• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Lied: The Evidence

KCConservative said:
Maybe you can show us the proof of a lie, Billo. Tell us.
Click to expand...


No one's going to come up with proof that they lied, but if you want to go around thinking this war wasn't accounted for before 9/11 then that's you're own choice. Americans were given excuses for the war, not reasons. About the time you see this war spreading, perhaps you will nod your head and say, "ya know, maybe they did lie to me." But still you will agree with them - so what's the difference?
 
KCConservative said:
I understand. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL You're really growing on me, KC. :bright:
 
None so blind ...

KCConservative said:
Your rhetoric is getting old, simon. When you come up with the lie, we'll talk. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I'll try harder to make it more clear.

LIE #1:
Team Bush said that the US could not wait to attack Hussein because he's liable to put a mushroom cloud over a major American city. This was a lie.
​
LIE #2:
Team Bush said Hussein and al-Qa'ida are in cahoots, (training, Atta/Prague connection, etc). This was a lie.
​
LIE #3:
Team Bush said Hussein was an undeterrrable madman. This was a lie.
​
None so blind ...
 
Re: None so blind ...

Simon W. Moon said:
I'll tryI harder to make it more clear.

LIE #1:
Team Bush said that the US could not wait to attack Hussein because he's liable to put a mushroom cloud over a major American city. This was a lie.
​
LIE #2:
Team Bush said Hussein and al-Qa'ida are in cahoots, (training, Atta/Prague connection, etc). This was a lie.
​
LIE #3:
Team Bush said Hussein was an undeterrrable madman. This was a lie.
​
Click to expand...

These are things he believed. They are things I believed and still believe. If he is wrong or if I end up being wrong....that's one thing. Again I ask, what makes them lies?
 
Re: None so blind ...

KCConservative said:
These are things he believed. They are things I believed and still believe. If he is wrong or if I end up being wrong....that's one thing. Again I ask, what makes them lies?
Click to expand...


Give us proof these are things he believed. You can't!
 
Team Bush said that the US could not wait to attack Hussein because he's liable to put a mushroom cloud over a major American city. This was a lie.
Click to expand...

To believe that an untouched Saddam five years hence wouldn't have been back in the WMD game is fatuous beyond description.

Team Bush said Hussein and al-Qa'ida are in cahoots, (training, Atta/Prague connection, etc). This was a lie.
Click to expand...

Unproven assertion - as of this moment.

Team Bush said Hussein was an undeterrrable madman. This was a lie.
Click to expand...

Unproven assertion - as of this moment.

Simon, I know you will trot out some of your so-called proof - you've done it previously. But so far, I have yet to see anything that qualifes as 'proof'. Everything that I've seen so far falls short of proof in one way or another, either ambiguity or, more often, the 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' problem in that the reader finds in the material what he/she wishes to find.

I know from your previous posts that you have done a lot of research in this area, but unless you have something new? I'm willing to read and listen, but as of this moment, I remain unconvinced.
 
Re: None so blind ...

mixedmedia said:
Give us proof these are things he believed. You can't!
Click to expand...
I'll give you a few minutes to ponder the absurdity of your request. :2wave:
 
oldreliable67 said:
Simon, I know you will trot out some of your so-called proof - you've done it previously. But so far, I have yet to see anything that qualifes as 'proof'. Everything that I've seen so far falls short of proof in one way or another, either ambiguity or, more often, the 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' problem in that the reader finds in the material what he/she wishes to find.
Click to expand...

Somewhere along the way during this debate, Simon has convinced himself that a lie is a lie if you only say it is a lie long enough.

Still no answer to this question: Are Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy and Pelosi also liars for believing in Saddam's WMD?
 
Re: None so blind ...

KCConservative said:
These are things he believed. They are things I believed and still believe. If he is wrong or if I end up being wrong....that's one thing. Again I ask, what makes them lies?
Click to expand...
The best information available at the time, the US Intel Community's consensus, was to the contrary.
 
