Proof that Bush lied!

[Art Vandelay]

This thread really shows the silliness of the Bush bashers. Despite "Bush lied" being a major mantra, they can't come up with any defense of it. Look at the replies: AUP shows up to post... well, I'm not sure what his point was. He starts his post with "Your argument fails instantly." then gives absolutely no elaboration. (Oh, and US values ARE better than the values of other nations. Some of them, at least.) SezMe dodges the question with a bunch of sophistry. Charlie Monoxide makes allusions to Rove conspiracy theories. Fishbob moves the goalposts to "deliberately misled". Hgc focuses on one part of the OP, completely ignoring the central question. Crossbow implies that he has this proof, he really does, he just doesn't deign to share it. And on it goes.

AUP

And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

It tells me that you are either too ignorant to know, or too dishonest to admit, that they did find plenty. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; that is certain.

Shinytop

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 point is that a raid WOULD be a war.

I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.

So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing?

 

[a_unique_person]

AUPIt tells me that you are either too ignorant to know, or too dishonest to admit, that they did find plenty.

You must be one of the few people to believe that, when the official weapons survey team itself has just given up after two years of finding nothing.

 

[Shinytop]

Number one: If everyone believe as you do then they would have preferred Kerry to Bush.

Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

The intelligence is now known to be wrong. You would probably be on your soap box complaining about violations of international laws or something.

So instead we have freed millions of people from a terrible tyrant and given them a real chance for democracy.

Merphie, you display more sterotyping, in error, with every post. I voted against Kerry. I still believe Bush has made many serious errors. I just Kerry was even worse, especially with his comments after the war about atrocities.

Bombing raids are the only raids ever conducted? I think not but will not lecture you on history beyond Son Tay. You can look it up.

And Merphie, look at my posts. I defend the war. I thought and think it was the right thing to do. I also feel it indefensible for a president to sell anything on facts he cannot prove and has not proved.

You need to read more and quit lumping everybody together. It really makes your posts pretty meaningless as people realize you read a sentence or two and jump to so many wrong conclusions.

People can be for some policies of a president and realistically be of the opinion he has made mistakes. Are you seriously of the opinion that one cannot criticize somebody they voted for?

 

[merphie]

Merphie, you display more sterotyping, in error, with every post. I voted against Kerry. I still believe Bush has made many serious errors. I just Kerry was even worse, especially with his comments after the war about atrocities.

I wasn't sterotyping. Since you are jumping on the Bush lied band wagon I figured you for a Kerry supporter.

Bombing raids are the only raids ever conducted? I think not but will not lecture you on history beyond Son Tay. You can look it up.

I never specified the type of raids. Any such action would be considered an act of war and would have been political suicide. Look beyond your 4 walls.

If it was as simple as a raid Israel would have done it years ago. The only choice was to go to war or leave Saddam alone.

And Merphie, look at my posts. I defend the war. I thought and think it was the right thing to do. I also feel it indefensible for a president to sell anything on facts he cannot prove and has not proved.

I think he had a credible case based on the intelligence we had at the time. I don't think he sold anything.

You need to read more and quit lumping everybody together. It really makes your posts pretty meaningless as people realize you read a sentence or two and jump to so many wrong conclusions.

Clearly state your opinion and I won't make meaningless post replying to your meaningless Ad-hominem post. I made one assumption based on your post. I appologize if I was wrong with the one sentence. Dont' take it so personal.

People can be for some policies of a president and realistically be of the opinion he has made mistakes. Are you seriously of the opinion that one cannot criticize somebody they voted for?

Absolutely, I would be more concerned if you agreed to everything one person says.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002



"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"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."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003


"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003


"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003


"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I have edited the list to include only Bush and his official mouthpieces' who express his opinion as part of their job description. I am compiling a list of inconstancy's where stated representations are diametrically opposed to the facts GII had at his disposal. This man even when subject to concrete proof of his judgments and stated position are incorrect , refuses to admit that he was incorrect and change his outlook. That is annoying in anyone, but it is alarming in the character ( or lack of ) of the most powerful man in the world. Some people here live in his fantasy playground tho, I'm afraid.

