Bush never lied to us about Iraq - Page 11

independent_thinker2002 · 06-23-08, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The goo stains on Monica's navy-blue dress suggest otherwise.

Yes, he lied. So did Bush. That is all I am pointing out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Bush didn't write his administration's guidelines on interrogation.

Where does the buck stop?

Truth Detector · 06-23-08, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

He was dishonest and manipulative, but did not lie.

If Bush can twist definitions of torture why can't Clinton twist definitions of sex?

You have to be kidding right? I guess in your historical ignorance you missed where Clinton did indeed lie, was found to have lied LEGALLY and had articles of impeachment forwarded to the Senate for those lies, not to mention he also was disbarred.

How did Bush "twist" the definitions of torture? The only "twisted" logic in this debate is among those who consider this administration to be the "enemy," which itself is absurd not to mention offensive and warped attempts to forward the notion that ANYTHING that causes mental stress or pain should be considered torture and off limits when the enemy is flying civilian aircraft into civilian buildings, dragging the lifeless bodies of our troops through the streets and hanging them from bridges and cutting the heads off their prisoners while they are screaming for mercy.

The definitions of what constitutes torture are pretty clear and the Bush Administration used it's LEGAL discretion to protect the American people to obtain confessions from terrorists that lead to arrests and perhaps even taking out other terrorists who were not only a threat to our safety, but in the process of plotting more attacks.

I find the attempts by loony tunes like Dennis Kucinich to not only be idiotic in their OBVIOUS misguided political posturing, but to be offensive in the extreme when one attempts to portray our country’s leadership as not only the enemy, but also a pack of corrupt liars; particularly when the evidence supporting such offensive and idiotic rhetoric isn't even close to the definition of CREDIBLE to say the very least.

So please spare us your further whacked out attempts to re-define what constitutes torture or spew lies in your weak and pathetic effort to support a political party and philosophy who would do anything to get back the power they so desperately desire but cant obtain without lying about, impugning the character of, and portraying their opposition as being worse than Saddam and Osama bin Laden. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even HALF a brain.

independent_thinker2002 · 06-23-08, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

You have to be kidding right? I guess in your historical ignorance you missed where Clinton did indeed lie, was found to have lied LEGALLY and had articles of impeachment forwarded to the Senate for those lies, not to mention he also was disbarred.

How did Bush "twist" the definitions of torture? The only "twisted" logic in this debate is among those who consider this administration to be the "enemy," which itself is absurd not to mention offensive and warped attempts to forward the notion that ANYTHING that causes mental stress or pain should be considered torture and off limits when the enemy is flying civilian aircraft into civilian buildings, dragging the lifeless bodies of our troops through the streets and hanging them from bridges and cutting the heads off their prisoners while they are screaming for mercy.

The definitions of what constitutes torture are pretty clear and the Bush Administration used it's LEGAL discretion to protect the American people to obtain confessions from terrorists that lead to arrests and perhaps even taking out other terrorists who were not only a threat to our safety, but in the process of plotting more attacks.

I find the attempts by loony tunes like Dennis Kucinich to not only be idiotic in their OBVIOUS misguided political posturing, but to be offensive in the extreme when one attempts to portray our country’s leadership as not only the enemy, but also a pack of corrupt liars; particularly when the evidence supporting such offensive and idiotic rhetoric isn't even close to the definition of CREDIBLE to say the very least.

So please spare us your further whacked out attempts to re-define what constitutes torture or spew lies in your weak and pathetic effort to support a political party and philosophy who would do anything to get back the power they so desperately desire but cant obtain without lying about, impugning the character of, and portraying their opposition as being worse than Saddam and Osama bin Laden. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even HALF a brain.

If this was about partisanship desires to regain power, how come independents agree that suffocating someone is torture? How come we tried the Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding?

I'll stand by for more vitriolic rhetoric.

Tashah · 06-23-08, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Yes, he lied. So did Bush. That is all I am pointing out.

All politician's lie. All president's lie. It goes with the territory.

It is convenient and easy to label Bush a consumate liar. All I am pointing out is that proving such in a court of law is another matter entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Where does the buck stop?

Of course the buck stops at the top, but the buck also shouldn't be counterfeit. As I said earlier in this thread, it will be left to lawyers and historians to sort out the true legacy of Mr. Bush.

independent_thinker2002 · 06-23-08, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

All politician's lie. All president's lie. It goes with the territory.

It is convenient and easy to label Bush a consumate liar. All I am pointing out is that proving such in a court of law is another matter entirely.

Yes, all people lie. If a plea agreement is proof, then okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Of course the buck stops at the top, but the buck also shouldn't be counterfeit. As I said earlier in this thread, it will be left to lawyers and historians to sort out the true legacy of Mr. Bush.

I understand.

Would you vote for someone who ran on a platform of "my ideas sound terrible right now, but in 50 years they will be brilliant"?

Iriemon · 06-23-08, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The inspectors did not go back in and find conclusive evidence that there were NO WMD's in March 2003 prior to pulling them and sending the military in. I know you want to keep pretending that people should be able to accurately determine when despots are lying to them deceiving them and be able to look into the future and accurately predict outcomes to support your absurd political beliefs and ideas about REALITY, but it just doesn't happen this way in the REAL world.

I would love to see your indisputable evidence that the inspectors KNEW unequivocally that Saddam had NO WMDs. I have read the reports from Hans Blix before we went in and I neither saw then, nor see now anything that could be considered to be indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Once more, your arguments and those of others is more of the same wishful thinking by a philosophy that still erroneously believes that terrorists, thugs, dictators and despots respond to dialogue. History has yet to produce any evidence to the contrary and the notion that Saddam was in compliance or willing to comply is further evidence of historic ignorance on the matter. This same political philosophy permits you to direct your anger and ire at Bush and this administration rather than at the terrorists, thugs and murderers who are creating the mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find this profoundly stupid, but I guess when people wallow in denial anything is possible.

It is this same myopic and political denial that permits an entire party in America to think that supporting the positions of our enemies is somehow a GOOD thing for America and the American people; and that the purpose of impugning this administration when the men and women of our military are fighting in a war these same politicians sent them to fight is going to lead to victory.

It requires the willing suspension of disbelief in order to suggest that Saddam was going to comply or give a rats behind about UN resolutions against him.

Excerpts:

Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation
Friday, March 7, 2003 Posted: 12:38 PM EST (1738 GMT)

"Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence. "

"On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more. "

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks; lethal weapons are being destroyed.

However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break. "

"One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.

This is not yet clear. "

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

From Blix's report:

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.

Blix also reports that the Iraqis have been cooperating better, destroyed some missles that were deemed violations, and that he needed more time to make a confirmation.

After months of hundreds of inspectors searching through Iraq were our sources said WMD were located, they had found nothing of WMDs Iraq was said to have.

Even if Iraq did have those WMDs, they had had them for two decades, and there is no evidence they ever supplied them to terrorists or would.

Iraq was not all of a sudden an "urgent threat" to the security of the US because it might have had WMDs that it had for decades.

The only "urgent threat" was the threat that the inspectors would confirm Iraq in fact did not have the WMD that this war was supposedly about. That was why there was a need to rush to war. The neocons were about to lose their excuse for invading Iraq, something they had pined for for years before 9/11.

Tashah · 06-23-08, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Would you vote for someone who ran on a platform of "my ideas sound terrible right now, but in 50 years they will be brilliant"?

Like it or not, sometimes you have to go with the lesser of two evils

Truth Detector · 06-23-08, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

From Blix's report:

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.

Blix also reports that the Iraqis have been cooperating better, destroyed some missles that were deemed violations, and that he needed more time to make a confirmation.

After months of hundreds of inspectors searching through Iraq were our sources said WMD were located, they had found nothing of WMDs Iraq was said to have.

Even if Iraq did have those WMDs, they had had them for two decades, and there is no evidence they ever supplied them to terrorists or would.

Iraq was not all of a sudden an "urgent threat" to the security of the US because it might have had WMDs that it had for decades.

The only "urgent threat" was the threat that the inspectors would confirm Iraq in fact did not have the WMD that this war was supposedly about. That was why there was a need to rush to war. The neocons were about to lose their excuse for invading Iraq, something they had pined for for years before 9/11.

Once more you are avoiding my question with your deliberate obfuscations. I clearly stated: “The inspectors did not go back in and find conclusive evidence that there were NO WMD's in March 2003 prior to pulling them and sending the military in. “

Now let's look at your other attempts to avoid the FACTS:

"Iraq was not all of a sudden an "urgent threat" to the security of the US "

The only ones making this false argument are the ones attempting to distort the facts and Saddam’s record. No one stated that they were "suddenly" an urgent threat. Saddam was a threat to security in peace in the region for decades. Are you attempting to deny this?
Saddam also had spent over a decade preventing the inspectors from doing their jobs. Prior to the military buildup by Bush and the coalition, he had kicked the inspectors out. Do you deny he had done this?

The notion that Saddam was cooperating can only be held by those in ignorance of the actual events.

This statement is also made in ignorance of the reasons we went in:

"The only "urgent threat" was the threat that the inspectors would confirm Iraq in fact did not have the WMD that this war was supposedly about...... The neocons were about to lose their excuse for invading Iraq, something they had pined for for years before 9/11."

I suggest that you READ the Joint Authorization to enforce the numerous UN resolutions Saddam continued to defy right up to the point we went in before you make such outrageous and patently false accusations about this Administration.

The text contains 1,864 words of which only 204 were devoted to WMDs. The argument that we went specifically because of the WMDs is specious at the least.

To make it easy for you to become more INFORMED, here is the link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

All this begs the questions from those like you who are so desperate to portray this country and Administration in such a bad light; why? Why is it that while our men and women who have been sent into harms way are fighting and dying, there are those who live safe in this country thanks to their efforts who want to do all they can to hamper, and impede the successful conclusion of the war, deny them of victory and impugn their leadership?

I suggest that it is an offensive and pathetic political attempt to get back the political power they so desperately desire over the success and safety of this Nation.

Carry on; I look forward to more of your denials, lies and distortions in your weak attempts to support a political philosophy in this country that has OBVIOUSLY lost its way and wouldn’t know a fact or the truth if it walked up and introduced itself to them.

Please stop avoiding my questions and attempt to answer them honestly and without all your diversions, projections and denials.

Iriemon · 06-23-08, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Once more you are avoiding my question with your deliberate obfuscations. I clearly stated: “The inspectors did not go back in and find conclusive evidence that there were NO WMD's in March 2003 prior to pulling them and sending the military in. “

So what? It's irrelevant they hadn't made a conclusive determination yet. The fact is that the inspectors were not finding WMDs were our sources said they were. That should have told us that our intel was suspect. Under these circumstances, rather than rushing to war, the inspections should have continued to confirm. The inspectors didn't get to the conclusive part because the Bush administration pulled them out before they could get to that part. Most likely because they didn't want them to.

Quote:

Now let's look at your other attempts to avoid the FACTS:

"Iraq was not all of a sudden an "urgent threat" to the security of the US "

The only ones making this false argument are the ones attempting to distort the facts and Saddam’s record. No one stated that they were "suddenly" an urgent threat. Saddam was a threat to security in peace in the region for decades. Are you attempting to deny this?

LOL, whose avoiding the FACTS:

• President Bush stated on October 2, 2002: “the Iraqi regime is a threat of
unique urgency. . . . [i]t has developed weapons of mass death.”8

• President Bush stated on November 20, 2002: “Today the world is . . .
uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.”9

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...record_rep.pdf

Quote:

Saddam also had spent over a decade preventing the inspectors from doing their jobs. Prior to the military buildup by Bush and the coalition, he had kicked the inspectors out. Do you deny he had done this?

So what? They were there in late 2002 to Mar 2003 when Bush kicked them out. Not Hussein.

Quote:

The notion that Saddam was cooperating can only be held by those in ignorance of the actual events.

From the Blix report you cited.

Quote:

This statement is also made in ignorance of the reasons we went in:

"The only "urgent threat" was the threat that the inspectors would confirm Iraq in fact did not have the WMD that this war was supposedly about...... The neocons were about to lose their excuse for invading Iraq, something they had pined for for years before 9/11."

I suggest that you READ the Joint Authorization to enforce the numerous UN resolutions Saddam continued to defy right up to the point we went in before you make such outrageous and patently false accusations about this Administration.

I've read them. I stand by my opinion.

Quote:

The text contains 1,864 words of which only 204 were devoted to WMDs. The argument that we went specifically because of the WMDs is specious at the least.

