the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

Care4all said:
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.
Click to expand...

Care... follow me carefully here, I know you are a bit slow in the mornings...

We had no operatives on the ground in Iraq. We had no embassy in Iraq. We had no CIA agents working covertly in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld, had not been to Iraq and seen anything first hand. There is no possible way for any of them to say they personally KNEW FOR CERTAIN any damn thing!

The context of the statements you post, are related to our understanding of the intelligence information we had available at the time. According to our intelligence (as well as a consensus of other intelligence), we (our CIA) "had no doubt" and were "certain" ....according to the intelligence!

The Bush Administration, sharing with you what our intelligence claimed to be "certain" about, is not the same as them stating their own personal certainties. In fact, when the president questioned the certainty of the WMD's with the Director of the CIA, he said it was a "slam dunk" issue.

The entire reasoning for the urgency, was based on the fact that we couldn't be certain. "We can not afford to wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat." is what the president said. There were things we did have certainty of... We were certain that Saddam had used WMD's on his own people... we were certain he was still paying chem/bio weapons scientists... we were certain he was trying to buy uranium from Africa... we were certain he hadn't accounted for over 80,000 liters of WMD agents we were certain he once had. We were certain Saddam had funded and aided terrorists... we were certain Zarqawi was in Iraq.... we were certain members of Saddam's regime had met with alQaeda... we were certain of a convoy of transfer trucks moving something into Syria... We were certain Saddam would not abide by UN resolutions.... So, we had certainty on a variety of fronts, and none of them were lies.

The fundamental argument is... Did Bush Lie? I maintain, he had no tenable justification to tell an intentional lie to the American people. Regardless of what you come up with, it simply doesn't justify lying about something you know is not the case, when you don't need to. Even with all the PNAC Kook War For Oil Conspiracy Theories thrown in... you simply can't justify why they would advocate intentionally telling a lie that could be uncovered and exposed, and exploited politically against them. Nothing justifies that! Especially when, they had no need to tell the lie, the same exact actions could have been taken on the mere executive order of the president, without approval from the public or anyone else, if they wanted to. I'm not a PNAC Kook Conspiracist, and I can come up with at least a half-dozen better "lies" that could have been told, if indeed, a "lie" was required. Hell... have some expert forge a document implicating Saddam in the 9/11 attacks! (Just make sure you don't use the same forger as Dan Rather!)

The thing is, a lie was not needed, and a lie was not told. Intelligence was not completely accurate, they speculated incorrectly in some regards, and the administration did present the most positive case to the UN, which is not, by any definition of the word, lying. The left has managed to prop up this myth of a Bush lie, and kudos to you for that feat! I'm impressed you've been able to convince so many people to disregard common sense on this issue.
 
[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.

You obviously misunderstand the entire concept of plausible deniability. Let's say that Cheney said to Dubya, "Georgie... Saddam does not have any WMD's. We know that. But we DO have some old intelligence that shows that he might have had some.... here's what we do... I'll talk with Tenet and tell him to cherry pick the good stuff for you and you can claim that's all you were ever told.... you go out..I'll go out... we'll send Rummy and Wolfie and Perlie out too...and we'll all say that Saddam has 'em for sure. If the shit ever hits the fan about it, we point to Tenet and he points to analysts and nobody can lay any of this on you...and we'll just pretend this particular conversation never happened." That provides Bush with plausible deniability.... no one can hang the lack of WMD's around his neck. And look....nobody can today, can they? Funny, that.

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.
This war was certainly planned like that. Go back and look at all the pronouncements by the neocon crowd about being welcomed as liberators, having rose petals thrown at our feet... having the whole thing take only a couple of months... how Iraqi oil revenues would end up paying for most of the costs... their enthusiasm and their optimism was boundless, and for koolaid soaked right wing hacks like you, it was also infectious. The "winning" they envisioned had nothing to do with WMD's... it had to do with democracy and new alliances and a new paradigm and a new American Century. They were virtually drunk with the heady power of their dream. It is clear that none of them ever envisioned what has transpired. Shineseki might have, but he was pushed aside by Rummy really early...and from the outset of shock and awe it was the civilian neocons calling the shots and the guys in uniform had to salute and do their best to carry out the plans of non-military hacks. I can well imagine that German field grade officers felt similar frustration when Hitler sent them into Russia in the dead of winter with inadaquate supplies.

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?

Of course democrats would "notice" the lack of WMD's...but seriously...do you think that America would have given a shit about that and listened for one minute to democrats bitching about missing cannisters of nerve gas when democracy was blossoming in Iraq, when statues to Bush were popping up like weeds, when the oil was flowing?