 

[merphie]

Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

snip

Now prove the intent to deceive or are we back to the conspiracy theory?

 

[Shinytop]

I wasn't sterotyping. Since you are jumping on the Bush lied band wagon I figured you for a Kerry supporter.

That pretty much is the defiition of stereotyping, lumping people together based on one snippet of information.

I never specified the type of raids. Any such action would be considered an act of war and would have been political suicide. Look beyond your 4 walls.

If it was as simple as a raid Israel would have done it years ago. The only choice was to go to war or leave Saddam alone.

Pretty much misstates what I posted. I posted a raid was possible to verify WMD's. Not to replace a war I felt was justified and needed. And the only example of a raid you posted was an air raid.

Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

Gee, not at all what I said or suggested.



Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact.

And a raid, while considered an act of war, might be considered less of an problem to the taxpayer at tax time and to the parents and loved ones of those who lose lives. I am sorry that point was lost on you. There were ways to prove the existence or nonexistence, which is, afterall , what I said.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact.

AUP posted

He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

He's clearly implying that Saddam did not have any WMD programs DURING ANY TIME IN THE LAST 12 YEARS.

 

[merphie]

That pretty much is the defiition of stereotyping, lumping people together based on one snippet of information.

Call it what ever you want. I made an assumption based on your statements. Nothing more.

Pretty much misstates what I posted. I posted a raid was possible to verify WMD's. Not to replace a war I felt was justified and needed. And the only example of a raid you posted was an air raid.

Gee, not at all what I said or suggested.

Art, Art, Art, nobody says Iraq never had WMD. Only that they did not when Bush said they did or when we invaded. And that is fact.

And a raid, while considered an act of war, might be considered less of an problem to the taxpayer at tax time and to the parents and loved ones of those who lose lives. I am sorry that point was lost on you. There were ways to prove the existence or nonexistence, which is, afterall , what I said.

Yes, I know I made an example of an air raid. What you suggesting was foolish.

We had plenty of intelligence on Iraq. Intercepts and defectors. It all seemed to prove wrong.

So in the same sense we could assume N Korea doesn't have WMD either. They have never performed a nuclear test. Why don't we send a raid there?

How about Iran? They have never done test either. Our intelligence could be wrong in both cases. Should we send raids in these countries?

 

[varwoche]

So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing?

Pardon me for interjecting, but seeing this post from the veritable wellspring of semantic bs caused me to do a spit-take all over my desk.

 

[Shinytop]

Merphie, I never mentioned NK or Iran. The subject is Iraq. If you want to know my opinion on those why not start a thread. Have you learned nothing about jumping to conclusions? You post the raids would be ridiculous and yet you think nothing wrong with attacking when wrong. Sorry, I would rather my country be right before the world than wrong. And announcing WMD as a reason to get support only weakened our country. Myopia in the defense of a wrong president is pretty sad. We had good solid reasons for the war, we did not need to appear fools before the world.

 

[merphie]

Merphie, I never mentioned NK or Iran. The subject is Iraq. If you want to know my opinion on those why not start a thread. Have you learned nothing about jumping to conclusions? You post the raids would be ridiculous and yet you think nothing wrong with attacking when wrong. Sorry, I would rather my country be right before the world than wrong. And announcing WMD as a reason to get support only weakened our country. Myopia in the defense of a wrong president is pretty sad. We had good solid reasons for the war, we did not need to appear fools before the world.

Sinec no WMD were found the initial reason is bad. However I believe we were justified in going to Iraq for other reasons.

I feel Iran and N Korea is related to the subject at hand. Can't you answer the question? Try leaving out the Ad-hominem. a simple yes or no would be fine to my question.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

 

[Shinytop]

Sinec no WMD were found the initial reason is bad. However I believe we were justified in going to Iraq for other reasons.

