Proof that Bush lied!

[peptoabysmal]

Is only believing what you want to believe lying or being a fool?

Huh? Whatever point you are trying to support, you are not helping it with nonsense.

 

[Kopji]

peptobysmal
So what evidence would convince you? Nothing
Wake up people, Bush has a cult following. How's that for nonsense?

I sat in front of my TV during Bush's State of the Union address and watched him lie, manipulating everyone at a key war decision point by including the part on nuclear weapons even though they were already being openly questioned and discounted on the internet. Recommended against inclusion by his own staff.

Bush is not only a liar he is a dangerous kind of liar who believes he knows the Truth. He subsidizes and employs liars. He gives them a safe home by eliminating people who tell the truth.

But we endorsed him, so what does it matter if he told the truth or not? In his wild thinking, we had our one chance to complain and it is gone.

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831621/

Is there a rational way to discuss someone who is a tyrant? Sure, he doesn't lie all the time. But what does it matter?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there a rational way to discuss someone who is a tyrant?

Sure. What about Saddam do you wish to discuss?

 

[a_unique_person]

If anything has surfaced after this war had begun, it is that the U.N. could not be trusted regarding Iraq. Who cares what Mr. Blix had to say?

weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

 

[Ziggurat]

weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

Blix was right that Iraq didn't have an ongoing nuclear program in 2003. He was wrong about Iraq's nuclear program before the first gulf war (and in fact HIS spectacularly stupid decision regarding monitoring of spent fuel rods enabled Iraq to start their crash program), and he was wrong about Libya's nuclear weapons program (he thought it nonexistant). I'd call his record spotty at best.

 

[Kopji]

Politicans lie. This is not all that surprising or even bothersome. Perhaps at the core of diplomacy is a need to be 'creatively truthful'.

It should be apparent by now that considerable self deception took place by George W Bush and those he chose to surround himself with: Presented with evidence that supported more than one conclusion, evidence was only used to reinforce what had already been decided.

The business concept behind this is known as 'Positioning'. Bush did not invent the concept of market 'Positioning' but clearly relies upon it, and even brags about his success at applying its principles in politics. The business marketing principle expounded by a guy named Jack Trout. Don't take my word for it, read the book. 'Positioning' creates the future by changing the perspective of your product of the present.

Bush brags about 'creating history' in this manner, in CEO parlance it is not lying. We are being "lied" to in the same way that all marketing is a type of lie.

The same words are not a lie for everyone. There's gonna be people out there who LIKE the product (an Iraq War) so there is no perceived deception. For the rest of us, we are stuck with a product we did not want or need. Far worse, our choice of 'war product' has now eliminated far better and more workable solutions in favor of the market leader.

 

[peptoabysmal]

peptobysmal
So what evidence would convince you? Nothing
Wake up people, Bush has a cult following. How's that for nonsense?

I would accept any objectively verifiable evidence that G.W. Bush knew that Saddam / Iraq had no WMD and deliberately deceived the American public to go to war.

 

[peptoabysmal]

weird logic there. You don't care what Blix had to say, because what he said was right.

I don't care because he is part of an organization who was taking bribes to overlook Saddam's wrongdoings. Blix himself criticised Iraq for not accounting for and producing new VX weapons, but as soon as the US wants to take Saddam out Blix gets all misty-eyed about Saddam just being a misunderstood child. Give me a break.

edited to add: Good job of derailing the thread!

 

[peptoabysmal]

Politicans lie. This is not all that surprising or even bothersome. Perhaps at the core of diplomacy is a need to be 'creatively truthful'.

It should be apparent by now that considerable self deception took place by George W Bush and those he chose to surround himself with: Presented with evidence that supported more than one conclusion, evidence was only used to reinforce what had already been decided.

The business concept behind this is known as 'Positioning'. Bush did not invent the concept of market 'Positioning' but clearly relies upon it, and even brags about his success at applying its principles in politics. The business marketing principle expounded by a guy named Jack Trout. Don't take my word for it, read the book. 'Positioning' creates the future by changing the perspective of your product of the present.

Bush brags about 'creating history' in this manner, in CEO parlance it is not lying. We are being "lied" to in the same way that all marketing is a type of lie.

The same words are not a lie for everyone. There's gonna be people out there who LIKE the product (an Iraq War) so there is no perceived deception. For the rest of us, we are stuck with a product we did not want or need. Far worse, our choice of 'war product' has now eliminated far better and more workable solutions in favor of the market leader.

These are all great paranoid fantasies which could be fuel for some great conspiracy talk and all have nothing to do with this thread, which is asking for verifiable evidence that Bush lied.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Let me take a moment to get this thread back on track.

This thread is not about whether or not there were WMD in Iraq.

This thread is not about whether or not the war in Iraq is a good or bad thing.

This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't care because he is part of an organization who was taking bribes to overlook Saddam's wrongdoings. Blix himself criticised Iraq for not accounting for and producing new VX weapons, but as soon as the US wants to take Saddam out Blix gets all misty-eyed about Saddam just being a misunderstood child. Give me a break.

edited to add: Good job of derailing the thread!

