the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
maineman
Banned
"You agree that Bush didn't need to convince you with a lie, to take the action he took, yet that's what you insist he lied to do... "
he didn't need to unless he wanted to lose his mandate for the war on terror. If he had stormed off into Iraq without selling the American people on his reasons for sending 150 THOUSAND of thier sons and daughters off to a far flung desert, he would have lost that mandate
"You agree that it was impossible to be absolutely certain about Iraq, but this is what you claim you understood Bush to say..."
I agree that it is impossible to BE certain, but I have explained ad nauseum that that was exactly what team bush said. no doubt means....NO doubt.
"You agree that the entire freakin world thought Saddam had WMD's, but this is the supposed "false perception" from Bush. "
Ah..."thought" there's the rub, isn't it? I am sure that if Bush had said "I THINK that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" instead of "there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction", he probably wouldn't have garnered the public opinion necessary to invade, conquer an occupy Iraq and still maintain his mandate for a second term.
he didn't need to unless he wanted to lose his mandate for the war on terror. If he had stormed off into Iraq without selling the American people on his reasons for sending 150 THOUSAND of thier sons and daughters off to a far flung desert, he would have lost that mandate
"You agree that it was impossible to be absolutely certain about Iraq, but this is what you claim you understood Bush to say..."
I agree that it is impossible to BE certain, but I have explained ad nauseum that that was exactly what team bush said. no doubt means....NO doubt.
"You agree that the entire freakin world thought Saddam had WMD's, but this is the supposed "false perception" from Bush. "
Ah..."thought" there's the rub, isn't it? I am sure that if Bush had said "I THINK that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" instead of "there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction", he probably wouldn't have garnered the public opinion necessary to invade, conquer an occupy Iraq and still maintain his mandate for a second term.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If he had stormed off into Iraq without selling the American people on his reasons
Doesn't it make sense that he would base those reasons on truth? Why would he lie? He has no tenable justification to tell an intentional lie!
he would have lost that mandate
Take a good look! What mandate? What did Bush gain through this supposed lie he told? This is another reason your premise makes no logical sense, Bush could have nuked Iraq and told you he was getting rid of the roaches, and his approval numbers would be higher now!
I agree that it is impossible to BE certain, but I have explained ad nauseum that that was exactly what team bush said. no doubt means....NO doubt.
If you agree it was impossible to be absolutely certain, then how can you possibly interpret "absolute certainty" into what was said? The intelligence community had "no doubt" ...doesn't mean they were absolutely certain, and it never did... never could... it's impossible for it to mean that. I have no doubt you live in Maine... I don't know this for absolute certain, it's impossible for me to know this for absolute certain. You could live anywhere, and I could have inaccurate information, but I am basing my opinion of "no doubt" on the information I have available at this time, not an "absolute certainty" which can't exist.
Ah..."thought" there's the rub, isn't it?
No, there is the rationale and context you completely ignore. The entire world thought, believed, were convinced, and had no frikin doubt, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's! Bush couldn't have misled anyone into believing something the entire world already believed. If everyone thought that Saddam had no WMD's, and Bush was the only one saying it... then you might have an argument that he somehow convinced people of something, but as the facts stand, he couldn't convince people of something they already believed to be true.
Doesn't it make sense that he would base those reasons on truth? Why would he lie? He has no tenable justification to tell an intentional lie!
he would have lost that mandate
Take a good look! What mandate? What did Bush gain through this supposed lie he told? This is another reason your premise makes no logical sense, Bush could have nuked Iraq and told you he was getting rid of the roaches, and his approval numbers would be higher now!
I agree that it is impossible to BE certain, but I have explained ad nauseum that that was exactly what team bush said. no doubt means....NO doubt.
If you agree it was impossible to be absolutely certain, then how can you possibly interpret "absolute certainty" into what was said? The intelligence community had "no doubt" ...doesn't mean they were absolutely certain, and it never did... never could... it's impossible for it to mean that. I have no doubt you live in Maine... I don't know this for absolute certain, it's impossible for me to know this for absolute certain. You could live anywhere, and I could have inaccurate information, but I am basing my opinion of "no doubt" on the information I have available at this time, not an "absolute certainty" which can't exist.
