the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

the LIE was creating the illusion of CERTAINTY.

No, a LIE is deliberately misleading, not creating an illusion with facts that are there. Bush made a "sales pitch" to the UN, to garner international assistance in this war, he had a reason to present the best case to them, just as a car dealer has a reason to tell you all the great things about the car you're looking at, and no reason to tell you about the negatives. You want to take this, and spin it into Bush "lying" to America, and that simply isn't the case, and isn't based in reasonable objectivity. Bush had no tenable justification to lie, he didn't require public support to take the actions he took, he didn't require UN approval to do what he did. Politically, it makes no sense for him to intentionally tell an obvious lie, especially when he didn't need to!

once they got it rolling, the success of the venture would wipe away any concerns about the less than certain WMD issue...

Again, it's preposterous to even imagine someone thinking this irrationally... the whole basis and premise behind what they did, was made up lies... and no one is going to even bring it up? ...So... they figured, not even Harry Reid would be concerned about this lie, huh? Maine, you are too funny!
 
So far as I can tell, uprooting sovereign political systems and implementing favorable ones in imperialistic, not a conservative ideal.

Then I guess that's what we have to be, to defeat radical Islamofascism. It's not like we haven't been accused of Imperialism before, I'm okay with name-calling.
 
the LIE was creating the illusion of CERTAINTY.

No, a LIE is deliberately misleading, not creating an illusion with facts that are there.

saying that we are certain about Saddam's WMD arsenal when we KNEW that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence which portrayed a very real degree of UNcertainty was deliberately misleading.

once they got it rolling, the success of the venture would wipe away any concerns about the less than certain WMD issue...

Again, it's preposterous to even imagine someone thinking this irrationally... the whole basis and premise behind what they did, was made up lies... and no one is going to even bring it up? ...So... they figured, not even Harry Reid would be concerned about this lie, huh? Maine, you are too funny!
Again...here we are..with Iraq a bucket of shit, and the anger about no WMD's is STILL not so great that it is causing massive demonstrations demanding impeachment there hasn't been a mass exodus among congressional republicans.... There weren't any WMD's... we've suffered over 25K dead and wounded... and he STILL has enough political capital to send over an additional 20K into the meatgrinder.

Imagine if everything had worked out perfectly. Imagine if there were no sectarian violence right now... Imagine if the Iraqi legislature was sitting in session writing laws..that the Iraqi oil fields were humming...that the statues of Bush were springing up like weeds in every Iraqi village town and city.... the fact that he had been "mistaken" about Saddam's WMDs would be completely drowned out by the cheers of the world. The paradigm would have shifted. Harry Reid would have known better than to start making a fuss about that in the face of the overall ultimate success of the venture and the good fortune that flowed from that success. It is not perposterous to suggest this at all... It is completely legitimate.
 
Last edited:
saying that we are certain about Saddam's WMD arsenal when we KNEW that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence which portrayed a very real degree of UNcertainty was deliberately misleading.

They didn't KNOW anything! That was the whole frikkin point of having the inspectors go in, remember? We knew what we thought to be the case, that was ALL the Bush administration was "certain" about. As I said before, if you go buy a new car, the salesman tells you it's the #1 best selling car in America, but doesn't tell you it's also the most stolen car in America... is he lying to you because he didn't tell you the negatives and "created an illusion" the car was great?
 
Imagine if everything had worked out perfectly.

Here is your first flaw in your argument. Things never work out perfectly in war. NEVER! You know this, I know this, I'm fairly certain Colin Powell knew this. Nothing was planned out in the context of everything working out perfectly, nothing ever is planned that way.
 
they KNEW that there was NOT certainty.

They KNEW that the analysts were not sure, that the intell was old, that some of the single source contacts were suspect... they knew there was not certainty

They told us they were certain.

that is misleading.

that makes it a lie.

deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:

Then I guess that's what we have to be, to defeat radical Islamofascism. It's not like we haven't been accused of Imperialism before, I'm okay with name-calling.
Click to expand...


Stop pretending to be some sort of believer in a conservative ideal. Admit it, you're a Republican before a human. Its glaringly obvious.
 
Dixie said:
Imagine if everything had worked out perfectly.

Here is your first flaw in your argument. Things never work out perfectly in war. NEVER! You know this, I know this, I'm fairly certain Colin Powell knew this. Nothing was planned out in the context of everything working out perfectly, nothing ever is planned that way.
Click to expand...


Richard Perle predicted that statues of Bush would be spinging up all over Iraq...that squares in Baghdad would be named for him... of course nothing goes PERFECTLY in war, but the neocons were quite confident in the fact that they would achieve overwhelming success. Have you ever read the PNAC manifesto? They KNEW what the new American Century looked like and they knew that the road to get there went right through a democratic Iraq.... and they were going to get there.
 
maineman said:
they KNEW that there was NOT certainty.

They KNEW that the analysts were not sure, that the intell was old, that some of the single source contacts were suspect... they knew there was not certainty

They told us they were certain.

that is misleading.

that makes it a lie.

deal with it.
Click to expand...

You can't know there is not certainty, moron! If you know, you are certain, if you don't know, you are uncertain. That's how it works! You've already conceded, the UN was uncertain as to whether he had WMD's or not, and thought that he might... I can recall Bush, Powell, Rice, and Cheney, telling us... WE DON'T KNOW... that was the whole problem, we didn't KNOW what Saddam was up to... couldn't confirm it... couldn't trust him... had no way of ever knowing for certain! What we DID know, was our intelligence, and the intelligence of others, indicated he had WMD's. His actions, up until the time of invasion, suggested he had WMD's. There was even a report from someone who said that Saddam himself was surprised there were no WMD's to launch!

To this date, there has never been any evidence submitted, to prove definitively, that Saddam did not have WMD's. There have been reports which were inconclusive, people speculating as to why nothing was found, and lack of evidence to prove the WMD's were there. We don't even KNOW for CERTAIN, the WMD's aren't buried in the sand somewhere in Iraq, and we've just not found them yet. So when you start talking about 'creating the illusion of certainty' being a lie, does that apply to the pinheads who have created such an illusion about the WMD's not being real?
 
of course nothing goes PERFECTLY in war, but the neocons were quite confident in the fact that they would achieve overwhelming success.

Not by telling out and out bold faced lies to the American people... not unless they were politically ignorant, smoking crack and mentally delusional. Again, like the Buckaroo Banzai quote, wherever you go, there you are... we are right back to, tenable justification to lie. PNAC's agenda would have been far better served by Bush using executive authority and citing classified information with regard to reasoning, they would have no interest in propagating an intentional lie to be exposed and destroy their objectives.... especially when, it was not needed to achieve their objectives.
 
Dixie said:
of course nothing goes PERFECTLY in war, but the neocons were quite confident in the fact that they would achieve overwhelming success.

Not by telling out and out bold faced lies to the American people... not unless they were politically ignorant, smoking crack and mentally delusional. Again, like the Buckaroo Banzai quote, wherever you go, there you are... we are right back to, tenable justification to lie. PNAC's agenda would have been far better served by Bush using executive authority and citing classified information with regard to reasoning, they would have no interest in propagating an intentional lie to be exposed and destroy their objectives.... especially when, it was not needed to achieve their objectives.
Click to expand...
oh bullshit..the American people would not have stood for ths president taking us to war against Iraq based upon secret stuff that was really really scary but he couldn't tell us about it because it was a secret! The lie was obviously built with plausible deniablitity...hell...they are denying it still...

had the neocons, and PNAC hit a home run, nobody would be talking about weapons....and they were certain they would hit a home run.
 
