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.
"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%
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.
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?
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.
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?
Wrong question
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Your contention is that Bush lied, correct?
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".
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".
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 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.
this goes to the heart of the lying charge---Bush would:
A. have to know the truth of the matter (they just for weather ballons)
B. have to have reason to believe that no one would find out otherwise.
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"
Quote:
That last one was a joke
Which one is that? The one where Beers decided to resign because the Bush admin was acting counter-productively?
Quote:
casually and verbally
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.
Quote:
Both of your arguments boil down to the fact we haven't yet found WMD
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Which one is that? The one where Beers decided to resign because the Bush admin was acting counter-productively?
The one that had this:
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Show me evidence that he had them shortly before the war.
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.
Quote:
Show me how they were a threat to us.
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.
Quote:
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.
Just did.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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:
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 ).
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!
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.
Quote:
So I'll give you one more chance. Prove he had them shortly before the war. How were they a threat?
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
We went to war for those reasons. No other.
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.
Quote:
Proof of this please. We're only interested in facts. Not your speculation. You have to have proof to start a war!
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.
Comments
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!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Anders
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%
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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?
Wrong question
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Your contention is that Bush lied, correct?
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".
Originally posted by Anders
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".
Originally posted by SDW2001
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 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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your contention is that Bush lied, correct?
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.
So technically speaking he wasn´t lying [/rightwinged wacho mode]
Originally posted by giant
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.
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
Originally posted by ena
this goes to the heart of the lying charge---Bush would:
A. have to know the truth of the matter (they just for weather ballons)
B. have to have reason to believe that no one would find out otherwise.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Show me evidence that Bush lied.
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"
That last one was a joke
Which one is that? The one where Beers decided to resign because the Bush admin was acting counter-productively?
casually and verbally
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.
Both of your arguments boil down to the fact we haven't yet found WMD
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
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!
Originally posted by jimmac
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.
Originally posted by giant
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!
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.
jimmac:
Show me evidence that he had them shortly before the war.
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 how they were a threat to us.
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.
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.
Just did.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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 ).
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!
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.
So I'll give you one more chance. Prove he had them shortly before the war. How were they a threat?
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.
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?
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.
We went to war for those reasons. No other.
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.
Proof of this please. We're only interested in facts. Not your speculation. You have to have proof to start a war!
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!