Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[maineman]

And here is the beginning. He claims Bush purposefully mislead Congress, that he illegally impaired their ability to judge events on a vote for war. That Bush Lied and caused the Intelligence Agencies to also lie for him TO Congress. But none of that is a crime and of course none of what he claims as a lie is provable in any court under ANY stretch of the imagination. However IN the Senate it could in fact be , if true a reason to convict on Impeachment. Yet he does not claim that to be the case. WHY? Because then he would have to explain why his OWN party leaders do NOT legally agree with him. He would have to explain why every Commission ever impaneled by Congress ,Republican and Democrat, has found that IN FACT Bush did NOT lie. He would have to explain why HIS own party absolutely REFUSES to even entertain the idea. An IDEA they all ran on to get elected. A Promise they "implied" or outright stated in the 2006 election cycle.

In fact using Maineman's own definitions and excuses, every democrat that "implied" or Stated they would seek impeachment , except what? 40 of them? LIED to the American people.

Explain that Maineman?

I guess you cannot explain away the fact that there is a difference in the meaning of "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt". why not just say so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess you cannot explain away the fact that there is a difference in the meaning of "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt". why not just say so?

Don't need to, your semantics do not change the fact that unless you can show BUSH did not believe what he said he was not lying.

If I HAVE NO DOUBT, I too say there is NO DOUBT. And I am sure as a naval officer in your supposed support of your superiors when caring out an order or plan you disagreed with and asked about any doubts, you said " well ya, I have doubts, but we have to follow the order men."

And you do keep saying there is no doubt Bush lied, don't you? That in its self , by your definition means that since you can not prove your claim and in fact there is doubt, your a liar, right?

Or will you now go on record for us that You mean " You have no doubt" and that a statement " there is no doubt" is a lie?

 

[maineman]

Don't need to, your semantics do not change the fact that unless you can show BUSH did not believe what he said he was not lying.

If I HAVE NO DOUBT, I too say there is NO DOUBT. And I am sure as a naval officer in your supposed support of your superiors when caring out an order or plan you disagreed with and asked about any doubts, you said " well ya, I have doubts, but we have to follow the order men."

And you do keep saying there is no doubt Bush lied, don't you? That in its self , by your definition means that since you can not prove your claim and in fact there is doubt, your a liar, right?

Or will you now go on record for us that You mean " You have no doubt" and that a statement " there is no doubt" is a lie?

Are you suggesting that there were no caveats and qualifiers on any of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's that was presented to the president?

And explaining how you incorrectly use the english language does not change the fact that Team Bush said what they said and that words have REAL meanings, even if YOU don't use them correctly.

Again... this is not about what Bush BELIEVED to be true. This is about what WAS true. There WAS doubt. It existed. It was documented. Those documents were presented to him by the accounts of many analysts and NO ONE from the administration has ever stepped up and denied that fact. No one from the Bush administration has every tried to claim that the intelligence came without those caveats and qualifiers that documented the degrees of doubt. Doubt existed. To say it did not was a lie.

 

[Alpha1]

Are you suggesting that there were no caveats and qualifiers on any of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's that was presented to the president?

...And therein lies your lack of comprehension of even the subject of this debate.....IT IS NOT about what some particular intell agency stated with or without caveats or qualifiers......and to claim that EVERY intell. agency claimed the exact same thing is just lying to yourself....

And explaining how you incorrectly use the english language does not change the fact that Team Bush said what they said and that words have REAL meanings, even if YOU don't use them correctly.

Again... this is not about what Bush BELIEVED to be true. This is about what WAS true. There WAS doubt. It existed. It was documented.

...Again, this is EXACTLY what its about....what Bush believed to be true...not if it was true...not what some others claimed....not what some of the documents claim.....the ONLY thing that matters is WHAT BUSH BELIEVED.

Those documents were presented to him by the accounts of many analysts and NO ONE from the administration has ever stepped up and denied that fact. No one from the Bush administration has every tried to claim that the intelligence came without those caveats and qualifiers that documented the degrees of doubt. Doubt existed. To say it did not was a lie.

Its IRRELEVANT what any particular intell piece claimed (with or without caveats)....its a proven fact that all the intell. didn't agree....intell from Germany didn't agree with intell from Japan or France and none of it agreed with intell from the British or the CIA, etc....

The ONLY RELEVANT POINT IS WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH believed when he made claims....or what AL GORE believed when he claimed "we KNOW"...or Pelosi believed when she was positive of her claims....

