maineman
Banned
yes I have and I sure as hell and done repeating it to you over and over again. I know you are thick and obtuse, but NOBODY can be THIS thick and obtuse....
the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
yes I have and I sure as hell and done repeating it to you over and over again. I know you are thick and obtuse, but NOBODY can be THIS thick and obtuse....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
whether you feel he needed to convince us or not is not at issue....
It has nothing to do with "my feeling" here... it has to do with executive powers of the President of the United States. He doesn't require your permission or approval on any action regarding the command of the armed forces, that is his responsibility as president. You did agree with this point. While it would be politically advantageous for Bush to "convince" you, it's not a requirement, and it certainly isn't something that would justify an intentional and provable lie, as that would result in defeating the whole purpose of "convincing" you in the first place!
It has nothing to do with "my feeling" here... it has to do with executive powers of the President of the United States. He doesn't require your permission or approval on any action regarding the command of the armed forces, that is his responsibility as president. You did agree with this point. While it would be politically advantageous for Bush to "convince" you, it's not a requirement, and it certainly isn't something that would justify an intentional and provable lie, as that would result in defeating the whole purpose of "convincing" you in the first place!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
we agree that it is impossible to HAVE absolute certainty.... but regardless, members of Team Bush conveyed absolute certainty when they specifically knew that none existed.
LOL... So, it's absolutely and fundamentally impossible for this to occur, yet Bush still did it? That makes complete sense to me!
LOL... So, it's absolutely and fundamentally impossible for this to occur, yet Bush still did it? That makes complete sense to me!
maineman
Banned
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Aug. 26, 2002 Dick Cheney, Vice President
not.... "There is no doubt in MY mind"....not "there is very little doubt".... but there is no doubt
that is the textbook definition of absolute certainty.
that is a lie.
Aug. 26, 2002 Dick Cheney, Vice President
not.... "There is no doubt in MY mind"....not "there is very little doubt".... but there is no doubt
that is the textbook definition of absolute certainty.
that is a lie.
maineman
Banned
English is tough for you, isn't it?
It is nearly impossible to HAVE absolute certainty...it is certainly not impossible to convey absolute certainty.... and when you convey it when you don't really have it...that is conveying a false impression... that is a lie.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is nearly impossible to HAVE absolute certainty...
Correct! So, why do you continue to maintain the administration conveyed something that was impossible to have conveyed? Why do you maintain they convinced people of something that was inherently impossible? And why in hell would they ever think they could do the impossible, and base a war on outright lies, and everything would work to perfection? None of it makes a lick of sense, it defies any rational logic, it flies in the face of common sense and reasoning, and it has no tenable justification whatsoever.
Correct! So, why do you continue to maintain the administration conveyed something that was impossible to have conveyed? Why do you maintain they convinced people of something that was inherently impossible? And why in hell would they ever think they could do the impossible, and base a war on outright lies, and everything would work to perfection? None of it makes a lick of sense, it defies any rational logic, it flies in the face of common sense and reasoning, and it has no tenable justification whatsoever.
maineman
Banned
I never said it was impossible to convey such an idea...it certainly is quite possible to convey such an idea. Bush, Cheney, Rummy did so repeatedly. They conveyed the impression that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's. THey said it.... whether they OUGHT to have said it...well of course they oughtn't...but the DID... and it was a lie when they said it...because they were conveying a false impression.
If I were to say here: I have incontrovertible evidence that Dixie is a rapist and then I storm into your home and find cut up dead bodies in your refrigerator, and you end up going to jail for murder and doing the chickendance in the electric chair...no one will care that the proof of your raping was never displayed.
If Bush had never found WMD's but replaced Saddam with a blossoming jeffersonian democracy that became our staunchest ally in the war on terror and a primo vacation spot for American tourists, no one would have gotten any traction out of bitching about no WMD's....
maineman
Banned
again....here is my entire quote
English is tough for you, isn't it?
