Study: Bush, officials made false statements prior to Iraq war

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So much for Lone Bolt's charade that Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080122/capt.1dcf82ba124e48c0847371482564798c.bush_economy _dclj103.jpg?x=180&y=131&q=85&sig=RHcwHYUEhWxB7q_U_TgYPA--

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

___

On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not surprisingly...

Bush Trying to Retroactively Pardon Himself and all Members of his Administration for War Crimes

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHQ7Prwh7Gc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHQ7Prwh7Gc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DBruleU]

Bush Lied People Died!!!!!!

[TailgateNut]

As I stated yesterday, Bush needs to be incarcerated. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He is a criminal.

[baja]

How do you suppose the mothers and fathers of the sons and daughters feel when they read this.

How this nation could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job and let bush go unchallenged about lying us into a war which has caused the death of over 3000 men and women and may well have ruined the economy is beyond me.

[Hotrod]

The war on terror is hard work.

No more questions please Im going on vacation now.

[Rohirrim]

A couple of years from now we'll be talking about how Bush got a million bucks for his latest speech. Like Lewis Black said, "The good die young. The pricks live forever!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Lied People Died!!!!!!

And you support him!

[DBruleU]

And you support him!

No. I said, Bush Lied People Died.

I obviously hate the man...and I MEAN HATE!!!!!

[TailgateNut]

Although I have him on ignore, I do see Bushs' waterboy is back!Hilarious!

[The Lone Bolt]

Do they present any evidence whatsoever that bush said those things KNOWING they were untrue?

Is it possible that he made those statements because that is what he believed to be true at the time? Does this report eliminate that possiblity with conclusive evidence?

Please point out where.

[TailgateNut]

Enter the "that's not enough evidence for me" maroon!LOL


I WANT PROOF!

[The Lone Bolt]

Enter the "that's not enough evidence for me" maroon!LOL


I WANT PROOF!

Of course I do, and so should you.

Would you condemn a man to prison or the death penalty withouth conclusive evidence of guilt? Without eliminating all reasonable alternative explanations?

I will defend presumption of innocence for ALL Americans, including the idiot in the WH.

[Rigs11]

Do they present any evidence whatsoever that bush said those things KNOWING they were untrue?

Is it possible that he made those statements because that is what he believed to be true at the time? Does this report eliminate that possiblity with conclusive evidence?

Please point out where.

this crap is getting old. If anyone on this board posted a threatening post about the president we would be in handcuffs in hours.And yet this president lied which is considered treason and nothing happens to him.We get yahoos like you that keep demanding evidence for everything instead of using common sense. he has the blood of thousand of americans and iraqis on his hands.He can hold anyone of us without legal counsel and no evidence to convict us.it's ok, you can admit you were wrong to support this bozo, everyone else has. Or hey you can just turn your attention towards chavez..

[TailgateNut]

Of course I do, and so should you.


You are one of a few on this planet who would benefit from an asteriod crashing into your forehead!

[TailgateNut]

Of course I do, and so should you.

Would you condemn a man to prison or the death penalty withouth conclusive evidence of guilt? Without eliminating all reasonable alternative explanations?

I will defend presumption of innocence for ALL Americans, including the idiot in the WH.


Nice edit, waterboy!

[Hotrod]

You are one of a few on this planet who would benefit from an asteriod crashing into your forehead!

LOL

[Rohirrim]

If I'm ever on trial, I want LB on my jury. The prosecution could dump shiploads of evidence on the courtroom floor and LB would still be saying, "I don't see the smoking gun."

[The Lone Bolt]

this crap is getting old. If anyone on this board posted a threatening post about the president we would be in handcuffs in hours.And yet this president lied which is considered treason and nothing happens to him.We get yahoos like you that keep demanding evidence for everything instead of using common sense. he has the blood of thousand of americans and iraqis on his hands.He can hold anyone of us without legal counsel and no evidence to convict us.it's ok, you can admit you were wrong to support this bozo, everyone else has. Or hey you can just turn your attention towards chavez..

Your crap is what's getting old. You keep saying you KNOW he "lied", but still haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your the type of person who happily joins lynch mobs and dispenses with inconveniences like trials and civil rights when you feel like it. You and others here believe that the Consitiution is to be selectively ignored to feed your own personal grudges.

How sad.

[The Lone Bolt]

If I'm ever on trial, I want LB on my jury. The prosecution could dump shiploads of evidence on the courtroom floor and LB would still be saying, "I don't see the smoking gun."

You're damn right you would want me on your jury. I would listen to all evidence and convict only if there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and all plausible alternative explanations have been eliminated.

If you were innocent I would not convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence. You would thank me on your way to freedom for not joining the lynch mob.

It strikes me as so ironic that many of you here who profess to despise the "neocons" also embrace the nazi philosophy of dispensing of fair trials and presumed innocence.

[Rohirrim]

(But I accept the concept of "circumstantial evidence," especially when it is produced in volumes)

• O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

(CBS MarketWatch) -- A second former Bush administration official is set to accuse top presidential aides, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of planning retaliatory strikes on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, despite briefings from intelligence officials explaining that Iraq likely wasn't responsible.

The accusation from Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official at the White House until February 2003, will come first in an interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" set to be broadcast Sunday, the network said.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill made similar accusations on "60 Minutes" in January.

Although O'Neill said the Bush administration began planning an Iraqi invasion just after taking office, Clarke said Bush's top aides immediately sought to use the terrorist attacks to levy a war against Iraq even though it appeared that al Qaeda, not Saddam, was responsible.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke said in the CBS interview that was conducted as part of the promotion for his book.

"Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror -- What Really Happened" is scheduled for release Monday by Simon & Schuster's Free Press. Simon & Schuster is owned by CBS parent Viacom.

Clarke and O'Neill both say Bush was determined to oust the Iraqi leader and used the terrorist attacks as an excuse to remove him from power.

O'Neill, who was fired from his job as Treasury secretary, said in a book about his time in Washington that Bush was fixated on Iraq from the first days of his administration.

Clarke, who headed a cyber-security office at the White House until the office was transferred to the newly created Homeland Security Department in February 2003, told CBS that Rumsfeld suggested retaliating against Iraq immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq ... We all said, 'but no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'" Clarke said in the interview. "And Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the September 11 attacks].'"

After O'Neill's book was published, Rumsfeld said the idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation."

Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, though it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than military force.

It was evident before September 11, 2001, that Iraq was a concern for the Bush administration.

In July 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.

During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air-defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.

Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998. Iraq considered the areas, set up to protect anti-Saddam elements in northern and southern Iraq, as violations of its sovereignty.

Clarke is scheduled to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks.

Corbett B. Daly covers the White House and the Treasury Department for CBS MarketWatch in Washington.

[Spider]

You are one of a few on this planet who would benefit from an asteriod crashing into your forehead!

ROFL! ROFL! .......

[The Lone Bolt]

Ro, is that an interpretation? What exactly did Clark and O'Neill say verbatim?

Did they say that bush specifically knew that Saddam had no connection at all to 9-11 and intended to intentionally mislead the American public on the issue?

[Spider]

You are one of a few on this planet who would benefit from an asteriod crashing into your forehead!

:rofl: all over again ....... Next time I run into Andy , I am using this one .......

[Rohirrim]

Ro, is that an interpretation? What exactly did Clark and O'Neill say verbatim?

Did they say that bush specifically knew that Saddam had no connection at all to 9-11 and intended to intentionally mislead the American public on the issue?

We've already done this, LB. I could present, literally, a truckload of evidence to support the case of Bush's mendacity and you would simply give more credence to the Bush administration's pre-constructed "plausible deniability." Fortunately, you are in an ever-shrinking minority. Like Bush himself said, at some point the only people who believe him will be himself and his dog.