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.

lie /laɪ/, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression

Bush wanted to convey the idea that there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's. Bush wanted to make America believe that there was total certainty that Saddam ha WMD's... He wanted to creat the false impression that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is the TEXT-FUCKING-BOOK definition of a LIE. I agree that it was actually impossible for them to be sure...but NONETHELESS, they told us over and over and over again that they WERE sure! LIARS.


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?

Asked and Answered. I have answered that exact same question to you about five fucking times in this thread. Learn to read and comprehend what you read and RETAIN what you read. You are dull and dumb and I really will not continue to chase you around while you spin your way out of the fact that your boys did,in fact, tell us they were absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's.... and they did that with knowledge that there was, in fact, uncertainty. That is a lie. They are liars. I have explained to you why they did it and why, if their plans had worked, why it wouldn't have mattered. If you can't understand what I have already written...I sincerely doubt your ability to understand it if I write it again. Grow a clue.

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.

I have no idea what democrats will do in 30 years. I will undoubtedly be dead by then. I know that today, the world is less safe...America is less safe... America is more despised abroad, and more divided at home than it has ever been.... and from MY vantage, that is Dubya's legacy. I will be dead in 30 years, but I only hope that I outlive George W. Bush because I hope to travel to his grave site and piss on it.
 
Last edited:
Come on Puss boy... Back up just one little thing you have said...

Tell us how misinformation about President Clintons affair with ML somehow denied PJ her civil rights?
 
That provides Bush with plausible deniability.... no one can hang the lack of WMD's around his neck.

Did nobody hang the lack of WMD's around his neck? It seems there was quite a hullabaloo about the WMD's which were never found.

your boys did,in fact, tell us they were absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's.... and they did that with knowledge that there was, in fact, uncertainty. That is a lie.

We have already established it was impossible for them to have been certain about anything. Matter of factly and fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE! Do you not get that? Let me put it to you another way... without boots on the ground in Iraq, without anyone to visually confirm and deny stuff, without any secret agents inside the country, with an unfriendly, deceptive, and defiant regime in power in Iraq... it was inherently impossible for the United States or any of it's operatives, to have been "certain" about any damn motherfucking thing, in Iraq!

No one EVER told you or anyone else, they "knew for certain" what Saddam had or didn't have, they told you what INTELLIGENCE said they were "certain" and "uncertain" about, that is NOT telling you a lie!
 
That provides Bush with plausible deniability.... no one can hang the lack of WMD's around his neck.

Did nobody hang the lack of WMD's around his neck? It seems there was quite a hullabaloo about the WMD's which were never found.

there is a hulabaloo...but the new democratic leadership in congress knows that, barring some smoking gun, there is nothing impeachable about Bush's WMD CERTAINTY assertions primarily because of the plausible deniability

your boys did,in fact, tell us they were absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's.... and they did that with knowledge that there was, in fact, uncertainty. That is a lie.

We have already established it was impossible for them to have been certain about anything. Matter of factly and fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE! Do you not get that? Let me put it to you another way... without boots on the ground in Iraq, without anyone to visually confirm and deny stuff, without any secret agents inside the country, with an unfriendly, deceptive, and defiant regime in power in Iraq... it was inherently impossible for the United States or any of it's operatives, to have been "certain" about any damn motherfucking thing, in Iraq!

I undersand that YOU have established that it was imposssible for them to have been certain about anything. Do YOU understand that the public record is quite clear and unambiguous in that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rummy, Perle and Wolfowitz, among others most certainly DID tell America over and over again that they WERE certain about Saddam and his cache of deadly weapons of mass destruction? What part of "We KNOW he has them and we KNOW where they are" exhibits any degree of uncertainty? THAT IS the big lie. The pronouncements about the certainty of WMD's was the big lie. You cannot deny them Dixie...they are a matter of public record.

No one EVER told you or anyone else, they "knew for certain" what Saddam had or didn't have, they told you what INTELLIGENCE said they were "certain" and "uncertain" about, that is NOT telling you a lie!

I just went over that. Rummy knew for certain, and he knew right where they were. Cheney said that there WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMDs...the list of quotes has been regurgitated ad nauseum. YOu are foolish to act as if the words were not said. They misled us...they spoke words designed to mislead us... those words are a textbook definition of a lie
 
No one EVER told you or anyone else, they "knew for certain" what Saddam had or didn't have, they told you what INTELLIGENCE said they were "certain" and "uncertain" about, that is NOT telling you a lie!
the more I read this, the more I feel compelled to say more about this. THe intelligence was laden with caveats and qualifiers. That is a matter of public record. How could Bush and his neocon talking heads say that intelligence was CERTAIN about anything when there was no certainty about any of the intelligence?
 
How could Bush and his neocon talking heads say that intelligence was CERTAIN about anything when there was no certainty about any of the intelligence?

You're a military man, tell me when intelligence has EVER been guaranteed 100% certain on ANYTHING? I have been asking you this question over and over, and you don't seem to have an answer! How could the Bush administration have told you they were certain about something that was physically impossible for them to be certain of? Why would they tell you they were certain of something they knew was false? None of it makes a bit of sense, when you take a rational and objective look at all the facts of the matter. Bush didn't have to "sell" you the war, he had the executive authority to take the actions he took, and he didn't require approval from you or anyone else. If Bush had needed to tell you a lie, he would have most likely created a lie that could never be disputed or questioned, not one that would easily be uncovered. And Bush couldn't have told you the lie you claim he told you, because it was inherently impossible to claim he knew anything for absolute certain.

As for quotes from Cheney and Rumy, they are speaking of the intelligence reports when they said "we know"... our intelligence thought it DID know! If the intelligence agency was wrong, that is not Bush and Cheney's fault, they didn't "lie" to you, the intelligence was wrong! You keep wanting to twist it into a lie, and that is dishonest, because we've already established, 1) no tenable justification existed, to tell a lie. 2) Any lie would have certainly been something that would be left to question, it wouldn't be something that could easily be disproved, and 3) Telling you they were 'certain', is inherently impossible, it flies in the face of common sense reasoning.

So, it has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind, the president didn't tell you a lie about Iraq. I've shown you how this conclusion is derived, and you are free to believe whatever you wish... some people still don't believe we ever landed on the moon.
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead, you are a retard... shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...



Thats it, just start name calling when you cant think of a response..

Come on Einstein... You are the one who made the claim.. I am sure you can explain it to me!

How did misinformation about an affair 10 years later... deny PJ her civil rights? How is it even relevant, unless it provides information about Motive (no) oppertunity (no) or intent (no)??

So how?
 
Jarhead, you are supposed to be a lawyer! You tell me... how could a person's actions be used to show a pattern of behavior, and how does establishing a pattern of behavior help the prosecution's case? Also, if Paula Jones' rights were not violated, why did the judge rule for Clinton to pay Jones $91k for the damage caused by the lies?
 
Dixie said:
How could Bush and his neocon talking heads say that intelligence was CERTAIN about anything when there was no certainty about any of the intelligence?

You're a military man, tell me when intelligence has EVER been guaranteed 100% certain on ANYTHING? I have been asking you this question over and over, and you don't seem to have an answer! How could the Bush administration have told you they were certain about something that was physically impossible for them to be certain of? Why would they tell you they were certain of something they knew was false? None of it makes a bit of sense, when you take a rational and objective look at all the facts of the matter. Bush didn't have to "sell" you the war, he had the executive authority to take the actions he took, and he didn't require approval from you or anyone else. If Bush had needed to tell you a lie, he would have most likely created a lie that could never be disputed or questioned, not one that would easily be uncovered. And Bush couldn't have told you the lie you claim he told you, because it was inherently impossible to claim he knew anything for absolute certain.

As for quotes from Cheney and Rumy, they are speaking of the intelligence reports when they said "we know"... our intelligence thought it DID know! If the intelligence agency was wrong, that is not Bush and Cheney's fault, they didn't "lie" to you, the intelligence was wrong! You keep wanting to twist it into a lie, and that is dishonest, because we've already established, 1) no tenable justification existed, to tell a lie. 2) Any lie would have certainly been something that would be left to question, it wouldn't be something that could easily be disproved, and 3) Telling you they were 'certain', is inherently impossible, it flies in the face of common sense reasoning.

So, it has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind, the president didn't tell you a lie about Iraq. I've shown you how this conclusion is derived, and you are free to believe whatever you wish... some people still don't believe we ever landed on the moon.
Click to expand...

