Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
A link to someone claiming what something said with no evidence it actually says it is no proof of anything. FURTHER what we can see refutes any claim you have made as to what else the NIE said.
There was NO doubt in 2002 Iraq had WMDs, your claiming there were is a game and YOU know it.
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..
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....
You can mis-state what Bush said from now until hell freezes and the words will still not change....
you start with YOUR lie, naturally you'll end with a lie....
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, are right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar .....
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.
Not "another" Bush lied thread.
LMFAO. This study is so twisted I can't believe it actually got printed. I can easily believe some of you Bush-haters would jump right on though.
without being able to see the actual classifed version of the NIE, we will never have PROOF necessary for legal proceedings. But, as I said, lying is not a crime. Bush lied.
Again.., NIE's are ESTIMATES...BEST GUESSES... they change back and forth. 2005: Iran actively pursuing nukes...2007: Iran had abandoned the program in 2003. That is why they call it an ESTIMATE.
There was an investigation and 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.
Drop it? A good suggestion....It would appear to me that the paragraph you have quoted supports my claim and not yours.
The discrepancies and omissions were investigated and a report written....YOUR claim is specific...Bush...and the word doubt..and when I questioned you about it...YOU supplied that particular Bush quote, where he clearly talked about what our intell claimed...not any claim he made
=============================================
And again...you act as if the one quote from Bush you list is the only one.
And that particular quote is the one in question...no others
Did you miss the other 934 in the recent report? Bush and his minions beat the war drums for Iraq. They convinced Americans that Saddam had dangerous weapons AND that he had an alliance with AQ and the implication was made - over and over and over again - that if we didn't stop him right this very minute, he would give those weapons to Osama and his gang and they would use them against us.
If, by his minions, you include M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, etc. I do remember them....even the Clinton admin. people making the AQ/Iraq connection, Mr. Clark, I believe....
but if this one Bush quote is your claim that Bush lied with the words 'no doubt', you got it wrong....because that particular quote is accurate, the NIE made an unambiguous assertion about Iraqs possession of CW and BW...
======================================================
Look. Alpha.... you refuse to accept the fact that Bush and his administration scared us into war by overstating the case for Saddam's WMD's
and by suggesting an alliance between radical islamics and secular baathists
Lying again.?..These are claims I never made, even once
that was, to anyone with any real knowledge of the region, nonsensical. We keep repeating the same things over and over again. YOu call me a liar. I say you are blind and do not understand the meaning of the word estimate...
You do not understand the meaning of the word HAS.....
and back and forth and back and forth. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Nothing you can say will make anything I have said a lie, and nothing I can say will make you change your mind and become something other than a partisan hack buffoon. Drop it.
1111and when he was talking out that intelligence that supposedly left no doubt, we now know that the intelligence did, in fact have doubt. what part of that do you not understand?
Yes....but doubt about what....
Weapons capability(their supposed danger to US mainland)
Missiles (Numbers,reliability and range)
Ability to deliver WMD (aerial Sprayers, artillery etc.)
Quality and Quanity of CW/BW (10 metric tons?/100metric tones?)
So yeah...doubts were expressed...
.........But not about the existence of CW/BW
That was a definitive statement, (Baghdad HAS)
what part of that do you not understand?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I will need links to any democrats making the Saddam/AQ connection prior to our invasion of Iraq. I know of none.
Page 128 of 9/11 Commission Report
First Indictment of OBL (1998)
The original sealed document had added that AQ had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq etc....
----------------------------
This stuff was dropped in a later indictment because of lack of proof, but that is the first connection made and being right or wrong is irrelevant, the connection was made and suspicion voiced about cooperation between AQ and Iraq ....
I never said that you made the connection between AQ and Saddam...I said that Bush did. You really need to work harder at reading for comprehension.
I understand the word HAS in its context in an unclassified summary document that is an estimate built on intelligence from many sources. I understand what "omitting key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities" does to the "intelligence leaves no doubt" statement.
Omitting dessenting opinions about weapons capabilities does nothing to undermine the claim that Baghdad HAS CM and BW.....and thats the point....
it certainly places doubt on the danger posed by these weapons...I freely admit that...and Saddams ability to actually deliver the weapons...I freely admit that....but that is not the center of the disagreement between us....Bushs claim is direct and singular...."that the intell leaves no doubt about Iraqs possession of these weapons"...and that is what the report says.....
