What best describes Bill Clinton

[Gza]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.

I find it funny how you select out some fragmented quips where Bush is actually making sense, and draw the broad conclusion that he is not a liar from these few of statements. And to go as far as calling him prophetic is in my opinion, to much credit for one man.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I find it funny how you select out some fragmented quips where Bush is actually making sense, and draw the broad conclusion that he is not a liar from these few of statements.

I pulled the quips from sources offered in this forum by those calling him a liar. I found nothing else in any of the links provided. Furthermore, despite my repeated requests, no one has offered much of anything else.

I am not drawing the conclusion that he is not a liar. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Are we to assume he is a liar, with the burden placed on his supporters to prove he isn't? That is what you are suggesting.

WHERE ARE THE LIES? Just show the lies.

 

[Prometheus]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.

Bush lied to everyone to get the war in motion. Who, besides you, cares that on the first day of the war he started backtracking.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In terms of invasions, he was right. It depends on how you define "major." And even if major combat operations didn't end, if he had no way of knowing that fact it hardly constitutes a lie.

Let the world take note. I would never have believed it if I hadn't seen it. You are using the "it depends on the meaning of is" excuse. By the way, if he had no way of knowing, he should not have gone for the photo op anyway.

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.

Wow. You understand him far better than the rest of us. It seems that only you understood his words in 20/20 hindsight.

As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture. That doesn't make his statements lies.

Wrong. Cheny has maintained his lies throughout. The press has said that he is wrong, and Bush has said that he is wrong. He refuses to listen to anybody, but to use his position as VP to mislead people. This is far beyond the right that he has to his opinion. You and I have the right to our opinion. He has a responsbility to the nation. Cheny is a major liar.

It seems that we need to iterate the definition of a lie. If a person makes a statement that he thinks it is true, it is not a lie. To show that Bush lied, you need to show that he knew better at the time he made the statement. Even Cheney's optimism is hardly a lie. In fact, he pointed out more than once that he was just expressing his own outlook.

Great. We need to iterate your bogus definition of a lie. If a person is in a position of power, and he is an idiot, and he lies to the nation, we do not need to disprove that he thought it was true because he is an idiot in order for it to be a lie. Cheny's optimism. You call it optimism? I think that we should call you an optimist for this take on Cheny.

When the war began, no one knew for sure what would happen. Each government official gave their own opinions on how long they thought it was going to last. Some were more optimistic than others. That hardly constitutes a lie.

Wrong again. Bush provided the world, the entire world, with bogus information. Based on his bogus information, we went to war, and the world changed. You would forgive him because he is an idiot, and he just made an honest mistake in jumping to conclusions without evaluating the information, and never bothering to reconsider his 2 second decisions.

Show me the large numbers of "optimistic" statements that the president made concerning this issue. Once and for all, where are they? Or was this just a "lie"?

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If you don't open your eyes, you can't expect to see.

 

[Prometheus]

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?

Is that a skill that you learned on your own, or did you learn from Bush how to misread other people's words and then react to your misunderstanding?

You mean that since we have now established that Bush did not lie about the war prognosis, we are going to play this silly game with Saddam's involvement in 9/11?

Smile when you say "we" pardner. I see that you still have not noticed that several people are not agreeing with you.

This is the ever-shifting target. You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.

Now I have to wonder if you are even paying attention.

And what about the quote? I see nothing there. From what I have seen of Saddam's cruelty, he is every bit as evil as Osama. In my opinion, many times more so.

As if it were relevant even if true.

When reporters ask how long a war is going to take, how can you possibly answer without resorting to conjecture?

So now you are backtracking.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that."

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

"significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

All are examples of conjecture.

Now, this is getting real silly. If you are unable to parse the conjecture in a sentence such as "I think I am getting a Honda for my birthday," then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Yes. You now finally admit that Cheny is full of it. By your euphemism "conjecture", he lied to the world. I am quite surprised that you find what you call conjecture to be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Prometheus]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

Can't blame him for that !

Good point. We can't both blame Bush for being too stupid to make a decision on his own and accuse him of lying when others tell him what he thinks.

 

[Prometheus]

I pulled the quips from sources offered in this forum by those calling him a liar. I found nothing else in any of the links provided.

Translatiion: You didn't read anything, and lo, you found nothing.

