Print Page - "Bush Lied"

I got this in an email; it's not new but every now and then some folks could stand to be reminded.

The quotes are from Lexis-Nexis, I'm told.

Titled: "Whoops I forgot I said that!!"

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

I am getting tired of hearing Bush lied.

The man had evedence in hand, intel in hand, and not just from our own intel guys but from just about everybody, that Saddam still had WMD and was still making them. And frankly he probably was. All the beating around the bush (no pun intended) he did with the UN and what not to hide them he didn't just wake up one morning with a change of heart.

His WMD is in one of a few places or a combination of each.

Either dumped in the middle of the dessert, stocked in some bunker/burried someplace we still haven't found, or there was something more then nothing in trucks we have satalite pictures of heading into Syria as the invasion grew nearer and Saddam relized Bush wasn't bluffing.

And even if by some small chance Saddam had no WMD it isn't a lie if you have every reason to believe something to be true and do not mislead people. If you have every reason to believe the sky is blue and evedence to support it from multipule sources several of which have no interest in pleasing you that back up that the sky is blue, and suddenly hey turns out the sky is red, that doesn't mean it was a lie. A lie is an intentional misleading of someone else.

If a message is repeated enough, via mass media, people begin to believe it regardless of factual evidence.

After all, everyone knows that a plane can be shot down with a .22...

Thanks Art!
I hadn't seen that!

Snopes has verified these quotes, btw.

It is certain that Saddam had such programs in place and had plans to continue them once sanctions were over.
It is amazing how short a memory people have over this. The threat of Saddam was gospel in every corner of the US. The only debate was how best to deal with it.

I run across a fair number of people who subscribe to the Bushlied stuff. Heck, they show up at THR's L&P quite regularly.

What bugs me about the anti-IraqWar stuff is that you never hear the first sign of a gripe about our guys being in the Balkans--since 1991!

I have yet to see any rational argument made as to a national interest for us in the Balkans. Even without the issue of Saddam's WMDs, I can very easily make a rational case for a national interest in Iraq. (I'm not saying I would play the Great Game in that mannner, but the interest is indeed there.)

It is still and always will be a fact that in Serbia, we bombed civilian targets (Chinese embassy; bridges over the Danube, power plants in civilian areas). It wasn't "collateral damage", either. It's a fact that Milosevic never in his wildest dreams killed as many people as Saddam Hussein.

But Serbia was a Democrat war, and just as unjustified as their gun control efforts or their notion that people can be responsible and upright citizens when on the dole in a multi-generational "career".

Art

I'm sure there were WMDs in Iraq. I'm sure they hid them really well, or moved them before we went in. I'm also sure Bush lied about something, because he's a politician. When they talk, they lie.

Bush lied.

Clinton lied.

What's new...? Tongue

It's good to read those quotes, but now we have to realize that they were ALL somewhat mistaken, yet we still operate under the assumption they were all correct. My issue is not witth what we've done. Getting rid of Saddam and CO. was a very good thing, but now we need to focus on the present and future. This US vs THEM attitude needs to be beaten down by WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WHAT IS EFFECTIVE. We know for a fact that 'fragile' countries such as Pakistan and N. Korea have nukes, that Iran might have them or soon will. We know that the next strike will likely be planned by Muslim extremists living here, or in Canada, Germany, France, Britain or somewhere in South America. We know that our ports and borders are wide open. Iraq, in my opinion, is a done deal....let's wrap it up the best we can, admit that it is a monkey house, and then re-allign our forces to create a truly effective anti- terrorism campaign.

As has already been mentioned, Bush was working with the same intel that Clinton and certain members of congress had, as well as the leaders of other countries.

Let's say that no such weapons have existed in Iraq since Saddam gassed the Kurds.

What should we have done, once we invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein, only to find no WMD's? Leave immediately?

The rationale for going after Hussein was broader than just the issue of WMD's. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, he was a genocidal maniac, he had broken 17 UN resolutions, and he was having his pilots target ours in the no-fly zones.

More importantly, we need to have a friendly country in the region that we can use to pressure Iran, Syria and other countries that are a threat to stability. That's a very long-term goal, but a worthy one.

Short term, we need to do whatever it takes to stabilize Iraq. It's going to take years, but I believe the effort is well worth it.

Our hasty departure from Viet Nam only served to embolden our enemies. If the job in Viet Nam had been done properly, I question whether Iran would have grabbed US hostages.

If we leave Iraq unfinished, our reputation as a paper tiger will be firmly established.

The BDS folks are appalled that GWB did what WJC said WJC wanted to do.

"We want words, not actions!"

I don't have a problem with getting into the Iraq war. I agree Saddam needed to go.

The problem isn't that Bush got us into the Iraq war, its that he has no idea how to win the war and get out.

What we need is a "Clinton lied, people died" meme.

An appropriate question, before showing somebody those quotes: "Do you think a president's foreign policy should be affected by the views of influential members of Congress and/or by a previous administration's policies?"

, Art

Let's see... The Bush Administration decided to go to war with Iraq and began operation DB/Anabasis. They then began to cherry pick intelligence in order to sell the war to the American public. The bulk of this information was provided by Iraqi defectors provided to the administration by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraq National Congress. This info included the infamous "aluminum centrifugical tubes," the intel item upon which the Whitehouse Iraq Group (Condaleeza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Scooter Libby, Karen Hughes) created the soundbite: "smoking the gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." The trouble was that everyone at the C.I.A. knew this information wasn't true and that Chalabi was not only a liar, but most likely an Iranian spy. The administration was well aware of the fact that Chalabi wasn't a reliable source, but his INC was their ticket for selling the American public on going to war with Iraq, so the administration did an end run around Foggy Bottom and had Scooter Libby hook up Chalabi and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who published Chalabis claims word for word without checking the source at all. Miller's articles in turn became the basis of a white paper the Whitehouse drafted to support its case for going to war.

I don't know if this is a blatant lie, but it's as mendacious as any blatant lie ever uttered. The Whitehouse duped Judith Miller into publishing Chalabi's lies, then turned around and used her published lies as its evidence for going to war.

Right now the Administration is backpeddling away from these lies as fast as it can. The only people still suckered in by them are the True Believers on the Internet.

Darwin, when everybody around you is in general agreement about something, it's common to interpret all new data from a preconceived point of view.

Just think of the gunfolks when there's some article about "assault weapons": The views are unified and hardened. Same for the anti-gun folks if some particular sort of gun is used in a crime. Within the group(s), alternative views are given no credence.

When the Upper Strata are all together, all convinced, about the Evils of Hussein, all new data will be interpreted to reflect that view. Anything to the contrary will be suppressed. Add to that all the UN Resolutions and the national interest aspects of projecting power into the Middle East and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Wilful lies are not needed at all.

And the Internet has zilch to do with what was said by the people on the list in the first post. Except that it's all available for review, of course.

Art

Art, the problem is the people who best knew what was going on, CIA operatives like Paris Station Chief Bill Murray, knew there was no revived nuclear program as claimed by the Administration. They communicated this information directly to Cheney, who completely ignored their input. Even though Cheney knew they were giving legitimate intel and Chalabi was a proven liar, the administration decided to present the lies to the American public instead of the truth. No matter how you cut that, it is the height of mendacity.

"Our hasty departure from Viet Nam only served to embolden our enemies. If the job in Viet Nam had been done properly, I question whether Iran would have grabbed US hostages."

Dunno about that. I suspect we would be watching a third generation of body count reporting on the nightly news if we were still there. On the bright side, Walter Cronkite probably wouldn't have retired. An outsider is an outsider is an outsider...regardless of the good intent.

Art, gathering a long list of democrat quotes that are of MIXED context, has the ring of desperation. Not ONE of those quotes deals with several things that bush actually lied about. You are oversimplifying it this way:

you're essentially saying:

"The dems say bush lied, so here's a bunch of quotes that don't deal with the context of several things that bush has been accused of lying about. There, now agree with me and bush, sincerely Art."

You mis-state what many americans say bush lied about. When people point out bush's dozens of lies, they don't usually say "there never were wmd." Informed people point out that we had FULL control of Iraq's skies for a decade, yet bush CLEARLY claimed that Saddam was this scary "gathering storm" who could put together a nuke and hit us in the NEAR TERM. That was totally untrue. Iraq was powerless to deal with our measly no fly zone and bush knew that.

Just because a few democrats bought into the war mongering doesn't mean that bush told the truth because he didn't.

The point is that it wasn't a lie, it was what everybody believed to be true at the time. The "Bush lied" folks like to conveniently forget that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD, for all the same reasons Bush (and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al) believed it. True, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, but there was never any intent to mislead or decieve the public.

