• 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.

Who Lied?

TheBigC said:
That information that you're referring to was one of many, many sources of information that apparently were saying conflicting things.
The info I'm referring to came from the US Intel Community. Are you saying that Team Bush was right to have disregarded the US Intel Community's conclusions in favor of a foreign intel agency or some other source?

TheBigC said:
That lack of informational clarity does not allow the Administration to abdicate its responsibility of making a decision.
Nor does it relieve them of the responsibility to use the best estimates from the US's professional Intel Community.

TheBigC said:
The Administration did not *know* there were no WMD, at best they had some reports saying that there weren't, and many more saying that there were, and years of intelligence from within and outside the country also confirming it.
Ummm... We're discussing the fact that Team Bush et al portrayed al-Qa'ida and Hussein as being in cahoots and that they portrayed Hussein as something other than unlikely to attack the US in the foreseeable future not WMD.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I'm unclear as to why think this is missed. Especially after we've had a conversation where it was explicitly stated otherwise. I'm not asking for an explanation as to why you persist in this error, just pointing out that your comment seems a non sequitur.

Oh yeah. This wouldn't be the first time I've lost track on who I was debating with from thread to thread.

Simon W. Moon said:
I'm also unclear as to why you think "the decay underneath terrorism" is somehow related to whether or not the invasion was sold via untruths. Again, I'm not asking for an explanation, just pointing out a non sequitur.

And, again, it's not about whether or not we act, but about what actions we take.


Because it doesn't matter why it was "sold." The problem with dealing with the decay underneath is that no President can declare war on this and no President can publicly acknowledge what the problems are - not while keeping diplomacy open to these people for our oil. Commentators, journalists, social experts, and military analysts can say these things all day, but the President of the free world cannot. If WMD was "sold" to get us there, so be it. I really don't care if there was a "lie." The problem is that the Democrats will pull out all stops to show as much contriversey as possible to secure an election. They know very well of the issues the President cannot freely talk about and they exploit it publicly for all that it's worth. There are so many non-issues that are exploited for our sheep of a population. I believe it is irrelevent to the issues, however irrelevent to the thread. What mattered was that we finally stopped turning our backs on the problem and stopped accepting their blame for what they have done to themselves. American civilians have died and will continue to die because of this misdirected hate and blame. If President Bush never existed, some other guy at what ever time would have to be the one that took all of this heat for doing what we had to do to effectively encourage change to protect our people.

Aside from aggressive diplomacy and sanctions.....


Iraq = Would never make change on their own (Saddam)

Syria = May very well need a military punitive strike and then an equally hasty withdrawl. (Baathist Party opposed to change, but reformacist are not.)

Iran = Only requires airstrikes on nuclear facilities as the time presents itself. (The overwhelming population are disenchanted towards their government and their Mullahs. Khomieni brutalized Islam and they know it.)

Saudi = Aside from stern, but friendly diplomacy, we are screwed for now. The Arab Elite will not accept change and we are pledged to ptrotect those bazaars of terror. (I know, it sucks.)

Pakistan = Not lost yet

Indonesia and India = Continue to befriend the Muslim populations before the Arab desease spreads to their societies.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
The info I'm referring to came from the US Intel Community. Are you saying that Team Bush was right to have disregarded the US Intel Community's conclusions in favor of a foreign intel agency or some other source?
Not at all. "Able Danger" was also from the US Intel community. Does it have less weight than any report you're thinking of?

Simon W. Moon said:
Ummm... We're discussing the fact that Team Bush et al portrayed al-Qa'ida and Hussein as being in cahoots and that they portrayed Hussein as something other than unlikely to attack the US in the foreseeable future not WMD.
I don't recall that link being made, and even if it was, it wasn't anything I cared about at the time anyway.The Bush Doctrine was enough of a reason for me, IMO things like WMD and Iraqi Freedom have been pretenses to get the American people behind doing gutty tough ugly work of winning the new Cold War.
 
TheBigC said:
Not at all. "Able Danger" was also from the US Intel community. Does it have less weight than any report you're thinking of?
Well I was thinking of reports that represented the US Intel Community's consensus, like the NIE etc not isolated reports.
I was unaware that AD had published reports available. Would you be so kind as to provide a link?

TheBigC said:
I don't recall that link being made, and even if it was ...
It was made once or twice or few dozen times or more.

TheBigC said:
... it wasn't anything I cared about at the time anyway. The Bush Doctrine was enough of a reason for me ...
Well your personal preferences aren't really at issue here.

TheBigC said:
... IMO things like WMD and Iraqi Freedom have been pretenses to get the American people behind doing gutty tough ugly work of winning the new Cold War.
To hell w/ the fundamental American principle that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed then.
 
ProudAmerican said:
Im trying to figure out how a man would possibly think he could "lie" about WMDs and not get caught.

if he NEW HE WAS LYING.......and NEW THERE WERE NO WMDS, dont you think he might have done a better job of comming up with responses to the accusations?

its not like we would have never found out there were no WMDs.

fact is, the president used the same intell that the administration before him used. NO ONE LIED.

I personally still believe the weapons were moved to syria while the UN screwed around with countless, pointless resolutions.

and there are a lot of dead Kurds that support my theory.

Not true. From what I have been able to discern, people believed Iraq had WMDs based primarily on two things -- statements of Iraqi ex-pats, or prisoners, indicating Iraq had WMDS; and the assumption that because Iraq had WMDs at one point, and had not explained their destruction adequately, that Iraq must still have them. The former data is inherently unreliable, unless the information can be sufficiently corraborated; the latter is a presumption that may be logical but is not proof.

There were significant intel changes since 2000, and even 2002. By early 2003, the inspectors had been back into Iraq looking for WMDs in the places where intel said they would be and finding ... nothing. Other "leads" supporting the argument that Iraq had WMDs (yellowcake purchases and aluminum tubes, for example) were debunked, which should have led an objective reviewer to question other assumptions about whether Iraq had WMDs.

There were in fact, some voices calling for a little more time, to let inspectors continue searching and find out whether Iraq had WMDs. But then, the Administration officials told us that they "now knew" Iraq had WMDs -- and the rush to war drowned out those counsling patience.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Good question. It looks as though you scanned several of the articles in which Tierny opined on wmds. I did that also and as I did, I kept getting the impression that he was really just begging somebody, anybody, to go to the places where he thought they would find wmds, particularly evidence of nukes. But by the time that anybody got there, it was too late, everything was gone and the place had been 'wiped clean', so to speak.

Particularly with the IAEA and the various UN inspection teams, I looked then and it looks now as if the Iraqis gamed them all. Successfuly. What was found was essentially what they were willing to let be found. By the time the ISG got there, there were no 'fingerprints' left.

Those are just my impressions. No proof, nothing specific to point to.

This is possible. But the probability that the Iraqis could have moved hundreds of tons of chemicals weapons, and the facilities for nuke construction programs, and wiped clean the place so effectively and so quickly seems pretty unlikely -- They don't seems sophisticated enough to not make a mistake.
 
GySgt said:
The problem with dealing with the decay underneath is that no President can declare war on this and no President can publicly acknowledge what the problems are - not while keeping diplomacy open to these people for our oil. Commentators, journalists, social experts, and military analysts can say these things all day, but the President of the free world cannot. If WMD was "sold" to get us there, so be it. I really don't care if there was a "lie."
Our american principles be damned then.

GySgt said:
There are so many non-issues that are exploited for our sheep of a population.
Perhaps some of that liberal elitism is rubbing off on you.

GySgt said:
I believe it is irrelevent to the issues, however irrelevent to the thread. What mattered was that we finally stopped turning our backs on the problem and stopped accepting their blame for what they have done to themselves.
It's not enough that we're merely doing something. We have to do the right things.

GySgt said:
American civilians have died and will continue to die because of this misdirected hate and blame. If President Bush never existed, some other guy at what ever time would have to be the one that took all of this heat for doing what we had to do to effectively encourage change to protect our people.
All that's at issue is whether or not invading Iraq was the best or even acceptable option to "effectively encourage change." The fact that something needs to be done is a given.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Well I was thinking of reports that represented the US Intel Community's consensus, like the NIE etc not isolated reports.
I was unaware that AD had published reports available. Would you be so kind as to provide a link?
Nice trick question. It's classified. That means you and I can't see it, but anyone who matters in the decisionmaking process can. How does yours or my access to it affect its existence or its relevance in this discussion? It's a counterexample demonstrating how US Intelligence was saying many things. Pointing at the naysaying reports and asking "why were these particular people ignored?" is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest. It was *one* voice among many.

Simon W. Moon said:
To hell w/ the fundamental American principle that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed then.
And we consented to let them make our decisions by voting them into office. This is not a direct democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic with representative government. Let's get some better candidates running for office and we'll have better government!
 
TheBigC said:
Nice trick question. It's classified. That means you and I can't see it ...
Then how do you know what in it? Would you link to your source for the info contained the AD reports?

TheBigC said:
... but anyone who matters in the decisionmaking process can.
Are saying that Team Bush accessed the AD stuff?

TheBigC said:
Pointing at the naysaying reports and asking "why were these particular people ignored?" is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest. It was *one* voice among many.
Did you notice that I mentioned the word 'consensus'? Consensus means that this was teh view of the community as a whole. This means that it was not "*one* voice among many." it was many voices speaking as one.

TheBigC said:
And we consented to let them make our decisions by voting them into office.
Congress, esp the House, votes for the concerns of its various electorates. The electorates' concerned were formed based on deceptive information. Consent cannot be based on a lie. That's fraud. Fraud is not consent. The elections of 2002 featured the Iraq war vote prominently.

Further our opportunity to vote folks out was frustrated by the intentional disinformation.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Our american principles be damned then.


It takes more than "American principles" to protect our American principles. It always has and it always will.
Simon W. Moon said:
All that's at issue is whether or not invading Iraq was the best or even acceptable option to "effectively encourage change." The fact that something needs to be done is a given.

Either way you look at it, Saddam had to go. Iraq was the only country in the Middle East that was not open to change and no amount of diplomacy was going to change that. He was a pillar of defiance and strength for the Islam community. It wasn't until after Baghdad fell, that the scandels of the UN were even lightly revealed and how deeply involved Saddam was concerning the world's leadership. Without Saddam's Regime falling, change in Syria (Baath Party) and Iran would never change. Not to mention, policy in the UN.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
It takes more than "American principles" to protect our American principles. It always has and it always will.

Yeah it takes American marines. Dont fvck with us!:lol:
 
GySgt said:
It takes more than "American principles" to protect our American principles. It always has and it always will.
As this is yet another given, I ask, "And ...?"

Don't make no sense nohow to give up or compromise the core principles to protect them.
 
Originally Posted by GySgt
Because it doesn't matter why it was "sold." The problem with dealing with the decay underneath is that no President can declare war on this and no President can publicly acknowledge what the problems are - not while keeping diplomacy open to these people for our oil. Commentators, journalists, social experts, and military analysts can say these things all day, but the President of the free world cannot. If WMD was "sold" to get us there, so be it. I really don't care if there was a "lie." The problem is that the Democrats will pull out all stops to show as much contriversey as possible to secure an election. They know very well of the issues the President cannot freely talk about and they exploit it publicly for all that it's worth. There are so many non-issues that are exploited for our sheep of a population. I believe it is irrelevent to the issues, however irrelevent to the thread. What mattered was that we finally stopped turning our backs on the problem and stopped accepting their blame for what they have done to themselves. American civilians have died and will continue to die because of this misdirected hate and blame. If President Bush never existed, some other guy at what ever time would have to be the one that took all of this heat for doing what we had to do to effectively encourage change to protect our people.
I do care about my elected representatives lying to me. I would also like to note that you are completely wrong on two points. And I do mean "complete" in every meaning of that word. First, its not our oil! And second, we didn't need protection from Iraqis!
 
Billo_Really said:
I do care about my elected representatives lying to me. I would also like to note that you are completely wrong on two points. And I do mean "complete" in every meaning of that word. First, its not our oil! And second, we didn't need protection from Iraqis!

Oil? Are you kidding? Your party gave up that talking point over a year ago. Try and keep up. Here, let me help. www.moveon.org
 
Billo_Really said:
I do care about my elected representatives lying to me. I would also like to note that you are completely wrong on two points. And I do mean "complete" in every meaning of that word. First, its not our oil! And second, we didn't need protection from Iraqis!


The oil in the Middle East is a resource used by the entire world. When we pay for it and protect it, we own a share. The same share you spew into your car. Remind yourself how that oil isn't yours the next time you're bitching about gasoline prices. Until you sell your car, stop buying any oil products, and begin walking everywhere, your illusions of being a sanctimonious, majestic, "being" above the rest, will continue to be nothing more than hypocrisy.

