Did Bush Lie?

[walstan]

President Bush never claimed Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. The claim that he did so is yet another lie propagated by the Democratic Party.

I’m very pleased to hjear that, because if it’s true then thats another excuse for invading Iraq up the tubes, so to speak. Keep going and there won’t be any excuse left!!

mlchance:

Yet another untruth. Saddam Hussein’s regime did have WMD. Now it doesn’t.

Ahh… the immortal cry of the right, “He did have them, we can’t find them; he must have moved them, but we didn’t see him; our intelligence said he had them, our intelligence can’t find them; but they must exist because WE say so!!”

I assume that your statement saying Now it doesn’t, means that you must now have them? Can we all see them please, or is that secret?

Thers an old Devonian saying, “If you go for a walk in the bog, make sure your shoes don’t leak” I have a distinct feeling somebody forgot to put their socks on, let alone their shoes!!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_133.gif

 

[estesbob]

It is ironic that the Democart smear campaign has hurt them worse than it has Bush. Their apporval rating is 6 points lower than his and nearly 2/3s of Americans believe that Demcorat comments on the war are politically motivated.

Having said that I think Bill Kristol put it best on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He quote hamilton and the reason we have 4 year terms for Presidents. It doesnt matter what the polls say-the presdent is free to do what he thinks is best for the country regardless of what current public opinion is.

The same attacks are being made against Bush that were made last year. Last November more Americans voted for Bush than had voted for any Presiednt in History. Bush continues to give every indication that that is the only poll he cares about. I say thank God for that.

 

[mlchance]

walstan:

I’m very pleased to hjear that, because if it’s true then thats another excuse for invading Iraq up the tubes, so to speak. Keep going and there won’t be any excuse left!!

That Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 was never an excuse for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet another untruth surfaces.

walstan:

Ahh… the immortal cry of the right, “He did have them, we can’t find them; he must have moved them, but we didn’t see him; our intelligence said he had them, our intelligence can’t find them; but they must exist because WE say so!!”

That’s not what I said. That Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMD is indisuptable. Where those WMD are right now is unknown. Maybe they were destroyed. Maybe some weren’t. Maybe some were hidden or shipped to Syria. Right now, no one knows.

Instead of an untruth, you’re now dealing with a fallacy: the argument from silence.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[walstan]

mlchance:

That’s not what I said. That Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMD is indisuptable. Where those WMD are right now is unknown. Maybe they were destroyed. Maybe some weren’t. Maybe some were hidden or shipped to Syria. Right now, no one knows.

Instead of an untruth, you’re now dealing with a fallacy: the argument from silence.

– Mark L. Chance.

So, let me get this right, on the one hand the argument is:

Saddam DID have WMD,s but we don’t know where they are, we don’t know what he did with them, we can’t find them and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

On the other hand;

Saddam DID NOT have MWD’s because we don’t know where they are, we don’t know what he did with them, we can’t find them, and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

Just about sums up the argument I think!

 

[SamCA]

Apparently, leaked CIA documents show that Bush was told flat-out on September 21st, 2001 by the CIA that there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq.

msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/

Which is funny, given that they spent the next two years telling the American people exactly the opposite.

 

[estesbob]

SamCA:

Apparently, leaked CIA documents show that Bush was told flat-out on September 21st, 2001 by the CIA that there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq.

msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/

Which is funny, given that they spent the next two years telling the American people exactly the opposite.

The same CIA that told him it was slam dunk that iraq had WMDs? The connection between Iraq and Al Quiada has been well documented. It has also been well documented that the Bush Admnistration never claimed such a connection meant Iraq was involved in any way with 9-11

The idea that the CIA could reach such a shattering (and erroneous) conclusion just 10 days after 9-11 shows you the depth of their incompetence.

 

[PiusXIII]

estesbob:

The same CIA that told him it was slam dunk that iraq had WMDs?

It was George Tenet that used the words “slam dunk” based on his desire to please the President. That’s one of the huge problems with this presidency–the President is surrounded by people who only tell him what they think he wants to hear. That’s what happened with Tenet on Iraq.