If that constitutes a lie, then the entire political elite is equally guilty. Singling Bush out as if he were the sole perpetrator of this belief is deliberately misleading.

What's most disconcerting is that ALL of the political establishment held it as a given that Saddam had WMD, yet 6 weeks after the invasion an Orwellian doublethink took place. Suddenly it was only Bush who claimed that Saddam had WMD, and never any of the Democrats. If we had just listened to that cacaphony of Democrats saying there were never any WMD then all would have been alright. It was as if we were all supposed to ignore the fact that no such cacaphony ever existed, that we were supposed to deny that the Democratic leadership had said and believed the exact same things Bush said/believed.

In this political climate so many people have denied the reality of what was said and believed pre-war. It's almost enough to make you doubt whether your own memories are real. It's comforting to see evidence that your memory is accurate and that you aren't crazy for remembering what you remember.

Thanx, HTG. My point, exactly.

Purely my opinion, but I don't see that a Pres. Gore would have done any differently than Pres. Bush, in April, 2003. The consensus in WashDC was, "Get Saddam!" We had as much reason to get Saddam as we did to get Milosevic, which Clinton was happy to do--after neck-hugging on Milosevic and calling him a Great Statesman just a year earlier. IOW, Gore would have had a precedent for attacking somebody whose Great Crime was--allegedly--a lack of popularity.

What gripes me is the yowling and howling against Bush, NOW, by the very people who were encouraging him THEN.

Stipulate that Bush lied. Was he not aided, abetted and encouraged by those who now deride him? Those who would now have us believe they're pure of heart, pure as the driven snow on the issue of Iraq? Unless you believe the CIA is leakproof, these people had the same access to intelligence as Bush et al.

Overarching the entire situation, if Bush is culpable for anything, so are they all. One need not favor the Iraq war to believe that hypocrisy is wrong.

Art

Darwin, I have no idea whether you're right or not, but let's assume you are. What is the impact of this "mendacity"? It strengthened the case for a war against a brutal regime unfriendly to American interests - a problem that needed to be reduced eventually, and should have been swept away long ago. It strengthened the case for action in one part of the murderous rats' nest that is the Middle East. This doesn't excuse Cheney, or anyone else, if they cooked up or "sexed up" intelligence (remember that obnoxious term from a couple of years back?). But it does mean that the issue is not much of an issue.

Iraq would be much less of a problem if the world (including Americans) would just get their heads right and stop inventing nonsense about illegal wars, conspiracies and, my favorite, the "rush to war" that took years and years and years.

Art, I wouldn't jump on HTG's bandwagon just yet because everything he says is based on an incorrect premise. He writes:

"The point is that it wasn't a lie, it was what everybody believed to be true at the time. The "Bush lied" folks like to conveniently forget that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD, for all the same reasons Bush (and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al) believed it. True, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, but there was never any intent to mislead or decieve the public."

The fatal flaw in HTG's logic is that the intelligence was correct. There was near unanimous agreement at Foggy Bottom that Saddam neither had any involvement with 9/11 or that he possessed any WMDs. Cheney visited C.I.A. headquarters twice each week and knew this. He also knew that the evidence relied on by the pro-war contingent, being driven by Paul Wolfowitz, had been proven false by the C.I.A., as well as every other credible intelligence agency in the world (a group that exclues the Italians, the only operatives in the world that agreed with Wolfowitz and company). With the exception of Wolfowitz, who appears to have been completely delusional, everyone from Bush on down, including Condoleeza Rice, knew the information they were using to sell the war was so far removed from reality as to be imossible to consider "intelligence." Yet they presented it to the public anyway--repeating a lie you know to be a lie is a form of lying--and as a result they got us into a war with no obvious end in sight.

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic. If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

Quote from: Lobotomy Boy

Art, I wouldn't jump on HTG's bandwagon just yet because everything he says is based on an incorrect premise. He writes:

"The point is that it wasn't a lie, it was what everybody believed to be true at the time. The "Bush lied" folks like to conveniently forget that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD, for all the same reasons Bush (and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al) believed it. True, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, but there was never any intent to mislead or decieve the public."

The fatal flaw in HTG's logic is that the intelligence was correct. There was near unanimous agreement at Foggy Bottom that Saddam neither had any involvement with 9/11 or that he possessed any WMDs. Cheney visited C.I.A. headquarters twice each week and knew this. He also knew that the evidence relied on by the pro-war contingent, being driven by Paul Wolfowitz, had been proven false by the C.I.A., as well as every other credible intelligence agency in the world (a group that exclues the Italians, the only operatives in the world that agreed with Wolfowitz and company). With the exception of Wolfowitz, who appears to have been completely delusional, everyone from Bush on down, including Condoleeza Rice, knew the information they were using to sell the war was so far removed from reality as to be imossible to consider "intelligence." Yet they presented it to the public anyway--repeating a lie you know to be a lie is a form of lying--and as a result they got us into a war with no obvious end in sight.

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic. If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

See? This, right here, is exactly the sort of doublethink I was referring to.

Lobotomy, I have always found your name well-chosen.

I did not say that Iraq was "unproblematic," and I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Please feel free to explain using real words. And I thought Bush's vocabulary was creative.

As to deaths in Iraq - well, it is a war.

Quote from: Lobotomy Boy

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic.

Allow me to clarify. The world is a better, safer place without a country being led by a murderous, maniacal psycopath and his two criminally insane hellspawn. From jury-rigged extended range SCUDs to super-cannon to nerve agents to his nuclear program, he was a threat to everone in the world, and not just the thousands he was killing each month, and the tens of thousands torured and imprisoned in his own country. Sadaam invaded a neighboring country, tried to asassinate a former POTUS, defied UN sanctions and his own surrender documents, attacked a US navy vessel, and whether you want to believe it or not, did everything in his power to:

1. Aquire WMDs, and
2. Fool everyone into thinking he already had them, IF he didn't.

If you think he wouldn't have provided WMDS to terorists, you need to have your thinking apparatus checked. We are SO better off without him, even IF his absence has led to a prolonged "settling of old scores" bloodletting that he was able to temporarily suppress by the simple expediant of killing anyone who got out of line. If Clinton could send us into KOSOVO, to kill CHRISTIANS to protect MUSLIMS, we have TEN THOUSAND TIMES more reasons to be in Iraq.

Quote

If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

1. "Your children VOLUNTEERED - there is NO draft."
2. "Your children joined the MILITARY - their job is to break stuff and kill people. Of course, if they were foriegn aid workers or Peace Corps or students or reporters or working in New York or the Pentagon or on an airliner, they still might be just as dead, but would not have had the option of shooting back..."
3. "Sometimes the enemy kills people back - that's war."
4. "In this country we have CIVILLIAN CONTROL of the military. Don't like your kids going to war - fine. Vote the bums out that sent them, vote some appeasing spineless jerks in, and start studying the Koran and Arabic. Can't muster enough voters to do that? Tough. It's called "democracy".
5. "Its a heck of a lot better to fight them OVER THERE with SOLDIERS that to supply CIVILLIAN VICTIMS over HERE for them to attack."
6. "We already FAILED to finish one Iraq war - thats a big part of why we are fighting a second Iraq war. Fail to finish this one, and you are REPEATING the same mistake, and dooming future children to fight and die in a THIRD Iraq war."
7. "Be it a man or a country, one you START to whup someone's butt, you better finish the job - and do SUCH a good job that neither he, nor his friends entertain the thought of a re-match."

Speaking of "kids" dying in Iraq - soldiers are not children. At least not ours. To speak of them so is degrading, I don't care how much older you are.

Quote from: richyoung

Quote from: Lobotomy Boy

And Fistful, I don't understand how any reasonable person could consider Iraq unproblematic.

Allow me to clarify. The world is a better, safer place without a country being led by a murderous, maniacal psycopath and his two criminally insane hellspawn. From jury-rigged extended range SCUDs to super-cannon to nerve agents to his nuclear program, he was a threat to everone in the world, and not just the thousands he was killing each month, and the tens of thousands torured and imprisoned in his own country. Sadaam invaded a neighboring country, tried to asassinate a former POTUS, defied UN sanctions and his own surrender documents, attacked a US navy vessel, and whether you want to believe it or not, did everything in his power to:

1. Aquire WMDs, and
2. Fool everyone into thinking he already had them, IF he didn't.

If you think he wouldn't have provided WMDS to terorists, you need to have your thinking apparatus checked. We are SO better off without him, even IF his absence has led to a prolonged "settling of old scores" bloodletting that he was able to temporarily suppress by the simple expediant of killing anyone who got out of line. If Clinton could send us into KOSOVO, to kill CHRISTIANS to protect MUSLIMS, we have TEN THOUSAND TIMES more reasons to be in Iraq.

Quote

If it's not a problem, how do you explain that to the parents of the kids who are dying over there?

1. "Your children VOLUNTEERED - there is NO draft."
2. "Your children joined the MILITARY - their job is to break stuff and kill people. Of course, if they were foriegn aid workers or Peace Corps or students or reporters or working in New York or the Pentagon or on an airliner, they still might be just as dead, but would not have had the option of shooting back..."
3. "Sometimes the enemy kills people back - that's war."
4. "In this country we have CIVILLIAN CONTROL of the military. Don't like your kids going to war - fine. Vote the bums out that sent them, vote some appeasing spineless jerks in, and start studying the Koran and Arabic. Can't muster enough voters to do that? Tough. It's called "democracy".
5. "Its a heck of a lot better to fight them OVER THERE with SOLDIERS that to supply CIVILLIAN VICTIMS over HERE for them to attack."
6. "We already FAILED to finish one Iraq war - thats a big part of why we are fighting a second Iraq war. Fail to finish this one, and you are REPEATING the same mistake, and dooming future children to fight and die in a THIRD Iraq war."
7. "Be it a man or a country, one you START to whup someone's butt, you better finish the job - and do SUCH a good job that neither he, nor his friends entertain the thought of a re-match."

Anyone feel a chill under their feet? I agree 100% with RichYoung. Saddam had 30 years' record supporting terrorists. When the americans reached Baghdad they apprehended the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, who happened to be hiding out there. Maybe he was attracted by the nightlife.
I can't wait to see what we turn up in Damascus. There is a certain ex-Nazi I'd like to see extradited to Israel.

"Lobotomy, I have always found your name well-chosen."

Your witty retorts are as well thought out as your arguments.

Lobby, are you going to explain your bizarre response to my post #25, or will you just get huffy about my little jab? Please stretch out your sense of humor and take it out for some exercise.

Conspiracists and BDS sufferers have no time for humor, as humor is just part of the plot used to distract us all from what is really going on.

Humor: the new opiate of the masses.

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand, which, judging from the stunning lack of logic in your response and your proven inability to understand the evidence I've already offered, is most likely the case. And to spend any more time responding to your pathetic ad hominem attack would be to sink to your level, which would defeat the purpose of "polite" in "armed and polite."

Quote from: Lobotomy Boy

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand, which, judging from the stunning lack of logic in your response and your proven inability to understand the evidence I've already offered, is most likely the case. And to spend any more time responding to your pathetic ad hominem attack would be to sink to your level, which would defeat the purpose of "polite" in "armed and polite."

Translation: I can't explain it either.

Is there a difference between ad hominem and teasing?

Lobotomy Boy, if I didn't respond to evidence, it's because you didn't present any. All you laid down was your interpretation of what you've read or heard. Besides that, I was only responding to the comments you directed at me, which related to Iraq itself, not the pre-war intelligence. If you don't want to hear some jokes about your name, choose something less self-effacing.

Why does it have to be self-effacing. Maybe it's what he does for a living?

Maybe he's the drill man, or the "spin the probe" guy.

Quote from: Rabbi

Translation: I can't explain it either.

It seems to me Lobotomy Boy explains himself clearly and concisely, and backs himself up with concrete examples (what Fistful calls his interpretation of what he's read or heard, which is an example of abstract thought in action--you might want to try it some time, Fistful). I think what he's getting at is that if you can't understand his logical explanation, then the problem doesn't lie with his logic, but rather your lack of logic.

I find the irony of Rabbi's responding to Lobotomy Boy's refusal to engage in an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack bordering on the sublime. And Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

BTW, since I am not above engaging in ad hominem attacks or teasing, your name reminds me of something my grandfather said: Wish in one fist and defecate in the other and see which fist is full first. I think I know the answer in your case.

Quote from: Darwin

Quote from: Rabbi

Translation: I can't explain it either.

It seems to me Lobotomy Boy explains himself clearly and concisely, and backs himself up with concrete examples (what Fistful calls his interpretation of what he's read or heard, which is an example of abstract thought in action--you might want to try it some time, Fistful). I think what he's getting at is that if you can't understand his logical explanation, then the problem doesn't lie with his logic, but rather your lack of logic.

I find the irony of Rabbi's responding to Lobotomy Boy's refusal to engage in an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack bordering on the sublime. And Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

BTW, since I am not above engaging in ad hominem attacks or teasing, your name reminds me of something my grandfather said: Wish in one fist and defecate in the other and see which fist is full first. I think I know the answer in your case.

The problem is that those "facts" presented by Lobotomy Boy are patently false. It's just another re-hash of the "Bush lied" drivel. LB denies the reality that the prevailing views pre-war were that Saddam had WMD. The mainstream view at that time, held by nearly all politicians on both sides of the isle and including EVERY politician of note, was that Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMD. LB tries to deny this reality, by making unverified and false claims about "Foggy Bottom" and so forth.

It's pretty stupid to try to deny this reality, too. The very list of quotes that kicked off this thread refute what LB claims. Go read it again. All of the prominent Democrats believed the same things that Bush believed regarding Iraq and WMD.

LB goes on to say that the intelligence community disputed the notion that Saddam was involved with WMD, yet this is also patently false. Intelligence agencies from most of the west, as well as Russia, Israel, and China, all either agreed with the prevailing views or declined to disagree with them. All of the politicians (Republican and Democrat alike) saw the same intelligence reports, and all reached the same conclusions: Saddam either had WMD or was trying to get them, and Saddam represented a threat to the United States.

It's doublethink, I tell you. The current notion that only Bush believed Saddam had WMD, that the intelligence comunnity and the Democrats didn't believe it too: it's the current notion. It wasn't until after the invasion, after it became clear that no WMD had been found, that all of these Democrats suddenly and magically "knew all along" that there were no WMD. It wasn't just that they revised their beliefs in the face of new evidence. It was that they tried to rewrite history and revise what they had believed in the past, as if they could suddenly "wish away" all of the things they thought and said before the war.

Well they did happen, and no amount of political posturing can change history. If anyone lied, it's the Democrats who want you to believe that they never, ever thought the Iraq war was a good idea. No sirree, they never thought that. rolleyes

Here's the thing, Headless; LB presents examples that are verifiable by anyone with Internet access, in spite of the fact that you call them "false," "stupid," and "doublethink." Yet you present no examples to the contrary, other than your opiniated diatribe.

Sorry, I didn't think it was necessary. But since you insist:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=4386&p=1

Yeah, I still don't see what LB means when he questions Fistful about Iraq being unproblemmatic. Fistful never said Iraq was unproblemmatic. He was pretty clear what he meant.
As for LB's main point: it is nothing other than revisionism. This isn't something that happened 40 years ago. We all read papers, heard news etc etc. The consensus everywhere was that Saddam had WMD programs (which was correct) and was 3 years or 5 years away from developing nuclear bombs (which might have been correct).
To say the CIA had a consensus that differed from that view 180 degrees is just ludicrous, a re-writing of history. In fact, Iraq was viewed as a failure of CIA intelligence and they were taken to task over it again and again.

And even if I were a septic tank worker I would not call myself "Shitman".

Quote from: Darwin

Fistful, the difference between and ad hominem attack and "teasing" is that teasing is a form of playful jest, while an ad hominem attack is what a weak mind resorts to when he or she has been trumped by logic.

I thought we could have a little innocent fun here, but apparently some people take themselves too seriously. If Lobotomy Boy doesn't want to hear jokes about his screen name, he should not have picked one that implies he has no frontal lobe. What is more distracting than my alleged ad hominem is the carping about ad hominem that has almost replaced any intelligent discussion from the Bush Lied group.

I never contested evidence or its interpretation from either side - I don't pretend to have studied the pre-war intelligence wars. That is why I granted that you might be correct Darwin, and then opined that if you were it wouldn't make much difference. Iraq needed to be dealt with sooner or later, regardless of what WMD it might have contained at the time or what ties it may have had to terrorists in the past or present. But LB put words in my mouth and then got upset that I didn't respond to a topic (whether BushCo lied or had bad intel) to which I have nothing to contribute. He also impeaches his credibility by implying that a war is "problematic" if there happen to be a small number of casualties.

Furthermore, LB did not give evidence. Evidence would be sources; names of books, govt. reports, hyperlinks to credible webpages, etc. Lobby only provided a narrative about things of which he has no first-hand experience, unless he is in higher circles than we know about.