Furthermore, despite my repeated requests, no one has offered much of anything else.

Translatiion: You closed your eyes, and lo, you found nothing.

I am not drawing the conclusion that he is not a liar. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Are we to assume he is a liar, with the burden placed on his supporters to prove he isn't? That is what you are suggesting.

Now that the evidence is clear and overwhelming to many of us, this post of yours is about a year late.

WHERE ARE THE LIES? Just show the lies.

Where are your eyes? Just open your eyes.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Where are your eyes? Just open your eyes.

I am. I am opening them right now to this thread, and I don't see any lies posted by your, nor anyone else.

Cut the crap and post the lies. Let's see the quotes.

And you still haven't told us your opinion of John F. Kennedy, who ordered the "chemical warfare" on the Vietnamese people. Cat got your tongue?

 

[Gokul43201]

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?
Damn I wish you would sort out your logic before posting.

Hah, that's funny ! I wish you'd read before you put your toes between your molars.

I'll repeat : "In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell." I never said that Bush says what R, C and R say or opine - just what they have him say.

You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.

I did say that perhaps Bush himself never used the words, but yes, the White House and other top officials did make overly optimistic predictions about the war. And I gave you the evidence for this. But since we are talking about lies (and it was not me that started with this specific claim...I will by no means be bound by it) I mentioned how it does not necessarily require the speaking of a falsehood to end up deceiving the people. Since you went about defining what a 'lie' is you might want to look it up in a dictionary to see the relevance of the example I gave.

And no, I did not switch to an entirely new subject. In your own words :

The supposed "lies" that I have seen so far either comprise (1) facts that have yet to be proven or disproven, (2) statements that were proven false but (possibly) thought to be true at the time. ...Now, maybe I have missed some stories that don't fall within the two exceptions. If so, let's hear them.

Grammar? His statement was verbal.

"...equally as bad...equally as evil..." etc. is just plain, wrong English - but this is besides the point.

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.

I've discussed this above and I see no reason to restrict myself to just that point.

Okay here we go :

# To explain why he has turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a projected $307 billion deficit in 2004, the president claimed that he had said during the campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency but never imagined he would have a "trifecta." Mr. Bush never made such a campaign statement.

# CNN : Bush highlighted a new private-sector "blue chip" economic forecast projecting that the economy would grow in the fourth quarter of this year by 3.3 percent compared to the same period last year. Bush emphasized a portion of the report suggesting that such a level of growth depended on swift passage of his proposed tax cuts. By contrast, more than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, said last week that Bush's tax plan wouldn't help the ailing economy immediately. Instead, they predicted that it would create deeper deficits that could drive up long-term interests rates and jeopardize the economy down the road.

"I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'"

# LA Times : "[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. However, the student doctored the quotation.

# On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live into build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But on 02/27/03 White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building."

I'm sure you can Google too...

 

[Prometheus]

I am. I am opening them right now to this thread, and I don't see any lies posted by your, nor anyone else.

Cut the crap and post the lies. Let's see the quotes.

I am sorry if I post so much that you have to skip some of my postings. You should go back and read a little. Harping on where are the lies will not excuse you from reading all of the postings of lies.

I cannot believe that you sincerely believe that Bush was really truthful about the war before it happened. You seem to feel that the ends justified the means, which is a legitimate opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it in this case. However, can you seriously tell us with a straight face that you believe that Bush et. al. are telling the truth as they believe it to be, and that all of the mistakes in Bush's statements are due to the fault of others?

 

[Gza]

I am sorry if I post so much that you have to skip some of my postings. You should go back and read a little. Harping on where are the lies will not excuse you from reading all of the postings of lies.

Just to expand on that; in case he feels that isn't enough, try reading Gokul's posts. And if that still isn't enough try this:

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

Now please stop complaining about people not posting quotes, or citing resources, because they're all in front of your face. Like Prometheus said, you really need to open your eyes and read them.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I never said that Bush says what R, C and R say or opine - just what they have him say.

So Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had him say that the war was going to be long and difficult. Why would they do that if they didn't believe it themselves?

To explain why he has turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a projected $307 billion deficit in 2004, the president claimed that he had said during the campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency but never imagined he would have a "trifecta." Mr. Bush never made such a campaign statement.