 

[estesbob]

PiusXIII:

It was George Tenet that used the words “slam dunk” based on his desire to please the President. That’s one of the huge problems with this presidency–the President is surrounded by people who only tell him what they think he wants to hear. That’s what happened with Tenet on Iraq.

George Tenet was the head of the CIA . You appear to be cherry picking what CIA statements you want to believe. Rejecting those that dont back up your wild conspiracy theories, embracing those that do.

 

[thestickman]

walstan:

we can’t find them and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

Fallacious argument: error of fact.

Were you aware of the fact Saddam gassed some few thousand Kurds and Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran war? That’s more than enough evidence they existed.

Bush didn’t lie about anything. We are now at post 147 and no one has been able, with any credibility at all, to prove Bush lied about WMD in any fashion.

 

[thestickman]

PiusXIII:

It was George Tenet that used the words “slam dunk” based on his desire to please the President. That’s one of the huge problems with this presidency–the President is surrounded by people who only tell him what they think he wants to hear. That’s what happened with Tenet on Iraq.

You know what these people thought? Amazing! Your evidence, please?

Your evidence Tenet wanted to please the President is???

Should be some interesting reading

 

[PiusXIII]

estesbob:

George Tenet was the head of the CIA . You appear to be cherry picking what CIA statements you want to believe. Rejecting those that dont back up your wild conspiracy theories, embracing those that do.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

Kind of like the way that the Bush administration people reject anything (in particular, facts) that don’t back up their wild conspiracy theories–like somehow Congressman Murtha being in league with Michael Moore.

 

[estesbob]

thestickman:

You know what these people thought? Amazing! Your evidence, please?

Your evidence Tenet wanted to please the President is???

Should be some interesting reading

I think maybe if we too got one of these we would see the wisdom of their words

zapatopi.net/afdb/

 

[thestickman]

estesbob:

I think maybe if we too got one of these we would see the wisdom of their words

zapatopi.net/afdb/

Purdy funny

 

[mlchance]

walstan:

So, let me get this right, on the one hand the argument is:

Saddam DID have WMD,s but we don’t know where they are, we don’t know what he did with them, we can’t find them and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

On the other hand;

Saddam DID NOT have MWD’s because we don’t know where they are, we don’t know what he did with them, we can’t find them, and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

Just about sums up the argument I think!

Then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking skills. Everyone knows Hussein had WMD. He was under orders to disarm. No one who has weapons must disarm. Did he disarm? This is the question that is up in the air. It appears he may have. Regardless, he no longer possesses WMD because he’s in jail.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

mlchance:

Then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking skills. Everyone knows Hussein had WMD. He was under orders to disarm. No one who has weapons must disarm. Did he disarm? This is the question that is up in the air. It appears he may have. Regardless, he no longer possesses WMD because he’s in jail.

– Mark L. Chance.

Of course he had WMDs. And even David Kay stated(in a report the left ignores) that he had every intention of restrating his WMD programs once the heat was off. In all liklihood the WMDs he had are now in Syria.

One question I ask over and ofver again and never get a rationale answer to is if Bush intentionally lied us into war- WHY???

You get a bunch of nonsense about Haliburton and blood for Oil and even some who claim he took the most powerful country on the face of the earth to war becuase Saddam tried to asassinate his Dad. But their is not an iota of evidence to back up these assertions. In fact the evidence is overwehlming that Bush, like the overwhelming majortiy of the Comgress and like the intelligence agncies of every western power, believed Saddam was a threat that could not be ignored. I believe that was true then and is true now. It is unfortunate that depsite a decade of attacks that we failed to take decisive action until the Twin Towers lay in ruin and 3,000 Americans were dead.

 

[2shelbys]

walstan:

So, let me get this right, on the one hand the argument is:

Saddam DID have WMD,s but we don’t know where they are, we don’t know what he did with them, we can’t find them and we have no firm evidence of their existance.

