to your view about the war with Iraq? It was justified only if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It was justified even if the U.S. DOES NOT find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. OR, It was not justified even if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

Justified Only If Find Evidence 23%

Justified Even If Does Not Find Evidence 56%

Not Justified 18%

No Opinion 3%

Perhaps yes. There was also he chance he will have used it if he had one (his future was doomed wether or not he used WOMD).

As Giant said getting rid of every scap of evidence was not easy, there is the residues, there is the spying of Sattelites (and you can guess how many US and british sattellites where spying Iraq at that time) and there was the UNMOVIC inspections who where removed only a few days after the attack. Iraq was under watch, it was really difficult for them to do such things.

My guess (but it's just a guess, like the many ones i made about apple related future products) is that Iraq owned a very few WOMD, because it was difficult to have a large amount of them hidden. Using a such limited amount of WOMD was useless, because it will not bring enough casualties among the opponement, and just reverse the public opinion of some anti-war mongers.

Saddam was only a potential threat, dangerous only if you give him enough air to breath. He did not have this breath since 1991, but i have no doubt that he will have make tons of WOMD if it was not such a case.

Maybe, maybe.

Just about any scenario I can think of leaves too many unanswered questions and contradictions. Bush as a liar---would mean he was basically suicical, his opponents would beat him that till the cows come home. On the other hand, Iraq as a major North Korea style ammo dump is probably not the case either.

The truth, probably lies somewhere in the middle, which is where it ends up most of the time.

But for the little people (us) it will take some time before we know all there is to know. I'd wait for the shooting to stop before we get any firmer idea on the CBN evidence. And if GWB lied, he'll get his just desserts.


My day is getting wasted!!!!!!!

Of course, polls can be misleading. Other polls have shown that a third of americans believe WMD have already been found, and 22% believe that those weapons were actually used during the war.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...nt/6085261.htm

If you lay those numbers over your poll, then a large number of the people answering the questions are answering from the belief that such weapons have already been discovered, thus making the question of justification on the basis of WMD already concluded.

And since the majority of americans believe saddam had these weapons whether we find any or not, that pretty much crowns the fact that most people are answering those questions with little knowledge of the actual situation. How much would that opinion change if they were in possesion of the facts?

Also compare this to polls taken before the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-usat_x.htm

I think this really demonstrates how malleable public opinion really is.

giant:

I just need to boil this down. Your contention is that there are no WMD in Iraq and that there haven't been for some years, right?

jimmac:

Your contention is that Bush lied, correct?



Yes or no. Take a position. No semantics.

i'd love to see all news sources required to show the poll question if they're also going to show the poll numbers. polls/statistics are amazingly maleable depending on how the phrase the questions.

Wrong question


Better question. But not quite there.

Centuries ago in a battle against the british (I think) navy the danish king, standing on the deck of one of the ships was told that we were losing. The king took his telescope and put it before his blind eye and said "I can´t see that. Continue the attack".

Damned sons of Vickings !

I don't have to take a position for you. I already said two possibilities. Ether he lied or is incompetent. On the one hand his information was bad ( which he's responsable for ) or he saw what he wanted to. Or he had ( the most likely ) another agenda. Given that they were so sure before the war and we've found nothing after months of searching. Leaves only these two possibilities. If they had been right about a threat to us, he had WOMD ( and they had good enough intel start a war over this ) we would have found them right away. Ether way he shouldn't be president.
Cut and dried.

I don't know about jimmac, but my contention is that he lied.

bush: "we found the weapons of mass destruction"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jun3.html

No matter which way you slice it, this is a lie.

1. The trailers have been revealed to be hydrogen generators for artillery balloons

2. even if they were bio weapons trailers, which they were not, there were no agents found. Thus, no weapons of mass destruction were found.

And this isn't even a matter of bad intelligence. It's just a flat out lie.

Ahh I don´t know. If you hurl one of those truck at great speed into a larger city they would present some very naughty damage I would guess.

So technically speaking he wasn´t lying [/rightwinged wacho mode]

Nothing leads me to believe that President Bush lied.Let the fact come out with time.

this goes to the heart of the lying charge---Bush would:

A. have to know the truth of the matter (they were just for artillery ballons)

B. have to have reason to believe that no one would find out otherwise.

....it just doesn't follow.

