Did Bush Lie?

[estesbob]

Vincent N:

The key word is “deliberate”. If you continue to accuse someone of lying while being aware that you have no proof of their intentions, yet promoting your opinions as truths, you would be deliberately leaving the false impression that they have lied. The liar then becomes yourself. Of course you need to do it a few times before the label starts to stick…

I would settle for him giving us an instance of somethig that was said that would give the impression that Iraqi’s were on thos planes. Since he claims it was done repeatedly that shouldnt be too hard-however after months of asking for a cite none has been forthcoming.

 

[walstan]

thestickman:

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.

Error of what FACT? We can’t find them? Well, if you KNOW where they are I’m sure we would ALL love you to tell us. How about EVIDENCE? If you’ve got it please share it, the whole world is holding its collective breath!!

Iran/Iraq war, now let me think… Ohh yes, that was the war that went from 1980 to 1988, now I would suggest that some of the contributors to this board and in particular this subject weren’t even born when that war started and, yes there was no doubt that AT THAT TIME Iraq had weapons that were chemical in nature, but, that was then, to transpose that scenario into 2003 is not only stretching credulity it’s also attempting to subvert reality. The question must; if this hypothesis is correct, arise is, if Saddam had weapons of Mass destruction after 1990 why didn’t “Daddy” do something about it? After all isn’t George a “chip of the old block” as they say? And also why is it that the story and emphasis on Iraq’s WMD’s only came into the public domain and political prominance AFTER 9/11? Where they not also a threat BEFORE 9/11? (If of course they actually existed).

I’m really pleased to hear that Bush hasn’t lied about anything, the last fellow I know of like that died a horrible death about two thousand years ago.

As I said in a earlier post I think it’s going to get very interesting in a few years time when Bush no longer has the power and authority he now has. The world is a wonderful place where the truth ALWAYS eventually surfaces. I wonder how much super back-tracking we will see then?

 

[thestickman]

walstan:

Error of what FACT? We can’t find them? Well, if you KNOW where they are I’m sure we would ALL love you to tell us. How about EVIDENCE? If you’ve got it please share it, the whole world is holding its collective breath!!

Repeating the same fallacious argument over and again won’t make it any less so.

Iran/Iraq war, now let me think… Ohh yes, that was the war that went from 1980 to 1988, now I would suggest that some of the contributors to this board and in particular this subject weren’t even born when that war started and, yes there was no doubt that AT THAT TIME Iraq had weapons that were chemical in nature, but, that was then, to transpose that scenario into 2003 is not only stretching credulity it’s also attempting to subvert reality. The question must; if this hypothesis is correct, arise is, if Saddam had weapons of Mass destruction after 1990 why didn’t “Daddy” do something about it? After all isn’t George a “chip of the old block” as they say? And also why is it that the story and emphasis on Iraq’s WMD’s only came into the public domain and political prominance AFTER 9/11? Where they not also a threat BEFORE 9/11? (If of course they actually existed).

A whole host of fallacious arguments in that paragraph. Asking questions about what Bush41 might/should have done have zip to do with this thread or your invalid assertion. Your assertion about WMD in Iraq only becoming into the public domain/political prominance after 9/11 is factually incorrect. In 1998, President Clinton determined because Saddam was such a threat that the official policy of the US regarding Iraq was that regime change was neccessary, in part because of Saddam’s WMD and his willingness to use them.

“Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);”

I’m really pleased to hear that Bush hasn’t lied about anything, the last fellow I know of like that died a horrible death about two thousand years ago.

Relevance to the topic?

As I said in a earlier post I think it’s going to get very interesting in a few years time when Bush no longer has the power and authority he now has. The world is a wonderful place where the truth ALWAYS eventually surfaces. I wonder how much super back-tracking we will see then?