Well, not publically at least. But I would like to see an actual quote. At least tell me where you are getting your information.

Bush highlighted a new private-sector "blue chip" economic forecast projecting that the economy would grow in the fourth quarter of this year by 3.3 percent compared to the same period last year. Bush emphasized a portion of the report suggesting that such a level of growth depended on swift passage of his proposed tax cuts. By contrast, more than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, said last week that Bush's tax plan wouldn't help the ailing economy immediately. Instead, they predicted that it would create deeper deficits that could drive up long-term interests rates and jeopardize the economy down the road.

"I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'"

In the opinion of Moore.

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. However, the student doctored the quotation.

So the President uttered a statement he thought was correct. That's lying?

How many of us have passed on an urban legend? Well, that is essentially what Bush did. Sounds like an honest mistake to me (although he should be more careful).

On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live into build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But on 02/27/03 White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building."

Sounds like Ari is mistaken, or even lying if he indeed was aware of Bush's earlier comment -- one of the dangers of having a Press Secretary is they can make mistakes.

The man has been in power for four years, and all you have are (1) Bush recalling that he made a statement four years previously that he apparently never made, (2) a disagreement between him and economists, (3) an honest mistake that could have happened to any of us, and (4) a statement made not by him, but his Press Secretary. The first one looks promising for you, but the rest are really lame. Four years? And that's what you have? We seemingly got more than that on a daily basis from Clinton.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Now please stop complaining about people not posting quotes, or citing resources, because they're all in front of your face. Like Prometheus said, you really need to open your eyes and read them.

I went to the site, and the first one I read was the ridiculous Castro story, where the President repeated what he thought was the truth. That does not make him a liar. If it did, we would all be liars. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever managed to speak without uttering a fact that later turned out to be incorrect.

As for you Prometheus, I am still waiting to hear your opinions on JFK. C'mon, you must have some opinions on the man, considering he ordered the Agent Orange attacks on the Vietnamese. Let's hear it.

 

[Gokul43201]

The man has been in power for four years, and all you have are (1) Bush recalling that he made a statement four years previously that he apparently never made, (2) a disagreement between him and economists, (3) an honest mistake that could have happened to any of us, and (4) a statement made not by him, but his Press Secretary. The first one looks promising for you, but the rest are really lame. Four years? And that's what you have? We seemingly got more than that on a daily basis from Clinton.

Haha, please ask the President to get out of bed and talk some some - he's given far fewer press conferences than any of the recent presidents...I guess there's really not much happening these days, eh.

And actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

Okay, now that's been cleared up.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't read this whole thread, but its quite clear to me some people aren't separating the two phases of the war:

-"major conflict" is open war between the US and Saddam's troops. Bush never said how long it would be (that's the 6 weeks, 6 months, etc quote), but it was implied that it would be short: and it was short.

-Terrorism after the end of "major conflict" and during reconstruction is something Bush never addressed at all. That's certainly a failure in planning, but its not a lie as Bush never claimed there wouldn't be terrorism after the end of "major conflict."

And btw, anyone remember what the title of this thread was about? Nice hijack, Gza.

 

[Prometheus]

As for you Prometheus, I am still waiting to hear your opinions on JFK. C'mon, you must have some opinions on the man, considering he ordered the Agent Orange attacks on the Vietnamese. Let's hear it.

What a pathetic line. You have asked me this irrelevant question some 20 times. I posted a response. Rather than address my response, you post this pathetic dribble in response, as an aside to your pathetic dribble in repsonse to someone else.

I think that you must believe that Republicans are great and Democrats are evil, and that all actions of Republicans are great and that all actions of Democrats are evil. You have this simplistic, and simple, way of looking at things. That must be the source of your question. You think that others believe in such a simplistic manner.

Because I think that Bush is a moron and that Cheny treats all of us Americans like we are morons, you think that I must be a polar opposite of you. You think that I must support all actions of Democrats and oppose all actions of Republicams. Therefore, you feel that you have caught me in an error, because I am opposed to an action by a Democrat.

How simplistic and simple minded of you. Are you for real?

Cheny treats you like a moron, and you lap it up with glee. Maybe he is right about you.

If you respond to this post, please do not do so as an aside to some other post. We all know that you are spouting dribble, and that you are preaching to yourself, but why not pretend that you expect someone to be listening?

Cite my repsonse to your question, and respond to it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

And actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

If the Secretary of Defense admitted to being a Communist, I don't think I would consider Bush a Communist.

As I said, people often make mistakes when speaking for others. Anytime you have a spokesman you run that risk. If you want to say that Bush lies, then you should provide quotes BY BUSH of falsehoods he knew were falsehoods at the time he told them. So far, I haven't seen much, if any.

 

[Prometheus]

actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

Okay, now that's been cleared up.

Now that you have seen the light, perhaps Dubya will get off your case.

 

[Prometheus]

Terrorism after the end of "major conflict" and during reconstruction is something Bush never addressed at all. That's certainly a failure in planning, but its not a lie as Bush never claimed there wouldn't be terrorism after the end of "major conflict."

I disagree. The war is still going on. Americans are dying daily. How can you contend that Bush was an idiot and did not even consider this major part of the action, rather than recognizing that Bush lied to the American people by hiding it.

Did you notice the citation about Cheny claiming that our occupation would be short?

Do you really think that Bush planned to have soldiers doing police duty, for which they were not trained, for long stints that are extended multiple times, and that he just forgot to tell us? No, you call it a failure in planning. Does Bush bear any repsonsilibity for this failure, in your opinion? If so, what responsibility?

 

[Prometheus]

If the Secretary of Defense admitted to being a Communist, I don't think I would consider Bush a Communist.

As I said, people often make mistakes when speaking for others. Anytime you have a spokesman you run that risk. If you want to say that Bush lies, then you should provide quotes BY BUSH of falsehoods he knew were falsehoods at the time he told them. So far, I haven't seen much, if any.

I think that you deserve every bit of the degree of respect that Cheny affords you.

 

[BobG]

My choice was pompous sneak who faked and cheated his way through the system. (And, by now, no one will have any idea how this post is relevant. )

Never understood his appeal, other than a good TV personality and the ability to play the sax. Not a horrible president, but more like a president of small accomplishments - slightly above average in spite of being a pompous sneak (and the man most likely to have given the baseball player Scott "Will your sister" Leius his nickname).

Granted, I also realize I may still underestimate him, considering how the subject of Clinton still obsesses so many Republicans three-and-a-half years after he left office. I don't think anyone even remembered Carter three-and-a-half years after he left office.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Well, if Bush wins re-election the Democrats will be cursing him for decades as well. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both have this way of getting under people's skins. I don't sense it with Bush because I'm a supporter, but I think I understand it. I suspect Dems get the same creepy feeling that someone is taking them for a ride that we felt under Clinton -- that someone had just pissed on your lawn and was laughing while doing it.

 

[Gza]

I suspect Dems get the same creepy feeling that someone is taking them for a ride that we felt under Clinton -- that someone had just pissed on your lawn and was laughing while doing it.

Clinton may have been pissing on my lawn, but Bush is pissing off the world. :tongue:

 

[Prometheus]

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.

Some people still contend that Bush told only the truth, and that any errors are the fault of others, who merely exercised their freedom to make honest "conjectures". Based on his and his aides' "conjectures', it was Bush who led us to war for reasons that have not proven true. Should he be held responsible for his decision, or should he be forgiven because, after all, he is not smart enough to have dreamed up these reasons by himself?

To look up any of the following, or to search for a path for more quotes, cut and past the words of each quote into google.com

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction.—Dick Cheney—August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for the production of biological weapons. —George W. Bush—September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.—Ari Fleischer—December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.—Ari Fleischer—January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent. —George W. Bush—January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.—Colin Powell—February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.—'George Bush —February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons
of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment
has to be clearly not.—Colin Powell—March 8, 2003

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

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the
operation, for whatever duration it takes.—Ari Fleisher—March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons
of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be
identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who
guard them.—Gen. Tommy Franks—March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.—Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman—March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a
number of sites.—Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark—March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.—Donald Rumsfeld—March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of
mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. —Neocon scholar Robert Kagan—April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials,
a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass
destruction will be found.—Ari Fleischer—April 10, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . .
. so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that
country.—Donald Rumsfeld—April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.—George Bush—May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had
weapons of mass destruction.—Colin Powell—May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction
in that country.—Donald Rumsfeld—May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. —George W. Bush—May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and
find" weapons of mass destruction.—Condoleeza Rice—May 12, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them
to be found. I still expect them to be found.—Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps—May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating,
I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.—Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff—May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.—Donald Rumsfeld—May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one
reason everyone could agree on.—Paul Wolfowitz—May 28, 2003

 

[JohnDubYa]

Again, it comes down to whether or not Bush knew the statements he made were false at the time. That is what is meant by a lie.

And no one has proven that no WMDs existed at the time of the invasion.

 

[Gza]

And no one has proven that no WMDs existed at the time of the invasion.

are you sure?

After returning to Iraq after a four-year hiatus in late November, UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1375792,00.html

We had the issue pretty much sorted out before the invasion. There was no evidence of any WMDs. And this was a large part of the rationale for the war. It took the blind arrogance, as well as the lies of the Bushies to push us all into it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Where did the sarin-filled cannon shell come from? (I haven't followed the story since it first broke.)

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree. The war is still going on. Americans are dying daily. How can you contend that Bush was an idiot and did not even consider this major part of the action, rather than recognizing that Bush lied to the American people by hiding it.

Hiding what? Hiding the outcome of events that hadn't happened yet? Sorry, Prometheus, but our differing interpretations of how a "war" works and differing predictions on how long events over which he doesn't have complete control will take does not constitute a lie.

Did you notice the citation about Cheny claiming that our occupation would be short?

And...? How can a prediction ever be a lie? Are you saying he said this while at the same time planned for a long occupation? Do you have evidence of that?

Do you really think that Bush planned to have soldiers doing police duty, for which they were not trained, for long stints that are extended multiple times, and that he just forgot to tell us?

No, I don't think he planned that - do you?

No, you call it a failure in planning. Does Bush bear any repsonsilibity for this failure, in your opinion? If so, what responsibility?

Absolutely - he's the one who got us into this mess and he's therefore soley responsible for it.

 

[russ_watters]

We had the issue pretty much sorted out before the invasion. There was no evidence of any WMDs. And this was a large part of the rationale for the war. It took the blind arrogance, as well as the lies of the Bushies to push us all into it.

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

 

[Gokul43201]

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

Yes, that is a worrisome question...but it's not the question. The teeth of the WMD claim was that new programs had been set up; that there was renewed activity; that there was more destructive capability than what could be had from the leftovers.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can a prediction ever be a lie?

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has. (A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.) If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar.

 

[JohnDubYa]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has.

Well, if he INTENTIONALLY gives the readers more confidence than he really has.

Once war breaks out, I find nothing wrong with expressing optimism, even if somewhat unwarranted. As a leader, you are supposed to inspire confidence in your troops. What kind of leader would tell his army that he doesn't have much faith that they will carry out the job in a timely manner?

 

[Gokul43201]

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

True, the lack of evidence is not a proof. But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war. And if the case for WMDs is not really strong, but there were other, equally compelling reasons for going to war, the people desrve to have heard them. The argument for war was based almost solely on WMDs and the al-Qaeda link. We heard little about saving the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator, until after the war started.

It's not the words themselves that constitute a lie, but their effect on the people. Half the people in the coutry thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Many people still see the "mushroom cloud" picture, as the reason for immediate action. To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war.

Given that Saddam never cooperated in providing evidence that WMDs did not exist in his country, I disagree. He went out of his way to make himself look guilty, so I hardly think we can be blamed for acting on that suspicion.

To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

I agree. The question is whether the administration knew the ideas were false. Again, you are being very presumptuous.

And I hope you're not a Michael Moore fan with that last quote.

 

[russ_watters]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has.

I'd generally agree with that, but that's a fuzzy thing - and one that requires evidence. But you are trying to have it both ways: if he expected the "insurgency" and downplayed it, he's a liar. If he (or his advisors) didn't expect it, but should have, he's (or his advisors are) incompetent. He cannot be both at the same time.

(A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.)

I share that view (it actually goes beyond the real definition), but I'm surprised to see it from a democrat. Perhaps you'd like to go back and re-open the Michael Moore thread...?

If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar.

Granted, but that's not really functionally dis-similar from being incompetent.

 

[amp]

This is fairly recent lie.

CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

Site given by Prometheus: http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM