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.