• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: UN may prosecute Bush administration, regardless of US action

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

:lol:

Its absolutely not wishful thinking, its realistic thinking. I hope it can be avoided, but in order for it to be avoided things need to change greatly.
 
:lol:

Its absolutely not wishful thinking, its realistic thinking. I hope it can be avoided, but in order for it to be avoided things need to change greatly.

It's not realistic at all. Our political system has always been very divisive and very passionate. This is no different and no worse than other episodes that have occurred in our past.
 
Actually, you have it backwards. You're the one saying that the hyperbole used by the Bush administration is the same as lying.
Now you're begging the question. The premise assumes its own conclusion. You have not established that it really is hyperbole, but you claim that I'm turning this hyperbole into lies. Please stop with the logical fallacies.

Take your last bullet point, for example. No one said there was a mushroom cloud, or that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
I didn't say a mushroom cloud was claimed when there wasn't one. I said a smoking gun was claimed when there wasn't one.

My reply: Source: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Testimony of David Kay.

Remember these are taken under oath. Not that it matters to a lib.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
1. I am not a lib. That is unnecessary.
2. My assertion is that Rice claimed the tubes were only suited for nuclear enrichment. That there was no other explanation. Intelligence officials were on both sides about it. There were other explanations. Rice lied.


I do not see a lie here. Do you think intel agencies deal with Cinderella's? It was a "slam dunk" as far as the CIA Director knew. You know, the same guy The Clintons met with twice?
When you are told that someone's credibility is seriously lacking, and then you go off and say that person is a "solid source," that my friend is a lie no matter how you spin it.

The probability that a bunch of terrorists would fly three of four buildings into strategic targets killing thousands was also low probability. So low nobody had thought about it.
Nobody claimed that the probability of 9/11 was high in spite of the best intelligence indicating otherwise. The NIE said the probability was low, Team Bush described the probability as high. That my friend is a lie no matter how you spin it.

Here is more testimony on that scenario:
This testimony was given in 2004. I can't prove a lie by quoting something that Bush honestly and reasonably believed was true at the time, and you can't disprove a lie by quoting something that Bush didn't even know at the time. Please show where Team Bush was warned by the IC of this better-than-low possibility before March 2003.

This does not illustrate a "lie"... and you make a generalization... do not state a shred of fact.
When you say "there is no doubt" when behind the scenes there is doubt, that my friend is a lie no matter how you spin it.

Many from the Democrat party, including its leadership and Presidents, The Clintons, stated with force he was a serious threat with WMD. Hillary defended her vote before a gathering of Code Pinko's.
I repeat: It's also important to keep separate statements made before and after the 2002 NIE. Many statements on the famous Democrat quote list were based on the 1998 NIE. The assessment was not the same in 2002.

Researched. Lies ignored.

Try again.
Fixed. :2razz:

LOL. You get to pick the facts. LOL.
No. We use the most up-to-date information that was available at the time. That goes both ways. You can't use quotes based on data in 1998 to support a conclusion in 2003, when better data was available in 2002, any more than I can use quotes based on data in 2004 to prove a lie occurred in 2003.

You see, Saddam kicked out the inspecteurs of da sortie of da yew-ehn (UN) in 1998. Why would the intel change? Why would he disarm himself? LOL.
Sorry, that was funny.

CNS - Iraq and UNSCOM: Selected CNS Missile Database Abstracts 1998
I know he kicked them out in 1998. After that, many of the WMDs that he had in 1998 were destroyed in No-Fly Zone squabbles or became too old to be much of a threat (we know that now but didn't then). Then he let the inspectors back in in 2002. That's where much of the 2002 NIE data came from. He still had violations, but the assessed threat level wasn't as great as it was in 1998. So again, it's not fair to use quotes based on 1998 data to criticize a 2003 decision when more updated data was available in 2002. The decision to wage war, and refutation of the criticims of that decision, should be based solely on the most up-to-date data that was available at the time. So when people post Democrat quotes from 1998 that talk about an alarming situation, they're doing the exact same thing as when people say "Bush lied" just because the best intelligence he had was wrong. Both arguments are fallicious and dishonest.

By the way, the UN inspectors were given unimpeded access to all of Iraq for two weeks before the invasion. It was Bush who kicked them out for the last time, not Hussein. I won't argue that Hussein was a bastard and a cronic bull****ter, but the inspectors should have been allowed to continue.
 
Last edited:
Now you're begging the question. The premise assumes its own conclusion. You have not established that it really is hyperbole, but you claim that I'm turning this hyperbole into lies. Please stop with the logical fallacies.


I didn't say a mushroom cloud was claimed when there wasn't one. I said a smoking gun was claimed when there wasn't one.
You're posting example of hyperbole and calling them lies. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it happens to be true.

No smoking gun was claimed in the "mushroom cloud" comment. Therefore, there was no lie.
 
You're posting example of hyperbole and calling them lies. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it happens to be true.
Do you agree that taking a fact and exaggerating it is not the same thing as creating a fact where one doesn't exist? Nevermind whether that fits into any of the lies I listed, I just want to know if you recognize that difference or not.

No smoking gun was claimed in the "mushroom cloud" comment. Therefore, there was no lie.
You can't be serious. If no smoking gun was claimed, then how could it be right there in Rice's quote, in plain English? Some intellectual honesty would be nice.
 
If Moon isn't contained, he may attack us in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Just hyperbole, right?
 
Do you agree that taking a fact and exaggerating it is not the same thing as creating a fact where one doesn't exist? Nevermind whether that fits into any of the lies I listed, I just want to know if you recognize that difference or not.

No. It is an exaggeration or an extrapolation.


You can't be serious. If no smoking gun was claimed, then how could it be right there in Rice's quote, in plain English? Some intellectual honesty would be nice.

You posted:

"We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.

Nowhere in that quote is there a statement that there is, in fact a smoking gun. It's a speculation about the future possibility of a smoking gun, and the form that it might take. here is no way on earth that a reasonable person could look at that statement and call it a lie. And yes, intellectual honesty would be fabulous, and I hope you plan on using some in the near future.
 
It's not realistic at all. Our political system has always been very divisive and very passionate. This is no different and no worse than other episodes that have occurred in our past.

Your political system has fallen apart. Its a joke, a laughingstock even in Africa.
 
Says you, and you're wrong.

So, how much of your election was about politics for example? And how much was rather about discrediting others, scandals, tv appearance, white teeth, money and so on?

And how many parties do you have? And how do these function in splitting up the country and politics into two rather extremes?

How about them just working against each other rather than together for the future of the people in the the US and the nation? All they do is reverse all the changes the other ones have done the past 4 or 8 years, and never really come up with any long term plans. And consider that, how long term are the longest term plans in US politics? And how long ought plans be for a nation? For a nation 4 years or even 8 is a very short time..



PS. I am not saying ONLY the US political system is broken, but IT certainly is..
 
So, how much of your election was about politics for example? And how much was rather about discrediting others, scandals, tv appearance, white teeth, money and so on?

And how many parties do you have? And how do these function in splitting up the country and politics into two rather extremes?

How about them just working against each other rather than together for the future of the people in the the US and the nation? All they do is reverse all the changes the other ones have done the past 4 or 8 years, and never really come up with any long term plans. And consider that, how long term are the longest term plans in US politics? And how long ought plans be for a nation? For a nation 4 years or even 8 is a very short time..



PS. I am not saying ONLY the US political system is broken, but IT certainly is..

Morally Bankrupt too! Especially disgraceful politicians publicly bashing our Presidents!!!:shock:
 
Now I know that Bush has his problems, but these will discussed and vetted here in the United States, not in the UN. Of course, you can prosecute Bush if you want to. BTW, good luck arresting Bush. Our army will kick ass on your army. :mrgreen:

Yeah, I think there was plenty we could have went after the whole of the Bush administration on. And we should have done it too, there has to be some form of pressure put on between the branches to keep everyone honest. But the UN holds no sovereignty over us, and I think this is just them running their mouths a bit to feel like big dogs. In the end, they know there isn't a damned thing they can do and we'd never hand over one of our own to them.
 
So, how much of your election was about politics for example? And how much was rather about discrediting others, scandals, tv appearance, white teeth, money and so on?

And how many parties do you have? And how do these function in splitting up the country and politics into two rather extremes?

How about them just working against each other rather than together for the future of the people in the the US and the nation? All they do is reverse all the changes the other ones have done the past 4 or 8 years, and never really come up with any long term plans. And consider that, how long term are the longest term plans in US politics? And how long ought plans be for a nation? For a nation 4 years or even 8 is a very short time..



PS. I am not saying ONLY the US political system is broken, but IT certainly is..

Gee, sounds like most elections in most countries. :roll:
 
Gee, sounds like most elections in most countries. :roll:

Not really so much, but that is the problems in many countries yes... Elections should be strictly about politics and the platform, it should be informational in nature, not dramatic and fun.
 
Not really so much, but that is the problems in many countries yes... Elections should be strictly about politics and the platform, it should be informational in nature, not dramatic and fun.

I agree. Of course, that has nothing to do with the impending civil war you predicted, or perhaps are pining for. It's hard to tell.
 
Now I know that Bush has his problems, but these will discussed and vetted here in the United States, not in the UN. Of course, you can prosecute Bush if you want to. BTW, good luck arresting Bush. Our army will kick ass on your army. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Keyword: "May".

What would be the result? Probably the same as like an impeachment.
"You're guilty! Have a nice day!" and then sent on their merry way.
 
Keyword: "May".

What would be the result? Probably the same as like an impeachment.
"You're guilty! Have a nice day!" and then sent on their merry way.

The result? Lots of posturing and speechifying by third world tinpot dictators, with a few liberal screeds from industrialized nations thrown in for good measure. In other words...nothing of any substance. Don't forget, the US is a permanent member of the Security Council, and can veto any measure it wishes for any reason. It would be extreme bad form if the Obama administration were to allow the nutjobs in the UN to prosecute a former US president, since he'll be a former president himself one day.
 
No. It is an exaggeration or an extrapolation.

You posted:

"We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.
Nowhere in that quote is there a statement that there is, in fact a smoking gun.
Thank you. With this, I can tell that we are not on the same side of reality and thus it's pointless to debate with you. Have a nice day. :2wave:
 
Thank you. With this, I can tell that we are not on the same side of reality and thus it's pointless to debate with you. Have a nice day. :2wave:

Ah, I get it. Can't refute my point, so it must be time to run off.

TTFN.
 
They've been listed and debated here plenty! Just look for their threads.

However... From Bush's speech in Cincinnati on October 10, 2002..


ref: CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

Rice and Cheney repeated and pushed this lie on all the talk shows.

Is this the best you can come up with? Didn't you notice the CONDITIONAL language used? 'Could'? You have to show that the PResident DID NOT KNOW that there were no WMD's in Iraq, a COMPLETELY untenable position. If you believe that, will you equally criticize Clinton and other Democratic politicians for making similar lies concering Iraq, or is it only a lie when a Republican/Conservative makes the claims.

You are on VERY thin ice with this one. This is no proof at all of "lies". I suggest you check a REAL dictionary on the meaning of lie, and not the leftist version.
 
You can't be serious. If no smoking gun was claimed, then how could it be right there in Rice's quote, in plain English? Some intellectual honesty would be nice.

I think YOU are the one who needs intelectual honesty. Didn't she (and the President) talk about NOT WAITING for that kind of a smoking gun? RIF!
 
Back
Top Bottom