You don't need protection from Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Iranians, or Palestinians either. :roll: You don't know what you need. Your freshman comments show how obtuse you are to the situation. Be happy more enlightened people who actually study the region and the situation are calling the shots. Your emotions are showing again. Either you are being stupid on purpose, or you are pretending, because you have grown used to hating. Let any President get on TV and tell you the "truth" about the Middle East and the things that the western world has to do, and see how secure you are then. Stop being obtuse...it's become pathetic.

....On a second note, it is pretty stupid that a person has to rely on an elected leader to explain to him the issues of the Middle East and equally stupid for a person not to know what the issues are surrounding Islamic extremism. Maybe it's stupidity by design. You simply choose to be in the dark.
 
TheBigC said:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Don't ask for a link unless it will actually change your mind, which I doubt it will. So was there support of terrorists by Hussein, or not? Say it.

thanks for the link.

I thought it was common world knowledge that Nidal took up residence in Iraq.

sorry for my lack of participation. I was deer hunting all weekend. havent had much time for debate.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
The oil in the Middle East is a resource used by the entire world. When we pay for it and protect it, we own a share. The same share you spew into your car. Remind yourself how that oil isn't yours the next time you're bitching about gasoline prices. Until you sell your car, stop buying any oil products, and begin walking everywhere, your illusions of being a sanctimonious, majestic, "being" above the rest, will continue to be nothing more than hypocrisy.

You don't need protection from Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Iranians, or Palestinians either. You don't know what you need. Your freshman comments show how obtuse you are to the situation. Be happy more enlightened people who actually study the region and the situation are calling the shots. Your emotions are showing again. Either you are being stupid on purpose, or you are pretending, because you have grown used to hating. Let any President get on TV and tell you the "truth" about the Middle East and the things that the western world has to do, and see how secure you are then. Stop being obtuse...it's become pathetic.

....On a second note, it is pretty stupid that a person has to rely on an elected leader to explain to him the issues of the Middle East and equally stupid for a person not to know what the issues are surrounding Islamic extremism. Maybe it's stupidity by design. You simply choose to be in the dark.
This isn't about me.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
Oil? Are you kidding? Your party gave up that talking point over a year ago. Try and keep up. Here, let me help.
This post makes absolutely no sense.
 
My favorite liar by far :

_39061593_min-ap-203body.jpg



"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."
"We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
"they are nowhere near the airport ..they are lost in the desert...they can not read a compass...they are retarded."
"Yes, the American troops have advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them"
[On surrenders] "Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"
"We will slaughter them, Bush Jr. and his international gang of bastards!"
"We besieged them and killed most of them, and I think we will finish them soon."
"Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president."
Rumsfeld is "the worst kind of bastard"
"We are winning!"

I wonder who he will vote for in the assembly if he is still alive.....


He kind of sounds like a democrat.
 
akyron said:
My favorite liar by far :

_39061593_min-ap-203body.jpg



"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."
"We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
"they are nowhere near the airport ..they are lost in the desert...they can not read a compass...they are retarded."
"Yes, the American troops have advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them"
[On surrenders] "Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"
"We will slaughter them, Bush Jr. and his international gang of bastards!"
"We besieged them and killed most of them, and I think we will finish them soon."
"Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president."
Rumsfeld is "the worst kind of bastard"
"We are winning!"

I wonder who he will vote for in the assembly if he is still alive.....


He kind of sounds like a democrat.

great flashback
that was a humorous moment during the initial invasion LOL
and the correlation is uncanny
 
Originally posted by DeeJayH:
great flashback
that was a humorous moment during the initial invasion LOL
and the correlation is uncanny
And now its come to this...


bushstatuebaghdad2fp.jpg
 
Billo_Really said:
And now its come to this...


bushstatuebaghdad2fp.jpg
and yet IF and When his plan works, Bush will go down as one of the most influential and greatest presidents in our history
 
Billo_Really said:
And now its come to this...


bushstatuebaghdad2fp.jpg
and yet IF and When his plan works, Bush will go down as one of the most influential and greatest presidents in our history
 
I love it. The closer we get to elections, the more the libs photoshop different pictures together in order to serve their agenda.
 
Originally posted by DeeJayH:
and yet IF and When his plan works, Bush will go down as one of the most influential and greatest presidents in our history
Have you heard Illawi's comments recently?
 
Back
Top Bottom