[The Lone Bolt]

We've already done this, LB. I could present, literally, a truckload of evidence to support the case of Bush's mendacity and you would simply give more credence to the Bush administration's pre-constructed "plausible deniability." Fortunately, you are in an ever-shrinking minority. Like Bush himself said, at some point the only people who believe him will be himself and his dog.

I notice you didn't answer my question. That's your problem in a nutshell. You buy into too much without getting all the facts.

[W*GS]

Bush lied.

Now there's a stunner!

[MplsBronco]

Do they present any evidence whatsoever that bush said those things KNOWING they were untrue?

Is it possible that he made those statements because that is what he believed to be true at the time? Does this report eliminate that possiblity with conclusive evidence?

Please point out where.


You are an idiot. Sorry, but it's true.

[The Lone Bolt]

You are an idiot. Sorry, but it's true.

We disagree. No need to get personal.

So in your opinion asking for conclusive evidence before describing something as a "fact" makes one an idiot? I assume the irony of that position is lost on you.

[Spider]

We disagree. No need to get personal.

So in your opinion asking for conclusive evidence before describing something as a "fact" makes one an idiot? I assume the irony of that position is lost on you.

still using this same line of bull**** ...... O.J. Simpson is probably trying to call you to be on his jury in Vegas

[MplsBronco]

No, I just don't understand how someone bright enough to operate a computer can sit here and still defend what has happened to OUR country and refuse to believe the obvious. It was an orchestrated campaign to get us into Iraq based on lies.

If you did any of your own investigation, you would know that there was more than plenty intelligence indicating Saddam was not a threat. To say the whole world thought he was dangerous and had WMDs in another LIE! They knew it was BS, they should be tried and punished as such.

The fact that it is not obvious to people like you makes me worry for our country.

I won't argue the point with you, Bolt, anymore because your "opinion" doesn't deserve my time or energy.

[Spider]

No, I just don't understand how someone bright enough to operate a computer can sit here and still defend what has happened to OUR country and refuse to believe the obvious. It was an orchestrated campaign to get us into Iraq based on lies.

If you did any of your own investigation, you would know that there was more than plenty intelligence indicating Saddam was not a threat. To say the whole world thought he was dangerous and had WMDs in another LIE! They knew it was BS, they should be tried and punished as such.

The fact that it is not obvious to people like you makes me worry for our country.

I won't argue the point with you, Bolt, anymore because your "opinion" doesn't deserve my time or energy.
LOL I doubt Lone Bolt believes the bull**** he is posting , chances are he is bored , and trying to liven up his day by arguing with his head up his ass

[The Lone Bolt]

No, I just don't understand how someone bright enough to operate a computer can sit here and still defend what has happened to OUR country and refuse to believe the obvious. It was an orchestrated campaign to get us into Iraq based on lies.

If you did any of your own investigation, you would know that there was more than plenty intelligence indicating Saddam was not a threat. To say the whole world thought he was dangerous and had WMDs in another LIE! They knew it was BS, they should be tried and punished as such.

The fact that it is not obvious to people like you makes me worry for our country.

I won't argue the point with you, Bolt, anymore because your "opinion" doesn't deserve my time or energy.

What evidence do you have to back up the bolded statement above that is not circumstantial in nature? My point is that you and many here are overstating your case and refuse to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

And to clarify my position, it certainly is possible that bush lied, but not a FACT until it is supported by evidence that allows for no plausible alternative explanations.

[Rigs11]

Your crap is what's getting old. You keep saying you KNOW he "lied", but still haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your the type of person who happily joins lynch mobs and dispenses with inconveniences like trials and civil rights when you feel like it. You and others here believe that the Consitiution is to be selectively ignored to feed your own personal grudges.

How sad.

Again, bush does that all the time. Look at guantanamo, half these prisoners haven't even been charged.Do they "KNOW" that they were enemy combatants? Do you?All we can do on this board is base opinions based on what info we get. I am merely pointing out that you brush aside all the info and pull your copout card that it hasn't been proven in a court of law.You mean to honestly tell me that you think that bush is not guilty of lying to us? Simply becasue he hasn't been charged?it's silly really.

[Rohirrim]

I notice you didn't answer my question. That's your problem in a nutshell. You buy into too much without getting all the facts.

I'm afraid it would take somebody with far more knowledge about human psychology than I have to deal with your walls of denial. Sorry.

[TailgateNut]

I'm afraid it would take somebody with far more knowledge about human psychology than I have to deal with your walls of denial. Sorry.

:thumbsup:

LoneBolt= Public defender who has lost every case, yet thinks he should have won!

[BroncoInferno]

What evidence do you have to back up the bolded statement above that is not circumstantial in nature? My point is that you and many here are overstating your case and refuse to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

And to clarify my position, it certainly is possible that bush lied, but not a FACT until it is supported by evidence that allows for no plausible alternative explanations.

Bolt, you do realize that meeting your burden of proof would literally require mind reading capabilities, don't you? I mean, you can catch anybody in a lie and they can say, "I thought it was true" or "I honestly forgot." I could see your point if we were talking about one or two points of contention, but there are dozens of issues that Bush told us that have proven to be false. Do you really believe each one of those dozens of issues were just honest mistakes?

[The Lone Bolt]

Again, bush does that all the time. Look at guantanamo, half these prisoners haven't even been charged.Do they "KNOW" that they were enemy combatants? Do you?All we can do on this board is base opinions based on what info we get. I am merely pointing out that you brush aside all the info and pull your copout card that it hasn't been proven in a court of law.You mean to honestly tell me that you think that bush is not guilty of lying to us? Simply becasue he hasn't been charged?it's silly really.

Guantanamo is a seperate issue, and I agree that they should not be held without at least a hearing to determine guilt.

And once again I am not saying that bush is definitely "not guilty", only that he MAY not be.

[The Lone Bolt]

Bolt, you do realize that meeting your burden of proof would literally require mind reading capabilities, don't you? I mean, you can catch anybody in a lie and they can say, "I thought it was true" or "I honestly forgot." I could see your point if we were talking about one or two points of contention, but there are dozens of issues that Bush told us that have proven to be false. Do you really believe each one of those dozens of issues were just honest mistakes?

No it would not require any mind reading ability.

Valid and credible multiple eyewitness accounts, documentation, audio or video evidence could all conclusively prove that bush knew what he was saying was not true at the time he said it.

For example, if several credible eyewitnesses report that bush said "hey we all know that there are no WMD in Iraq" before telling the public the exact opposite that would be conclusive evidence that he lied.

This standard of proof is not unreasonable.

[Bronco Bob]

LOL I doubt Lone Bolt believes the bull**** he is posting , chances are he is bored , and trying to liven up his day by arguing with his head up his ass

No doubt there is a lot of devil's advocate stuff going on around here,
people posting stuff they themselves don't even believe in, but just
post it anyway just to be argumentative. I've done it myself.

[TheDave]

It's called willful ignorance...

[Spider]

No doubt there is a lot of devil's advocate stuff going on around here,
people posting stuff they themselves don't even believe in, but just
post it anyway just to be argumentative. I've done it myself.
:~ohyah!:

[The Lone Bolt]

No doubt there is a lot of devil's advocate stuff going on around here,
people posting stuff they themselves don't even believe in, but just
post it anyway just to be argumentative. I've done it myself.

Hey, somebody's gotta do it!;)

But what I believe is very simple: it's not a FACT unless it's supported by evidence that is conclusive. To say otherwise is overstating your case. This is an objective, reasonable, and rational position.

Conclusive evidence = evidence that allows for no reasonable alternative explanations. This is also the objective, rational truth.

Not to hard to get really.

