Please pass the Impeachment.

[UnAmericanYOU]

Does Iran have WMDs? China? India? North Korea?

.

saying that there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam has WMD's when there always was some degree of doubt is a conveying a false impression. That is a lie. spin all you want.... it is still a lie

and if he had said that he was pretty sure that Saddam had WMD's if he had conveyed anything less than absolute certainty, he would not have lied. but oops... he did say there was no doubt...he did convey a false impression...he did LIE. Just fucking deal with it.


don't put words in my mouth asshole. I did NOT think that he had WMD's... I felt from day one that the whole "get Saddam" line was bullshit.... and I saw it all as nothing more than a PNAC plan and a way to use 9/11 and fear and revenge to jumpstart the PNAC agenda...

What's a lie is that Bush or anyone else ever said "There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam has WMDs". In your liberal land, what is or is not a lie depends on who says what. That is a self-contained system. But this part:

don't put words in my mouth asshole. I did NOT think that he had WMD's...

Show me an old post where you said otherwise, I don't believe you, memory (especially yours) can be a selective thing. You had to go rude moonbat on it, didn't you? "Asshole". You even bolded EVERY word of the rant, as if that made a difference at all.

You're still beating a dead horse, you people should get some material. Bush didn't lie, nobody did, and Saddam's still dead. You deal with that.

 

[maineman]

"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. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

Dick Cheney, VFW 103rd National Convention, August 2002



curious.... do you know what the phrase "THERE IS NO DOUBT" means?

He did not say "I have no doubt"...He did not say "there is very little doubt"

He said...THERE IS NO DOUBT. That phrase has meaning... and that meaning was false when he said it and he had been to CIA HQ often enough and had spoken to the analysts on the case often enough to know that it was not true.

and my quotes about Saddam's WMD's are unavailable as they were all contained on www.politics.com which is now defunct. But you go right ahead and call me a liar with no justification...that is always a smart move and one designed to earn you a permament spot on my shit list, asshole.

 

[Gunny]

"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. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

Dick Cheney, VFW 103rd National Convention, August 2002



curious.... do you know what the phrase "THERE IS NO DOUBT" means?

He did not say "I have no doubt"...He did not say "there is very little doubt"

He said...THERE IS NO DOUBT. That phrase has meaning... and that meaning was false when he said it and he had been to CIA HQ often enough and had spoken to the analysts on the case often enough to know that it was not true.

and my quotes about Saddam's WMD's are unavailable as they were all contained on www.politics.com which is now defunct. But you go right ahead and call me a liar with no justification...that is always a smart move and one designed to earn you a permament spot on my shit list, asshole.

Most intelligence agencies in the world wre sure he had them, and so was President Clinton. Even Putin chimed in acknowledging as much. Much of his known stockpile is STILL unaccounted for.

I know we did. From anthrax shots to running around in 110+ weather in MOP 2.

Everything pointed to Saddam pursuing, possessing, and having used WMDs. Add to that Saddam acting guilty as Hell as if he was hiding something, and the logical conclusion I come to is he has them and by using them in the past, would do so in the future.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

^ We're done here, I don't like your style. Too much name-calling and blind rage.

He did have and use WMD's, but just forget it. You're never going to believe anything that doesn't gel with what you want to believe, and this argument is old.

 

[maineman]

Most intelligence agencies in the world wre sure he had them, and so was President Clinton. Even Putin chimed in acknowledging as much. Much of his known stockpile is STILL unaccounted for.

I know we did. From anthrax shots to running around in 110+ weather in MOP 2.

Everything pointed to Saddam pursuing, possessing, and having used WMDs. Add to that Saddam acting guilty as Hell as if he was hiding something, and the logical conclusion I come to is he has them and by using them in the past, would do so in the future.

Look... even Tenet has said that every bit of intelligence about Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers. IT was old info...it was single sources.... the source was a defector of questionable integrity...and on and on.... that is what "caveats and qualifiers" means... everything may very well have pointed to Saddam having WMD's...I am not disputing that.... every intelligence agency in the world may have thought that he had them...I won't deny that.... but what I am denying was that "THERE WAS NO DOUBT". That was not true. And Cheney, of all people, who had made repeated visits to CIA HQ and spoken at length with Iraq analysts about the CIA's intelligence KNEW that saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was not accurate. And he said it anyway because he needed to sound convincing if he wanted to sell America on this war. So ... he purposely said something that was misleading.... misleading in his assertion as to the certainty of the intelligence.... and that assertion of certainty was a lie.

 

[maineman]

^ We're done here, I don't like your style. Too much name-calling and blind rage.

He did have and use WMD's, but just forget it. You're never going to believe anything that doesn't gel with what you want to believe, and this argument is old.

this argument could get brand new pretty quickly if the house takes up impeachment proceedings, couldn't it?

you were the one who called me a liar for my statement that the administration did indeed state with absolute certainty that Saddam currently had WMD's.... and I proved you wrong. Don't run and hide from that...just admit that you misspoke.

 

[Rosotar]

"Beating a dead horse".