But then agian, maybe Dick doesn't tell him everything .

Not so. He did have to know the truth of the matter, and there is no doubt that he did. The debate was in full swing at the time, so there was no doubt that he knew that it was in question. Of course, as the president, there is no doubt he was in possession of the facts. Especially at this point in the debate over Iraq. As others have pointed out, while the evidence is, at the extreme least, extremely in doubt, he of all people should be having a major review going on and would be much more strict. Of course, this has not happened.

As for B, it doesn't matter. It's all a marketing strategy Defintive, simple and affirmative claims resonate more strongly that details. Everyone who actually cares knows the truth, but Americans by and large don't care enough to move beyond the most and simple ideas that make them feel secure enough to not think about it too much. Hence the large numbers that actually think we have found WMD.

Put simply, there is no way he would not have known what he was saying was not true. At the very least, the CIA analysis that anyone might use to defend him also questioned the use.

And last, weapons of mass destruction were not found even if he was this dramatically incompetent president, as you claim. That is not in doubt.

Really. I'm done now. I'm tired of arguing with people who won't take a position and then support it with fact and/or anecdotal evidence. jimmac, your ridiculous "possibilities" are nothing more than a debating tactic that attempts to narrow the choices to only those which will benefit you.

giant, your so engaged in semantics and nuance that you have lost sight of the big picture.


Show me evidence Saddam destroyed his weapons.

Show me evidence that Bush lied.



Your ridiculous opinion-filled articles don't count as anything. That last one was a joke. Both of your arguments boil down to the fact we haven't yet found WMD (I can't see it so it's not there, Mommy!) and that Bush referenced one IAEA report, casually and verbally, that didn't exist. Pathetic. You'll need more than that to convince me.

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"


Which one is that? The one where Beers decided to resign because the Bush admin was acting counter-productively?


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.


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.

Show me evidence that he had them shortly before the war. 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!


Ps. Stop making excuses for Bush. He's the president. That's where the buck stops!

Well said.

I find it interesting that the only argument that can be made in his defense is that he is grossly incompetent. This alone would be more than reason enough to remove him.

War is the most serious action a state can take.

Yup!

giant,



Show me the quote. Show me the context.


The one that had this:


Please. Read the first sentence. Analyze much? And the quote: Where did they get it from? I want to see the actual full quote.


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.





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.

jimmac:




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.



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.


Just did.



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.





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.

Sorry but your post ( albeit long ) said nothing. Why would Saddam hide his WOMD so completely that we can find them after a very complete search? If he has then they can't be readily used so that negates the threat argument. And yes you have to prove he had them. The president had " proof " although he couldn't devulge the exact details. That's not much of an argument now!


So I'll give you one more chance. After that it will be clear that you can't answer the question and we'll be where we were with the Clinton thing. You will be in check mode. As that is the only way to deal with someone who has had adequate time to back up his statements and can't.

So one more time. Prove he had them shortly before the war. How were they a threat? Justify this war in the context of what the president told us.

So far you can't explain with any clarity why we can't find these weapons we were so sure of. I don't care who the burden of proof is on! Where are they? So if he had them where are they? How were they a direct threat to us?

We went to war for those reasons. No other. Justify them. If you can't then it's you who has lost! In any court your reasoning would get you thrown out! Put your money where your mouth is! Come on!

PS." 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. "

Proof of this please. We're only interested in facts. Not your speculation. You have to have proof to start a war! Innocent until proven guilty is one of the corner stones of the philosophy of this country. If we can't use it in our dealings with the rest of the world it means nothing. It's a way of thinking. Anything else is a police state. ( or an opportunistic empire ).

jimmac:


Why would he hide them? Are you serious? Again, why WOULDN'T he?

Now, this nonsense that if they are hidden they can't be used. It sounds like a good argument, but it's disingenuous. Once again, we're not talking about a threat in the traditional sense. We are talking about Saddam giving such weapons to a terrorist organization. We're not talking about a field of ICBM's he dissassembled for hiding. Modern WMD can be execeptionally small. They could be hidden ANYWHERE. Think about it. Imagine trying to find, say, ten 52 gallon drums of material in perhaps the Boston Metro Area. Hard, right? Now, multiply this area by 10,000 times and tell me how much harder it is.That's what we are dealing with here. WMD don't have to take up parking lots full of space.