[TailgateNut]

Hey, somebody's gotta do it!;)

But what I believe is very simple: it's not a FACT unless it's supported by evidence that is conclusive. To say otherwise is overstating your case. This is an objective, reasonable, and rational position.

Conclusive evidence = evidence that allows for no reasonable alternative explanations. This is also the objective, rational truth.

Not to hard to get really.


If everyone agreed with your burden of proof, we'd have plenty of room in our nations prisons.

[Hotrod]

No doubt there is a lot of devil's advocate stuff going on around here,
people posting stuff they themselves don't even believe in, but just
post it anyway just to be argumentative. I've done it myself.

Why I Never


:)

[Bronco Bob]

Why I Never


:)

I'll bet you have.

[Rigs11]

Bolt, you do realize that meeting your burden of proof would literally require mind reading capabilities, don't you? I mean, you can catch anybody in a lie and they can say, "I thought it was true" or "I honestly forgot." I could see your point if we were talking about one or two points of contention, but there are dozens of issues that Bush told us that have proven to be false. Do you really believe each one of those dozens of issues were just honest mistakes?

dont forget the zinger "I don't recall":rofl:

[Spider]

Why I Never


:)

BS .... I got video of you , the Dave , and Elsid + cheap bottle of Ripple playing Cowboys and Indians ;D

[BroncoInferno]

No it would not require any mind reading ability.

Valid and credible multiple eyewitness accounts, documentation, audio or video evidence could all conclusively prove that bush knew what he was saying was not true at the time he said it.

For example, if several credible eyewitnesses report that bush said "hey we all know that there are no WMD in Iraq" before telling the public the exact opposite that would be conclusive evidence that he lied.

This standard of proof is not unreasonable.

Many solid cases are built on circumstantial evidence. In fact, circumstantial evidence is very powerful and convincing. The reason is obvious: one or two pieces of such evidence doesn't prove much, but what are the odds that a dozen or more pieces of circumstantial evidence will implicate the same individual in a crime? We have DOZENS of incidences where Bush has told us something that we now know to be utterly false. What do you suppose the odds are that everyone one of those falsehoods was just an honest mistake?

[Spider]

Lone Bolt reminds of the guy that made a video defending brittany spears .....

[Rigs11]

Lone Bolt reminds of the guy that made a video defending brittany spears .....


http://storycartoons.com/images/wolf.jpg

[baja]

Do they present any evidence whatsoever that bush said those things KNOWING they were untrue?

Is it possible that he made those statements because that is what he believed to be true at the time? Does this report eliminate that possibility with conclusive evidence?

Please point out where.

The problem with this argument is we went to war, attacking a sovereign nation for the first time in our history no less, Bush has a responsibility as the president of the USA. to get the right information. Either way he is a dismal failure, criminal in fact.

[Broncomutt]

I :rofl: at people just now figuring this out.

[baja]

No, I just don't understand how someone bright enough to operate a computer can sit here and still defend what has happened to OUR country and refuse to believe the obvious. It was an orchestrated campaign to get us into Iraq based on lies.

If you did any of your own investigation, you would know that there was more than plenty intelligence indicating Saddam was not a threat. To say the whole world thought he was dangerous and had WMDs in another LIE! They knew it was BS, they should be tried and punished as such.

The fact that it is not obvious to people like you makes me worry for our country.

I won't argue the point with you, Bolt, anymore because your "opinion" doesn't deserve my time or energy.

Maybe that's why powerful countries like Lichtenstein and other front line countries were flocking to the coalition. ;D

[The Lone Bolt]

The problem with this argument is we went to war, attacking a sovereign nation for the first time in our history no less, Bush has a responsibility as the president of the USA. to get the right information. Either way he is a dismal failure, criminal in fact.

Finally something we agree on. It was his responsibility to get the facts straight. If he made assumptions without solid evidence then he is at the very least incompetent. "Criminal" I wouldn't know about. I'm no lawyer.

[baja]

Finally something we agree on. It was his responsibility to get the facts straight. If he made assumptions without solid evidence then he is at the very least incompetent. "Criminal" I wouldn't know about. I'm no lawyer.

Well I'm no lawyer either, lets ask the parents of the dead and maimed kids what they think.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well I'm no lawyer either, lets ask the parents of the dead and maimed kids what they think.

Why, are they lawyers? "Criminal" is a legal determination not a moral one.

[baja]

Why, are they lawyers? "Criminal" is a legal determination not a moral one.

Was Clinton's blow job criminal?

[The Lone Bolt]

Was Clinton's blow job criminal?

Not per se. However saying under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica when he did is, I understand, perjury. Not that I really give a sh-t who blew Billy in the WH.

[alkemical]

Why, are they lawyers? "Criminal" is a legal determination not a moral one.

what about violating oath of office?

[The Lone Bolt]

what about violating oath of office?

Once again I'm not sure what statues specifically apply or what argument could be made that they were violated. It's something for a court of law to determine.

[alkemical]

Once again I'm not sure what statues specifically apply or what argument could be made that they were violated. It's something for a court of law to determine.

Well considering he violated the constitution.....

[baja]

Not per se. However saying under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica when he did is, I understand, perjury. Not that I really give a sh-t who blew Billy in the WH.

I understand you are arguing innocent until proven guilty but do you not think Bush has done enough to be impeached and let the process decide if he is guilty or not? I would like your honest answer to this.

[baja]

Lone Bolt do you think Bush should have given Saddam the same latitude you are advocating for Bush after all they have about the same amount of blood on their hands.

[The Lone Bolt]

I understand you are arguing innocent until proven guilty but do you not think Bush has done enough to be impeached and let the process decide if he is guilty or not? I would like your honest answer to this.

100% behind a trial. Just not behind declaring him guilty without a trial as so many here already have.

[baja]

I believe when asked directly most here would be very satisfied with an honest investigation and trial if warranted.

[The Lone Bolt]

Lone Bolt do you think Bush should have given Saddam the same latitude you are advocating for Bush after all they have about the same amount of blood on their hands.

Saddam was not a US citizen and did not have consitutional rights. He was also required by 17 UN resolutions over 12 years to prove he had disarmed of his WMD and failed to do so in the opinion of the UN Security Council. He was in violation of international law. That was the UN Security Council determination.

So no, I do not think Saddam was entitled to the same lattitude.

And how much blood would we have on our hands if we allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to remain in power over the next 20 years? Ask the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and of course his own citizens who he raped, tortured, and murdered over the 25 years of his reign.

[baja]

Saddam was not a US citizen and did not have consitutional rights. He was also required by 17 UN resolutions over 12 years to prove he had disarmed of his WMD and failed to do so in the opinion of the UN Security Council. He was in violation of international law. That was the UN Security Council determination.

So no, I do not think Saddam was entitled to the same lattitude.

And how much blood would we have on our hands if we allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to remain in power over the next 20 years? Ask the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and of course his own citizens who he raped, tortured, and murdered over the 25 years of his reign.

Blood on our hands!!! Good Lord man have you looked around the world, Saddam is buddist monk in conpairson to the genocide going on Right now!!!

[baja]

Saving the Iraqi people had nothing to do with why we attacked their country. You do know there are hundreds of thousands dead because we are there saving them?

I don't get your game Bolt.

[baja]

BTW Sorry your Chargers were not at full strength for the playoffs.

[DBruleU]

Blood on our hands!!! Good Lord man have you looked around the world, Saddam is buddist monk in conpairson to the genocide going on Right now!!!

You're bordering on insane.

A buddhist monk compared to Bush? You guys have really lost it on the left.

[baja]

You're bordering on insane.

A buddhist monk compared to Bush? You guys have really lost it on the left.

Bush is guilty of many things but not genocide.