Sarcasm noted, can we stick to the facts. Blix was, as time has proved, doing his job.

In an organisation as large and complex as the UN, the surprise would be if there weren't problems in it. Blix, and his work, were open to public scrutiny. The US had free access to his information. If there was anything amiss, it didn't say so, and hasn't shown there to be any. Now, if you want to say that because one part of the UN was dysfunctional, all of it is, is not logical. It's like saying that all people from the US are like you, when they clearly aren't.

 

[merphie]

Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?

Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?

I think Iraq was the better of the axis to take care of in this fashion. I don't believe there is really a military option with N Korea or Iran.

 

[merphie]

A raid is no better than a war? The raid and being sure was proposed to be better than starting a war over a lie. The war was needed.

But the difference is that I think any leader who treats the people with the contempt with which Bush sold the war should be tossed out on his ear, ya ear, that's the ticket.

I have too much respect for the people of this country and the men and women of our armed forces to accept expending their money and lives for a lie. When the expenditure is worth it, it is also worth honesty.

You still have to show Bush lied. Apparently the majority of people still believe in Bush.

A raid on Iraq. there's a laugh. Send a small hostile force into a hostile country. That's a good plan.

 

[LucyR]

This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.

But if he wasn't lying doesn't that merely demonstrate incompetence? If not on his part, than surely on that of the many people under his command? Remember that a war was started over this issue. Either way you look at it it's embarrassing.

 

[Shinytop]

You still have to show Bush lied. Apparently the majority of people still believe in Bush.

A raid on Iraq. there's a laugh. Send a small hostile force into a hostile country. That's a good plan.

Number one a majority of the people preferred Bush to Kerry, that is not the same as you posted.

Number two, raids are always into hostile territory and rely on surprise and speed. Or do you deny raids can be done? Do you deny raids have been done? But you prefer war over a premise that has turned out not to be true. Very good.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Sarcasm noted, can we stick to the facts. Blix was, as time has proved, doing his job.

In an organisation as large and complex as the UN, the surprise would be if there weren't problems in it. Blix, and his work, were open to public scrutiny. The US had free access to his information. If there was anything amiss, it didn't say so, and hasn't shown there to be any. Now, if you want to say that because one part of the UN was dysfunctional, all of it is, is not logical. It's like saying that all people from the US are like you, when they clearly aren't.

Does this information you mention clear the air about what Saddam possesed? No, it does not. I've read most of the UNMOVIC reports prior to the war and they raise a lot of questions about what was in Iraq. More questions than answers. Mr. Blix may have his opinions and history may prove him correct, but he had his own credibility problems. He missed a huge nuclear progam and he was very quick to put any dual-use items he found automatically into the civilian use category. Why do you think Pres. Bush should have pinned his decision onto what Br. Blix endorsed?

 

[a_unique_person]

Does this information you mention clear the air about what Saddam possesed? No, it does not. I've read most of the UNMOVIC reports prior to the war and they raise a lot of questions about what was in Iraq. More questions than answers. Mr. Blix may have his opinions and history may prove him correct, but he had his own credibility problems. He missed a huge nuclear progam and he was very quick to put any dual-use items he found automatically into the civilian use category. Why do you think Pres. Bush should have pinned his decision onto what Br. Blix endorsed?

May prove him correct, you mean has proven him correct.

Huge?

The 'dual-use' items were found to be only for civilian use. To say that anything that could be used for weapons was used for weapons was one of the major frauds of the whole process. Much of the 'dual-use' was ordinary everyday industrial chemicals that would not have raised a moments interest anywhere else in the world.

 

[Earthborn]

he had his own credibility problems.

There you have the proof you are looking for:

a: Hans Blix says that Bush did not know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and therefore did not intentionally lied about them.
b: Hans Blix is not credible.
a+b: Bush must have known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and must have intentionally lied about them.

 

[Giz]

Quote AUP: "There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.”

Firstly, the UN has proven to be about as effective as the old league of nations. Any successes that the UN has chalked up compared to the League can be attributed to:
(a) Lesser challenges
(b) The participation of the USA

"International Community" remains - in the main - a collection of tyrants, corrupt politicians, and narrow self interest.

Secondly, whilst US values are not superior across the world, they are superior to those espoused over large areas of the world.

There should be a UN where only democratic states get a vote, that might actually be a forum worth listening to...

 

[a_unique_person]

Quote AUP: "There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.”

Firstly, the UN has proven to be about as effective as the old league of nations. Any successes that the UN has chalked up compared to the League can be attributed to:
(a) Lesser challenges
(b) The participation of the USA

a) That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
b) The UN needs the USA as much as the USA needs the UN. Think about it.

"International Community" remains - in the main - a collection of tyrants, corrupt politicians, and narrow self interest.

Secondly, whilst US values are not superior across the world, they are superior to those espoused over large areas of the world.

There should be a UN where only democratic states get a vote, that might actually be a forum worth listening to...