It is nearly impossible to HAVE absolute certainty...it is certainly not impossible to convey absolute certainty.... and when you convey it when you don't really have it...that is conveying a false impression... that is a lie.
Why don't you ask yourself why the Bush administration was trying to convey something that we now know was impossible?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I never said it was impossible to convey such an idea...it certainly is quite possible to convey such an idea.
It's impossible to be certain, you admitted that. Yes, I suppose, it's possible to convey the idea the moon is made of cheese too, but who is going to be ignorant enough to believe that? What would be the point in conveying something that was impossible for any rational person to believe?
It's impossible to be certain, you admitted that. Yes, I suppose, it's possible to convey the idea the moon is made of cheese too, but who is going to be ignorant enough to believe that? What would be the point in conveying something that was impossible for any rational person to believe?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why don't you ask yourself why the Bush administration was trying to convey something that we now know was impossible?
I already have, and I can't find a logical answer to that. I am asking you this very thing. Why would Bush knowingly lie about something, when he could have taken the action he took, without any lies? It was not required that he get your approval or permission to do what he did, so he had no tenable justification to lie. And even IF he DID have some tenable justification to tell you a lie, why would it be something you could refute or disprove? That makes no sense whatsoever, he wasn't going to garner any political support by doing that, in fact, it would have the complete opposite effect.
I already have, and I can't find a logical answer to that. I am asking you this very thing. Why would Bush knowingly lie about something, when he could have taken the action he took, without any lies? It was not required that he get your approval or permission to do what he did, so he had no tenable justification to lie. And even IF he DID have some tenable justification to tell you a lie, why would it be something you could refute or disprove? That makes no sense whatsoever, he wasn't going to garner any political support by doing that, in fact, it would have the complete opposite effect.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If I were to say here: I have incontrovertible evidence that Dixie is a rapist and then I storm into your home and find cut up dead bodies in your refrigerator, and you end up going to jail for murder and doing the chickendance in the electric chair...no one will care that the proof of your raping was never displayed.
If you were uncertain as to whether you might find cut up bodies in my refrigerator, the last thing you would do, would be to jeopardize your case of suspicion, by making up a concocted lie that could be disproved easily. You would think... gee, what is going to happen if we don't find bodies, and we can't prove this lie about rape? You would be better off to use your authority, and raid my home on the suspicion you could document, and avoid any lie. In other words, if you suspect that I am cutting up people in my home, you have no tenable justification to concoct a lie about rape, and it would be one more stupid move, as an officer of the law.
Subsequently, my attorneys would point out, you had no reasonable cause for search and seizure, and any evidence you found is inadmissible in court, including the remains of the bodies you discovered as a result of your lie. I would walk, precisely because you told the lie! So, again, you have no tenable justification to lie, and every reason in the world to be completely honest. This doesn't mean, when your prosecutor puts me on trial, he has to tell the jury about my great and wonderful qualities that contradict your evidence that I was a serial killer, it doesn't mean you are "lying" if you fail to mention those admirable qualities, and focus on the points that make your case.
If you were uncertain as to whether you might find cut up bodies in my refrigerator, the last thing you would do, would be to jeopardize your case of suspicion, by making up a concocted lie that could be disproved easily. You would think... gee, what is going to happen if we don't find bodies, and we can't prove this lie about rape? You would be better off to use your authority, and raid my home on the suspicion you could document, and avoid any lie. In other words, if you suspect that I am cutting up people in my home, you have no tenable justification to concoct a lie about rape, and it would be one more stupid move, as an officer of the law.
Subsequently, my attorneys would point out, you had no reasonable cause for search and seizure, and any evidence you found is inadmissible in court, including the remains of the bodies you discovered as a result of your lie. I would walk, precisely because you told the lie! So, again, you have no tenable justification to lie, and every reason in the world to be completely honest. This doesn't mean, when your prosecutor puts me on trial, he has to tell the jury about my great and wonderful qualities that contradict your evidence that I was a serial killer, it doesn't mean you are "lying" if you fail to mention those admirable qualities, and focus on the points that make your case.
maineman
Banned
lots and lots of rational people believed that there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's because Team Bush told them exactly that. You really are beginning to get desperate and silly here.
maineman
Banned
I have laid it out quite logically.... you just refuse to let go of your love for that man in blue jeans... and you refuse to admit that you are wrong...but then, you never admit you are wrong about any of the myriad substantive things you have been wrong about.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
lots and lots of rational people believed that there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's because Team Bush told them exactly that. You really are beginning to get desperate and silly here.