I'm talking about all the other brutal dictators around this world.

For example;

http://www.orphansofrwanda.org/

[DBruleU]

Bush is guilty of many things but not genocide.

I'm talking about all the other brutal dictators around this world.

For example;

http://www.orphansofrwanda.org/

There are many brutal, and unjust "leaders" in this world...I'm afraid not all of them will ever be dealt with, or put to justice in this life.

[baja]

Dude you have totally missed the point of the comparison

[Rohirrim]

Saddam was not a US citizen and did not have consitutional rights. He was also required by 17 UN resolutions over 12 years to prove he had disarmed of his WMD and failed to do so in the opinion of the UN Security Council. He was in violation of international law. That was the UN Security Council determination.

So no, I do not think Saddam was entitled to the same lattitude.

And how much blood would we have on our hands if we allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to remain in power over the next 20 years? Ask the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and of course his own citizens who he raped, tortured, and murdered over the 25 years of his reign.

No doubt you apply the same criteria to Africa? China? NKorea? Myanmar? Now perhaps you can answer the next question: Why us? 90% of the force applied was American. Why? Saddam did nothing to us. He wasn't threatening us.

[The Lone Bolt]

BTW Sorry your Chargers were not at full strength for the playoffs.

Thanks.

I agree there are a lot of bad guys in the world. But name one who reckelessly invaded his neighbors, pursued and used WMD (including a nke program), and was considered so dangerous by the international community that he had to be ordered to disarm of his WMD.

[baja]

If the rest of the world thought he was so dangerous why did we have to buy a coalition to go against him.

Do you really want to use the WMD reason?

[The Lone Bolt]

If the rest of the world thought he was so dangerous why did we have to buy a coalition to go against him.

Do you really want to use the WMD reason?

If the rest of the world thought he was so harmless why did the UN find it necessary to order him to disarm of his WMD?

[baja]

Where are they.

The inspectors could not find any evidence he had them, remember?

[Rohirrim]

If the rest of the world thought he was so harmless why did the UN find it necessary to order him to disarm of his WMD?

The UN's inspectors reported that they had found nothing and recommended continued inspections. Dubya pushed them aside, bought a measly coalition (One Icelandic soldier Ha!), and attacked.

[The Lone Bolt]

Where are they.

The inspectors could not find any evidence he had them, remember?

If they were certain there were no WMD then why did the UN Security Council not declare Iraq in full compliance and lift the sanctions?

[The Lone Bolt]

The UN's inspectors reported that they had found nothing and recommended continued inspections. Dubya pushed them aside, bought a measly coalition (One Icelandic soldier Ha!), and attacked.

We had twelve years of inspections that failed to produce a declaration of compliance. How many more years did we need?

And what makes you think that Saddam would have allowed the inspections to continue?

[Florida_Bronco]

I don't know why everyone is getting on Lone Bolt. Seems to me his whole argument is innocent until proven guilty, a right afforded to us all.

Obviously he's arguing for the presumed innocence of an extremely unpopular person, but he makes many good points.

[Spider]

I don't know why everyone is getting on Lone Bolt. Seems to me his whole argument is innocent until proven guilty, a right afforded to us all.

Obviously he's arguing for the presumed innocence of an extremely unpopular person, but he makes many good points.

Oh bull**** ...... Bush wanted in Iraq so bad , he lied through his ****ing teeth to do it ..... Only an certified moron believes different

[Rohirrim]

We had twelve years of inspections that failed to produce a declaration of compliance. How many more years did we need?

And what makes you think that Saddam would have allowed the inspections to continue?

Let's see... on the one hand you've got giving more inspections a chance, on the other you have over 4,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, over a 100,000 Iraqis dead, the entire ME destabilized, the strengthening of Iran's hand in the region, one trillion dollars down the drain, our budget in shambles, etc. etc.

Yeah. I would have given inspections more time. Like I said. Saddam was no danger to us.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Many solid cases are built on circumstantial evidence. In fact, circumstantial evidence is very powerful and convincing. The reason is obvious: one or two pieces of such evidence doesn't prove much, but what are the odds that a dozen or more pieces of circumstantial evidence will implicate the same individual in a crime? We have DOZENS of incidences where Bush has told us something that we now know to be utterly false. What do you suppose the odds are that everyone one of those falsehoods was just an honest mistake?

:yep:

You nailed it.

Apparently Lone Dolt's compulsion to knee-jerk to Vacation Boy's defense was so powerful that he didn't even bother to read the first two sentences of the article:

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Hundreds of false statements over a period of two years!

Like you said, what are the odds that every one of those statements was just an honest mistake?

Oh, wait:

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

"An orchestrated campaign."

Memo to Lone Bolt:

"Orchestrated campaign" and "accident" (or "mistake") are antithetical!

(And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.)

[The Lone Bolt]

Let's see... on the one hand you've got giving more inspections a chance, on the other you have over 4,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, over a 100,000 Iraqis dead, the entire ME destabilized, the strengthening of Iran's hand in the region, one trillion dollars down the drain, our budget in shambles, etc. etc.

Yeah. I would have given inspections more time. Like I said. Saddam was no danger to us.

And when Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out and told the UN to **** off then what would you have done?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And when Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out and told the UN to **** off then what would you have done?

But that wasn't what happened.

Blix stated that the inspectors were getting full cooperation/full access and that they only needed a little more time to finish - but the never-elected pinhead was in a rush and couldn't wait.

We know why now, don't we?

Your desperate attempts to cover your favorite little war criminal's flank would be absolutely hilarious were they not so disturbing. tsk tsk

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow - not even your old buddy W*GS has your back on this one, LB.

You're all alone here.

:D

[Florida_Bronco]

Oh bull**** ...... Bush wanted in Iraq so bad , he lied through his ****ing teeth to do it ..... Only an certified moron believes different

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. You brought this up in the Ron Paul discussion ie: O.J Simpson. Obviously we both believe O.J is guility but they couldn't prove it in a court of law so he walked.

[baja]

If they were certain there were no WMD then why did the UN Security Council not declare Iraq in full compliance and lift the sanctions?

This is such an old argument! I did not say certain I said, after months of searching, they could not find any evidence of them and they asked for a few more weeks to check out a few areas. But NO we attacked. Remember shock and awe?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove.

This is what the study proved:

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

"Orchestrated campaign" = deliberate, intentional, planned, etc.

[Florida_Bronco]

This is what the study proved:



"Orchestrated campaign" = deliberate, intentional, planned, etc.

Where does it show this proof though? Simply stating they found proof is not going to pass in a court of law.

If they have proof that would pass in a court of law then they should pursue it.

[Spider]

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. You brought this up in the Ron Paul discussion ie: O.J Simpson. Obviously we both believe O.J is guility but they couldn't prove it in a court of law so he walked.

well the truth is coming out ..........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Where does it show this proof though?

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

....

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both..

[Spider]

I don't know why everyone is getting on Lone Bolt. Seems to me his whole argument is innocent until proven guilty, a right afforded to us all.

Obviously he's arguing for the presumed innocence of an extremely unpopular person, but he makes many good points.

with the evidence coming out like it is , and your stance here , I really question you letting your personal bias get in the way of your judgement on the job

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Where does it show this proof though?

The database is online at www.publicintegrity.org.

The database shows how even after the invasion, when a consensus emerged that the prewar intelligence assessments were flawed, administration officials occasionally suggested that the weapons might still be found.

The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?ei=5124&en=8874f78501ec940b&ex=1358830800&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1201140441-hPD8Jj7Keuxsz4B8mwjtXg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Top US officials declared war on truth when it came to Iraq: report

Wed Jan 23, 8:59 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top US officials ran roughshod over the truth in the run-up to the Iraq war, lying 935 times in a two-year period leading up to the Iraq war, a study released Wednesday found.

The Center for Public Integrity's founder Charles Lewis and researchers helping him write a forthcoming book, identified "935 false statements by eight top administration officials that mentioned Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al-Qaeda, on at least 532 separate occasions" ahead of the March 18, 2003 invasion of Iraq, they said in a statement.

With the fifth anniversary of the war looming, the center underscored that its work calls into question "the repeated assertions of (George W.) Bush administration officials that they were merely the unwitting victims of bad intelligence."

Among those who made the false statements: Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleisher and Scott McClellan, the study said.

"This is a report like no other, which calls into question more than 900 false statements that were the underpinnings of the administration's case for war," argued the CIJ's Executive Director Bill Buzenberg.

The CIJ maintains that "Bush and seven of his administration's top officials methodically propagated erroneous information over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001."

"These false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, just prior to congressional consideration of a war resolution and during the critical weeks in early 2003 when the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable presentation to the U.N. Security Council," the CIJ added.

Bush was the chief of misstatement, with 260 -- about weapons of mass destruction and links to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, trailed by then-secretary of state Powell with 254, the study charged.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080123/pl_afp/usiraqwarpolitics_080123135929

[Florida_Bronco]

with the evidence coming out like it is , and your stance here , I really question you letting your personal bias get in the way of your judgement on the job

Stance on what? Innocent until proven guilty?

[alkemical]

I don't know why everyone is getting on Lone Bolt. Seems to me his whole argument is innocent until proven guilty, a right afforded to us all.

Obviously he's arguing for the presumed innocence of an extremely unpopular person, but he makes many good points.


Well, the government doesn't afford us to be innocent before proven guilty. Warrentless sneak & peaks, warrentless wiretaps, etc.

[Spider]

Stance on what? Innocent until proven guilty?

you come up to a body laying in the alley , see a man holding a gun , do you wait for the balistic test before taking action ?

[mhgaffney]

This will hopefully fuel the movement to impeach.

Beyond impeachment -- we need to indict Bush on 900+ counts of lying to the American people to drag the nation into an unnecassary war.

[mhgaffney]

(But I accept the concept of "circumstantial evidence," especially when it is produced in volumes)

• O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

(CBS MarketWatch) -- A second former Bush administration official is set to accuse top presidential aides, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of planning retaliatory strikes on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, despite briefings from intelligence officials explaining that Iraq likely wasn't responsible.

The accusation from Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official at the White House until February 2003, will come first in an interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" set to be broadcast Sunday, the network said.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill made similar accusations on "60 Minutes" in January.

Although O'Neill said the Bush administration began planning an Iraqi invasion just after taking office, Clarke said Bush's top aides immediately sought to use the terrorist attacks to levy a war against Iraq even though it appeared that al Qaeda, not Saddam, was responsible.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke said in the CBS interview that was conducted as part of the promotion for his book.

"Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror -- What Really Happened" is scheduled for release Monday by Simon & Schuster's Free Press. Simon & Schuster is owned by CBS parent Viacom.

Clarke and O'Neill both say Bush was determined to oust the Iraqi leader and used the terrorist attacks as an excuse to remove him from power.

O'Neill, who was fired from his job as Treasury secretary, said in a book about his time in Washington that Bush was fixated on Iraq from the first days of his administration.

Clarke, who headed a cyber-security office at the White House until the office was transferred to the newly created Homeland Security Department in February 2003, told CBS that Rumsfeld suggested retaliating against Iraq immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq ... We all said, 'but no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'" Clarke said in the interview. "And Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the September 11 attacks].'"

After O'Neill's book was published, Rumsfeld said the idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation."

Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, though it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than military force.

It was evident before September 11, 2001, that Iraq was a concern for the Bush administration.

In July 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.

During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air-defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.

Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998. Iraq considered the areas, set up to protect anti-Saddam elements in northern and southern Iraq, as violations of its sovereignty.

Clarke is scheduled to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks.

Corbett B. Daly covers the White House and the Treasury Department for CBS MarketWatch in Washington.

There is solid evidence of foreknowledge.

As reported by MSNBC, a presidential directive detailing plans to invade Afghanistan and “remove Al Qaeda from the face of the earth” was already sitting on G.W. Bush’s desk on the morning of 9/11 awaiting his signature.

Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson, “US planned for attack on al-qaida,” MSNBC and NBC, May 16, 2002.

Moreover, a former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, tells virtually the same story. Three days after 9/11, Niak explained to the BBC that senior American officials had informed him in mid-July 2001 that the US military planned to attack Afghanistan “before the snows start falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” Niak said he received this information in Berlin at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan. Niak also accurately predicted that the US attack would be launched from Tajikistan.

George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’,” BBC news, September 18, 2001. Posted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

[TailgateNut]

Let's see... on the one hand you've got giving more inspections a chance, on the other you have over 4,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, over a 100,000 Iraqis dead, the entire ME destabilized, the strengthening of Iran's hand in the region, one trillion dollars down the drain, our budget in shambles, etc. etc.

Yeah. I would have given inspections more time. Like I said. Saddam was no danger to us.



Yes he was a danger to us. He had one of his SCUDS aimed at the USA. Needless to say, the damn thing would have fallen in the frigging ocean thousands of miles from the shore.;)

[Florida_Bronco]

you come up to a body laying in the alley , see a man holding a gun , do you wait for the balistic test before taking action ?

Now you're changing the scenario. Making an arrest at a crime scene with probable cause is a whole different ballgame than getting a court conviction.

[TailgateNut]

Now you're changing the scenario. Making an arrest at a crime scene with probable cause is a whole different ballgame than getting a court conviction.


No it's not. We have the "probable cause". We just need to arrest and put him on trial. Not that it would matter with Bush pardoning himself. Arrogant bastard.

[Florida_Bronco]

No it's not. We have the "probable cause". We just need to arrest and put him on trial. Not that it would matter with Bush pardoning himself. Arrogant bastard.

Well early in the thread they were talking about getting a conviction...and that's what I had in mind when I was responding to Spider.

[TailgateNut]

Well early in the thread they were talking about getting a conviction...and that's what I had in mind when I was responding to Spider.

One step at a time is fine by me!

I'd bet Bush looks better in an Orange one piece suit with some "ankle bling"!

[The Lone Bolt]

:yep:

You nailed it.

Apparently Lone Dolt's compulsion to knee-jerk to Vacation Boy's defense was so powerful that he didn't even bother to read the first two sentences of the article:



Hundreds of false statements over a period of two years!

Like you said, what are the odds that every one of those statements was just an honest mistake?

Oh, wait:



"An orchestrated campaign."

Memo to Lone Bolt:

"Orchestrated campaign" and "accident" (or "mistake") are antithetical!

(And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.)



I see.

So your reasoning (and theirs) is that if someone believes something over a period of time (say months or years) and it turns out to not be true, and that person as a result made numerous inaccurate statements during that period, then he/she are a liar (i.e. intentionally mislead people) by virtue of the volume of inaccurate statements he/she made?

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to bush, but purely hypothetically speaking if someone beleives something untrue over a period of time and makes numerous inaccurate statements as a result then they must have been intentionally misleading people?

[baja]

I see.

So your reasoning (and theirs) is that if someone believes something over a period of time (say months or years) and it turns out to not be true, and that person as a result made numerous inaccurate statements during that period, then he/she are a liar (i.e. intentionally mislead people) by virtue of the volume of inaccurate statements he/she made?

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to bush, but purely hypothetically speaking if someone believes something untrue over a period of time and makes numerous inaccurate statements as a result then they must have been intentionally misleading people?

