the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.


Maine, in the world I live in, "slam dunk" means the same as "no doubt". You stated, the intelligence never told Bush and Cheney there was "no doubt" and they certainly did tell them this. You want to retract that lie now?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the fact that Tenet said that there was enough cherry picked intelligence to make the case

Tenent said "slam dunk" and that doesn't just mean there was enough cherry picked intelligence, that means it's a "slam dunk", or "sure thing", or "positively certain", or "without a doubt".

 

[maineman]

the fact that Tenet said that there was enough cherry picked intelligence to make the case

Tenent said "slam dunk" and that doesn't just mean there was enough cherry picked intelligence, that means it's a "slam dunk", or "sure thing", or "positively certain", or "without a doubt".

I disagree....I think that "slam dunk" meant that he had enough intelligence to make the case strongly.... there have been enough analysts who have come forward since then complaining that the caveats and qualifiers were ignored... that way too much credence was placed on suspect sole source information.... there certainly was doubt.... but if you only chose to lay out all the good stuff for the UN and for American popular consumption, you could certainly portray it as a "slam dunk".

And don't call me a liar, you illiterate slanderous prick.

 

[Jarod]

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.

Bullshit... show me a cite allowing propencity evidence in sexualhrrassment cases, you lying man-boy!

 

[maineman]

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.

I most certainly have come up with a tenable justification to hype the case for war. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it, does not mean that the case was not made.... and I really think its silly to think that anyone could ever convince you of anything. The rationale for hyping the WMD evidence and scaring America into war is all contained in the PNAC manifesto....

it was gonna be so easy.... a little shock and awe... a quick run into baghdad with grateful Iraqis cheering us along the route... grab saddam... get that jeffersonian democracy installed... gain an ally in the middle east... start sucking on the oil teat... and be home in time for dinner.

wouldn't it have been wonderful if it had worked out that way?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bullshit... show me a cite allowing propencity evidence in sexualhrrassment cases, you lying man-boy!

How about Wikipedia? I know how fond you are of them...

Irony of Rule 415

Part of the trial consisted of the introduction of evidence surrounding Monica Lewinsky. Historically, evidence of prior sexual offenses was not admissible in Civil Court. However, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 415, allowed evidence "of similar acts of sexual harassment and eschewal in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation." Thus, the evidence regarding Ms. Lewinsky was admissible. The irony is that it was President Clinton who signed FRE 415 into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I most certainly have come up with a tenable justification to hype the case for war. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it, does not mean that the case was not made.... and I really think its silly to think that anyone could ever convince you of anything. The rationale for hyping the WMD evidence and scaring America into war is all contained in the PNAC manifesto....

it was gonna be so easy.... a little shock and awe... a quick run into baghdad with grateful Iraqis cheering us along the route... grab saddam... get that jeffersonian democracy installed... gain an ally in the middle east... start sucking on the oil teat... and be home in time for dinner.

wouldn't it have been wonderful if it had worked out that way?

Yes Maine, there was a tenable justification to present the best sales pitch to the UN, in order to sell them on the idea of helping us. When explaining the reasons and rationale for war, there was tenable justification to emphasize the things that demonstrated a need to act. However, there was no tenable justification to lie or mislead.

It doesn't matter about the PNAC agenda, even considering that is accurate, there would still be no tenable justification to lie. Nothing was ever planned or concocted, based on total lies, in the hopes that everything in the war plans would work out to perfection, as that is never the case with war. So, you've not really proven anything, except my point. You've now decided that 'hyping' is the same as 'lying' and that is factually inaccurate.

Maine, if I tell you, I am CERTAIN the Super Bowl is going to be played in 2 weeks, on February 4th, have I "LIED" to you? Okay... what if a freak global warming hurricane forms in the Atlantic and obliterates Miami between now and then, and they cancel the Super Bowl? Does that mean I "LIED" to you?

This is the case here, you are trying to say it was a lie, when it was not, it was misinformation Bush had no way of knowing was going to turn out inaccurate. He had NO tenable reason to lie to you! NONE!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I disagree....I think that "slam dunk" meant that he had enough intelligence to make the case strongly....

Well, you are wrong. If that were the case, when the president asked Tenet, he would have said... "Mr. President, we have enough intelligence to make a strong case, but I'm not sure if it's all completely accurate." That was not what he said, he specifically used the words "slam dunk", and in every vernacular I can come up with, that means "a certain and sure thing"...."without a doubt"... "no question"... "absolutely and positively certain"... "not a rim shot, not a long-shot, not a free throw..."

You want to spin this into something it's not, which makes you look like a goofy lying bitch, because you can't even be honest about the term "slam dunk". If you can't be honest about that, what can you be honest about? My guess... NOTHING!

 

[Jarod]

How about Wikipedia? I know how fond you are of them...

Irony of Rule 415

Part of the trial consisted of the introduction of evidence surrounding Monica Lewinsky. Historically, evidence of prior sexual offenses was not admissible in Civil Court. However, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 415, allowed evidence "of similar acts of sexual harassment and eschewal in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation." Thus, the evidence regarding Ms. Lewinsky was admissible. The irony is that it was President Clinton who signed FRE 415 into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

WOw, you learn something new everyday.. I was wrong, I am sorry. The Federal Rules sure are different than the Florida Rules.

 

[maineman]

I disagree....I think that "slam dunk" meant that he had enough intelligence to make the case strongly....

Well, you are wrong. If that were the case, when the president asked Tenet, he would have said... "Mr. President, we have enough intelligence to make a strong case, but I'm not sure if it's all completely accurate." That was not what he said, he specifically used the words "slam dunk", and in every vernacular I can come up with, that means "a certain and sure thing"...."without a doubt"... "no question"... "absolutely and positively certain"... "not a rim shot, not a long-shot, not a free throw..."

You want to spin this into something it's not, which makes you look like a goofy lying bitch, because you can't even be honest about the term "slam dunk". If you can't be honest about that, what can you be honest about? My guess... NOTHING!

and you want to force the world to accept your definition of a vernacular idiomatic expression as the only possible interpretation?

whatever. Professor Dixie.

 

[maineman]

You've now decided that 'hyping' is the same as 'lying' and that is factually inaccurate.

if the "hyping" was being done to convince America of the absolute certainty of Saddam's cache of imminently dangerous weapons of mass destruction when no such absolute certainty existed, then yes.... hyping is indeed intentionally misleading.... and that is the textbook definition of the word LIE:

lie noun, 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

 

[LadyT]

if the "hyping" was being done to convince America of the absolute certainty of Saddam's cache of imminently dangerous weapons of mass destruction when no such absolute certainty existed, then yes.... hyping is indeed intentionally misleading.... and that is the textbook definition of the word LIE:

lie noun, 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

Well, maineman, that definition depends on what you mean by the word "to"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if the "hyping" was being done to convince America of the absolute certainty of Saddam's cache of imminently dangerous weapons of mass destruction when no such absolute certainty existed, then yes.... hyping is indeed intentionally misleading.... and that is the textbook definition of the word LIE:

lie noun, 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

"Hyping" is NOT "Lying" ....SORRY! I can't allow you to get away with that, words have meanings, and a lie, as you pointed out, is defined as a "false statement" which is not a part of "hyping" true statements.

We've already discussed the logic of your premise, it's inherently impossible for anyone to have had "absolute certainty" on ANYTHING in Iraq, before we went there! You can continue repeating it, but it doesn't make it any more logical. All that you could have POSSIBLY been told, is what we suspected from the intelligence reports available, there was never any "absolute certainty" on anything, it was inherently impossible to be "absolutely certain" without invading the country and witnessing it first hand.

We've also established, Bush would have no tenable justification to just make shit up and LIE about it! NONE! PNAC would have no tenable justification to propagate a lie to advance their agenda... NONE! There is no basis in logic that would make this valid, and you've not presented anything that even comes close. It was not required that Bush gain your approval, the approval of Congress, or the blessings of the UN, to take the action taken, so there was absolutely NO reason or justification to tell a lie. And EVEN IFFFF... there was a tenable justification to tell a lie, they would never have picked a lie that could have been uncovered and exposed as such, that would just be plain old political stupidity to the Nth degree!

You've not refuted a single point I have made, thus far. You have merely continued to spew your liberal koolaid talking point rhetoric that makes no logical sense, and refused to listen to reason. Typical Maineman!

 

[maineman]

"Hyping" is NOT "Lying" ....SORRY! I can't allow you to get away with that, words have meanings, and a lie, as you pointed out, is defined as a "false statement" which is not a part of "hyping" true statements.

We've already discussed the logic of your premise, it's inherently impossible for anyone to have had "absolute certainty" on ANYTHING in Iraq, before we went there! You can continue repeating it, but it doesn't make it any more logical. All that you could have POSSIBLY been told, is what we suspected from the intelligence reports available, there was never any "absolute certainty" on anything, it was inherently impossible to be "absolutely certain" without invading the country and witnessing it first hand.

We've also established, Bush would have no tenable justification to just make shit up and LIE about it! NONE! PNAC would have no tenable justification to propagate a lie to advance their agenda... NONE! There is no basis in logic that would make this valid, and you've not presented anything that even comes close. It was not required that Bush gain your approval, the approval of Congress, or the blessings of the UN, to take the action taken, so there was absolutely NO reason or justification to tell a lie. And EVEN IFFFF... there was a tenable justification to tell a lie, they would never have picked a lie that could have been uncovered and exposed as such, that would just be plain old political stupidity to the Nth degree!

You've not refuted a single point I have made, thus far. You have merely continued to spew your liberal koolaid talking point rhetoric that makes no logical sense, and refused to listen to reason. Typical Maineman!

bullshit....claiming that we not only were certain that Saddam had WMD's but that we even knew right where they were was "intended or serving to convey a false impression". The false impression was the presence of certainty. Irregardless of whether it is possible to have absolute certainty about something does not change the fact that that impression was precisely what the administration repeatedly conveyed.... and it was false.... therefore...it was a LIE.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if the "hyping" was being done to convince America of the absolute certainty of Saddam's cache of imminently dangerous weapons of mass destruction when no such absolute certainty existed, then yes.... hyping is indeed intentionally misleading....

And again... the premise is flawed because the president didn't need to convince you, or anyone else, he has the full executive authority to take whatever action he deems necessary. He couldn't have logically told the lie you claim he told, because it's inherently impossible for him to have "known for certain" about anything happening in a country we weren't present in. And even IF he had some tenable justification to lie, it would have been utter political stupidity to lie about something that could be easily disproved, and even more stupid to base the entire justification for the war on it.

Making the "best case" for the UN, seems to be the crux of your point, and that is a responsibility which is well within reason to anyone who takes an objective look at this. You've even said it yourself, it would be dumb for Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumy, to have gone to the UN and told them we didn't know anything, and there was uncertainty, they would have never garnered support for the war. We go back to the car salesman analogy, he ain't going to tell you any negatives about the product he is trying to sell you, that would be illogical and unreasonable, if he wanted you to buy the product. If he focuses on the positives about the car, and neglects to tell you the negatives, that is not a lie, and it's not misleading.... maybe it's "hyping" but that isn't the same thing as telling a lie.

 

[maineman]

if the "hyping" was being done to convince America of the absolute certainty of Saddam's cache of imminently dangerous weapons of mass destruction when no such absolute certainty existed, then yes.... hyping is indeed intentionally misleading....

And again... the premise is flawed because the president didn't need to convince you, or anyone else, he has the full executive authority to take whatever action he deems necessary. He couldn't have logically told the lie you claim he told, because it's inherently impossible for him to have "known for certain" about anything happening in a country we weren't present in. And even IF he had some tenable justification to lie, it would have been utter political stupidity to lie about something that could be easily disproved, and even more stupid to base the entire justification for the war on it.

Making the "best case" for the UN, seems to be the crux of your point, and that is a responsibility which is well within reason to anyone who takes an objective look at this. You've even said it yourself, it would be dumb for Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumy, to have gone to the UN and told them we didn't know anything, and there was uncertainty, they would have never garnered support for the war. We go back to the car salesman analogy, he ain't going to tell you any negatives about the product he is trying to sell you, that would be illogical and unreasonable, if he wanted you to buy the product. If he focuses on the positives about the car, and neglects to tell you the negatives, that is not a lie, and it's not misleading.... maybe it's "hyping" but that isn't the same thing as telling a lie.

whether you feel he needed to convince us or not is not at issue.... the fact remains, statements were made that conveyed the false impression that there was certainty about the existence and whereabouts of Saddam's WMD's when no such certainty actually existed. If a car salesman tells me that a car is cherry and has never had any accidents and that is not the case, then he's lied to me. Team Bush conveyed a false impression. A lie. by definition.

 

[maineman]

again:


lie noun, 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

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The false impression was the presence of certainty.

Which we both agree, was absolutely impossible. There was no absolute certainty, there couldn't be absolute certainty, it was fundamentally impossible, and no one ever said that there was absolute certainty of anything, other than our intelligence reports, which were deemed a "slam dunk" by the director of intelligence.

At this point in time, I am fairly certain they are going to have a Super Bowl in Miami in two weeks... I can't guarantee that, I am fairly certain of it, because I have intelligence information that strongly suggests this is the case. Now, if a nuclear bomb blows up Joe Robie Stadium in the next two weeks, my guess is, they won't have a Super Bowl there, but it doesn't mean I am lying today, when I say that I am fairly sure we will have a Super Bowl in two weeks. It is also not misleading or conveying a false certainty. I have no way of predicting the future, I don't know what might happen between now and February 4th, and it is possible that I am wrong, and we won't have a Super Bowl on that date... I'm still not telling you a lie, when I state, at this point, based on the current information, that the Super Bowl is going to be played in two weeks.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

conveyed the false impression that there was certainty about the existence and whereabouts of Saddam's WMD's when no such certainty actually existed.

And as I've pointed out, and you can't refute... there was no possible way to have been "certain" regarding the WMD's. It was the whole reason we had UN inspectors there! The only thing Bush could have been "certain" about, was intelligence information the director called a "slam dunk." That was what Bush told you, and you want to make it into a lie, when there is no tenable justification to lie here, and you have yet to present one.

 

[maineman]

The false impression was the presence of certainty.

Which we both agree, was absolutely impossible. There was no absolute certainty, there couldn't be absolute certainty, it was fundamentally impossible, and no one ever said that there was absolute certainty of anything, other than our intelligence reports, which were deemed a "slam dunk" by the director of intelligence.

At this point in time, I am fairly certain they are going to have a Super Bowl in Miami in two weeks... I can't guarantee that, I am fairly certain of it, because I have intelligence information that strongly suggests this is the case. Now, if a nuclear bomb blows up Joe Robie Stadium in the next two weeks, my guess is, they won't have a Super Bowl there, but it doesn't mean I am lying today, when I say that I am fairly sure we will have a Super Bowl in two weeks. It is also not misleading or conveying a false certainty. I have no way of predicting the future, I don't know what might happen between now and February 4th, and it is possible that I am wrong, and we won't have a Super Bowl on that date... I'm still not telling you a lie, when I state, at this point, based on the current information, that the Super Bowl is going to be played in two weeks.

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. that is conveying a false impression. that is a lie.