Restoring Honor Rally 8/28

[jimtron]

Bush knew Hussein didn't have WMD:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.html

More: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1841

 

[Cicero]

Bush knew Hussein didn't have WMD:

Errors in intel are not lies. After 8 years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

If there were any facts to support Salon/fair contention that Bush lied about WOMD's, the Dems would have presented them to Congress as articles for impeachment. It appears Salon/fair opinions on the WOMD matter did not impress Reed, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer, Schultz, Feinstein, Rangel, Kennedy, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Until you can provide evidence that Bush 43 "lied" about WOMD, you should change your handle to anti-Skeptic Ginger ale. Nothing but fizz and fizzle.

This has been covered ad nauseum here on the forum. You are welcome to your erroneous conclusion that we actually needed to invade Iraq. There are going to be some people who never see the issue differently as most everyone else realizes what the truth was.

But there is no reason to re-debate this issue. At a minimum you have to give Bush an unskeptically huge benefit of the doubt to conclude he was convinced by the evidence when he claimed Iraq had WMDs. Even then, most people would say that still made the decision to invade Iraq an incompetent decision.

The evidence was clearly against WMDs in Iraq being any threat to the US. And that was the case Bush made for his pre-emptive war.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Errors in intel are not lies. After 8 years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

I repeat, you have to give Bush an unskeptically huge benefit of the doubt to conclude he was convinced by the evidence when he claimed Iraq had WMDs.

If there were any facts to support Salon/fair contention that Bush lied about WOMD's, the Dems would have presented them to Congress as articles for impeachment. It appears Salon/fair opinions on the WOMD matter did not impress Reed, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer, Schultz, Feinstein, Rangel, Kennedy, etc.

Yawn......

 

[Cicero]

Yawn......

Do you find this boring as well?

As late as June 2003, Powell was still clinging to the invisible evidance he sold to the U.N.

QUESTION: Secretary Powell, this morning on Fox News, you've defended
the intelligence and the presentation you made before the United
Nations.

SECRETARY POWELL: Right.

QUESTION: Critics are saying that the intelligence, so far, has been
bogus. How would you answer those critics?


SECRETARY POWELL: I would tell those critics that it is nonsense, it
is not bogus, and there can be no question that Iraq had and has had
weapons of mass destruction. And now that we are sending in a
1,300-man team, I am sure we will be uncovering more of that
capability.

You have to remember that in my presentation on the 5th of February, I
also made the point that they had one of the best deception and --
deception and hiding efforts known, and that is what we are going to
have to go and look at. And I think all the documents that are now
coming forward, the people who are being interviewed, will tell us
more about what they have hidden and where they have hidden it.
And I think the mobile labs are what I think is a good indication of
the kind of thing they are doing. If those mobile biological weapons
vans that we discovered were not biological weapons vans, if they
were, as some suggest, nothing more than a device to produce hydrogen
gas for weather balloons, I can assure you that the day after my
presentation the Iraqis would have had that van out there producing
hydrogen gas for a weather balloon.

They had never acknowledged that they had it. They lied about it. And
we found it. And the Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Tenet, is
confident that it is what we said it was: a biological warfare van.
And so that tells you the nature of this regime. This regime could
have come clean. This regime could have destroyed its weapons of mass
destruction. It chose not to. And the United Nations and a willing
coalition of nations acted appropriately in accordance with
international law derived from UN Resolution 1441.

We took the regime out, the world is better off for it, and the Iraqi people have been liberated. There will be no weapons of mass destruction once we get through in Iraq with --

QUESTION: How can you assure the American people that the intelligence
that you were using is credible, that it's not bogus?

SECRETARY POWELL: The American people are quite assured. It is the
media that invents words such as "bogus."

 

[TraneWreck]

Errors in intel are not lies. After 8 years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

If there were any facts to support Salon/fair contention that Bush lied about WOMD's, the Dems would have presented them to Congress as articles for impeachment. It appears Salon/fair opinions on the WOMD matter did not impress Reed, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer, Schultz, Feinstein, Rangel, Kennedy, etc.

I understand that this is the battle we will be fighting for the rest of our lives: the pathetic attempt to rewrite history to whitewash the absurdity that was the "case" for war in Iraq.

I would recommend reading this very short book that came out BEFORE we invaded Iraq:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?q...author=Scott+Ritter&cm_sp=works*listing*title

Scott Ritter, who you will undoubtedly now personally attack, catalogues in great detail what the inspectors knew and specifically describes what happened to the weapon stores the Bush administration accused Saddam of having.

The inspectors knew exactly what Saddam had, they had methods of determining whether new programs could be started, and they were working in the country until BUSH pulled them out.

