Proof that Bush lied!

[Giz]

a) That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
b) The UN needs the USA as much as the USA needs the UN. Think about it.

(a) Are you claiming that Iraq in 1991 was as big a challenge as the rise of the facist states and Imperial Ja[an in the 1930's?

Hell, even preventing tragegdy in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda has been beyond the UN... what Kofi Annan and Hans Blix would have made of German rearmament we shall never know... If the UN was seriously credible - rather than a wingeing machine - it would be doing something about the Sudan.

(b) How/Why/In what way do you mean this?

 

[Thanz]

This thread is about asking if anyone has any objectively verifiable evidence that President G.W. Bush deliberately deceived the American public regarding the WMD that Saddam was thought to have possessed in order to start the Iraq war.

Way to skip over the actual quotes provided. Here is one that is particularly good:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

The intelligence gathered certainly did leave some doubt. Why do you think that Canada was not on board? Canada has loads of economic reasons not to pi$$ off the Americans, and when asked for support and shown evidence, were not convinced. Why? Because the intelligence gathered left doubt. And why did it leave doubt? Because it simply wasn't true.

So, there you have it. Bush said that it leaves no doubt. There was doubt. He lied.

 

[merphie]

Number one a majority of the people preferred Bush to Kerry, that is not the same as you posted.

Number two, raids are always into hostile territory and rely on surprise and speed. Or do you deny raids can be done? Do you deny raids have been done? But you prefer war over a premise that has turned out not to be true. Very good.

Number one: If everyone believe as you do then they would have preferred Kerry to Bush.

Raids have been done. Israel bomb nuclear plants. Now what tune would you be singing if we had simply bomb every site we had intelligence on?

The intelligence is now known to be wrong. You would probably be on your soap box complaining about violations of international laws or something.

So instead we have freed millions of people from a terrible tyrant and given them a real chance for democracy.

 

[merphie]

Way to skip over the actual quotes provided. Here is one that is particularly good:
The intelligence gathered certainly did leave some doubt. Why do you think that Canada was not on board? Canada has loads of economic reasons not to pi$$ off the Americans, and when asked for support and shown evidence, were not convinced. Why? Because the intelligence gathered left doubt. And why did it leave doubt? Because it simply wasn't true.

So, there you have it. Bush said that it leaves no doubt. There was doubt. He lied.

Your proof is based on your assumption of what some country thought? Maybe they couldn't enter any war because it would be political suicide?

Apparently the UK and Austrailia thought the information was credible. So now we have a conspiracy!

You have proved nothing.

 

[Thanz]

Your proof is based on your assumption of what some country thought? Maybe they couldn't enter any war because it would be political suicide?

Apparently the UK and Austrailia thought the information was credible. So now we have a conspiracy!

You have proved nothing.

Not an assumption. Chretien wanted to see proof. He didn't get it. So what if Australia and the UK went to war as well. Bush said that the intelligence leaves no doubt: but he knew that there were doubts - from Canada, France, Hans Blix, and the UN. There were doubts, he knew there were doubts and he said there were no doubts - therefore, he lied. And it turns out those with the doubts were correct.

 

[merphie]

Not an assumption. Chretien wanted to see proof. He didn't get it. So what if Australia and the UK went to war as well. Bush said that the intelligence leaves no doubt: but he knew that there were doubts - from Canada, France, Hans Blix, and the UN. There were doubts, he knew there were doubts and he said there were no doubts - therefore, he lied. And it turns out those with the doubts were correct.

So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.

 

[Thanz]

So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.

I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.

So, Bush apparently had rock solid intelligence of things that were not there. Rock solid intelligence that was 100% wrong. Rock solid intelligence that others in the intelligence community did not believe. Either Bush is the most incompetent, willfully blind, gullible president ever or he lied. Take your pick.

 

[merphie]

I am not ignoring anything. If people like you and pepto want to play BS semantic games, at least learn to play them well. Here is the progression for you one more time, as you seem to be slow:

1. Bush said that the intelligence "leaves no doubt".
2. Bush knew that other countries, including Canada, as well as the UN and their chief weapons inspector had doubts.
3. Therefore, when he said "leaves no doubt" he was lying.
4. Further, he was wrong and the doubters were correct.

So, Bush apparently had rock solid intelligence of things that were not there. Rock solid intelligence that was 100% wrong. Rock solid intelligence that others in the intelligence community did not believe. Either Bush is the most incompetent, willfully blind, gullible president ever or he lied. Take your pick.

I'm not playing any game. You are inventing information to support your side. Your entire argument is based on what you think other countries or people thought.

You have not shown at any point where Bush has knowingly decieved.

There are many countries who apparently didn't have any doubt.

 

[Kerberos]

So what if the UK? You are completely ignoring one side of the argument. The side that doesn't share your opinion.

No he isn't. That the UK joined doesn't prove that there was no doubt, at most it proves that UK feelt that the evidence favoured the possibility that Iraq had non-conventional weapons.

 

[merphie]

No he isn't. That the UK joined doesn't prove that there was no doubt, at most it proves that UK feelt that the evidence favoured the possibility that Iraq had non-conventional weapons.

So the UK joining doesn't prove anything, but somehow Canada refusing proves Bush was lying? Nice.

 

[varwoche]

In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

 

[DavidJames]

In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

well said. I think the Bush administration has taken the concept of "plausible deniability" to new heights. Bush is in charge but nothing is his responsibility.

 

[Thanz]

So the UK joining doesn't prove anything, but somehow Canada refusing proves Bush was lying? Nice.

Well, yes that is how it works.

If Bob says "this basket has no apples in it" all I have to do is point out the apple on top, in plain view of Bob, to show that he is lying. No matter how many other fruit you point out - telling me that the basket is full of bananas and oranges - it makes not one whit of difference. All I need to show is the apple.

 

[merphie]

Well, yes that is how it works.

If Bob says "this basket has no apples in it" all I have to do is point out the apple on top, in plain view of Bob, to show that he is lying. No matter how many other fruit you point out - telling me that the basket is full of bananas and oranges - it makes not one whit of difference. All I need to show is the apple.

So ignore any evidence that might show that you are wrong? You analogy doesn't mean anything because politics are rarely so black and white.

You are making assumptions and ignoring everything else. Not a solid case.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Proof that Bush lied !
Umm I saw his lips move?

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
Ya that'll work.

 

[Meadmaker]

Prove that Bush lied

To us? Or to himself?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

pardon the OOT dark helmet.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?
merphie


Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?


OK ..... Two for the price of one.

Chirac was also placed on the defensive by the heavy defeats sustained by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s ruling Social Democratic Party in local elections at the weekend. Although not occasioned by his antiwar stance, which remains popular, the 15 percent swing to the Christian Democrats was portrayed by Washington and London as a victory for their line and a signal for a possible shift in position by Germany.

France by herself:

France 75 percent of people are against an attack on Iraq. Chirac’s apparent reluctance to join a US-led war is aimed at shoring up his standing domestically as the true representative of the French nation. He also hopes that his stance will underscore his claim to be the most intransigent spokesman for Europe against the US. By insisting on UN approval, the lesser imperialist powers hope to exercise some form of control over the US, so as to ensure their share of any post-war carve up. Paris, for example, is keen that the favourable deals struck by France’s TotalFinaElf oil company with Saddam Hussein to develop the lucrative Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, are not abrogated or threatened by a future US takeover of the country."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/summ-f08.shtml

Germany by herself

If Herr Schroeder had his way, one assumes, then that's where things would end. Happily, with some nasty American trial lawyers on the case, that's unlikely. And happily, though he tried once more in advance of last Sunday's state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse to rally Germans to his party's cause with anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Schroeder was dealt a humiliating defeat in both states. He should have bought re-privatized Preussag once again. Even the most gullible of German voters saw through his miserable Iraq-war ploy this time around, blamed him for over 10 percent unemployment, and threw his candidates and party into the trash bin.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html

That just two sources there are many more.
If you have opposing views and proof , I would be happy to entertain them.

 

[merphie]

pardon the OOT dark helmet.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?
merphie


Well, pretty much most of it. I don't think we will ever know what France or Germany was thinking when they decided not to support the war. Maybe they were making too much money on the UN oil for food?


OK ..... Two for the price of one.

Chirac was also placed on the defensive by the heavy defeats sustained by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s ruling Social Democratic Party in local elections at the weekend. Although not occasioned by his antiwar stance, which remains popular, the 15 percent swing to the Christian Democrats was portrayed by Washington and London as a victory for their line and a signal for a possible shift in position by Germany.

France by herself:

France 75 percent of people are against an attack on Iraq. Chirac’s apparent reluctance to join a US-led war is aimed at shoring up his standing domestically as the true representative of the French nation. He also hopes that his stance will underscore his claim to be the most intransigent spokesman for Europe against the US. By insisting on UN approval, the lesser imperialist powers hope to exercise some form of control over the US, so as to ensure their share of any post-war carve up. Paris, for example, is keen that the favourable deals struck by France’s TotalFinaElf oil company with Saddam Hussein to develop the lucrative Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, are not abrogated or threatened by a future US takeover of the country."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/summ-f08.shtml

Germany by herself

If Herr Schroeder had his way, one assumes, then that's where things would end. Happily, with some nasty American trial lawyers on the case, that's unlikely. And happily, though he tried once more in advance of last Sunday's state elections in Lower Saxony and Hesse to rally Germans to his party's cause with anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Schroeder was dealt a humiliating defeat in both states. He should have bought re-privatized Preussag once again. Even the most gullible of German voters saw through his miserable Iraq-war ploy this time around, blamed him for over 10 percent unemployment, and threw his candidates and party into the trash bin.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html

That just two sources there are many more.
If you have opposing views and proof , I would be happy to entertain them.

That sounds more plausible. I don't agree with some of the points made in the articles.

 

[a_unique_person]

(a) Are you claiming that Iraq in 1991 was as big a challenge as the rise of the facist states and Imperial Ja[an in the 1930's?

Hell, even preventing tragegdy in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda has been beyond the UN... what Kofi Annan and Hans Blix would have made of German rearmament we shall never know... If the UN was seriously credible - rather than a wingeing machine - it would be doing something about the Sudan.

(b) How/Why/In what way do you mean this?

a) You are saying the UN is totally ineffective, (which is basically what the League of Nations was). The UN has serious issues to deal with, but it has made two major advances over the League.

1) It has lasted a lot longer, through some very difficult times. When it was more convenient for the members to close down the League, it died. No one has seriously challenged the need for a United Nations today, until now, with the Bush administration on the attack.
2) It has made some major achievements in the global community. If it was to close down today, it will always be remembered for the campaign against smallpox, for example.

It is still making serious contributions to peace around the world. All the peace force activities are listed on the web site. You can point to the failures, and there are many, but don't forget the successes. As to the reason for the failures, it is important to remember the UN does not have it's own standing army. It can only send troops that it's members supply, it will only act on issues that it's members consider important. If the UN is not acting, not just in Sudan, but also the Congo, Haiti, and a host of other places, you have to ask, why do the members of the UN not consider these issues worth acting on, or what are the politics behind the issues that prevent them from acting. Without a UN, these political issues would still be there, preventing action.

b) The UN is a force for moderation. The Iraq invasion, despite the fig leaf of a 'coalition of the billing', is pretty well the work of a United States administration that believes it is some sort of Nietzien superman. All it needs is to be believe it is morally superior, and act accordingly.

It was denouncing the UN, and basically calling for it's end, when Iraq went all wrong, and Dubya was knocking on their door and trying to make up. The UN had been right on the WMD inspections, the US had been wrong. If the neo-cons had just hopped off their high horse for a minute, they would have realised that they were just about to be very embarrassed globally. The UN is flawed, but it does get quite a lot right still. It can be an ally of the US when it needs one, it can be a force of moderation for the US, it legitimises the use of force when it is needed. Ref, the Gulf War.

The UN, of course, needs the US. It is the major source of funds, (when the US pays), it has the most powerful military to provide for peace forces, it has massive diplomatic clout.

 

[a_unique_person]

In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that "Bush lied". I speculate that Bush was provided selective data. (And if I'm correct, this increases the possibility that Bush is an idiot and/or blind idealogue and/or stooge.)

Now, as to the mythical Saddam/911 connection, this was a cynical manipulation of public opinion deserving of impeachment, save for the weasel words. (imo of course)

Does the Colin Powell speech to the UN count? If we regard it as a multiple choice question test, where the answers are right/wrong, for each claim made.

Now, if the speech was correct on a point, the BA (Bush Administration), gets a tick, otherwise, no. For a list of claims that were honestly right or wrong, you would expect an even distribution, or something like it. That is, they made a claim about mobile biological weapons factories. If the intelligence was honestly right or wrong, fair enough, we would hope that they would get at least half the answers right in hindsight.

For each claim made to the UN, in the case the BA made for invasion, IIRC, they were wrong. This clearly, to me, indicates a pattern of lies. It is a similar methodology to the one Randi uses to test his claimants for the million dollars.