News Bush sucks as President

  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
Z

Zero

Originally posted by RageSk8
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.
I do think it is a world-view issue, as the link I posted illustrates. Bush and Co. don't feel the need for facts, because they KNOW everything, even when all the evidence refutes them. This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.
 
R

RageSk8

This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.
I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).
The problem is, I guess, that truth takes too long to catch up to the lies. I don't blame people for believing Bush: they are scared about terrorism, used to trusting their leaders, and the media has almost completely dropped the ball on its coverage of this administration.
 

kat

12
0
Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin:wink:

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name)
Thanks a bunch
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin:wink:

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.

Thanks a bunch
Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,817
Originally posted by RageSk8
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.
I'll certainly give you that. Different things are important to us. However, I've always taken the position that political science is as its name implies a science and if studied objectively can be figured out.
I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?
A sampling of the mainstream media for the most part. No, I do not watch Fox News.
The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).
My line of reasoning has never been quite the same as Bush's anyway though.
I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!
Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok?
Touche' Zero.

This is of course part of the problem - the research itself is easily enough biased. If we do your research for you, we won't see the same things you see. You have to substantiate your own claims.

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated.
Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?
 
Z

Zero

kat

12
0
Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.

Originally posted by Zero
Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?
If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html [Broken]
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote.....
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.



If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html [Broken]
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote.....
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript.
See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.

For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati)

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean? Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us. Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.
I don't need you to provide the definition of imminent to understand that when someone says..we do not need to wait for...then it is not a present reality..although, they are suggesting it could be a future reality. SO quite clearly...Bush made a statement that = "there is no known imminent threat".
For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati)
This statement was supported by David Kays' report.

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean?
I'm not familiar with using those terms as interchangable. I speak English.
Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us.
What Bush supporters said[x=] what Bush said. Bush did not say that Iraq was an "imminent threat" no matter how many omelets you would like to create on a sunday morning.
Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now?
Must you cloud the conversation with random accusations like this? I've not suggested anything except that you and chem freak make unsubstantiated claims and pass them off as fact with out supporting them with direct quotes from readily available transcripts. I find that dishonest.
 
Last edited:
R

RageSk8

"Revisionism

As previously noted, a current talking point among the apologists is that no one ever claimed that Saddam actually posed an imminent threat—but rather, we had to invade because he might someday become a threat.

Well, it seems to be true that the Bush administration never used the word "imminent"--in much the same way they never claimed that Saddam Hussein was literally the mastermind behind 9/11--but in the latter case, they certainly linked the two together at every opportunity, and in the former, the administration and its various mouthpieces certainly did everything possible to indicate that time was of the essence and we had to act now and we simply couldn't wait blah blah blah.

Case in point: a speech by the President on October 8, 2002. First, let’s get a little 9/11 linkage in there:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Okay, now let’s make sure people understand that time is of the essence.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer! What kind of threat are we talking about, exactly?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

--snip--
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

So there are various ways in which Saddam could attack us at any moment with his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, which we know he has! It’s no wonder our concern is "urgent!"
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Okay, we "cannot wait." We have a "gathering" threat. Our concern is "urgent." We are facing "clear evidence of peril." There's a consistent message here, and if you think it is, "there's no hurry, time is on our side," then you are, perhaps, not the sharpest knife in the proverbial drawer.

My point is, imminence as both a specific and general concept was undeniably in the air in the buildup to war. For instance, here's a Denver Post editorial from Sept. 26, 2002 (via Lexis, so I don't have a link for you):
Iraq's Saddam Hussein can unleash chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of his command, according to a 50-page dossier released by the British government.

The new information, released by Prime Minister Tony Blair, is precisely what we've been waiting to hear.

Iraq poses an imminent threat to world safety. Imminent being the key word.

Okay, you say, but the editorial writer only comes up with the word "imminent" in reference to the British government's 45-minute claim. Well, yes--but those of you with longer memories than, say, Andrew Sullivan, will recall that our President was not above mentioning that claim a time or two himself:
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

That’s from the Washington Post, July 20, 2003. (The "Global Message" mentioned is still available on the White House website, as of this writing). As I say, the Bushies may never have specifically used the word "imminent"—but that’s just a matter of splitting hairs so fine, you’re almost working on a subatomic level. Because they sure as hell implied it at every possibility, and anyone who claims not to understand that is either an outright liar or simply so stupid it’s hard to imagine that they are able to get up in the morning and remember to put their socks on before their shoes.

One other point. People have been quoting this bit from the State of the Union address lately:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Yes, it’s a denial--but it’s an after the fact denial. At the point in time when he says this, he’s already been using the 45-minute claim for months, as well as giving speeches like the one I quote above. This line is a response to critics, pure CYA. "Imminent? I never said ‘imminent’!" This has no more bearing on the discussion than any other Bush administration after-the-fact denial—what Josh Marshall frequently calls "up-is-downism." As simply as possible, for the comprehension-impaired amoung you: this one paragraph does not negate the fact that he spent the previous several months implying precisely the opposite.

Okay?

Well then. I’m certainly glad we had this little chat."

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_10_12.html#001141 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by RageSk8

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer!
Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE!
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE!
Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough? No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

Zero

My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good?
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough?
I think sometimes Zero, you are addicted to hyperbole like others are addicted to cheap medication.:wink:
No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes.
I have never had an in person discussion with anyone who thought that Bush declared Iraq an "imminent" threat. Nor anyone who considered that Bush considered Iraq an Immediate threat. I associate with an older, well traveled and discriminate crowd, that may have something to do with it. However, if the majority of the U.S. could not discriminate between imminent and future possible/probably then I suggest there are other serious issues we should be discussing. If you find Bush's speach making criminal then I suggest you push for charges against all past living presidents, as they are all guilty of it.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fustian
 
Z

Zero

No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?
The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before.
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?
 
I am not a tax-payer in US. Most of you are. Will you ask: What's the game Mr. President?

Check this: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/081203.html [Broken]

From providing the weapons and tanks that took us to Baghdad, to the personnel rebuilding dams and bridges or operating ports, to the pencils and lesson plans revamping the education system for young Iraqis, private American corporations are spearheading U.S. campaigns in Iraq and reaping the financial rewards of warfare.

Private corporations have played an unprecedented role in the Second Gulf War, and from the looks of just one more number—$680 million, the projected contract with Bechtel Group Inc. for its reconstructive work in Iraq—they will continue to do so.

Some of jobs undertaken by the Bechtels and the Halliburtons- such as rebuilding water and electrical systems for instance are necessary and important. Yet as a nation and a democracy we must ponder seriously whether such private corporations, with firm connections to our leadership, are necessarily the ones who should be handed these jobs. The privatization of the United States military is not a new controversy. P.W. Singer’s new book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2003) offers insights into the questions that should be asked about the unprecedented levels of privatization of military planning, training, construction, and services that were pursued during the Clinton/Gore administration and have been accelerated under the Bush/Cheney administration. If the experience thus far in Iraq is any indication, we clearly have a long way to go before we establish the appropriate balance between profits and patriotism in the use of private corporations to implement our national security strategy.

From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?
Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus. As for Iraq and freedom, much of Iraq has already reached a level of freedom it did not have prior. Whether that freedom will spread or not is something we will have to all wait and see. I don't agree with the way the aftermath was handled, But I don't see it as the doomsday forecast you feel the need to put forth. "the entire world" really, enough with the hyperbole.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by pelastration


From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?
I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day:wink: ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck".
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus.
Actually, there wasn't. (Notice how the white house is smart enough not to use that "we were following the UN directive" argument nowadays?) That's because the claim of the US and UK is no longer that Iraq had WMDs - which was the issue specifically held by 1441, which there was an UN consensus on, and was established by the UK attorney general as the sole legal basis for the war - but that Iraq had WMD programs, or worse an "intention to develop WMDs at some future date", which did not have any sort of UN consensus behind it.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world.
 

kat

12
0
FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world.
I'm sure you can provide the quote from the transcript(s) of the speach(es) in which he lied then.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top