If doubt existed between France and British claims...or CIA and German claims so what....Bush and Gore and Pelosi can only speak for what they believe, unless they specify they mean someone other than themselves....and when they don't specify they speak for others we must conclude they speak for themselves for its obvious THEY are the ones speaking....

 

[maineman]

Its IRRELEVANT what any particular intell piece claimed (with or without caveats)....its a proven fact that all the intell. didn't agree....intell from Germany didn't agree with intell from Japan or France and none of it agreed with intell from the British or the CIA, etc....

The ONLY RELEVANT POINT IS WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH believed when he made claims....or what AL GORE believed when he claimed "we KNOW"...or Pelosi believed when she positive of her claims....

If doubt existed between France and British claims...or CIA and German claims so what....Bush and Gore and Pelosi can only speak for what they believe, unless they specify they mean someone other than themselves....and when they don't specify they speak for others we must conclude they speak for themselves for its obvious THEY are the ones speaking....

again...if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally, that would be one thing. To claim that there existed the absence of doubt makes it a lie. There WAS doubt. How fucking numb can you possibly be?

I have no doubt in my mind
there is no doubt.

I have no racism in my heart
there is no racism.

duh

 

[Alpha1]

again...if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally, that would be one thing. To claim that there existed the absence of doubt makes it a lie. There WAS doubt. How fucking numb can you possibly be?

I have no doubt in my mind
there is no doubt.

I have no racism in my heart
there is no racism.

duh

if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally?

THAT is the only claim he can make......he cannot make claims about what you believe unless he says that with specificity...and actually claims to know what it is YOU believe....

he is the speaker...his claims can only be about what himself, unless he clearly states his claims is about others.....
If I say "apples taste good", how can you think I'm speaking for all of America, or my whole family......Its obvious I'm stating what I believe....I believe apples taste good......to you I would be claiming everyone in the world agrees that apples taste good....you're a moron....

 

[maineman]

if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally?

THAT is the only claim he can make......he cannot make claims about what you believe unless he says that with specificity...and actually claims to know what it is YOU believe....

he is the speaker...his claims can only be about what himself, unless he clearly states his claims is about others.....
If I say "apples taste good", how can you think I'm speaking for all of America, or my whole family......Its obvious I'm stating what I believe....I believe apples taste good......to you I would be claiming everyone in the world agrees that apples taste good....you're a moron....

there was doubt contained in the intelligence he received. For him to say it did not exist is a lie. period.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.

NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.

What a bunch of total frontier gibberish. Bush had information that only a president had access to. He fukking lied.

If anyone can actually believe that none of the 935 identified innacurate statements were not lies, you are truly living in a wet dream world.

A lie may not be a crime, but if it is part of the cause for 3900 real American Patriots death, it sure isn't just pissing in the wind.

They wanted this war and they used the information in any way they could to get the war. Please read up on AEI.

NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, EVEN DIPWHIT GEORGE, WOULD BELIEVE THAT SADDAM HAD DRONES THAT COULD FLY ACROSS THE ATLANTIC AND ATTACK US.

And you keep up the crap about Clinton parsing the meaning of "is" and "sexual relations."

Perjury is a crime. Murder is also a crime.

 

[nibor]

I feel a dumbassed feminist retort coming on.....................

 

[mattskramer]

Wait, MM. It is possible that Bush did not lie and was merely mistaken, in both instances. Pretend that bush saw the evicence and saw evidence to the contrary. He then reached a conclusion. “I have no doubt…” Then he totally forgot about the caveats and qualifiers (the evidence to the contrary). He might have gotten anmesia and does not recall any piece of information suggesting that there might not be WMD. He would be wrong if he were to then say that “There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's”. Yet, since to lie is to state something one knows is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else as true, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) he would not technically be telling a lie. He knows that there is no doubt because after he saw doubt, he then developed amnesia about it.

 

[Steerpike]

Wait, MM. It is possible that Bush did not lie and was merely mistaken, in both instances. Pretend that bush saw the evicence and saw evidence to the contrary. He then reached a conclusion. “I have no doubt…” Then he totally forgot about the caveats and qualifiers (the evidence to the contrary). He might have gotten anmesia and does not recall any piece of information suggesting that there might not be WMD. He would be wrong if he were to then say that “There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's”. Yet, since to lie is to state something one knows is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else as true, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) he would not technically be telling a lie. He knows that there is no doubt because after he saw doubt, he then developed amnesia about it.