Dunno. We will all have to wait see. You are right about truth always coming to the top. Took 20 years before the truth of the successfulness of President Regan’s policies were so clear the MSM had to grudgingly ackowledge them. It’s not taken as long to learn of the failures of the Clinton policies. I figure it will be 20 years after he is out of office before the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere are finally recognized for the great good they have accomplished.

Up to 182 posts now and no one offer up a shred of proof Bush lied

 

[2shelbys]

walstan:

Error of what FACT? We can’t find them? Well, if you KNOW where they are I’m sure we would ALL love you to tell us. How about EVIDENCE? If you’ve got it please share it, the whole world is holding its collective breath!!

Again I ask that you read through this thread before posting unsubstantiated claims. I know it is long but in post #44 I gave sources for the evidence you are apparantly unaware of.

 

[estesbob]

Thekla:

You were incorrect in what you said that I said.

One of the definitions of a “lie” is to “deliberately leave a false impression.” I’ve said that I believe the administration made repeated connections between Iraq and 9/11 that left Americans with a false impression. It got to the point that people actually thought there were Iraqis on the planes on 9/11. It was common knowledge that many Americans believed this yet the administration did nothing to dissuade them until October of 2003; 6 months after the invasion.

Its time we put this myth to rest, The admnistration categorically denied Saddam or Iraq had any involvement 5 days after 9-11 Heres what Dick Cheney had to say on the subject on September 16, 2001:

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he’s harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is — in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to your assertions the people who belived Iraq was involved steadily DROPPED over time-probably because the Adminsitrations repeated denial that Saddam had anything to with 9-11

% of People who believed Iraq had was involved in 9-11 were:

9-13-2001 78%
9-01-2002 51%
3-01-2003 45%
10-1-2005 33%

Note that just before the Liberation of Iraq began less than half of Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Of course the democrats keep this myth alive. Just last Sunday Senator Carl Levin said :

He made the link so strong that the majority of the American people believed, when we went into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had actually attacked us on 9/11. Where do you think the American people got that impression from except from their leaders?

-------------------------------

Looks like you and Levin are reading from the same DNC talking points

As the polls I cited show what Levin Said(and what you have claimed repatedly) simply is not true. The majority of the people did **NOT **believe Saddam or Iraq was involved with 9-11 when we went into Iraq and the Adminsitration made this clear 5 days after 9-11-not 6 months after the Liberation began, as you claimed So perhaps we should change this threads name to Did Levin Lie?

 

[estesbob]

thestickman:

Dunno. We will all have to wait see. You are right about truth always coming to the top. Took 20 years before the truth of the successfulness of President Regan’s policies were so clear the MSM had to grudgingly ackowledge them. It’s not taken as long to learn of the failures of the Clinton policies. I figure it will be 20 years after he is out of office before the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere are finally recognized for the great good they have accomplished.

Up to 182 posts now and no one offer up a shred of proof Bush lied

What Bush has done is finally going to bring stability to the Middle East. Once democracy breaks out its hard to stop it. Of course what will happen when this becomes apparent is the Democrats will claim they suported the Invasion of Iraq all along and that the fact Demcracy broke out was an accident of History and Bush had nothing to do with it. They tried the same thing with Reagans vanquishing of Communism and liberation of Eastern Europe. Fortunatley History has proven otherwise.

 

[walstan]

thestickman:

Repeating the same fallacious argument over and again won’t make it any less so.

Quite true, it’s like unsubstantiated denials.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_9_211.gif

 

[Thekla]

Vincent N:

The key word is “deliberate”. If you continue to accuse someone of lying while being aware that you have no proof of their intentions, yet promoting your opinions as truths, you would be deliberately leaving the false impression that they have lied. The liar then becomes yourself. Of course you need to do it a few times before the label starts to stick…

Right after 9/11, polling data shows that when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of 2003, a Knight Ridder poll had 44 percent of Americans responding that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

The Iraq Group was formed in the WH almost a year prior to going to the UN. Here’s an example of leaving a false impression and it happens over time using repetition of statements such as these.

My president in May of 2003 - "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America."

When you use Iraq and 9/11 right next to each other, in fact in the same sentence, repeatedly over a period of time; when you know that many Americans are coming to believe that there were Iraqis on the planes, and when you do nothing to dissuade them, I don’t see how it is not clear and convincing evidence of deliberately leaving a false impression.

 

[estesbob]

Thekla:

Right after 9/11, polling data shows that when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of 2003, a Knight Ridder poll had 44 percent of Americans responding that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

The Iraq Group was formed in the WH almost a year prior to going to the UN. Here’s an example of leaving a false impression and it happens over time using repetition of statements such as these.

My president in May of 2003 - "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America."

When you use Iraq and 9/11 right next to each other, in fact in the same sentence, repeatedly over a period of time; when you know that many Americans are coming to believe that there were Iraqis on the planes, and when you do nothing to dissuade them, I don’t see how it is not clear and convincing evidence of deliberately leaving a false impression.

It is interesting to see you furiously backpedalling on the assertions you have been making throughout this thread. You totally ignored my post proving just about every claim you have made in this thread is incorrect. In addition evne the polls you posted show that the majortiy of Amecians did NOT believe that Saddam Hussein or Iraq was involved with 9-11 at the time the liberation of Iraq-despite yours and the Democrats party’s repeated assertions that they did.

As I pointed out(and you ignored) the opinion that Iraq or Hussein was involved in 9-11 has steadily dropped since 9-11, stood at only 45% prior to the start of the liberation of iraq and stands at only 33% today, I also posted a direct quote from Dick Cheney categorically denying any involvement of Iraq in 9-11 just 5 DAYS after the 9-11 attack. You claimed they waited until 6 months after the liberation began.

It was nice of you to quote Bush-especially since none of the quotes you posted backs up your assertion

 

[Thekla]

estesbob:

It is interesting to see you furiously backpedalling on the assertions you have been making throughout this thread. You totally ignored my post proving just about every claim you have made in this thread is incorrect. In addition evne the polls you posted show that the majortiy of Amecians did NOT believe that Saddam Hussein or Iraq was involved with 9-11 at the time the liberation of Iraq-despite yours and the Democrats party’s repeated assertions that they did.

As I pointed out(and you ignored) the opinion that Iraq or Hussein was involved in 9-11 has steadily dropped since 9-11, stood at only 45% prior to the start of the liberation of iraq and stands at only 33% today, I also posted a direct quote from Dick Cheney categorically denying any involvement of Iraq in 9-11 just 5 DAYS after the 9-11 attack. You claimed they waited until 6 months after the liberation began.

It was nice of you to quote Bush-especially since none of the quotes you posted backs up your assertion

Since you failed to give the source of your polling data, it’s not possible for me to respond to it. Likewise for my “furious backpedaling.”

The fact that 44% of Americans believed that there were Iraqis who hijacked the planes on 9/11, sixteen months after it happened, is breathtaking. The correct answer was 0. Remember, the Knight-Ridder poll was taken 5 months after they rolled out their “new product.” And I’m not certain what you think anything Dick Cheney said on 9/16/01 has to do with it; that was a year before the rollout of their “new product.”

You might have used a more interesting MTP Cheney interview from September of 2003…

"MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

         MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

        VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know...."

Mr. Bush came out a couple of days later with his first “no evidence” statement. Of course Mr. Cheney wasn’t surprised about the connection people had made. It was apparently the very connection he wanted them to make.

 

[gnjsdad]

2shelbys:

As far as the lie that nothing has been found, you can look for yourself if you choose to. I have seen it all and really do not feel like doing the homework for you but here are a couple of sources to get you started:

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

Are you serious? A few degraded chemical shells (probably leftovers from the Gulf War or earlier which I’ll bet the Iraqis didn’t even know they had) is some kind of proof that Saddam posed a threat to the US? This is your justification for 2,000 dead and up to 20,000 wounded Americans? Not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians?