I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOUSLY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you.



I already answered the threat quesiton. I'm not going to keep doing so. jimmac, you're right! I CAN'T explain why we haven't found them! I have never claimed to be able to do so! All I'm saying is that there are MANY possibilities WHY we haven't, not just your "Bush lied or is incompetent" duo of absurdity. When I list those possibilities, you tell me I'm "making excuses". Cute.



False! False! False! You can keep saying it, but it isn't going to make it any more true. WMD was the MAIN reason...NOT the only one. You are hearing what you'd like to be true.



WRONG! SO UNBELIEVABLY WRONG AND MISGUIDED!

Keep on pretending it's September 10th, 2001, jimmac. Keep on denying the possibility that Saddam would have given WMD to Al-Queda. Just promise me you'll never run for office anywhere...ever.

Say it with me!

PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION!

Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.

-------------------------------------------------------------
" I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOUSLY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you. "
-------------------------------------------------------------

I said shortly before the war. That's all that's relevent here!

Since you can't answer the question with anything else other than speculation, obufuscation, and right wing rhetoric you are now in check!

Exactly.

Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.

It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!

Who'da figured?!

\

Well, that pretty much says it all.

Actually, most of the intelligence came from rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That was the whole point of setting up this group. So you are basically flat-out wrong on this one, buddy.

you can start here: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

Again, gross incompetence is not a defense


I fail to see how this article is relevant, especially to the example I used. The IAEA repeatedly told the Bush admin and powell's office itself that the tubes were likely not used for a nuclear program.

and again, gross incompetence is not a defense

I know that and you know that. More inspections would have been absolutely wonderful. Again, you are trying to make two things equal that aren't. We have total control of the country and have found no large scale chem plants. Every single facility that ccould possibly be used to make bulk chemical weapons (from swimming pools to vacuum warehouses) has been identified and searched by the US. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF POSSIBILITES ON THIS ONE. Sorry, but this is a dead end for you.

If it's 100% incorrect, then prove it. If you can't, then you words are as good a jibberish.

yeah, did you see what his wife said about the bush admin? --

"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

Bush is obviously a control freak. Why is people like that never figure out that kind of control is an illusion?

jimmac:


It is now.




The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.

pfflam:





Two words, pfflam: Self Parody.

The guy goes to work on an opponents campaign and you wonder why he makes a political statement that could benefit his new employer? Hmmm. .


giant:



The New Yorker? It just never ends with you.


How does the possibility of faulty intel make them incompetent? If our intelligence community colored evidence, why does your conclusion follow? They have to make decisions based on what information they have. If things were witheld from them, or some data was just completely wrong, how does that fault Bush? What a ridiculous statement on your part!



More inspections? No. You misunderstand. I didn't want more inspections. My position was that more inspections would have been utterly useless. All rhetoric aside, I really think they would have been pointless.

As far as "possibilities", I disagree. Don't go believing every headline you hear. There is no way we can come to the conclusion there was no program in just 3 months. There's just too much area to cover.


No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.

It never even crosses your mind that he had a job and left it for a particular reason.
And that the reason for his leaving is that the people he worked for no longer deserved his allegiance

he may have been like you at one time . . . refusing to allow a crack of doubt about Mr Glorious and Gang into his head, then the facts rebelled against his illusions.

The reasons for his leaving are what you take to be partisan chatter.

You forget HE WORKED FOR BUSH
he didn't have to leave
He left because he felt that something is wrong

Who else has worked for the admin and has left?

Jimmac:


You never have to figure it out if you've had it all your life: the power of money keeps huge chunks of reality at bay.
remember Bush Sr. being amazed by check-out stand technologies when he was in office?!
I knew some very rich kids when I went to high school and many of them had major major world-view crisises when the had to graduate and found that the environment that they took for granted was not ubiquitous.
Some didn't ever experience it and they remain today very isolated and in a very real sense inexperienced . . . not all rich people are like this of course . . . but many are
same with many of the students I have now at this hoity-toity private school . .. arrogant and controling and think they deserve the silver spoon in their mouths . . .and ready to get slapped by reality.

But everybody can use such a wake up call, no?!