It's not dead yet UnAmericanYOU

As long as our troops are still dying in this quagmire the reasons they are there will be important."[/QUOTE]

"No, that's called "estimating", "assuming", "guessing", "banking on", "postulating" et al. All those words have a subtle difference between them but none involve deception. "Lying" does.

I wouldn't want any of my commanders doing any of the above with my life!

"That involved deception. At worst, you can say he hoped Saddam had WMDs so he'd have a case for a war. .

Did he tell Congress he "hoped" Saddam had WMD to get his war resolution?

But all those violations of UN resolutions by a REAL liar and Saddam's own track record was enough.

Saddam was an asshole!

There is no disputing that!

However his track record alone would not have been enough to allow Congress to declare war pre-emptively. It would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

That's why Saddams humanitarian violations were included in the war resolution but not as the primary reason.

WMD was the selling point to congress. A "real and emminent threat."

 

[maineman]

and methinks you have led an extremely sheltered life if you characterize my posts as containing "blind rage". That is really humorous, in an overly dramatic sort of way....


Have you really lived your life to date with no one ever really getting mad at you? Or is rhetorical hyperbole one of your standard techniques?

 

[Gunny]

Look... even Tenet has said that every bit of intelligence about Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers. IT was old info...it was single sources.... the source was a defector of questionable integrity...and on and on.... that is what "caveats and qualifiers" means... everything may very well have pointed to Saddam having WMD's...I am not disputing that.... every intelligence agency in the world may have thought that he had them...I won't deny that.... but what I am denying was that "THERE WAS NO DOUBT". That was not true. And Cheney, of all people, who had made repeated visits to CIA HQ and spoken at length with Iraq analysts about the CIA's intelligence KNEW that saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was not accurate. And he said it anyway because he needed to sound convincing if he wanted to sell America on this war. So ... he purposely said something that was misleading.... misleading in his assertion as to the certainty of the intelligence.... and that assertion of certainty was a lie.

I disagree. "There is no doubt" is a speculative statement without corroborating evidence.

I have no doubt Saddam had WMDs. The question to me is, what did he have and when did he last have it, and what did he do with it if he no longer has it?

I also find it odd that Saddam/Iraq, known to possess and use WMDs, has had absolutely nothing but some old arty rounds turn up. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but that kinda' smells to me.

IMO, nobody lied with the intent to deceive. I think they jumped to some hasty conclusions they fully-expected to turn out the way they planned. Guilty of questionable, hasty judgement? Yeah. But there is no proveable lie.

 

[Gunny]

this argument could get brand new pretty quickly if the house takes up impeachment proceedings, couldn't it?

you were the one who called me a liar for my statement that the administration did indeed state with absolute certainty that Saddam currently had WMD's.... and I proved you wrong. Don't run and hide from that...just admit that you misspoke.

The dumbest thing the Democrats could do is bring impeachment proceedings against Bush. You could forget 2008 for the Presidency, or Congress.

 

[maineman]

The dumbest thing the Democrats could do is bring impeachment proceedings against Bush. You could forget 2008 for the Presidency, or Congress.

that may be true....but it does not change the fact that Team Bush expressed certainty about Saddam's WMD's when none of the intelligence sources were that certain.... and to state that there was NO DOUBT when, in fact, there did exist varying degrees of doubt, is a lie

 

[Emmett]

First of all, Suddam never had ANY WMD's. All those Kurds that were killed along the highway while they were starving and looking for a place to live were killed by water balloons.

There you go again Gunny! Your rhetoric and right sided hoop-la continues to demonstrate your inability to understand the obvious. Let me say it again, Saddam did not have WMD's. He didn't order anyone to die, he was a man of principle, high morale standards and good character. Too bad his own people found him otherwise and hung his worthless ass by the neck.

I bet you think President Bush should not be impeached either. I know, he has kept us from being attacked. Yeah Yeah, our intelligence has led to the foiling of dozens of attempts to kill more innocent Americans and others around the globe, yeah, yeah. But Gunny, if we could impeach Bush and Cheney, Nancy Pelosi would be President! Now you can't tell me with a straight face that you would not feel safer if that be the case.

If you continue to try and educate the "clueless" does it not make your argument "pointless"

Your Pal

Emmett

 

[Gunny]

that may be true....but it does not change the fact that Team Bush expressed certainty about Saddam's WMD's when none of the intelligence sources were that certain.... and to state that there was NO DOUBT when, in fact, there did exist varying degrees of doubt, is a lie

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see it that way, as previously stated.

 

[maineman]

First of all, Suddam never had ANY WMD's. All those Kurds that were killed along the highway while they were starving and looking for a place to live were killed by water balloons.

There you go again Gunny! Your rhetoric and right sided hoop-la continues to demonstrate your inability to understand the obvious. Let me say it again, Saddam did not have WMD's. He didn't order anyone to die, he was a man of principle, high morale standards and good character. Too bad his own people found him otherwise and hung his worthless ass by the neck.

I bet you think President Bush should not be impeached either. I know, he has kept us from being attacked. Yeah Yeah, our intelligence has led to the foiling of dozens of attempts to kill more innocent Americans and others around the globe, yeah, yeah. But Gunny, if we could impeach Bush and Cheney, Nancy Pelosi would be President! Now you can't tell me with a straight face that you would not feel safer if that be the case.