Ah..."thought" there's the rub, isn't it?
No, there is the rationale and context you completely ignore. The entire world thought, believed, were convinced, and had no frikin doubt, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's! Bush couldn't have misled anyone into believing something the entire world already believed. If everyone thought that Saddam had no WMD's, and Bush was the only one saying it... then you might have an argument that he somehow convinced people of something, but as the facts stand, he couldn't convince people of something they already believed to be true.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Because the sex with Monica was not consentual.
maineman
Banned
stop it please...you ask the same questions over and over again and I have answered them over and over again... timing of the invasion of Iraq was more important to the neocons than the accuracy of the rationale for invading. They firmly believed that they were creating the new american century...that they were going to do a little shock and awe... waltz into Iraq... topple Saddam... hold some elections... help draft a constitution... watch jeffersonian democracy bloom and statues of Bush to sprout up... and be home in time for supper with a brand new ally in the middle of the middle east. Had they done all that - and they were powerfully confident that they would do so... the fact that Saddam's WMD cache never was located would be lost in the cheering and adulation of a greatful country and planet.
And your suggestion that there was worldwide unanimity about Saddam's WMD's is wrong... there was not unanimity here at home. Many democrats did not buy the bullshit. I know I certainly did not. I, for one, never bought the Iraq- AQ alliance bullshit either. I believed Powell when he said, six months before 9/11 that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's and that he was incapable of projecting power outside his borders...I was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job... a majority of congressional democrats were of the same mind.
Again..if Bush had said "I think Saddam's got nasty weapons" it would not have been enough to win his mandate.
And your suggestion that there was worldwide unanimity about Saddam's WMD's is wrong... there was not unanimity here at home. Many democrats did not buy the bullshit. I know I certainly did not. I, for one, never bought the Iraq- AQ alliance bullshit either. I believed Powell when he said, six months before 9/11 that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's and that he was incapable of projecting power outside his borders...I was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job... a majority of congressional democrats were of the same mind.
Again..if Bush had said "I think Saddam's got nasty weapons" it would not have been enough to win his mandate.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
stop it please...you ask the same questions over and over again and I have answered them over and over again...
Yeah, with the same debunked answers that defy logic and reason!
timing of the invasion of Iraq was more important to the neocons than the accuracy of the rationale for invading.
This makes no sense, the timing of the invasion was more important than being honest about the reasons? The credibility and legitimacy of their political movement was sacrificed to tell a lie that didn't have to be told? Why? Is PNAC made up of retarded people?
They firmly believed that they were creating the new american century...that they were going to do a little shock and awe... waltz into Iraq... topple Saddam... hold some elections... help draft a constitution... watch jeffersonian democracy bloom and statues of Bush to sprout up... and be home in time for supper with a brand new ally in the middle of the middle east.
IF that's what they believed, why concoct a lie? There is no tenable justification to tell something that could potentially destroy your movement, particularly if the objective is going to be an "easy" one.
Had they done all that - and they were powerfully confident that they would do so... the fact that Saddam's WMD cache never was located would be lost in the cheering and adulation of a greatful country and planet.
Again, 'had everything gone perfectly...' is not how most Neocons plan wars. It defies logic even more, that they would lie about something they didn't need to tell a lie to do, in hopes that everything would work out to perfection, which it never does in war. As I said earlier, the more you talk, the more ridiculous your reasoning sounds. The more you build your little theory, the more it is full of logical contradiction and flaws.
And your suggestion that there was worldwide unanimity about Saddam's WMD's is wrong...
No, pretty much everyone on the planet, including Saddam, thought he had WMD's, the questions were, how many, how advanced, and where are they? John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, all thought he had WMD's... the UN Security Council voted unanimously on a bill that demanded he disclose information about his programs, and turn over the WMD's they thought he had. The UN inspectors were scouring Iraq, in search of WMD's they thought he had. So far, you've not given me any credible list of people who matter of factly believed, Saddam had NO WMD's!
there was not unanimity here at home. Many democrats did not buy the bullshit. I know I certainly did not.
Well, then you people were among the retarded, because the rest of the non-retarded world, thought he had WMD's, and was proceeding accordingly. If you had some evidence that he didn't have WMD's, you should have given it to President Bush, perhaps we could have saved some lives!
I, for one, never bought the Iraq- AQ alliance bullshit either.
Well maybe that is why you were one of the two or three morons on the planet who didn't "buy" that Saddam had WMD's? There certainly was intelligence information regarding the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, most of which, has been validated.
I believed Powell when he said, six months before 9/11 that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's and that he was incapable of projecting power outside his borders...
And the "threat" posed by Saddam, was never categorized as a "direct threat" as you are now arguing. It was not Saddam's ability to attack us with WMD's that we were worried about, had that been our concern, he would have been toast long ago. Powell never said Saddam had no WMD's, in fact, he made a compelling case before the UN, just before they voted UNANIMOUSLY, to take action against Saddam, precisely because they believed he had WMD's.
I was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job... a majority of congressional democrats were of the same mind.
And Bush was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job too! The trouble was, Blix wasn't be allowed to do his job, Iraq was not complying in good faith, the information requested by UNSCOM was not forthcoming from the government of Iraq, and after 12 years and 17 resolutions, it was time to try a different approach.
Again..if Bush had said "I think Saddam's got nasty weapons" it would not have been enough to win his mandate.
What mandate? The invisible one that doesn't exist? Makes as much sense as anything else you've said!
Yeah, with the same debunked answers that defy logic and reason!
timing of the invasion of Iraq was more important to the neocons than the accuracy of the rationale for invading.
This makes no sense, the timing of the invasion was more important than being honest about the reasons? The credibility and legitimacy of their political movement was sacrificed to tell a lie that didn't have to be told? Why? Is PNAC made up of retarded people?
They firmly believed that they were creating the new american century...that they were going to do a little shock and awe... waltz into Iraq... topple Saddam... hold some elections... help draft a constitution... watch jeffersonian democracy bloom and statues of Bush to sprout up... and be home in time for supper with a brand new ally in the middle of the middle east.
IF that's what they believed, why concoct a lie? There is no tenable justification to tell something that could potentially destroy your movement, particularly if the objective is going to be an "easy" one.
Had they done all that - and they were powerfully confident that they would do so... the fact that Saddam's WMD cache never was located would be lost in the cheering and adulation of a greatful country and planet.
Again, 'had everything gone perfectly...' is not how most Neocons plan wars. It defies logic even more, that they would lie about something they didn't need to tell a lie to do, in hopes that everything would work out to perfection, which it never does in war. As I said earlier, the more you talk, the more ridiculous your reasoning sounds. The more you build your little theory, the more it is full of logical contradiction and flaws.
And your suggestion that there was worldwide unanimity about Saddam's WMD's is wrong...
No, pretty much everyone on the planet, including Saddam, thought he had WMD's, the questions were, how many, how advanced, and where are they? John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, all thought he had WMD's... the UN Security Council voted unanimously on a bill that demanded he disclose information about his programs, and turn over the WMD's they thought he had. The UN inspectors were scouring Iraq, in search of WMD's they thought he had. So far, you've not given me any credible list of people who matter of factly believed, Saddam had NO WMD's!
there was not unanimity here at home. Many democrats did not buy the bullshit. I know I certainly did not.
Well, then you people were among the retarded, because the rest of the non-retarded world, thought he had WMD's, and was proceeding accordingly. If you had some evidence that he didn't have WMD's, you should have given it to President Bush, perhaps we could have saved some lives!
I, for one, never bought the Iraq- AQ alliance bullshit either.
Well maybe that is why you were one of the two or three morons on the planet who didn't "buy" that Saddam had WMD's? There certainly was intelligence information regarding the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, most of which, has been validated.
I believed Powell when he said, six months before 9/11 that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's and that he was incapable of projecting power outside his borders...
And the "threat" posed by Saddam, was never categorized as a "direct threat" as you are now arguing. It was not Saddam's ability to attack us with WMD's that we were worried about, had that been our concern, he would have been toast long ago. Powell never said Saddam had no WMD's, in fact, he made a compelling case before the UN, just before they voted UNANIMOUSLY, to take action against Saddam, precisely because they believed he had WMD's.
I was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job... a majority of congressional democrats were of the same mind.
And Bush was perfectly willing to let Blix do his job too! The trouble was, Blix wasn't be allowed to do his job, Iraq was not complying in good faith, the information requested by UNSCOM was not forthcoming from the government of Iraq, and after 12 years and 17 resolutions, it was time to try a different approach.
Again..if Bush had said "I think Saddam's got nasty weapons" it would not have been enough to win his mandate.
What mandate? The invisible one that doesn't exist? Makes as much sense as anything else you've said!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And I only missed it by four posts, when I stated...
These points made... AGAIN... by me, will of course be met with the usual barrage of personal insults and ad hominem attacks, because you really have nothing left to argue, you have been defeated in debate, and instead of admitting defeat, it's your nature to get mad and start hurling insults. That's fine with me, I don't do this for recognition, most of the time I am content with letting you show what a hypocrite ass you are, and letting it go at that.
maineman
Banned
Dixie...it is not that I have nothing left to argue...it is that I have made my points, and you only CLAIM to have refuted them...all you have done in refutation is to claim a lack of logic on my part which is merely your opinion.
You keep chasing me around the same pole over and over again. You ask me why would Bush lie...and I tell you... and you then say it isn't a lie...and I show you how according to the definitions of words in our language, that the expression of certainty is a false impression... and you then say, how could it be a false impression when everyone believed it to which I point out that not everyone did and you say that the only one's who didn't believe it were morons and why would Bush lie in the first place and we are back to square one. This circular argument has gone on long enough. I made my case...it is your opinion that I did not. what is left to say that hasn't been said already?
I am not a hypocrite...I just have better things to do than punch a tarbaby.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie...it is not that I have nothing left to argue...it is that I have made my points, and you only CLAIM to have refuted them...all you have done in refutation is to claim a lack of logic on my part which is merely your opinion.
No, I didn't merely CLAIM to have refuted them, I showed where they lacked logic, which was not a matter of opinion. Something is either logical or it isn't, and opinion has little to do with logic. When someone demonstrates your point is devoid of logic, it is pretty much refuted. All the way down the line, I have shown where your points fail the test of logic. Bush couldn't have lied, he had no tenable justification to lie, and the supposed "lie" he told, was something everyone already believed anyway. Bush couldn't convince people of absolute certainty which was impossible to exist, even if he had a tenable justification to do so. PNAC would not have logically promoted a lie, in hopes that everything worked to perfection in a war, and the lie (which wasn't required) would not be noticed, that is one of the most absurd and illogical conclusions you've made, as it fails the test of logic on multiple fronts.
In all of this, you've not presented us with one shred of evidence to support your case, it's just wild illogical opinion and speculation on your part. Nothing to confirm these conspiracy theories you have, nothing to show for all the rhetorical bullshit you've spewed, we're just supposed to take your word for it... all this illogical stuff, is just the way it happened, and anyone who doesn't buy it, is stupid and dumb.
I believe it's the other way around, anyone who buys your unfounded opinions, which are devoid of any logical basis or tenable justification, are the stupid and dumb ones. Those who are fair enough to take an objective look, have concluded Bush didn't lie. He was given bad information, he might have used a poor choice of words, he certainly made his share of mistakes, but he didn't lie.
When we examine "lies" in general, we find there is always tenable justifications for the lie, and Bush didn't have any. You claim, it was political, but there were certainly other, much better lies he could have told, lies that couldn't have been proved or disproved by the presence of physical evidence, like WMD's. So, why would he, if he intended to lie, come up with something that could be shown untrue? It seems, if his motives were "political" as you claim, he would have told a lie that couldn't be proved. Anything else, is totally illogical.
You then try to claim, the lie was his "certainty" ....yet, logic dictates, certainty about Iraq could not exist. Why would Bush lie about something that couldn't exist, and defied logic to exist? How could someone perceive him to mean something that was impossible?
I've had this debate in Desh's thread, because I felt it was an appropriate place to present this case. I think reasonable and rational people need to really take an objective look at this, and understand the truth of the matter. We've listened to the political rhetoric long enough, we've heard your conspiracy theories long enough, and it's time to use some logic and common sense reasoning , and understand what really happened, and accept what couldn't have happened.
No, I didn't merely CLAIM to have refuted them, I showed where they lacked logic, which was not a matter of opinion. Something is either logical or it isn't, and opinion has little to do with logic. When someone demonstrates your point is devoid of logic, it is pretty much refuted. All the way down the line, I have shown where your points fail the test of logic. Bush couldn't have lied, he had no tenable justification to lie, and the supposed "lie" he told, was something everyone already believed anyway. Bush couldn't convince people of absolute certainty which was impossible to exist, even if he had a tenable justification to do so. PNAC would not have logically promoted a lie, in hopes that everything worked to perfection in a war, and the lie (which wasn't required) would not be noticed, that is one of the most absurd and illogical conclusions you've made, as it fails the test of logic on multiple fronts.
In all of this, you've not presented us with one shred of evidence to support your case, it's just wild illogical opinion and speculation on your part. Nothing to confirm these conspiracy theories you have, nothing to show for all the rhetorical bullshit you've spewed, we're just supposed to take your word for it... all this illogical stuff, is just the way it happened, and anyone who doesn't buy it, is stupid and dumb.
I believe it's the other way around, anyone who buys your unfounded opinions, which are devoid of any logical basis or tenable justification, are the stupid and dumb ones. Those who are fair enough to take an objective look, have concluded Bush didn't lie. He was given bad information, he might have used a poor choice of words, he certainly made his share of mistakes, but he didn't lie.
When we examine "lies" in general, we find there is always tenable justifications for the lie, and Bush didn't have any. You claim, it was political, but there were certainly other, much better lies he could have told, lies that couldn't have been proved or disproved by the presence of physical evidence, like WMD's. So, why would he, if he intended to lie, come up with something that could be shown untrue? It seems, if his motives were "political" as you claim, he would have told a lie that couldn't be proved. Anything else, is totally illogical.
You then try to claim, the lie was his "certainty" ....yet, logic dictates, certainty about Iraq could not exist. Why would Bush lie about something that couldn't exist, and defied logic to exist? How could someone perceive him to mean something that was impossible?
I've had this debate in Desh's thread, because I felt it was an appropriate place to present this case. I think reasonable and rational people need to really take an objective look at this, and understand the truth of the matter. We've listened to the political rhetoric long enough, we've heard your conspiracy theories long enough, and it's time to use some logic and common sense reasoning , and understand what really happened, and accept what couldn't have happened.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie do you still belive SADDAM had WMD?
I know he had them at one time, the UN tagged them and he declared them. What makes you think he didn't have them? Because we couldn't find them 14 months after the fact?
I know he had them at one time, the UN tagged them and he declared them. What makes you think he didn't have them? Because we couldn't find them 14 months after the fact?
You dodged the question.
Try again:
Given what the United States knows now, from occupying Iraq for the last four years, do you think Iraq had stockpiles of WMD when we invaded?
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You dodged the question.
No, I answered HIS question, you are asking an entirely different one.
No, I answered HIS question, you are asking an entirely different one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I would say, it doesn't appear he had WMD at the time we invaded. I can not be certain of this, and I can not be certain of when and how he got rid of the WMD's. It's possible the WMD's are there, under the sand somewhere, and we just haven't found them. It's possible the WMD's were spirited out of Iraq before the invasion. So there are a number of explanations regarding the WMD's, which have to be considered. The mere fact that Duelfer couldn't find anything, is not evidence that nothing ever existed, that is the point you pinheads keep failing to grasp. As I said, it appears he didn't have WMD's. The question is, was this an illusion Saddam created? You and I can't know this for certain, it's impossible to have absolute certainty in this case, and given Saddam's past history of deception, nothing would be out of the realm of possibility.
Whether Saddam actually possessed WMD stockpiles at the time the US invaded Iraq, is not at issue, and never was. You want to pin the entire justification for war on this one question, and then assume an answer of absolute certainty, which can't exist here... then you want to build a wild illogical conspiracy theory, based around this myth of certainty you've formed. Saddam had 14 months to deceive us into believing he had no WMD's. That was plenty of time to create the illusion of no WMD's in Iraq. Did that happen? I don't know! I can't know for certain, and neither can you!