Dixie said:
You can't know there is not certainty, moron! If you know, you are certain, if you don't know, you are uncertain. That's how it works! You've already conceded, the UN was uncertain as to whether he had WMD's or not, and thought that he might... I can recall Bush, Powell, Rice, and Cheney, telling us... WE DON'T KNOW...
Click to expand...

double bullshit!

again...your memory is selective. I am not going back and pulling up all those quotes from Cheney and Bush and Rummy that used the words "no doubt" and "certain" ... but they are there. Shit, Rummy even went so far as to say that not only was he absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's, he even said we knew right where they were! That is what we were told. You're a liar.
 
Last edited:
oh bullshit..the American people would not have stood for ths president taking us to war against Iraq based upon secret stuff that was really really scary but he couldn't tell us about it because it was a secret!

The American people would not have stood for being lied to as a reason to go into this war. I understand, if those were Bush's choices, he would have been stupid to lie, and far better off in just taking action and dealing with the political consequences later. Mainly because, he didn't have to lie, and he didn't require the American people's support to take action.

This is the main problem with the pinhead argument, and it won't go away. You claim he had to convince the public to go to war, but would the public be more satisfied with being lied to, than not being given classified information? Lying clearly ends with impeachment, there is no punishment for not disclosing classified information.

had the neocons, and PNAC hit a home run, nobody would be talking about weapons....and they were certain they would hit a home run.

What does "hit a home run" mean here? How, exactly, were they going to hit this "home run" when the whole basis and justification for their action was a lie? How did they manage to convince themselves, lying to the people was a good idea, and wouldn't be noticed? You are really asking for people to accept a lot here, and it simply flies in the face of reason.

again...your memory is selective. I am not going back and pulling up all those quotes from Cheney and Bush and Rummy that used the words "no doubt" and "certain" ... but they are there. Shit, Rummy even went so far as to say that not only was he absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's, he even said we knew right where they were! That is what we were told. You're a liar.

They knew for certain, what the intelligence suggested. They had no way of knowing anything positively, that was the purpose of having to go in. They suspected they knew where they were, and that was what you were told. It's fundamentally impossible, given there were no CIA operatives inside Iraq, for this administration to have been "certain" or have "no doubt" about anything. If this were even possible, there would have been no need for UN inspectors, and probably not even a reason to go to war.... we would have known everything "for certain" and nothing would have been left to speculation.
 
Cheney and Bush and Rummy ... used the words "no doubt" and "certain" ...

Maine... come on now... using the words "no doubt" and "certain" are not the same thing as stating that we had no doubt and were certain about Saddam's WMD's. I can use the word "certain" in a sentence, and it not even be related to Saddam's WMD's... I can do the same thing with "no doubt". Simply using these words, doesn't put them in the context you insist they were given. I know how you read shit too, you never hear what a republican says in context, it's always twisted into some liberal interpretation of what was actually said.

So, in summary, it's impossible for the administration to have ever stated they "knew for certain" or "had no doubt" regarding Saddam's WMD program, they had no means to be certain, and if they had, there wouldn't have been a need for UN inspectors or invasion. Subsequently, even if you were right, this lends even more credibility to the fact they didn't have any tenable justification to lie, and there wouldn't have been an urgency to take action, because we would have known things "for certain".
 
oh bullshit..the American people would not have stood for ths president taking us to war against Iraq based upon secret stuff that was really really scary but he couldn't tell us about it because it was a secret!

The American people would not have stood for being lied to as a reason to go into this war. I understand, if those were Bush's choices, he would have been stupid to lie, and far better off in just taking action and dealing with the political consequences later. Mainly because, he didn't have to lie, and he didn't require the American people's support to take action.
YOu DO understand the concept of "plausible deniability" , don't you? It was all the fault of those intelligence guys. No one will ever make the distinction that the intelligence guys said there WAS some doubt and Bush & Co. conveniently forgot to mention that.

This is the main problem with the pinhead argument, and it won't go away. You claim he had to convince the public to go to war, but would the public be more satisfied with being lied to, than not being given classified information? Lying clearly ends with impeachment, there is no punishment for not disclosing classified information.
The public would be extremely satisfied with a multicultural jeffersonian democracy in Iraq that was a strong American ally. Bush never has to own up to "lying".... he puts it on the intelligence guys, if push came to shove, which it never would have had they won.

had the neocons, and PNAC hit a home run, nobody would be talking about weapons....and they were certain they would hit a home run.

What does "hit a home run" mean here? How, exactly, were they going to hit this "home run" when the whole basis and justification for their action was a lie? How did they manage to convince themselves, lying to the people was a good idea, and wouldn't be noticed? You are really asking for people to accept a lot here, and it simply flies in the face of reason.
They "hit a home run" by applying shock and awe... a quick surgical invasion... a quick capture of Saddam... and a quick, painless, low cost, violence-free transition of power to a new Iraqi jeffersonian democracy. Do you ever read what I write, for crissakes? I have typed that exact phrase about ten fucking times in this thread already. Get some reading comprehension skills or shut the fuck up.

again...your memory is selective. I am not going back and pulling up all those quotes from Cheney and Bush and Rummy that used the words "no doubt" and "certain" ... but they are there. Shit, Rummy even went so far as to say that not only was he absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's, he even said we knew right where they were! That is what we were told. You're a liar.

They knew for certain, what the intelligence suggested. They had no way of knowing anything positively, that was the purpose of having to go in. They suspected they knew where they were, and that was what you were told. It's fundamentally impossible, given there were no CIA operatives inside Iraq, for this administration to have been "certain" or have "no doubt" about anything. If this were even possible, there would have been no need for UN inspectors, and probably not even a reason to go to war.... we would have known everything "for certain" and nothing would have been left to speculation.
They never said that the intelligence "suggested" anything. They told us they knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's. Rummy didn't say that his intelligence suggested that Saddam might have WMD's he said we were certain that he had them and we even knew where they were. I agree that it really was impossible for them to actually BE certain and to actually have no doubt...but the fact remains, that is precisely and unambiguously what they told the American people. "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's" "We are certain that Saddam has WMD's" "We know right where they are". Those statements of absence of doubt and absolute certainty are public record Dixie...you cannot spin them into something they are not. They told us they were sure..they were certain...they had no doubt... that they didn't dare wait a moment longer for fear of a mushroom cloud over an American city... they told us that Saddam not only had WMD's but that he had the ability THEN, to use UAV's launched off of cargo ships to deliver those WMD's to the eastern seaboard of America THEN!!... URGENCY!!!...FEAR!!!.... ANGER!!!... REVENGE!!!... PAYBACK!!!... 9/11!!!... WMD'S!!!.... AL QAEDA!!!.... IRAQ!!!... SADDAM!!!... 9/11!!!... MUSHROOM CLOUDS...BOO!!!!! and it worked, didn't it?

use all that angst and fear as fuel for the paradigm shift.... hit a home run in Iraq... set the stage for the New American Century... who the hell would give a damn about a few missing weapons in the face of all that unbridled success? If Bush would have indeed been successful in setting up a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, democrats would have praised him... we'd have been amazed that he had done what we thought was impossible, but the world would have been transformed into such a much better place, even I would have given Dubya his due. But he didn't. And many of us knew that he couldn't. He didn't plan it very well. He didn't understand the multivariable dynamics between all the various ethnic groups and sects and political persuasions....

ooops.

I told you so.
 
Last edited:
Come on Dixie enlighten us on how misinformation about an affair 10 years after the Paula Jones incident could deprive PJ of her civil rights?


Man up and admit your error if you cant!
 
Dixie said:
Cheney and Bush and Rummy ... used the words "no doubt" and "certain" ...

Maine... come on now... using the words "no doubt" and "certain" are not the same thing as stating that we had no doubt and were certain about Saddam's WMD's. I can use the word "certain" in a sentence, and it not even be related to Saddam's WMD's... I can do the same thing with "no doubt". Simply using these words, doesn't put them in the context you insist they were given. I know how you read shit too, you never hear what a republican says in context, it's always twisted into some liberal interpretation of what was actually said.