Re: None so blind ...

Simon W. Moon said:
The best information available at the time, the US Intel Community's consensus, was to the contrary.
Click to expand...
And yet, it's what he believed. Still looking for the lie.
 
Re: None so blind ...

KCConservative said:
I'll give you a few minutes to ponder the absurdity of your request. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I realize the request is absurd. So is yours. :2wave:
 
oldreliable67 said:
To believe that an untouched Saddam five years hence wouldn't have been back in the WMD game is fatuous beyond description.
Click to expand...
It's not about the "WMD game". If you care to note I addressed
1) the probability of Hussein initiating and attack on the US either directly or by proxy;
2) the nature of the "links" between Hussein adn al-Qa'ida;
3) the detrrability of Hussein.

If you notice, there's no mention of WMD.

oldreliable67 said:
Unproven assertion - as of this moment.
Click to expand...
The US Intel Communty's consensus is that despite pressure from the WH and "exhaustive and repetitive searches for such" there was no, is no and has been no "collaborative or operational" relationship between al-Qa'ida and Hussein.
What more would you like?

oldreliable67 said:
Unproven assertion - as of this moment.
Click to expand...
James Baker's veiled threat of a "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert prevented Hussein from using WMD during the Gulf War.
Further Dr. Rice (of NSA fame) used the phrase "national obliteration" to describe the threat that stayed Hussein's hand.
Further still, the consensus of the US intel community was that Hussein "was drawing a line short" of conducting attacks on the US and the in the "foreseeable future" Hussein was unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy.

oldreliable67 said:
I know from your previous posts that you have done a lot of research in this area, but unless you have something new? I'm willing to read and listen, but as of this moment, I remain unconvinced.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you looking for? What criteria are you using? Perhaps if I knew what they were I could provide you with evidence you find acceptable. So, if you would, please describe the criteria you use to judge evidence or describe the sort of evidence that you would find acceptable.
 
Re: None so blind ...

KCConservative said:
And yet, it's what he believed. Still looking for the lie.
Click to expand...
So Team Bush said things that went against what the US Intel Community was saying and you're maintaining that these things were not a lie because Team Bush earnestly believed that they knew better than the US Intel Community?
Is that the size of it?
Your defense of Team Bush against the charge of lying is incompetenece or derangement instead of mendacity or perfidy?
 
Re: None so blind ...

Simon W. Moon said:
So Team Bush said things that went against what the US Intel Community was saying and you're maintaining that these things were not a lie because Team Bush earnestly believed that they knew better than the US Intel Community?
Is that the size of it?
Your defense of Team Bush against the charge of lying is incompetenece or derangement instead of mendacity or perfidy?
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't know what "team Bush" means. Is this a way of distancing yourself from your president because of your partisan hate? This is what danarhea likes to do with his terms "Bushnevik" and "Bushite" too, but there is no eascaping who your president and commander-in-chief is. Is there a memo from the White House that indicates they want to be referred to in this way? Or is it just the normal hate we see day in and day out?

Second, when the intel had been presented to the president and his advisors, Iraq was considered to have WMD and to pose a threat to the region. The intelligence supports it. He believed it, given the 17 resolutions that Saddam had ignored. I beleieved it as well. In fact, I still do. So did a slue of democratic leaders (a point you refuse to acknowledge). But all of this is quite predictable in lue of the upcoming election. Because an armchair quarterback can look back in hindsight and decide differently is very lame, yet understandable given the long list of scandals invented by the Bush haters.

Third, if words like "incompetence" and "derangement" are your idea of a polite debate, then perhaps you might want to look over the forum rules.
 
KCConservative said:
And so you prove my point. There was no lie. You can disagree with the war all you like, but you weren't lied to.
Click to expand...

Bush may have thought there was WMD, but that was not the only reason we invaded. There was an underlying motive. I base that on this, when he found out there was no WMD, we still invaded......WHY
 
It's not about the "WMD game".
Click to expand...

