Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[maineman]

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) about Iraq having chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....

And if Bush had not seen the caveats and qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence, you would have a point. but he did, and you don't.

 

[JimH52]

How can I kill a thread? AAAARRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alpha1]

And if Bush had not seen the caveats and qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence, you would have a point. but he did, and you don't.

Baghdad has has has has has has has has chemical and biological weapons.

This NIE statement contains NO caveats or qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence.....that is obvious to anyone without a reading disability....

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) that Iraq possessed chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....

You're dismissed Sonny....thanks for playing....be sure to come back after you get some tutoring in reading comp.....

 

[maineman]

Baghdad has has has has has has has has chemical and biological weapons.

This NIE statement contains NO caveats or qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence.....that is obvious to anyone without a reading disability....

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) that Iraq possessed chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....

You're dismissed Sonny....thanks for playing....be sure to come back after you get some tutoring in reading comp.....

the unclassified summary that was released to the general public contains no caveats. The link I provided clearly states that there WERE caveats in the classified complete estimate. He knew of the doubts and yet said there were none. ergo: lie.

go find some old broad with parkinson's to hold your shriveled dick, gramps...YOU are the one who is finished here.

 

[Alpha1]

the unclassified summary that was released to the general public contains no caveats. The link I provided clearly states that there WERE caveats in the classified complete estimate. He knew of the doubts and yet said there were none. ergo: lie.

go find some old broad with parkinson's to hold your shriveled dick, gramps...YOU are the one who is finished here.

I've no problem with that ... there was qualifying language and dissenting assessments in the classified version of the NIE

The dissenting assessments concerned....

the purpose and capabilities(range, payload, etc.) of unmaned aircraft and aerial drones
the ability of Saddam to deliver CW or BW to US mainland
the amounts of BW in stockpiles....10 tons? 100 tons?
the amounts of CW in stockpiles....10 tons? 100 tons????
the variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, or aerial sprayers
the capabilities of his missiles....range, payload, etc.
his work on nuclear weapons....and equipment he might have ....

So yes, I agree the classified NIE had dissenting assenssments

There was a 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons(all concerning the quantity) and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

But nowhere is there obvious dissent about Iraq possessing these weapons....except for the quantity they possessed....
and THAT IS THE POINT...the NIE makes a definitave statement ... Baghdad HAS

Bye Bye Sonny.....

 

[Alpha1]

How can I kill a thread? AAAARRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thread ...... is dead !

 

[maineman]

The thread ...... is dead !

as is your lame argument... trying to base it all on an unclassified summary of the NIE (empahsis on the "E") as if it were the tablets from Mt Sinai was your undoing.

c'est la vie

 

[mattskramer]

as is your lame argument... trying to base it all on an unclassified summary of the NIE (empahsis on the "E") as if it were the tablets from Mt Sinai was your undoing.

c'est la vie

Give it up. I understand what you are saying. I think that outer people here who try to think logically and soundly understand what you are saying. Some people just won’t acknowledge that they are wrong. It is like trying to argue with a child while the child is throwing a temper tantrum. You just can’t reason with him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Give it up. I understand what you are saying. I think that outer people here who try to think logically and soundly understand what you are saying. Some people just won’t acknowledge that they are wrong. It is like trying to argue with a child while the child is throwing a temper tantrum. You just can’t reason with him.

Ya you, Maineman and DCD come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.

No logic exists to equate Bush lied. No legal definition equates to Bush lied. No moral test equates to Bush lied. AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied. Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.

 

[mattskramer]

Ya you, Maineman and DCD come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.

No logic exists to equate Bush lied. No legal definition equates to Bush lied. No moral test equates to Bush lied. AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied. Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.

1. Did Bush ever see anything anywhere that suggested less than 100 percent certainty that Saddam had WMD?

2. After seeing such a thing, did Bush say that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD?

If the answer to each question is “yes”, then Bush lied. It is as simple as that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. Did Bush ever see anything anywhere that suggested less than 100 percent certainty that Saddam had WMD?

2. After seeing such a thing, did Bush say that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD?

If the answer to each question is “yes”, then Bush lied. It is as simple as that.

Bush was told secretly and PUBLICLY that there was no DOUBT that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The NIE shows it, the Statements of the head of the CIA shows it. The delusional claim is that in 2002 there was any doubt Iraq had those weapons.

Even those opposed to the war in the US Congress believed he had weapons, they just didn't think invading was the right way to go. Further every investigation and committee and board convened since has CONCLUDED that Bush did not lie.

 

[mattskramer]

Bush was told secretly and PUBLICLY that there was no DOUBT that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The NIE shows it, the Statements of the head of the CIA shows it. The delusional claim is that in 2002 there was any doubt Iraq had those weapons.

Even those opposed to the war in the US Congress believed he had weapons, they just didn't think invading was the right way to go. Further every investigation and committee and board convened since has CONCLUDED that Bush did not lie.

Okay. Then what about this 2002 letter supposedly suggesting doubt?

 

[mattskramer]

Ya you...come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.

Woah!!!!

I don’t cry if and when I am wrong. I have no qualms about being wrong. When it dawns on me that I am wrong, I readily admit it.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=647745&postcount=4

I might be wrong.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=646325&postcount=24

Correct me if I’m wrong

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=646224&highlight=wrong#post646224

It is possible that I am wrong

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=627575&postcount=5


Anyway, I might be wrong or right

 

[maineman]

No logic exists to equate Bush lied.

it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful

No legal definition equates to Bush lied.

I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using: something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was: that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war

No moral test equates to Bush lied.

I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war

AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied.

I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary

Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.

not true. All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No logic exists to equate Bush lied.

it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful

No legal definition equates to Bush lied.

I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using: something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was: that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war

No moral test equates to Bush lied.

I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war

AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied.

I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary

Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.

not true. All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so

You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.

You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.

Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.

You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?

 

[Taomon]

You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.

You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.

Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.

You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?

So did they find any WMD?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So did they find any WMD?

It does not matter what happened in 2003, we are discussing what was believed in 2002. Do try to at least keep up with the conversation.

Further the claim that your making holds no water. Bush would not have made a forceful case for WMDs if he knew there were none there BECAUSE after the invasion what happened would , well happen.

 

[Alpha1]

No logic exists to equate Bush lied.

it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful


STILL AT IT.....Sonny?

You start off with this lie and continue to try to prove your lie...

Bush DID NOT CLAIM "THEIR IS NO DOUBT" or "DENY THE EXISTENCE OF DOUBT ...he wasn't even talking about that to begin with....

If you start with a lie, naturally you'll end with a lie....


Bush DID SAY:

"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."

AND THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT
All you need is the intelligence to understand exactly what the quote says...and not what you wish it says.....Bush's claim is simple and direct...

Is the 10/02 NIE US intell ?....Yes....
Does it confirm Iraq HAS WMD ? Yes...
Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...


No legal definition equates to Bush lied.

I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using: something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was: that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war

No moral test equates to Bush lied.

I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war

AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied.

I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary

Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.

not true. All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so

The only lie here is what you claim Bush said in the first place....
Your argument starts with a lie...your lie...
His quote, his exact words, is right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar ....

 

[maineman]

The only lie here is what you claim Bush said in the first place....
Your argument starts with a lie...your lie...
His quote, his exact words, is right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar ....

did you see the 934 other Bush/Team Bush lies? Why are you presuming this is the only one!

 

[maineman]

You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.

You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.

Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.

You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?

I gave you the link that discusses caveats and qualifiers in the full, classified NIE. Obviously, I cannot produce it for you....BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED!!! You continue to point to the unclassified summary as if it is the word of God. It is only a SUMMARY of an ESTIMATE.

Again...if caveats and qualifiers WERE there - and there are plenty of people who say they were, and the Bush administration has never even denied that there were - then what Bush THOUGHT or BELIEVED is irrelevant. If there were doubts, and there were, to create the false impression that doubt did not exist IS a lie... whether or not he chose to heed the caveats, the fact that they were there is all that is important.

Lying is not a crime. Lying under oath CAN be a crime if it is material. Last I knew, Bush has never been under oath during his presidency.