maineman
Banned
once convicted, a criminal IS guilty. and one assumes that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt or the jury would not have convicted him.
your analogy is flawed and irrelevant.
once convicted, a criminal IS guilty. and one assumes that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt or the jury would not have convicted him.
your analogy is flawed and irrelevant.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, even with the legal definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" there is and can be some doubt. And again, when dealing with matters of international intelligence, the legal bar is not nearly as high.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the phrase "no doubt" is an idiom......it can mean most likely, most certaintly....or without any doubt....in the context, i have no doubt bush was using the former.....as he believed iraq most likely has WMD's as did the rest of the world and the democrats that liberals hacks refuse to call liars.....
to hang one's argument on the phrase "no doubt" is weak, embarrassing and stupifying....as if all the others who did not give such a qualifier, yet spoke affirmatively, were merely saying...........maybe.....
utter nonsense and pure partisan fancy
to hang one's argument on the phrase "no doubt" is weak, embarrassing and stupifying....as if all the others who did not give such a qualifier, yet spoke affirmatively, were merely saying...........maybe.....
utter nonsense and pure partisan fancy
maineman
Banned
"no doubt" is an idiom as a transitional or interpretive phrase.
in the following sentence, it is not used as such.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD'S
and please note that if they had said "I have no doubt", that would have been an opinion and, therefore, acceptable... but "THERE IS no doubt" is a statement of fact... and it is, no doubt, a lie.
maineman
Banned
this is not a matter of international intelligence. It is a matter of grammar...and of honesty.
"THERE IS NO DOUBT" is a statement of fact, not opinion, and when used to describe the existence of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's it was a lie.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is that the Bill Clinton quote?.....they all sound so much alike it's hard to tell them apart anymore.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao.....and you accuse me of splitting hairs and arguming minutia.....you're such a hack....as if no others affirmatively said he had wmd's....as only saying "no doubt" means he lied.....that is such minutia meadowmuffins it is beneath even my standard of splitting hairs.....
i'm sure you will be honest and say these people lied as well (small sample):
^this letter was signed by numerous dems
[quote]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [/quote]
it is the height of stupidity to hang your hat on the phrase "no doubt".....one does not have to use the phrase to lie....to say otherwise is simply not true....
i've destroyed your argument on this before....
i'm sure you will be honest and say these people lied as well (small sample):
^this letter was signed by numerous dems
[quote]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [/quote]
it is the height of stupidity to hang your hat on the phrase "no doubt".....one does not have to use the phrase to lie....to say otherwise is simply not true....
i've destroyed your argument on this before....
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
edit....posted above
edit....posted above
maineman
Banned
all of those statements were inaccurate... the president's team, however, having unparalleled access to all the raw intelligence, caveats, qualifiers and all, KNEW that doubt DID exist and blatantly lied by saying otherwise.
and unlike all those others, Team Bush used THAT lie, in juxtaposition with the OTHER great lie - that being the certainty of a Saddam-Osama alliance - to justify the urgency of their rush to war. None of those other democratic politicians quoted tied the two together and NONE of them ordered our troops to invade, conquer and occupy a sovereign nation based on those statements.
In that, Bush stands alone.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol.....dems say it....only "inaccurate".....not a lie....
and then really getting into minutia with this "great" lie....lmao
thanks for proving, once again, what a intellectually dishonest hack you are
There is no disputing the path of deception that the admin took on this anymore; it's ludicrous to try. There are many sources, on both the right & left, who corroborate the admin's desire to make a case to the American people by cherrypicking & stacking the evidence, and not presenting it objectively: Paul O'Neil, Clarke, Colin Powell's aide, Paul Wolfowicz, British intel, Tom Ridge, a bipartisan Senate investigation (which concluded that they did indeed manipulate intel).
It's overwhelming - a slam dunk, as they say.
It's overwhelming - a slam dunk, as they say.
maineman
Banned
lol.....dems say it....only "inaccurate".....not a lie....
and then really getting into minutia with this "great" lie....lmao
thanks for proving, once again, what a intellectually dishonest hack you are
a lie is only a lie if the person speaking it KNOWS for a fact that what they are saying is not true. I have no doubt that all those politicians thought what they said was true at the time they said it.... I also have no doubt that when someone who KNOWS that doubt exists about something says that THERE IS NO DOUBT ...that they KNOW when they are making that statement that is is not true... and it is, therefore, more than merely inaccurate... it is a LIE.
and I have to say that it is intellectually dishonest for you to continue to intellectually dishonestly misuse the phrase intellectual dishonesty to the point where it becomes mind numbing... and shows, on your part a level of intellectual dishonesty that I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not point out... honestly.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what a hack.....i gave you quotes from dems that said "there is no doubt" and "without question".....
how dishonest of you to ignore those.....and yes, you are in fact being intellectually dishonest by excusing dems for saying the same thing bush said but only calling bush a liar.....
you don't like the term....stop being dishonest, simply really
how dishonest of you to ignore those.....and yes, you are in fact being intellectually dishonest by excusing dems for saying the same thing bush said but only calling bush a liar.....
you don't like the term....stop being dishonest, simply really
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yeah.....thats why all the prominent dems before bush took office said the same thing
That's a lazy argument.
In retrospect, it's clear that the admin was given a lot of conflicting information - certainly enough to give pause for invasion. Combine that with Hans Blix's testimony to Congress in March of 2003, where he said that inspectors were being given unfettered access to all suspected sites, and it's very clear that we rushed to war when we didn't have to, and cherrypicked the evidence that would beat the war drums the loudest.
I'm not even doing this to be argumentative. I've been watching this since 2001, and how it has developed. It's one of the great American tragedies, that was so avoidable, on so many levels. You say that you're relatively new to politics; I'd urge you to really look at the history of what happened here, and what the admin did to make this war happen.
It is definitely a cautionary tale, and one we can hope to avoid in future years.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, in the context of international intelligence, the statement is accurate as explained to you earlier. It looks like you don't have anything more to add...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no, it is the truth
We went through your stupidity long ago....
Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with guilt.....
If you steal from the bank....you ARE GUILTY OF BEING A THIEF....the fact that you committed the act makes you guilty and a thief, you fool...
being convicted or not convicted in a court will not change the FACT that you ARE A THIEF....
I'll would think even a pinhead could understand this...
Last edited:
a lie is only a lie if the person speaking it KNOWS for a fact that what they are saying is not true. I have no doubt that all those politicians thought what they said was true at the time they said it.... I also have no doubt that when someone who KNOWS that doubt exists about something says that THERE IS NO DOUBT ...that they KNOW when they are making that statement that is is not true... and it is, therefore, more than merely inaccurate... it is a LIE.
and I have to say that it is intellectually dishonest for you to continue to intellectually dishonestly misuse the phrase intellectual dishonesty to the point where it becomes mind numbing... and shows, on your part a level of intellectual dishonesty that I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not point out... honestly.
Declassified Excerpts Released by the White House on July 18, 2003
Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE)
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:
* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
* Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
* Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
Moderate Confidence:
* Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (see INR alternative view, page 84).
Low Confidence:
* When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction
* Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
* Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
----------------------------------------------
I freely admit, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research(Carl W. Ford Jr.) under Colin Powell claimed the intell wasn't solid enough...so what....
I'd go with the 16 intelligence agencys that write the NIE first....as any President would....
So now that you've been schooled again, why don't you give it a fuckin' rest.
Being a patriot isn't all that bad, give it a try....