I’m old enough to remember a real threat to the US, the Soviet threat. They had literally thousands of nuclear warheads aimed right at us. Now there was a real WMD threat if there ever was one.

You probably mean well, and I really don’t mean to be rude, but this stuff quite frankly insults my intelligence. Some old decrepit chemical shells (technically WMD) are just not in the same league as MIRVable nuclear weapons (also WMD)

2shelbys:

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, and you can find detailed information in New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter’s book, “Disinformation”.

You will find the accounts of our trops finding (among other things):

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas (actual USE of a chemical weapon against our troops!!!
• Found: Over 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin.

You can dismiss the sources and ignore the truth but that will not make it go away.

I will give Mr Miniter credit. He’s obviously discovered there’s a lucrative market for the kind of stuff he’s peddling.

I’ll bet most of the stuff he’s “found” in Iraq has a thousand peaceful purposes, and exists in copious quantities in every state in the United States.

 

[koda]

gnjsdad:

Are you serious? A few degraded chemical shells (probably leftovers from the Gulf War or earlier which I’ll bet the Iraqis didn’t even know they had) is some kind of proof that Saddam posed a threat to the US? This is your justification for 2,000 dead and up to 20,000 wounded Americans? Not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians?

I’m old enough to remember a real threat to the US, the Soviet threat. They had literally thousands of nuclear warheads aimed right at us. Now there was a real WMD threat if there ever was one.

You probably mean well, and I really don’t mean to be rude, but this stuff quite frankly insults my intelligence. Some old decrepit chemical shells (technically WMD) are just not in the same league as MIRVable nuclear weapons (also WMD)

I will give Mr Miniter credit. He’s obviously discovered there’s a lucrative market for the kind of stuff he’s peddling.

I’ll bet most of the stuff he’s “found” in Iraq has a thousand peaceful purposes, and exists in copious quantities in every state in the United States.

Chemicals cound mean something as common as amonia. Radioactive - probably the DU left from GW1.

 

[koda]

Here’s a great link to a story on just how Saddam got some of that stuff:

guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

 

[estesbob]

Thekla:

Since you failed to give the source of your polling data, it’s not possible for me to respond to it. Likewise for my “furious backpedaling.”

The fact that 44% of Americans believed that there were Iraqis who hijacked the planes on 9/11, sixteen months after it happened, is breathtaking. The correct answer was 0. Remember, the Knight-Ridder poll was taken 5 months after they rolled out their “new product.” And I’m not certain what you think anything Dick Cheney said on 9/16/01 has to do with it; that was a year before the rollout of their “new product.”

.

You have been proven incorrect in every point you attempted to make. Your assertion that a majority of americans believed that Iraqis were involved with 9-11 prior to our Liberation of Iraq is flat out false-as even the polls you quote show cotradict your assertion. It has been shown that, contrary to your assertions, both Bush and Cheney categorically denied that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 and that both of these denied it LONG BEFORE the liberation began. You claimed they didnt deny it until 6 months AFTER we entered Iraq. The first poll I cited was a CNN poll-the rest were CBS polls, All the polls cited, even the one you cited, contradict your assertion that the beleif that Iraq was involved with 9-11 INCREASED over time because of Bush et al was misleading the company. As numerous people have pointed out you have yet to provide any evidence that Bush, Cheney or anyone in his administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11. In fact the opposite is true.

 

[estesbob]

koda:

Here’s a great link to a story on just how Saddam got some of that stuff:

guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

LOL-they didnt have them but by gosh if they had had then it was Rumsfild’s fault. Quoting the Guradian is akin to Quoting the National Enquirer.

 

[koda]

estesbob:

LOL-they didnt have them but by gosh if they had had then it was Rumsfild’s fault. Quoting the Guradian is akin to Quoting the National Enquirer.