Bolt I have never let the fact that you are a Chargers fan influence my responses to you and I have treated your 'innocent until proven guilty' argument with the respect it deserves but your arguments have become very very weak my internet friend.

[The Lone Bolt]

Bolt I have never let the fact that you are a Chargers fan influence my responses to you and I have treated your 'innocent until proven guilty' argument with the respect it deserves but your arguments have become very very weak my internet friend.

I notice you did not answer the question. I'm just trying to understand LABFs and your reasoning. You say the volume of inaccurate statements alone proves intentional deception. Could you elaborate? Can you explain how in my hypothetical situation above intentional deception is proven?

[Florida_Bronco]

I notice you did not answer the question. I'm just trying to understand LABFs and your reasoning. You say the volume of inaccurate statements alone proves intentional deception. Could you elaborate? Can you explain how in my hypothetical situation above intentional deception is proven?

Yeah I gotta agree with this Baja. Lone Bolt here seems to have taken a pretty neutral position and I agree with his postings in theory.

[baja]

I notice you did not answer the question. I'm just trying to understand LABFs and your reasoning. You say the volume of inaccurate statements alone proves intentional deception. Could you elaborate? Can you explain how in my hypothetical situation above intentional deception is proven?

My position is investigate and if warranted charge him, we talked about this yesterday!

You have already agreed there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation so where are we at odds?

[The Lone Bolt]

My position is investigate and if warranted charge him, we talked about this yesterday!

You have already agreed there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation so where are we at odds?

OK I guess we're not. Fair enough. But LABF has been citing the numerous inaccurate statements as "proof" of intentional deception and I'm interested in understanding his reasoning.

[TailgateNut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

If he has done "nothing wrong", why does he need to pardon himself and his cronies?

Lone Bolt???

[Spider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

If he has done "nothing wrong", why does he need to pardon himself and his cronies?

Lone Bolt???

This is the part they dont want to adress ......... with all of thier taking the long way around the barn with we dont have proof bull**** , we have plenty of proof , these guys just dont want to see it

[Rohirrim]

I see.

So your reasoning (and theirs) is that if someone believes something over a period of time (say months or years) and it turns out to not be true, and that person as a result made numerous inaccurate statements during that period, then he/she are a liar (i.e. intentionally mislead people) by virtue of the volume of inaccurate statements he/she made?

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to bush, but purely hypothetically speaking if someone beleives something untrue over a period of time and makes numerous inaccurate statements as a result then they must have been intentionally misleading people?

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

And this was AFTER Bush was told specifically by his anti-terrorism czar (as reported on 60 Minutes and by Bob Woodward), Richard Clarke that Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and had NO TIES to Al Queda. We know that Cheney TO THIS DAY insists that Saddam had ties to Bin Laden.

Let's just put it this way, if this information was placed before a jury (and it should be) the verdict would be guilty.

And TGN is right. Why is the Bush administration working so desperately to provide themselves with after-the-fact amnesty from prosecution. I'd call that the act of a guilty man. Perhaps we should also ask why Bush sent his minions after Plame and her husband if he had nothing to hide? The evidence is overwhelming. Bush is a liar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see.

So your reasoning (and theirs) is that if someone believes something over a period of time (say months or years) and it turns out to not be true, and that person as a result made numerous inaccurate statements during that period, then he/she are a liar (i.e. intentionally mislead people) by virtue of the volume of inaccurate statements he/she made?

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to bush, but purely hypothetically speaking if someone beleives something untrue over a period of time and makes numerous inaccurate statements as a result then they must have been intentionally misleading people?

???

Hello?

What part of "hundreds of false statements" and "orchestrated campaign" did you not get?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OK I guess we're not. Fair enough. But LABF has been citing the numerous inaccurate statements as "proof" of intentional deception and I'm interested in understanding his reasoning.

???

"Inaccurate?"

Earth to LB: "Orchestrated" = "intentional."

Further:

The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wa...euxsz4B8mwjtXg

[The Lone Bolt]

???

Hello?

What part of "hundreds of false statements" and "orchestrated campaign" did you not get?

You also did not answer the question.

I'll ask it again: Given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, is the volume of inaccurate statements in and of itself conclusive proof of intentional deception?

Hypothetically: If a person genuinely believes something that is not true and passes on inaccurate information over the period that the person held that belief, is the volume of inaccurate statements alone evidence of intentional deception?

Still trying to understand your logic and the logic of the writers of the column. As I understand it, they concluded that the statements were part of an "orchestrated campaign" strictly on the basis of the volume of statements made. Therfore their reasoning, and yours, is that the volume of inaccurate statements, and the volume alone, proves that they were all acts of intentional deception. Correct? Or am I misunderstanding?

As for the statements that contradicted the "sketchy" evidence, is it possible that dubya simply chose to believe one set of evidence over another? Might that be more along the lines of poor decision making and not intentional deception? Given conflicting evidence, one has to make a choice, no? If he chose poorly does that make him a "liar?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You also did not answer the question.

I'll ask it again: Given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, is the volume of inaccurate statements in and of itself conclusive proof of intentional deception?

Hypothetically: If a person genuinely believes something that is not true and passes on inaccurate information over the period that the person held that belief, is the volume of inaccurate statements alone evidence of intentional deception?

Still trying to understand your logic.

Still trying to understand your profound denial and your compulsion to keep Dubya's skirts clean.

What part of "orchestrated campaign" don't you get?

And where is the evidence to support your "hypothetical," premise, i.e., that Bush and his minions "genuinely believed" the hundreds of false statements they made over a period of two years during this campaign of deception?


The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wa...euxsz4B8mwjtXg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As for the statements that contradicted the "sketchy" evidence, is it possible that dubya simply chose to believe one set of evidence over another? Might that be more along the lines of poor decision making and not intentional deception? Given conflicting evidence, one has to make a choice, no? If he chose poorly does that make him a "liar?"

The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wa...euxsz4B8mwjtXg.

[The Lone Bolt]

Still trying to understand your profound denial and your compulsion to keep Dubya's skirts clean.

What part of "orchestrated campaign" don't you get?

And where is the evidence to support your "hypothetical," premise, i.e., that Bush and his minions "genuinely believed" the hundreds of false statements they made over a period of two years during this campaign of deception?

I'm not saying he did. I am pointing it out as a plausible alternative explanation. As long as plausible alternative explanations exist nothing has been proven.

As far as the "orchestrated" part, see my edited post above.

[The Lone Bolt]

The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wa...euxsz4B8mwjtXg

Simply reposting the quote does not answer my question.

[baja]

You also did not answer the question.

I'll ask it again: Given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, is the volume of inaccurate statements in and of itself conclusive proof of intentional deception?

Hypothetically: If a person genuinely believes something that is not true and passes on inaccurate information over the period that the person held that belief, is the volume of inaccurate statements alone evidence of intentional deception?

Still trying to understand your logic and the logic of the writers of the column. As I understand it, they concluded that the statements were part of an "orchestrated campaign" strictly on the basis of the volume of statements made. Therfore their reasoning, and yours, is that the volume of inaccurate statements, and the volume alone, proves that they were all acts of intentional deception. Correct? Or am I misunderstanding?

As for the statements that contradicted the "sketchy" evidence, is it possible that dubya simply chose to believe one set of evidence over another? Might that be more along the lines of poor decision making and not intentional deception? Given conflicting evidence, one has to make a choice, no? If he chose poorly does that make him a "liar?"

what about the plans on his desk to attack Iraq before 9/11

[Spider]

Now you're changing the scenario. Making an arrest at a crime scene with probable cause is a whole different ballgame than getting a court conviction.

But how is it different then bringing Bush into Court ?
we laid down the accusations , Just like a DA , we believe Bush lied , you and Lone bolt came up with this Innocent until proven guilty ...... Just like the guy in the alley , Bush has to answer for his crimes

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As long as plausible alternative explanations exist nothing has been proven.

Your "explanation" isn't "plausible" - it's nothing but a hypothesis that can't be proven.

If you were a defense attorney, you would be laughed out of court.

[baja]

"If the glove doesn't fit you got e quit.

[The Lone Bolt]

what about the plans on his desk to attack Iraq before 9/11

Those plans were on the President's desk from the first bush administration, through the Clinton administration, and they were among many other options.

[The Lone Bolt]

Your "explanation" isn't "plausible" - it's nothing but a hypothesis that can't be proven.

If you were a defense attorney, you would be laughed out of court.

Why is it not plausible? Explain.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why is it not plausible? Explain.

You're really going to sit there and try to convince us that hundreds of false statements made by BushCo over a two year period were all just "honest mistakes?" (Even when there is now evidence that some of the statements contradicted the intelligence that was availible at the time?)

If, in some parallel universe, Bush actually had to stand trial for his crimes, and you were his attorney, is this how you would defend him?

If not, then how?

http://www.bartcop.com/rudy-idol.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Those plans were on the President's desk from the first bush administration, through the Clinton administration, and they were among many other options.

You need to google "PNAC" and "Wolfowitz."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not saying he did. I am pointing it out as a plausible alternative explanation. As long as plausible alternative explanations exist nothing has been proven.

As far as the "orchestrated" part, see my edited post above.

This excerpt from the study shoots your "defense" down in flames:

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

[The Lone Bolt]

You're really going to sit there and try to convince us that hundreds of false statements made by BushCo over a two year period were all just "honest mistakes?" (Even when there is now evidence that some of the statements contradicted the intelligence that was availible at the time?)

If, in some parallel universe, Bush actually had to stand trial for his crimes, and you were his attorney, is this how you would defend him?

If not, then how?


No I'm not. I'm offering it as a plausible alternative explanation. As long as there is more than one explanation for an event neither has been proven.

And you have offered no counterargument here. Why is it implausible that bush may have made those statement during a time that he actually held those beliefs? You still have offered no counterargument other than to ridicule me.

Why is it implausible that, given conflilcting evidence, bush chose to disregard one set of evidence (no WMD) in favor of another (WMD in Iraq)? You have made no explanation as to why this is "implausible".

[Rohirrim]

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

[The Lone Bolt]

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Your quote seems to actually support my plausible alternative. See bolded area above.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No I'm not. I'm offering it as a plausible alternative explanation.

:oyvey:

But your explanation isn't plausible.

The excerpts I just posted prove this.

(Unless you are trying to claim that deliberately and knowingly issuing false statements is not the same thing as "lying.")

As long as there is more than one explanation for an event neither has been proven.

???

What kind of absurd logic is that?

[Rohirrim]

Your quote seems to actually support my plausible alternative. See bolded area above.

Well, at least we are zeroing in on your criteria. So, if professional intelligence officers, including the head of the CIA, advise Bush that the possibility exists that there are no WMDs in Iraq, he can simply brush it aside and continue to sell his war to the American people? Based on what? Bush's extensive intelligence experience? And not only that, he excludes the information from the NIE report to Congress? Based on what, his gut feeling? Why didn't he share this info with Congress and allow them to come to their own conclusions? Why didn't he share it with the American people?

As a side not, this is no doubt the reason the NIE on Iran was released directly to the American people rather than being sent to the WH first.

[baja]

This excerpt from the study shoots your "defense" down in flames:

Quote:
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

Well I'd say LABF has pretty much closed this case.

Congratulations Barrister. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, if professional intelligence officers, including the head of the CIA, advise Bush that the possibility exists that there are no WMDs in Iraq, he can simply brush it aside and continue to sell his war to the American people?

Exactly.

Apparently, in Lone Bolt's ethically-challenged world, issuing statements that you know are unsupported by fact and have no basis in reality is not the same thing as lying.

According to Lone Bolt, peddling something as a certainty when you know full well that it is not certain is not lying.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well I'd say LABF has pretty much closed this case.

Congratulations Barrister. ;D

I'm just a f*@king guitar player.

Just imagine what mincemeat a real defense attorney would make of Lone Bolt. ;)

[The Lone Bolt]

:oyvey:

But your explanation isn't plausible.

The excerpts I just posted prove this.

(Unless you are trying to claim that deliberately and knowingly issuing false statements is not the same thing as "lying.")



How do you know that he "deliberately and knowingly issuing false statements"? Your argument seems to be that he "knowingly" issued false statement based on the volume of inaccurate statements he made and ONLY the volume of such statements.

I have asked you to explain how the volume of such statements, and ONLY the volume of such statements, acts as proof of intentional deception and you have yet to explain your reasoning.

[baja]

No I'm not. I'm offering it as a plausible alternative explanation. As long as there is more than one explanation for an event neither has been proven.

And you have offered no counterargument here. Why is it implausible that bush may have made those statement during a time that he actually held those beliefs? You still have offered no counterargument other than to ridicule me.


Why is it implausible that, given conflilcting evidence, bush chose to disregard one set of evidence (no WMD) in favor of another (WMD in Iraq)? You have made no explanation as to why this is "implausible".

At this point Bolt you seems to be your ship of realism has sailed. It's time to let this one go

[The Lone Bolt]

Well, at least we are zeroing in on your criteria. So, if professional intelligence officers, including the head of the CIA, advise Bush that the possibility exists that there are no WMDs in Iraq, he can simply brush it aside and continue to sell his war to the American people? Based on what? Bush's extensive intelligence experience? And not only that, he excludes the information from the NIE report to Congress? Based on what, his gut feeling? Why didn't he share this info with Congress and allow them to come to their own conclusions? Why didn't he share it with the American people?

As a side not, this is no doubt the reason the NIE on Iran was released directly to the American people rather than being sent to the WH first.

And this sugests that he may have been incompetent but not necessarily intentionally deceptive. The plausible alternative explanation of incompetence still exists.

[The Lone Bolt]

At this point Bolt you seems to be your ship of realism has sailed. It's time to let this one go

Still not reading a counteargument here. Why not?

[Rohirrim]

And this sugests that he may have been incompetent but not necessarily intentionally deceptive. The plausible alternative explanation of incompetence still exists.

Incompetent? He received information from professional intelligence officers that his casus belli was false and he subsequently refused to share that information with Congress or allow it to be included in an NIE report. That's not incompetence. That's deceit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And this sugests that he may have been incompetent but not necessarily intentionally deceptive. The plausible alternative explanation of incompetence still exists.

:oyvey:

Unbelievable!

You are actually trying to claim that presenting something of grave importance as a certainty when you know it's not certain isn't deception?

[baja]

Still not reading a counteargument here. Why not?

Sure I am, I just think the slew of reports we have have been given thanks to the postings of LABF have taken us beyond any reasonable doubt there are gross miss deeds here and we are talking about the president of the USA whom has taken us to the brink of disaster.

My question to you is why have we not started meaningful investigations? Do you think they are not warranted with this new mountain of information?

[The Lone Bolt]

Exactly.

Apparently, in Lone Bolt's ethically-challenged world, issuing statements that you know are unsupported by fact and have no basis in reality is not the same thing as lying.

According to Lone Bolt, peddling something as a certainty when you know full well that it is not certain is not lying.

Once again you completely misrepresent my position. No wonder you are having a hard time making an effective counterargument.

You haveyet to prove that bush or rummy "issued statements that they knew were unsupported by fact and have no basis in reality." They did decide to disregard info suggesting there were no WMD in Iraq, but possibly because they did not find it credible. They did make repeated inaccurate statement, but possibly because it's what they believed at the time. You have in no way eliminated these possible alternative explanations.