I am a military man... and if the intelligence evidence is present...if the satellite photos show the ICBM's uncovered on the decks of the soviet ships at sea headed for Cuba, then I am all for saying that there is no doubt that the soviets are shipping ICBM's to Cuba.... if the US has human intelligence assets on the ground that see something with their own eyes, I have no problem in believing them when they tell me what they saw. There are things that are "without doubt" and "certain" all the time. Unfortunately, the stuff about Iraq's WMD's did not fall into that category. And the American intelligence community delivered their intelligence laden with the caveats and qualifiers that are indicative of that lack of certainty.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not military men and they do not understand the usually vague nature of intelligence... so, for them, when they hear the Secretary of Defense say that there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction... and, not only are we certain that he has them, but we actually know where they are... most Americans take that, and they come to the conclusion that America has absolutely no doubt that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction... and, not only are we certain that he has them, but we actually know where they are. And that would be misleading. And anyone with education beyond high school would have to know that if they said something like that, that the vast majority of Americans would, in fact, be misled and believe that there was certainty when none existed.... and purposely misleading is LYING!!!!!!
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead, you are supposed to be a lawyer! You tell me... how could a person's actions be used to show a pattern of behavior, and how does establishing a pattern of behavior help the prosecution's case? Also, if Paula Jones' rights were not violated, why did the judge rule for Clinton to pay Jones $91k for the damage caused by the lies?
Click to expand...


If YOU were a lawyer you would know that "propencity" evidence is not admissable. That is evidence used to show someone has a propencity to commit a certian act.

Now President Clinton was ordered to pay for legal costs resulting from his alleged lies! That is not the same as paying for a loss of civil rights. In no way was President Clintons affair with ML relevant to the PJ case!

YOU PITTAFULL LITTLE MAN!
 
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not military men and they do not understand the usually vague nature of intelligence... so, for them, when they hear the Secretary of Defense say that there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction... and, not only are we certain that he has them, but we actually know where they are... most Americans take that, and they come to the conclusion that America has absolutely no doubt that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction... and, not only are we certain that he has them, but we actually know where they are. And that would be misleading.

Regardless of whether someone has military background, they certainly understand, when Dick Cheney says "we know..." he isn't talking about himself personally, he is referring to "our intelligence" as being who "knows". Unless they are retarded, they fully understand that Cheney has not seen the WMD's first hand, and doesn't know anything "for certain" regarding where they are, how many there are, or if they will be there when "we" get there. They also understand that Cheney isn't the one going there to find the WMD's, because Cheney personally, has no idea where to even start looking for them.

The administration told you what intelligence told them, plain and simple. Some of it was accurate, some of it was not, that is the general nature of intelligence. If you want to try and spin this into a "lie" you have to first come up with a tenable justification to lie, which you've failed to do so far. Then you have to convince me, this was the best lie they could come up with, THEN you'd have to convince me, they disregarded the consequences of lying in politics. Unless you want to argue the neocons are crack head retarded people, I don't see you convincing me of all this.
 
Jarod said:
If YOU were a lawyer you would know that "propencity" evidence is not admissable. That is evidence used to show someone has a propencity to commit a certian act.

Now President Clinton was ordered to pay for legal costs resulting from his alleged lies! That is not the same as paying for a loss of civil rights. In no way was President Clintons affair with ML relevant to the PJ case!

YOU PITTAFULL LITTLE MAN!
Click to expand...

Propensity evidence is permissible in sexual harassment cases, ironically, Bill Clinton signed it into law. Clinton was ordered to pay "damages" to Paula Jones... now, what was "damaged"? I never claimed that the judge specified it was for violating her civil rights, but that is what it was for, nothing else can logically apply, that's why PJ was given an award, her Constitutional rights to due process were encroached. Apparently, the judge disagrees with you, she awarded the damages be paid, specifically for the lies he told regarding ML... so the judge felt it was important to the case, or she wouldn't have ruled as she did.
 
Now President Clinton was ordered to pay for legal costs resulting from his alleged lies!

Clinton was ordered to pay compensatory damages to Jones, for deliberately lying under oath to the grand jury, and causing the case to be tossed out. Her right to a fair trial was violated by Clinton's actions, this was the reason he was ordered to pay damages. Had there been no civil damage to Jones, the judge would not have ordered Clinton to pay these damages.
 
Dixie said:

The administration told you what intelligence told them, plain and simple.
Click to expand...


that is a lie. The intelligence community never told the administration that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMDs. The intelligence community NEVER told the adminstration that they were CERTAIN that Saddam had WMD's. Those statements were lies told by the administration.
 
The intelligence community never told the administration that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMDs.


"Mr. President, it's a slam dunk!"
--George Tenent, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.


................uhm, yes they did!
 
the fact that Tenet said that there was enough cherry picked intelligence to make the case does not change the fact that Cheney-especially- who had gone to CIA HQ and listened to analysts detail the caveats and qualifiers knew that there was doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top