I guess I was fooled by your statement, "because he's liable to put a mushroom cloud [emphasis mine] over a major American city". Sure sounded like a reference to some type of a WMD to me.

But in the meantime, there was this interesting conclusion in the link that you provided to the Kerr report:

"The Iragis took pains to carefully hide their WMD programs. People and operations were protected from US intelligence by a variety of methods, including isolating scientists and technicians involved in the programs and employing effective camoflauge, concealment, and deception efforts."

So, I infer from this that you do not deny that there were WMD programs, but you do deny that Saddam had any intention of using them?

Hussein and al-Qa'ida are in cahoots
Click to expand...

The link you provided in support of this assertion was to the Kerr report, in which I could find no reference to support your assertion. Did I miss it? If so, just tell me which page and I'll go back to it and check again.


undeterrrable madman
Click to expand...
and
in the "foreseeable future" Hussein was unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy.
Click to expand...

To that, I can only repeat my earlier assertion, to wit, to believe that an untouched Saddam five years hence wouldn't have been back in the WMD game is fatuous beyond description. Now, I realize that this statement is strictly my opinion and in fact is most likely not provable in any substantive sense. It is admittedly just my impression, garnered from reading of Saddam's previous behaviours and the tendencies that those behaviors suggest. Others may well have observed those same behaviors and tendencies and arrived at different conclusions - as evidenced by those sources that you have cited.

What would it take to convince me that Bush lied? Something more than assertion. Something more than opinion. Something unambiguous. Something incontrovertible, so incontrovertible, in fact, that members of his own party would admit that the evidence is incontrovertible.

Understand that while I embrace the general direction of Bush's ME policy, because it gives us the best chance at ME peace in decades and more importantly, it directly and aggressively addresses the Salafist jihadis desires to establish a new Muslim caliphate with its attendant requirement to kill all infidels, I abhor many of Bush's domestic policies and find his lack of leadership in other areas appalling. So, please don't paint me as a blind and obedient Bushie - 'cause I ain't. Given the right evidence, I can be convinced.
 
alphieb said:
Bush may have thought there was WMD, but that was not the only reason we invaded. There was an underlying motive. I base that on this, when he found out there was no WMD, we still invaded......WHY
Click to expand...

A question for all libs: Does old alphieb make you proud or what?

Uh, al, we discovered the absence of WMD after we took Saddam out.

:stooges
 
KCConservative how is my english doing haha, my wife teaches French,
Spanish and German at the high school i am a roofer 2 trade.try my best for U.
Jean my wife says i am to lazy.

god bless u m8

I love the USA

Kind regards to U.
mikeey.
AMERICA will always WIN.Y not
 
KCConservative said:
A question for all libs: Does old alphieb make you proud or what?

Uh, al, we discovered the absence of WMD after we took Saddam out.

:stooges
Click to expand...

I am proud of alphieb. She may be talking about the fact that there was intelligence prior to our invasion which showed doubts about Saddam's reconstituting WMDs. Bush and his cronies ignored it entirely. So what she said has bases, KC.
 
KC - not that anyone is going to change your mind about this issue but:

Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
Click to expand...
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
 
Thanks for the Buzzflash link, hipster. Let's see what else Buzzflash says:

Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.

Again, you present a wealth of quotes by the president. Some of which turned out to be true and some turned out to be false. I keep asking, however, where is the lie?

Would you like to see a long list of liberals who said the same things? Would that make them liars too?
 
aps said:
I am proud of alphieb. She may be talking about the fact that there was intelligence prior to our invasion which showed doubts about Saddam's reconstituting WMDs. Bush and his cronies ignored it entirely. So what she said has bases, KC.
Click to expand...

They ignored it? This I gotta see. I'll be waiting, aps.
 
KCConservative said:
They ignored it? This I gotta see. I'll be waiting, aps.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that we invaded based on speculation?......
 
That has been a pretty costly speculation. We do not have to speculate that North Koreo has WMD.....hell why not invade them as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom