Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[RetiredGySgt]

are you saying there is NO doubt in any of that?

Look, you keep claiming no one ever told Bush any thing without caveats. That report has NO doubts about WMDs, no Doubts about Nuclear research. The only "doubts" are when some things will be done or how much will be made.

Your entire claim depends on NO ONE ever saying "Iraq has WMD's". That report alone says it over and over. Further it STATES that Mobile labs exist. It states that civilian production facilities are making weapons. It states Saddam has more and more money and that he is using it to make his WMD programs bigger and better.

Those are not maybes, they are not we think, they are statements of certainty.

 

[maineman]

Look, you keep claiming no one ever told Bush any thing without caveats. That report has NO doubts about WMDs, no Doubts about Nuclear research. The only "doubts" are when some things will be done or how much will be made.

Your entire claim depends on NO ONE ever saying "Iraq has WMD's". That report alone says it over and over. Further it STATES that Mobile labs exist. It states that civilian production facilities are making weapons. It states Saddam has more and more money and that he is using it to make his WMD programs bigger and better.

Those are not maybes, they are not we think, they are statements of certainty.

the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.


My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.

I'll wait

and again...my claim is that not that no one ever told Bush anything about WMD's WITHOUT caveats....your claim relies on the erroneous presumption that no one ever told him anything WITH caveats. Only then could he say that there was NO DOUBT. His own intelligence analysts had degrees of doubt...there WAS doubt... so...when he and his minions repeatedly claimed that there was NO DOUBT, that was a lie.

 

[Alpha1]

the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.


My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.

I'll wait

You keep saying Bush lied and repeat the words "no doubt"......
I remember Cheney using those words....show me where Bush used that particular phase.....NO DOUBT about Iraqs WMD

Now to you question....the word probably is used concerning issues not relevant to Saddam having WMD.....so its an irrelevant moot point...

but do show me where Bush spoke about no doubt Saddam has WMD...

 

[maineman]

You keep saying Bush lied and repeat the words "no doubt"......
I remember Cheney using those words....show me where Bush used that particular phase.....NO DOUBT about Iraqs WMD

Now to you question....the word probably is used concerning issues not relevant to Saddam having WMD.....so its an irrelevant mute point...

but do show me where Bush spoke about no doubt Saddam has WMD...

mute? mute? what does that mean?

Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George Bush March 18, 2003

 

[Alpha1]

mute? mute? what does that mean?

Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.

Ha ....what...???

 

[Alpha1]

mute? mute? what does that mean?

Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.

So now its 'team Bush'......???? we won't hear any more of BUSH LIED.....?

You want to go with "TEAM BUSH LIED"....?

Does that work better......?

 

[maineman]

Ha ....what...???

are you deaf as well as "mute"?

 

[maineman]

So now its 'team Bush'......???? we won't hear any more of BUSH LIED.....?

You want to go with "TEAM BUSH LIED"....?

Does that work better......?

No..I'll stick with "Bush lied"...will you now agree?

 

[maineman]

::crickets chirping::

 

[Alpha1]

mute? mute? what does that mean?

Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George Bush March 18, 2003

OK ...thats fair enough.....
And thats what the NIE report of October, 2002 said.....no caveats.
NO ifs and or buts......only a few unsures about irrelevant issues....

 

[Alpha1]

The report is there....show me caveats....

 

[maineman]

OK ...thats fair enough.....
And thats what the NIE report of October, 2002 said.....no caveats.
NO ifs and or buts......only a few unsures about irrelevant issues....

and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received. AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression. ergo: lie

absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably". period.

 

[maineman]

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

LIES

 

[Alpha1]

and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received. AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression. ergo: lie

absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably". period.

If you weren't a nitwit, you would relalize the use of the word "probably" should at the very least, have been used concerning the relative issue...i.e....that Saddam "probably" did not have WMD.....
YOU gonna show me that?
-------------------------------------------------------

NIE report 4 months before the war.....

The FIRST CONCLUSION of NIE report...Oct, 2002........

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

That is the NIE we went to war with....Any and all reports later that 3/2003 are MOOT.....
No caveats.....no IFs....NOTE the words ...."Baghdad HAS"......

That was the beliefs of Dems, Repubs, and most, it not all of the intell. agencys through out the world......

Your rebuttle...? I'll wait....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.


My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.