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Quote from: defcon5

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really? What "investments" will they get benefit from? Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action. What "benefit" do you see in that? What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have? How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

Why is it so hard for some folks to accept the simle notion that we went to war in Iraq because of the threat Saddam posed to the US? Most everyone thought he had or wanted WMD, he was well known to be a terrorist, he supported other terrorists, and he harbored still more terrorists, he represented a tremoundous destabilizing force in the region, he violated umpteen UN sanctions/resolutions/demands, he violated his own surrender treaty, he routinely attacked American servicemen, he attempted to assassinate an American President, he tortured thousands upon thousands of innocent people...

He was, in short, a Very Bad Dude. It wasn't in our own interests for him to have control of an entire country. It really is that simple.

Occams razor, folks. The simplest explaination is usually the correct explaination. Why are folks always trying to come up with these convoluted and conspiratorial explainations for why we went ro war?

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: defcon5

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really? What "investments" will they get benefit from? Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action. What "benefit" do you see in that? What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have? How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

I will do that the day you cease your parroting of the Bush appologists - which means never. And, I notice you didn't take umbrage with the observation that there won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding. Harummmph and have a nice day.

Quote from: defcon5

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: defcon5

What Clinton, Kerry, yada, yada, yada said/believed/didn't say/didn't believe/yada,yada,yada doesn't negate the fact that whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place and whether or not we want to be there today we are there.(Whew, long sentence.) Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Really? What "investments" will they get benefit from? Bush's approval rating sank to an all-time low as a direct result of this action. What "benefit" do you see in that? What investments does Paul Wolfowitz have? How do you know this?
Stop slinging bumper-sticker garbage statements like this around and make some real arguments.

I will do that the day you cease your parroting of the Bush appologists - which means never. And, I notice you didn't take umbrage with the observation that there won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding. Harummmph and have a nice day.

He's baaack.

Quote from: defcon5

There won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding.

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

Quote from: fistful

Quote from: defcon5

There won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding.

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

Well when you can't attack the facts attack the speaker I guess.

Why would I attack that fact? It certainly does nothing to discredit the Iraq war, George Bush or any of the hawks. What does that fact mean to you?

Quote from: defcon5

Quote from: fistful

Quote from: defcon5

There won't be any Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc. doing the bleeding.

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

Well when you can't attack the facts attack the speaker I guess.

Thats rich coming from someone who won't defend his position with anything resembling an argument, much less a fact.
Politicians don't bear arms in wars. Is this some kind of newsflash to you? Do you remember all those pics of Clinton commanding the front lines in Bosnia? Remember the one with Al Gore calling in arty in Somalia?
No, I didnt think so either.

And what is in Paul Wolfowitz portfolio, I still want to know.

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: defcon5

Quote from: fistful

I just quote this to embarass you, defcon, because it is such a silly criticism.

Well when you can't attack the facts attack the speaker I guess.

Thats rich coming from someone who won't defend his position with anything resembling an argument, much less a fact.
Politicians don't bear arms in wars. Is this some kind of newsflash to you? Do you remember all those pics of Clinton commanding the front lines in Bosnia? Remember the one with Al Gore calling in arty in Somalia?
No, I didnt think so either.

And what is in Paul Wolfowitz portfolio, I still want to know.

What's rich is the bleating flock who defend Bush no matter what. The fact is there aren't and won't be any Bushes, Chenneys, Wolfowitzs, Roves, etc. in harms way. As for what is in Wofowitz's portfolio I don't know and could care less. I believe you could ask for his financial disclosure forms and get that information for yourself not that it would influence your opinion or mine.

Yup, he's baack. How ya been, Blackbjorn?

Quote from: defcon5

Like Brer Rabbit and the tarbaby we are in for a long exasperating tussel that will be costly - and of one thing we can all be sure, there won't be any Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. doing any of the bleeding but they will get nice returns on their investments.

Quote from: defcon5

What's rich is the bleating flock who defend Bush no matter what. The fact is there aren't and won't be any Bushes, Chenneys, Wolfowitzs, Roves, etc. in harms way. As for what is in Wofowitz's portfolio I don't know and could care less. I believe you could ask for his financial disclosure forms and get that information for yourself not that it would influence your opinion or mine.

So lemme get this straight...

He doesn't know what he believes, but he's sure he believes it, and he isn't about to let the facts influence his opinion.

Well, at least he's honest. Wink

Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Art Eatman on September 16, 2006, 08:28:30 PM