To make it easy for you to become more INFORMED, here is the link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Bush himself told the nation it was going to war for one reason only: The supposed urgent threat from Iraq's supposed WMD. That after months of inspections no one had ever found.

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush press conference, March 6, 2003

Quote:

All this begs the questions from those like you who are so desperate to portray this country and Administration in such a bad light; why? Why is it that while our men and women who have been sent into harms way are fighting and dying, there are those who live safe in this country thanks to their efforts who want to do all they can to hamper, and impede the successful conclusion of the war, deny them of victory and impugn their leadership?

I'm only responding to your desparate attempts to try to blame the Democrats for the fiasco in Iraq.

Not that I blame you.

Quote:

I suggest that it is an offensive and pathetic political attempt to get back the political power they so desperately desire over the success and safety of this Nation.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the safety of the nation. Hussein represented no urgent threat. In fact, taking him out has put our nation at greater risk than him being in power.

Quote:

Carry on; I look forward to more of your denials, lies and distortions in your weak attempts to support a political philosophy in this country that has OBVIOUSLY lost its way and wouldn’t know a fact or the truth if it walked up and introduced itself to them.

The facts speak for themselves. Your distortions, denials, lies and weak attempts to support the neocon political philosophy in this country that has OBVIOUSLY lost its way and wouldn’t know a fact or the truth if it walked up and introduced itself to them.

Quote:

Please stop avoiding my questions and attempt to answer them honestly and without all your diversions, projections and denials.

Your questions are strawmen and irrelevant.

Truth Detector · 06-23-08, 07:30 PM

Quote:
Please stop avoiding my questions and attempt to answer them honestly and without all your diversions, projections and denials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Your questions are strawmen and irrelevant.

Thank you for illustrating that facts and the historic record are meaningless to someone who has a political agenda and will make any claim, false or otherwise, to support their myopic views.

Bottom line is, neither I, nor anyone else who supports this Administration on the Iraq issue is trying to blame Democrats as you falsely claim; I am not blaming anyone. I don't see any reason to "blame" someone for doing the RIGHT thing.

Meanwhile, angry Liberals like you who think that peace can be obtained through empty political rhetoric want to point your fingers at anyone and anything that doesn't support your naive and weak arguments and blame them for the entire world's problems blah blah blah blah.

What is fascinating about such blind denial is that these angry Liberals will never blame the people and ideologies that make the world unsafe; Saddam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden, terrorists who blow up their own mosques and people, terrorists who hide among women and children to ensure that if we do fire on them, there will be headlines about how WE killed innocents.

What is equally fascinating about such blind denial is how adamant Liberals are that Saddam was not a threat. If he was such a non-threat, why were there so many resolutions for him to comply? Why did so many devote so much time, on BOTH sides of the political aisle, telling us how he WAS a threat? Why is it that when the UN oil-for-food program was exposed as having been corrupted by Saddam, there were no doubts about the entire enforcement issue having possibly been corrupted?

It begs the question, after the decision was made on BOTH sides of the aisle to go in, and we did it, what amount of recriminations or impugning this administration would make the situation better for our troops or this nation?

The HONEST answer is NOTHING done by the Liberals and the Democrats will make things better. But it is not about winning or succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the issue with you and your fellow Liberals and Democrats. The HONEST answer is that by impugning the people conducting this war, you see an opportunity for political gain, even if it means failure in the Middle East.

That stated, it is not surprising you would choose to avoid answering any questions honestly as it would require introspection into your true motives, and the last thing you want to see is your own motives having a less than honest reason.

At a time when our politicians and people need to come together and support the effort, Liberals and their Democrat allies have chosen a path that further divides this nation by impugning it's leaders in front of the entire world. It is pathetic, offensive in my opinion, and a sure sign of weakness. But since when did being WEAK ever bother or occur to a Liberal when the ONLY thing that matters to them is political power, power that they cannot possibly achieve honestly debating their political philosophy.

So by all means, continue your re-criminations which do NOTHING to achieve a solution or victory in Iraq and continue your fear mongering about Republican politicians, George Bush and the people who support him. After all, the lives of our troops and achieving success in the Middle East aren't as important as winning a political victory in the fall.