You’re taking this out of context. I was responding to the list of chemicals and radioactive “things” that were listed as WMD by 2shelbys - as to where good ole Saddam got them - from his buddy Donald.

As for sources, I’ve seen this same info in other places and do not doubt it is true. Of course, there are some who’d believe the sky was green if they heard it on Fox news.

 

[estesbob]

koda:

You’re taking this out of context. I was responding to the list of chemicals and radioactive “things” that were listed as WMD by 2shelbys - as to where good ole Saddam got them - from his buddy Donald.

As for sources, I’ve seen this same info in other places and do not doubt it is true. Of course, there are some who’d believe the sky was green if they heard it on Fox news.

His good old buddy Don gave him the WMDs he doesnt have??? This gets more ludicrous by the moment.

 

[Thekla]

estesbob:

You have been proven incorrect in every point you attempted to make. Your assertion that a majority of americans believed that Iraqis were involved with 9-11 prior to our Liberation of Iraq is flat out false-as even the polls you quote show cotradict your assertion. It has been shown that, contrary to your assertions, both Bush and Cheney categorically denied that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 and that both of these denied it LONG BEFORE the liberation began. You claimed they didnt deny it until 6 months AFTER we entered Iraq. The first poll I cited was a CNN poll-the rest were CBS polls, All the polls cited, even the one you cited, contradict your assertion that the beleif that Iraq was involved with 9-11 INCREASED over time because of Bush et al was misleading the company. As numerous people have pointed out you have yet to provide any evidence that Bush, Cheney or anyone in his administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11. In fact the opposite is true.

I’m having a difficult time responding to you because you appear to be incorrectly quoting me. Should I assume that you are doing it by mistake?

Please provide me with a link or a post number or something where I assert that “a majority of Americans believed that Iraqis were involved with 9-11…” I consistently cite the Knight-Ridder poll from January 2003 which had 44% of Americans indicating that hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqis when the correct number was 0%.

BTW- I’m trying to find the CBS poll, although I don’t think they show what you think they show. The methodology of the CNN/WP poll is questionable because rather than asking Americans after 9/11 who was responsible, it gives them a name and a country and asks them to respond. Furthermore, it combines the “very likely” in with the “somewhat likely” for a lump sum. The KR poll, which was an open-ended poll (that means they don’t lead people) is far more accurate. That number was 3%.

Remember, Americans shouldn’t have been saying that Iraq was involved with 9/11 in September of 03 (around the time of the “new product” rollout) since there was no evidence of any such thing.

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

Remember, Americans shouldn’t have been saying that Iraq was involved with 9/11 in September of 03 (around the time of the “new product” rollout) since there was no evidence of any such thing.

You’re right, they shouldn’t, but there’s no evidence that the administration made a falacious link. As Cheney said, it’s not surprising Americans made the link on thier own. Desert Storm was not that far from memory, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were described as middle eastern.

 

[koda]

estesbob:

His good old buddy Don gave him the WMDs he doesnt have??? This gets more ludicrous by the moment.

You’re doing the same thing to me that you’re doing to Thekla. Refer to the post where 2shelbys is quoted with a list of WMDs
Originally Posted by 2shelbys (copied below)

*Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, and you can find detailed information in New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter’s book, “Disinformation”.

You will find the accounts of our trops finding (among other things):

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas (actual USE of a chemical weapon against our troops!!!
• Found: Over 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin.*

The link you so quickly dismissed to the UK Guardian story reports on Donald and his connections to Iraq during the Reagan Admin and the chemical/other weapons the U.S. and U.S. companies sold to Saddam.

As to whether there are or are not WMDs it a matter of interpretation. Again as I mentioned below, chemicals could mean amonia and the radioactive elements could be DU left from GWI. I do not doubt, however, that you will manage to twist this around to somehow suit your own agenda, as you seem to do with all posts you disagree with. As to whether you do this purposefully - only you know for sure.