I'll wait

and again...my claim is that not that no one ever told Bush anything about WMD's WITHOUT caveats....your claim relies on the erroneous presumption that no one ever told him anything WITH caveats. Only then could he say that there was NO DOUBT. His own intelligence analysts had degrees of doubt...there WAS doubt... so...when he and his minions repeatedly claimed that there was NO DOUBT, that was a lie.

Your going to claim this.... here let me requote for you, shall I?

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

Go ahead TELL us where the maybe, probably or doubt is IN this statement....

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

And here, explain where the probably is... the maybe, the doubt...

* Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Show me the maybe, or the probably here....

* Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

No maybe here. Clearly states the missiles can and will deliver WMD's. Biological type.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX;its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

Ohh look one of your probablies, the only problem for you is it doesn't say they "probably" have weapons, it says they have them but that production is "probably" less then before and it offsets that with the fact that shelf life is improved..

* An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.

No probably here, more STATEMENTS of clear straight forward fact.

* The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.

And here we have another clear statement of fact, no maybe, no probably, no could be.


I can go on if you want.

And this is JUST one report and not even all of the report.

I can not believe you keep claiming there was doubt, this report has NONE in regards WMD's. IT STATES HE HAS THEM AND CONTINUES TO MAKE THEM. Not probably, not maybe, not we think.

 

[maineman]

If you weren't a nitwit, you would relalize the use of the word "probably" should at the very least, have been used concerning the relative issue...i.e....that Saddam "probably" did not have WMD.....
YOU gonna show me that?
-------------------------------------------------------

NIE report 4 months before the war.....

The FIRST CONCLUSION of NIE report...Oct, 2002........

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

That is the NIE we went to war with....Any and all reports later that 3/2003 are MOOT.....
No caveats.....no IFs....NOTE the words ...."Baghdad HAS"......

That was the beliefs of Dems, Repubs, and most, it not all of the intell. agencys through out the world......

Your rebuttle...? I'll wait....

my rebuttal is that Bush had much more intelligence than simply the few paragraphs of the NIE you have posted...and all of the analysts who have spoken since that time have stated that there were, in fact, doubts, caveats and qualifiers... Bush stated that there was no doubt, when in fact, there was. I am not saying that there was overwhelming evidence that he did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's...only that there was NOT absolute certainty that he did. To express absolute certainty in the absence of such is to convey a false impression. ergo: a lie.


I'm glad you finally figured out the difference between mute and moot.

moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received. AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression. ergo: lie

absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably". period.

This report HAS NO DOUBTS. In order for you to make a point you have to prove every report had doubt. This one destroys your claim. And you know it. I do not care if every other report had doubt. THIS SINGLE report destroys your entire claim. You have stated there was absolutely doubt in every report, that Bush NEVER received a briefing with out doubt. THIS one destroys that claim.

 

[Alpha1]

You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...

by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the fuck it is had these weapons.....
was it the Iraq regime?
was it Baghdad?
was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...

by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the fuck it is had these weapons.....
was it the Iraq regime?
was it Baghdad?
was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....

His entire argument depends on doubt, even if ( and I doubt the if) EVERY other report stated doubt on every matter, THIS report has NO doubt.

He has argued that Bush NEVER was told by ANY intel brief that Iraq HAD weapons, only that " he probably" " He might' " we are not sure".

NONE of that is IN this report.

For him to continue to claim other wise is in fact HIM lying per HIS own definition, as I have stated.

 

[Alpha1]

my rebuttal is that Bush had much more intelligence than simply the few paragraphs of the NIE you have posted...and all of the analysts who have spoken since that time have stated that there were, in fact, doubts, caveats and qualifiers... Bush stated that there was no doubt, when in fact, there was. I am not saying that there was overwhelming evidence that he did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's...only that there was NOT absolute certainty that he did. To express absolute certainty in the absence of such is to convey a false impression. ergo: a lie.


I'm glad you finally figured out the difference between mute and moot.

moron.

I could care less what analysts have come up with since March, 2003.....
The only relevant issue is what Bush was told before the war.....
The NIE of 10/02 says Iraq HAD....HAD...HAD ....HAD...WMD.....]
Thats why we had a war.....
THE NIE IMPLYED WITH CERTAINLY.....thats what they presented to Bush....to Cheney...To the Congress....To Pelosi.....TO US......