In order to believe that Dubya's administration made an honest mistake, you have to assume that they are quite literally the stupidest people not wearing diapers. They boldly lied about the WMD, and they boldly lied about the Saddam-AQ connection.

Just because you ate up that ******** in real time doesn't mean there was a hint of truth to it.

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you find this boring as well?

[...]

SECRETARY POWELL: The American people are quite assured. It is the
media that invents words such as "bogus."

The most high-profile liar was defending his lie about a year after he made it? And what's that? He blames the media, too?

This is a stunning revelation.

Powell's only defense is that other people lied and he just repeated the ********. He follows orders.

 

[Cicero]

In order to believe that Dubya's administration made an honest mistake, you have to assume that they are quite literally the stupidest people not wearing diapers. They boldly lied about the WMD, and they boldly lied about the Saddam-AQ connection.

And Bush 43 supposedly knowing in advance that there were no WOMD's in Iraq, yet "lying" about their existence, and knowing none would be found after U.S. troops took control of the country, and knowing that this information would immediately be made public, and knowing that this would open him up to impeachment proceedings, did it anyway?

Just because you ate up that ******** in real time doesn't mean there was a hint of truth to it.

Actually, I never did eat it up. I just never saw any evidence that Bush 43knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4694020#post4694020

 

[JihadJane]

Errors in intel are not lies.

That's how Presidents tell lies. They get other people to tell them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cicero, you are off topic and rehashing old garbage. If you couldn't make a convincing case before, what makes you think you can make one now?

 

[TraneWreck]

And Bush 43 supposedly knowing in advance that there were no WOMD's in Iraq, yet "lying" about their existence, and knowing none would be found after U.S. troops took control of the country, and knowing that this information would immediately be made public, and knowing that this would open him up to impeachment proceedings, did it anyway?

Please. As Powell's speech at the UN showed, they thought they'd be able to get away with the "Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program" canard. I'm sure they thought they could find a cache or two and radically inflate the danger value.

Part of the problem was that they ignored the actual evidence and started believing their own lies.

But I do enjoy that your argument IN FAVOR of Bush is that no one could screw up that badly on purpose. When that's your defense, you might want to reconsider whether the battle is worth it.

Actually, I never did eat it up. I just never saw any evidence that Bush 43knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4694020#post4694020

Then buy that book at $0.99 and read what the weapons inspectors knew in 2002. You'll find that it is 100% accurate.

Your inability to identify reliable sources is yet another Pyrrhic sort of argument.

 

[Ducky]

It would appear this thread should be moved to the USA Politics section, since the "Social Issues and Current events" discussion aspects are pretty much overrun by a WWE-style partisan-hack wrestling match.

 

[TraneWreck]

It would appear this thread should be moved to the USA Politics section, since the "Social Issues and Current events" discussion aspects are pretty much overrun by a WWE-style partisan-hack wrestling match.

Good thing there are people on this forum above all that. It's always nice when they descend from their perch high above the fray to inform everyone of their deficiencies.

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, you are off topic and rehashing old garbage. If you couldn't make a convincing case before, what makes you think you can make one now?

In your opinion, it isn't convincing. Just as in your opinion Bush 43 'lied."

Talk about old "garbage," your standard for Powell is oddly not the same one for Bush 43.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4742625#post4742625

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743928#post4743928

 

[Ducky]

Good thing there are people on this forum above all that. It's always nice when they descend from their perch high above the fray to inform everyone of their deficiencies.

If you hadn't noticed, ace, there was a discussion going on before the Bush43 cage match, and I was in it. Since you arrived late I can see why you'd have missed my posts on the first four pages of the thread.

 

[TraneWreck]

If you hadn't noticed, ace, there was a discussion going on before the Bush43 cage match, and I was in it. Since you arrived late I can see why you'd have missed my posts on the first four pages of the thread.

Yeah, I noticed.

The forum has mods. They are capable of doing their job without the aid of your sanctimony.

 

[Ducky]

Yeah, I noticed.

The forum has mods. They are capable of doing their job without the aid of your sanctimony.

You're right, no one should ever publicly question the partisan cage matches around here.

Carry on.

 

[Nova Land]

Yeah, I noticed.

The forum has mods. They are capable of doing their job without the aid of your sanctimony.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

seriously dude, get the mods to moderate my laughter at your naive lack of understanding of the power and intelligence and long history of forum etiquette that is DUCKY.

 

[Cicero]

I found no evidence to support this. Where did you find this?

Find what?

 

[bynmdsue]

The war was never solely about WMD's,that 's the pansy liberal media's strawman they created because they knew they could'nt address the real issues.