If you continue to try and educate the "clueless" does it not make your argument "pointless"

Your Pal

Emmett

emmet...you are a lot of heat and very little light.

I would recommend a little less hyperbolic rhetoric...and work on your stand up routine someplace else.

 

[maineman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see it that way, as previously stated.

Cheney's quote above stands on its own...prime facie evidence that the adminstration proclaimed absolute certainty where none existed

 

[Emmett]

emmet...you are a lot of heat and very little light.

I would recommend a little less hyperbolic rhetoric...and work on your stand up routine someplace else.

Maineman, my main man. I would point out to you sir, that I have been hanging around here for along time dude. Couple years actually. While I do try and interject some rather poor humor at best some folks have seen it fit to compliment me on my positions. You see, instead of babbling off post after post after post after post....... I say very little and read quite alot. I don't like to argue, I try to never insult anyone, even when they may deserve insulting and basically have experienced pleasurable interaction on USMB. I appreciate you pointing out my shortcomings though and look forward to your doing so in the future.

Do you really think I could do stand up?

 

[maineman]

Maineman, my main man. I would point out to you sir, that I have been hanging around here for along time dude. Couple years actually. While I do try and interject some rather poor humor at best some folks have seen it fit to compliment me on my positions. You see, instead of babbling off post after post after post after post....... I say very little and read quite alot. I don't like to argue, I try to never insult anyone, even when they may deserve insulting and basically have experienced pleasurable interaction on USMB. I appreciate you pointing out my shortcomings though and look forward to your doing so in the future.

Do you really think I could do stand up?

I do think you have real potential.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?

But Bush can sure bullshit and a bullshitter doesn't care about the truth or the lie. The bullshitter only cares about conning this country into war and that he did.

Bush bullshitted and people died and his war profiteering friends are laughing all the way to the bank.

Did you know his nickname in Texas was Texas souffle.

 

[Emmett]

I do think you have real potential.

WOW!!! You just don't know what that means to me to hear you say that. I'm flattered! Thank You!

On a serious note I would think it a bit shallow of anyone to incinuate that our president would lie in order to start a war that would result in his popularity ratings hovering at 30%. I mean, even a yellowdog democrat like yourself surely would realize that it isn't publicly appealing to have taken such a stance on the war, right?

Just out of curiosity, do you REALLY believe that GW took the word of one lone defector in deciding to move forward against Saddam.

Do you remember the conditions by which we allowed his sorry ass to remain in power in the early 90's. How about this? Did Saddam clearly violate that agreement by which he knew would result in American finishing the job they had started in defending Kuwait? You do agree that defending Kuwait was honrable, right?

Also, if Saddam ordered the killing of his own people by which he was responsible for (Kurds), why would you believe that he was not conspiring with terrorists, funding them and encouraging them to attack America. I mean, do you really believe he was not? Do you remember when he took Americans hostage, forced them to say on TV that they were being treated well, etc.... Do you remember that?

I am not, repeat NOT a supporter of America being the world's police officer. I wish we were not there. I really do. I'm a Libertarian brother. We don't believe Americans should ever die anywhere except on American soil, ever! I am not a huge supporter of this war. I don't really care if there wmd'S THERE OR NOT! I am a realist however and think we were pressured in to doing what we did. I'm not crazy about GW. He is our president though and I force myself to compromise in so much as to say that while I don't always agree, I always support. I would go to Iraq if recalled (I'm too old) and I would do as I was ordered. Thank God I served in Jimmy's military which afforded me the luxury of knowing I probably would not have to offer my life in defense of the country. I'm from Georgia but NOT a big JC fan. I believe we would be experiencing far less difficulty with Iran today had JC dealt with the hostage crisis of 79-80 differently. Saddam's continued testing of our tolerance to his manipulating the terms of the early 90's treaty clearly was setting the stage for others to do crazy shit like 911. They didn't attack a political party brother, they attacked YOU.......and.....ME!


Saddam WAS a player! PERIOD! He praised their efforts. He murdered innocent people. He attacked other countries, he was a shit! George Bush didn't lie. He just got caught up in the moment. The intelligence was fast, the game was tough, he made what could be a mistake but he did get rid of a tyrant.

Personally, I wish we would have just let Iran and Iraq kill each other in the 80's. We should have just stayed the hell out of it. Thr right and left rhetoric though isn;t going to solve shit. It just exposes the weakness of our system to the world. The fat is, both are wrong! Vote Libertarian baby, for a REAL change!

 

[Gunny]

Cheney's quote above stands on its own...prime facie evidence that the adminstration proclaimed absolute certainty where none existed

And again, that quote, as it stands, is unsupported conjecture on Cheney's part. "I have no doubt" is expressing a personal opinion. "There is no doubt" without corroboration, is the same.

There's no proveable lie, just the same as there are no proveable WMDs, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells knows Saddam possessed, manufactured and used WMDs, and acted as if he was going to continue to do so no matter the UN or US said.