As I have said many times including in this thread.

I feel Iran and N Korea is related to the subject at hand. Can't you answer the question? Try leaving out the Ad-hominem. a simple yes or no would be fine to my question.

I don't think so and have said I will respond in the appropriate thread. How does NK and Iran have any bearing on Bush lying about WMD in Iraq? Sorry, I do not respond to demands I post to your agenda. And I am so sorry that defending my views, that pointing out you are jumping to errant conclusions ABOUT MY VIEWS is seen as an attack on you. I reserve the right to point out such errors and reject defense of words is an attack. I believe in responding to posts, not to words not said and insist I be treated with the same courtesy.

 

[fishbob]

Pepto:

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq.

Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

 

[Thanz]

So are you seriously presenting this as a real argument, or are you deliberately posting a piece of ridiculous semantic BS as some sort of example of what you think pepto and merphie are doing?

I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him. I think his defence of Bush here is on the same level as people defending Clinton as not lying because of some definition of "sexual relations" in some lawsuit.

Bush knew, or should have known, that the 'intelligence' he received was sketchy at best. He oversold that evidence to the American public. He had decided upon a war with Iraq, and then sought evidence to justify it. He used what he thought was the best evidence at the time. But the evidence he used was far from compelling, and his speeches on the threat posed by Saddam were deceining, especially when he invoked the 9/11 trajedy.

But, if pepto wants to play these word parsing semantic BS games, do it to the hilt. Bush said "no doubt" at a time when he knew there were doubts around the globe. That is a lie. Is this seriously what I hang my condemnation of Bush on? Of course not. But if pepto wants to ignore the real issue - that Bush led a march to war and sold a bill of goods to the American public on the reasons why - what else can I do? I play his game. And he has ignored my posts. I wonder why?

 

[clk]

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.

Bush knew in late February that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

An article posted on February 20, 2003

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

 

[clk]

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

The Republicans did an excellent job of milking 9/11 for political gain. I found it amusing that the two of the main arguments at the RNC for re-electing Bush were:
-Bush is able to throw a baseball even when he is wearing a bulletproof jacket!

I bet Jimmy Carter couldn't do that!


-Bush will hug little girls who are crying! Is there a better reason to elect him? Didn't think so!

Also, I think this thread should be deleted, and anyone who posted an anti-Bush statement should be banned. Criticizing the President in a time of war is anti-American. The Republicans have repeatedly made this clear. Don't you people know how to read???

 

[DavidJames]

I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him. I think his defence of Bush here is on the same level as people defending Clinton as not lying because of some definition of "sexual relations" in some lawsuit.

I think this really sums it up nicely. The difference being that while I suspect there were some, I know of no one who agreed with Clinton's attempt to minimize or hide his mistake with ML. He f'd up and then tried to dance and play games. he was wrong. Bush supporters, however, dance and play games right in step with Bush. In the debates, Bush told us he made no mistakes and his faithful lap it up like the blind lap dogs they are.

 

[rikzilla]

Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.

I made a thread before the invasion of Iraq was launched. My own take on the situation was that Saddam's Iraq was in "material breach" of UNSCR 687. (Remember the term "material breach"??) Here's the link...(there's a snap shot of the salient points below)

Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.

But those countries had not lost a war whose cease fire terms dictated that they not have these kinds of armaments.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.

Again, they have not lost wars whose cease fire agreements stiupulate that they not support terrorism or terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.

But the N. Korea government had not lost a war then thumbed their collective noses at 16 UNSCR's.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.

UNSCR 687 only applies to Saddam's Iraq and applies to no other country. The 12 year long violation of UNSCR 687 admittedly doesn't speak to the need of an immediate invasion. The faulty intel (remember hindsight is 20-20) did....but alas it was faulty.
-z

<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=311187"></iframe>