Way off base.

Look, David Icke admits that George Bush is a Reptilian, and that he and others, including the royal family of Britain are seeking to enslave humanity.

Well, think about it - what memory features does the Reptilian brain (or R-Complex) have? Very little.

Bush didn't develop amnesia, he's a Reptilian and couldn't remember the fact that there were doubts.

If you don't believe me ask Eots.

 

[Alpha1]

there was doubt contained in the intelligence he received. For him to say it did not exist is a lie. period.

If you can prove that ALL the intell. Bush received from numerous countrys around the world and all intell. from our own sources, all contained the same caveats that would be an astounding feat.....and useless information....

even you could prove this, it would still be irrelevant to the debate.....
The ONLY thing that would make Bush a liar is if you could prove he didn't believe his own statements, it doesn't matter if he is correct or incorrect, doesn't matter what the intell said, it doesn't even matter that Tenet waid it was a slam dunk.....all that matters is WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE TRUTH.....PERIOD....Get over it moron....

 

[maineman]

Care to explain how they arent?

If the Dems lied, by your opinion, why arent you attacking them?

You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.

NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.

Show us the proof, "BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!"

there was doubt. numerous intelligence analysts confirm repeatedly that intelligence reports delivered to Bush contained caveats and qualifiers. There WAS, therefore, doubt. Team Bush repeatedly said that there was no doubt.

ergo: LIE.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "state of mind"...it has to do with the fact that doubt did, in fact, exist - within Bush's own intelligence agencies - and yet the statements were repeatedly made that there was none.

 

[Shogun]

Hey alpha... we'll give you that same advice the day after the upcoming election...


David Icke.. HA!



wiat... does David Icke's belief keep him from being a LIAR when giving speaches on Bush's reptilian background?

 

[maineman]

If you can prove that ALL the intell. Bush received from numerous countrys around the world and all intell. from our own sources, all contained the same caveats that would be an astounding feat.....and useless information....

even you could prove this, it would still be irrelevant to the debate.....
The ONLY thing that would make Bush a liar is if you could prove he didn't believe his own statements, it doesn't matter if he is correct or incorrect, doesn't matter what the intell said, it doesn't even matter that Tenet waid it was a slam dunk.....all that matters is WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE TRUTH.....PERIOD....Get over it moron....

Who cares if all of the intelligence contained the same caveats and qualifiers...the fact some did is proof of the lack of certitude..

And again.... this has zero to do with Bush's state of mind or his "beliefs" It has to do with whether or not the intelligence reports about Saddam's stockpiles contained degrees of uncertainty. They did. There WAS, therefore, doubt. Again..if Bush had said "There is not a doubt in MY mind that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's, that would not have been a lie. He did not. He said that "there IS no doubt". There was.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD's (not lie)
There is no doub that Saddam has WMD's (lie)

There is no racism in my heart (not lie)
there is no racism (lie)

 

[maineman]

again, for the feebleminded:

one definition of LIE is "a statement that serves to convey a false impression"

the false impression was that no doubt existed concerning Saddam's WMD's when every analyst who has ever come forward has stated unequivocally, that there WAS doubt and that doubt WAS conveyed to the president and his team. To say otherwise seves to convey a false impression. period.

 

[Steerpike]

one definition of LIE is "a statement that serves to convey a false impression"

That's not a complete definition. There also has to be some subjective element to it. An intent to deceive.

 

[maineman]

That's not a complete definition. There also has to be some subjective element to it. An intent to deceive.

lie [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

 

[Steerpike]

lie [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

Definition number 2 isn't directed toward a statement. Definition #1 is.

 

[Alpha1]

lie [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
The fact that the speaker believes his/her statement makes that statement true in the eyes of the speaker....ergo, he or she cannot have the intent to deceive...the statement cannot be an intentional untruth, the said statement in the speakers mind true


2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

Its is IMPOSSIBLE to convey a false impression by stating what you perceive as the truth....
ex. You are led to believe there is a very tall person in a room....you see 5 people in the room, all under 5 ft. tall...so you, being 6 ft. tall state, "THEIR IS NO DOUBT I AM THE TALLEST PERSON IN THESE ROOM".....sadly you missed the other person in the room that is 7 ft. tall....did you lie.....certainly not.....

It matters not if your statement is
"I am the tallest in the room",
"I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or
"there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"......

or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..

You are mistakin' ...not lying.....