No, Saddam DID have them because he has USED THEM on enemy soldiers in battle and against his own people. He DID have them because he was twarting the attempts of the inspectors to the point of not allowing them in the country (why prevent someone from looking for something you do not have). He DID have them because we have video, photo, and audio evidence of Iraq hiding, and eventually sending to Syria whole convoys of something they knew they were not supposed to have. He DID have them because several things HAVE BEEN FOUND and there is even one instance of a roadside bomb that contained chemical agents. Links to the proof of this have been posted earlier in this thread. When you jump into a thread late you should really read through the whole thread first so you do not post claims that have already been proven wrong.

 

[2shelbys]

SamCA:

Apparently, leaked CIA documents show that Bush was told flat-out on September 21st, 2001 by the CIA that there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq.

msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/

Which is funny, given that they spent the next two years telling the American people exactly the opposite.

You are misrepresenting the story. It did not say that “there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq” it said that there was no evidence of direct responsibility for 9/11. No one has said they were directly responsible for 9/11 and it was never given as a reason for the war. Every investigation including the 9/11 Commission report has cited undeniable proof of links between Iraq and Al Quieda.

 

[mlchance]

2shelbys:

You are misrepresenting the story. It did not say that “there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq” it said that there was no evidence of direct responsibility for 9/11.

Precisely correct. There is a substantial difference between these two statements:

A. There is no evidence of a link between Al-Q and Hussein.

B. There is no evidence of a link between Al-Q, Hussein, and 9/11.

Statement A is false. Statement B is true as far as we know, and no one in the Bush adminstration ever claimed Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philip_P]

2shelbys:

You are misrepresenting the story. It did not say that “there was no credible evidence of a leak between Al Quieda and Iraq” it said that there was no evidence of direct responsibility for 9/11. No one has said they were directly responsible for 9/11 and it was never given as a reason for the war. Every investigation including the 9/11 Commission report has cited undeniable proof of links between Iraq and Al Quieda.

Given that there are also substantial links between the United States and Al Queda, then, maybe someone should invade the United States? Would Iran be justified in attacking us given our support of Hussein? Would Saudi Arabia be justified in attacking us given our providing arms and training to bin Laden? Would any of the host of Latin American counties whose internal strife we’ve fuled be justified in attacking us?

I don’t believe our unneighborly policies in the past would justify a country attacking us…but the same logic also leads to the conclusion that our invasion of Iraq was also unjustified.

 

[estesbob]

Philip P:

Given that there are also substantial links between the United States and Al Queda, then, maybe someone should invade the United States? Would Iran be justified in attacking us given our support of Hussein? Would Saudi Arabia be justified in attacking us given our providing arms and training to bin Laden? Would any of the host of Latin American counties whose internal strife we’ve fuled be justified in attacking us?

I don’t believe our unneighborly policies in the past would justify a country attacking us…but the same logic also leads to the conclusion that our invasion of Iraq was also unjustified.

Of course none of this is true. There are not substanial links between the US and Al queda. When corrected on your repeated assertion that were no links between Iraq and al Queda it now appears you wnat to change the subject

The only help given Hussein was sattelite photos during the Iran Iraq war-it was in our best interests and the best interests of the world that Iran NOT overun Iraq

We did not arm and train Bin laden-we gave support to those opposing the Soviet Uions invasion of Iraq. The fact that Bin Laden had peripheral connections with some of these groups does not constitute arming and training him.

Your assertion about our latin American policy is the most specious. It reminds me of all the crocodile tears from the Democrat party when Reagan engineered free elections in Nicaragua-they were amazed when contrary to their claims about support for “Comrade Noriega” the people overwhelmingly threw out the Sandinistas. The same can be said for Panama and Grenada. The biggest abusers of human rights in the region today are Cuba and Venezuala-countries noticeably absent from your rant.

You remind me of the people mentioned one of the verses in the “making a list” song in Gilbert and Sullivans Mikado. The Lord high executioner condemns ;

“People who praise
in enthusiatic tones
every country but the one they’re in
every century but their own”