You want to guess what the classified version said and brand someone a liar based on you guess....I'll develop my opinions based on what I know...not on what I guess....
Obviously, you do not.
I asked for a link where M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin connected AQ and Saddam and you offer up the original wording of an indictment that was scrapped for lack of evidence?????
ROFLMFAO
I forget you need to be lead by the fuckin' hand like a child...
MM:Bush and his minions beat the war drums for Iraq. They convinced Americans that Saddam had dangerous weapons
these are among the menions beating the drums of war....alarming the people of the dangers of Saddam...warning of Saddams WMD, from the mid 1990's Before Bush was elected....
M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, and others.....
"Omitting dessenting opinions about weapons capabilities does nothing to undermine the claim that Baghdad HAS CM and BW.....and thats the point...."
how do you know what the dissenting opinions expressed? How do YOU know that those dissenting opinions did not directly relate to BW and CW weapons caches? There WERE dissenting opinions about the intelligence....Bush & Co. did not let America in on those opinions...they only said that there was no doubt....
Yes...there were dissenting opinions that related to BW and CW weapons caches...I already said that...there was disagreement about the quantity of stockpiles....the quality of BW and CW....and about the effectiveness of delivery systems....just not about the EXISTENCE of the CW and BW, of that, the report was clear....Baghdad HAS....
And the CLAIM is just that...certainly nothing so substantial that it "leaves no doubt".
And the center of MY disagreement with the Bush administration - which you slavishly defend - is that the sum total of everything all of them said was designed to play to our fear and our anger and get Americans to believe that a war against Iraq was really a direct and appropriate response to 9/11 - a move I strongly opposed THEN and continue to assert has caused us irreparable harm in our fight against our true enemies
And because I tire of the repetition ...... lets just admit...you've been schooled and corrected and should in all probability have learned some new and interesting facts here.....although you reading comprehension is that of a child, just knowing that should make you strive for improvement.....
Dismissed, Sonny.......
Wrong again...I don't defend the sum total of everything Bush ever said ....
just this one particular quote YOU SUPPLIED TO ME....which is limited and specific, for those that can comprehend normal english....this quote is accurate and the words of report confirm that accuracy....
as I have repeatedly said...this has never been about "one quote" ...it has been about an attempt, by this administration, to convince America that Saddam as an immediate threat to our safety, to tie AQ and Saddam together,and to further convince us that invading conquering and occupying Iraq was the ONLY way we could avoid anihilation...
NONE of the democrats you listed who were speaking about the threat from Saddam prior to the Bush administration EVER advocated invasion, conquest and occupation as a means of dealing with that threat.
But since you like to try to debunk quotes: please continue with these:
"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
plenty more here:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
I await your analysis of the quotes. I hope you do not chose the low road and attempt to besmirch the source...but I would not be surprised.
as I have repeatedly said...this has never been about "one quote" ...it has been about an attempt, by this administration, to convince America that Saddam as an immediate threat to our safety, to tie AQ and Saddam together,and to further convince us that invading conquering and occupying Iraq was the ONLY way we could avoid anihilation...
You are the one obsessed with the us of phrase 'no doubt' ...any normal listener or reader would conclude that the speaker is voicing his or her own personal beliefs, and that still is the sanest way to look at it..it is you that insists on making what is common usage of words at big fuckin' production in order to manufacture you lie theorys
NONE of the democrats you listed who were speaking about the threat from Saddam prior to the Bush administration EVER advocated invasion, conquest and occupation as a means of dealing with that threat.
But since you like to try to debunk quotes: please continue with these:
No Dem used that particular word..thats right....
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq
Now even you can understand the threats being made against Iraq in these passages....I don't remember Bush using the word 'invade' either, but thats what he did....so using the word is a red herring, showing your obsession with semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit your irrational claims...but your game is tiresome...
"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
plenty more here:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
I await your analysis of the quotes. I hope you do not chose the low road and attempt to besmirch the source...but I would not be surprised.
"There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
The NIE expressed a lot of doubt that Saddam would us WMD against us. In fact, it explicitly stated that they doubted Saddam would ever use WMD on us, unless he were invaded or attacked by us.
Like I told MM...
Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...
Like I told MM...
Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...