So, in summary, it's impossible for the administration to have ever stated they "knew for certain" or "had no doubt" regarding Saddam's WMD program, they had no means to be certain, and if they had, there wouldn't have been a need for UN inspectors or invasion. Subsequently, even if you were right, this lends even more credibility to the fact they didn't have any tenable justification to lie, and there wouldn't have been an urgency to take action, because we would have known things "for certain".
Click to expand...

What does this mean to you?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
 
YOu DO understand the concept of "plausible deniability" , don't you? It was all the fault of those intelligence guys. No one will ever make the distinction that the intelligence guys said there WAS some doubt and Bush & Co. conveniently forgot to mention that.

There doesn't seem to be any plausible deniability in your charge, according to you, they knew Saddam had no WMD's and outright lied to us about it. True, if WMD's had been discovered, people wouldn't pay much attention to reports which contradicted this. But this is like saying, they created this lie that had no basis, in hopes that they would prove the lie true, and everything would work out fine, and I just don't see rational non-retards thinking that way.

The public would be extremely satisfied with a multicultural jeffersonian democracy in Iraq that was a strong American ally. Bush never has to own up to "lying".... he puts it on the intelligence guys, if push came to shove, which it never would have had they won.

Again, had the best case scenario occurred in Iraq, in a perfect world, but wars are never planned that way, and nothing is ever based on the "what if's" of everything working out perfectly. They didn't "win" because they didn't find the WMD's you claim they made up lies about! You can't rationalize how they would have ever even thought they could "win" without producing the very thing they supposedly lied about to go to war! As I said, your premise defies common sense and logic, and it's also stupid and unnecessary.

They "hit a home run" by applying shock and awe... a quick surgical invasion... a quick capture of Saddam... and a quick, painless, low cost, violence-free transition of power to a new Iraqi jeffersonian democracy.

...And no one, not even the Democrat opposition, would even notice they lied about the whole reasoning and justification for war? You're delusional if you believe that. And why concoct some bunch of lies about WMD's, if they thought it was going to be quick and violence-free? Why not just do it, then point to the vibrant Jeffersonian Democracy they created in a matter of months, and achieve the exact same objectives without the lies?

They never said that the intelligence "suggested" anything. They told us they knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's. Rummy didn't say that his intelligence suggested that Saddam might have WMD's he said we were certain that he had them and we even knew where they were. I agree that it really was impossible for them to actually BE certain and to actually have no doubt...

Right, you agree because you know it's silly to think they ever stated any certainty, they had no fundamental way to be certain! It defies fucking common sense and logic, for them to have been "certain" or stated that they "knew for certain" anything internally about Iraq. We are back to "creating the illusion of certainty" again... which is NOT lying.

who the hell would give a damn about a few missing weapons in the face of all that unbridled success?

Then why lie about it? Why base and justify your entire objective, on this outright lie to the American people? Why tell people you are absolutely certain of things you can't possibly be certain about? Why make the WMD's the whole basis and reason for going to war, if they had any inkling of an idea that it might not be the truth? If this "success" you speak of, would have been so profound as to make people just forget the reasoning, why not just use executive privilege, and strike Saddam like Clinton did, without divulging any more information than they had to?

The more you "explain" these things, the more you actually prove my point, they had no tenable justification to lie, and it would have actually been stupid beyond belief, for the administration to have intentionally lied, when it wasn't needed.

If Bush would have indeed been successful in setting up a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, democrats would have praised him...

So... when this comes to fruition in 20-30 years, are the Democrats going to admit Bush was a great president? We'll see... but, I'm not holding my breath!
 
what do you say about all the people and papers that have come out SHOWING there was NO reason to be so sure about the WMDs?

Why do you ignore anything that PROOVES there was Substancial doubt at the time of their "there is no doubt"?
 
Come on Dix...

Lets see if you can stan by just one of your statements...

How were PJ's civil rights denied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top