Oh, I know... LOTS of people believed it... France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council, Hans Blix, and at least a half-dozen other intelligence agencies around the world... rumor has it, even Saddam believed he had WMD's!
Bush simply conveyed what we all thought we knew at the time, and there was always uncertainty, that was what made the issue so urgent. We could not afford to trust Saddam, we could not afford having his WMD's fall into the hands of terrorists, and we couldn't positively confirm whether he had them, how many or how advanced, what was going on with his nuclear ambitions, or anything else, because the bastard liked to be deceptive and defiant.
I am not understanding how Bush somehow lied about something that was impossible to believe, by even the most ignorant moron... you keep explaining it, but it defies logic all the way down the line. I think it all goes back to the original point, there was no tenable justification for Bush to lie to you about Saddam's WMD's. He didn't need to convince you of this, everyone believed he had WMD's, as we've already established. There was no lie told, and no lie was needed.
Oh, I know... LOTS of people believed it... France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council, Hans Blix, and at least a half-dozen other intelligence agencies around the world... rumor has it, even Saddam believed he had WMD's!
Bush simply conveyed what we all thought we knew at the time, and there was always uncertainty, that was what made the issue so urgent. We could not afford to trust Saddam, we could not afford having his WMD's fall into the hands of terrorists, and we couldn't positively confirm whether he had them, how many or how advanced, what was going on with his nuclear ambitions, or anything else, because the bastard liked to be deceptive and defiant.
I am not understanding how Bush somehow lied about something that was impossible to believe, by even the most ignorant moron... you keep explaining it, but it defies logic all the way down the line. I think it all goes back to the original point, there was no tenable justification for Bush to lie to you about Saddam's WMD's. He didn't need to convince you of this, everyone believed he had WMD's, as we've already established. There was no lie told, and no lie was needed.
ROTFLMAO, Hans Blix said the intell was questionable and asked for more time to comfirm if WMD existed or not!
maineman
Banned
"There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's"
"Not only are we certain that he has them, we know where they are"
those are not statements that convey ANY degree of uncertainty whatsoever. Dixie....words have meanings. I suggest you learn them... learn what "certain" "no doubt" and "know" mean...
and then compare them to the alternatives such as "fairly certain" "some degree of doubt" and "think" mean.
I don't know why you say that Bush's statements of certainty were impossible to believe.... Rummy said he knew right where they were... how were Americans to know that he was lying? If you were one of those majority of Americans who, in January of '03, believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 and you came to that belief simply by buying into Team Bush's repetitive innuendo...why is it so impossible to imagine that those same people would believe that Saddam certainly had WMD's when Team Bush flat out told them so - no innuendo....no doubt - but with clarity and certainty?
"Not only are we certain that he has them, we know where they are"
those are not statements that convey ANY degree of uncertainty whatsoever. Dixie....words have meanings. I suggest you learn them... learn what "certain" "no doubt" and "know" mean...
and then compare them to the alternatives such as "fairly certain" "some degree of doubt" and "think" mean.
I don't know why you say that Bush's statements of certainty were impossible to believe.... Rummy said he knew right where they were... how were Americans to know that he was lying? If you were one of those majority of Americans who, in January of '03, believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 and you came to that belief simply by buying into Team Bush's repetitive innuendo...why is it so impossible to imagine that those same people would believe that Saddam certainly had WMD's when Team Bush flat out told them so - no innuendo....no doubt - but with clarity and certainty?
Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
- Wikipedia
- Wikipedia