[The Lone Bolt]

Sure I am, I just think the slew of reports we have have been given thanks to the postings of LABF have taken us beyond any reasonable doubt there are gross miss deeds here and we are talking about the president of the USA whom has taken us to the brink of disaster.

My question to you is why have we not started meaningful investigations? Do you think they are not warranted with this new mountain of information?

The "slew of reports" presented here have only established two things:

A) bush and other admin officials made repeated statements that later turned out to be inaccurate.

B) bush disregarded info that conflicted with the belief that there were WMD in Iraq.

Niether of these conclusively prove intentional deception as I have outlined plausible alternative explanations which you have yet to effectively counterargue.

But I do think the circumstantial evidence does warrant a trial.

[The Lone Bolt]

But how is it different then bringing Bush into Court ?
we laid down the accusations , Just like a DA , we believe Bush lied , you and Lone bolt came up with this Innocent until proven guilty ...... Just like the guy in the alley , Bush has to answer for his crimes

Why have a trial? You seem to have already declared him guilty.

[baja]

What about the information he withheld from congress pertinent to the making a decision about attacking Iraq?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You haveyet to prove that bush or rummy "issued statements that they knew were unsupported by fact and have no basis in reality."

:bs:

They claimed specific "threats" were certainties when they knew the intelligence they were using to support their unequivocal statements was anything but certain.

A simple analogy will expose the absurdity of your argument:

Let's say I'm a lifeguard at a public beach, you are contemplating going for a swim, but you're concerned about sharks in the water.

You ask me what I know about sharks, and I tell you I'm certain there are no sharks in the water - even though I know I have no grounds for such a guarantee of certainty.

Taking me at my word, you jump in the water, and five minutes later a big shark takes a bite out of your leg.

Are you going to claim that I didn't deceive you? In fact, wouldn't you consider suing me?

[The Lone Bolt]

:oyvey:

Unbelievable!

You are actually trying to claim that presenting something of grave importance as a certainty when you know it's not certain isn't deception?

You haven't proven they knew it was "not certain." It's palusible that they believed it to be at the time (but were in error).

Have you yourself ever said with confidence that something was absolutely, certainly true and then you ended up to be wrong? Does that make you a "liar"?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They did make repeated inaccurate statement, but possibly because it's what they believed at the time.

This premise is false (which is why your argument is invalid.)

Why is the premise false?

Because the false statements Bush and his minions made were unequivocal.

That is, the statements were not qualified with "we believe," or "this is what we think."

The loophole you are trying to create might work if this were the case, but it is not.

[The Lone Bolt]

:bs:

They claimed specific "threats" were certainties when they knew the intelligence they were using to support their unequivocal statements was anything but certain.

A simple analogy will expose the absurdity of your argument:

Let's say I'm a lifeguard at a public beach, you are contemplating going for a swim, but you're concerned about sharks in the water.

You ask me what I know about sharks, and I tell you I'm certain there are no sharks in the water - even though I know I have no grounds for such a guarantee of certainty.

Taking me at my word, you jump in the water, and five minutes later a big shark takes a bite out of your leg.

Are you going to claim that I didn't deceive you? In fact, wouldn't you consider suing me?


If you overstated your case and believed at the time there were no sharks in the water then you are an idiot and incompetent but not a liar.

If you told me that there were no sharks in the water because you knew that there were but wanted me to get bit then you are a liar. See the difference?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You haven't proven they knew it was "not certain." It's palusible that they believed it to be at the time (but were in error).


That's total :bs:

Their own intelligence professionals were telling them that the case they were trying to make was not certain, but they went ahead and presented it as certain anyway.

[Spider]

Why have a trial? You seem to have already declared him guilty.

even oj got a trial

[The Lone Bolt]

This premise is false (which is why your argument is invalid.)

Why is the premise false?

Because the false statements Bush and his minions made were unequivocal.

That is, the statements were not qualified with "we believe," or "this is what we think."

The loophole you are trying to create might work if this were the case, but it is not.

Once again have you yourself ever believed with complete and total confidence that something was true, and told other so, only to end up being wrong? Of course you have. Does that make you a liar?

[The Lone Bolt]

That's total :bs:

Their own intelligence professionals were telling them that the case they were trying to make was not certain, but they went ahead and presented it as certain anyway.

Maybe (plausible alternative explanation here) because they chose not to believe those reports as credible? That makes them idiots, not liars.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you overstated your case and believed at the time there were no sharks in the water then you are an idiot and incompetent but not a liar.

If you told me that there were no sharks in the water because you knew that there were but wanted me to get bit then you are a liar. See the difference?

Either you misread what I wrote or you are misrepresenting it.

I didn't say I "believed at the time" that there were no sharks in the water.

On the contrary, I said I knew that I had no grounds for making such a guarantee when I made it.

[The Lone Bolt]

Either you misread what I wrote or you are misrepresenting it.

I didn't say I "believed at the time" that there were no sharks in the water.

On the contrary, I said I knew that I had no grounds for making such a guarantee when I made it.

Then you're incompetent, not a liar.

Lie \Lie\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Lied (l[imac]d); p. pr. & vb. n. Lying (l[imac]"[i^]ng).]

[OE. lien, li[yogh]en, le[yogh]en, leo[yogh]en, AS. le['o]gan; akin to D. liegen, OS. & OHG. liogan, G. l["u]gen, Icel. lj[=u]ga, Sw. ljuga, Dan. lyve, Goth. liugan, Russ. lgate.]

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

http://www.dictionary.net/lie

By definition, a lie requires an intent to deceive. If you did not intend to deceive you are not a liar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Maybe (plausible alternative explanation here) because they chose not to believe those reports as credible? That makes them idiots, not liars.

Wrong again.

Their claims about the "threat" posed by Iraq were unequivocal.

They maintained that their claims were supported by intelligence when, in fact, their own intelligence professionals were telling them that their case against Iraq was far from certain.

[The Lone Bolt]

Wrong again.

Their claims about the "threat" posed by Iraq were unequivocal.

They maintained that their claims were supported by intelligence when, in fact, their own intelligence professionals were telling them that their case against Iraq was far from certain.

And perhaps they decided the intel from those intelligence professionals was not credible and the intel that supported their belief was more so? Maybe they actually believed at the time that their case was strongly supported by the intel because they were unwilliing to accept as credible the intel that you are referring to?

IMO a plausible alternative explanation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then you're incompetent, not a liar.



http://www.dictionary.net/lie

By definition, a lie requires an intent to deceive. If you did not intend to deceive you are not a liar.

You gotta be kidding me? Ha!

If I tell you I am certain of something when I know in my own mind that I am not certain, then I am knowingly deceiving you.

How can you suggest such a lie is 'unintentional' given my foreknowledge that my statement to you was false?

[The Lone Bolt]

You gotta be kidding me? Ha!

If I tell you I am certain of something when I know in my own mind that I am not certain, then I am knowingly deceiving you.

How can you suggest such a lie is 'unintentional' given my foreknowledge that my statement to you was false?

Yes, But what if you did not feel "uncertain" at the time? What if you felt confident that there were no sharks in the water because you are a incompetent lifeguard? What if you overstated your case because you're an idiot?

See, you are saying that you felt uncertain but intentionally said otherwise. that's a lie. But if you felt certain and said so but were wrong that's not a lie.

You have yet to prove that rummy et al felt uncertain when they said otherwise.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And perhaps they decided the intel from those intelligence professionals was not credible and the intel that supported their belief was more so?

But they said their claims were based on the consensus of those very professionals.

And you still have not addressed the fact that their statements about the alleged threats were unequivocal when the very source upon whose authority they made those statements said just the opposite.

[Spider]

But they said their claims were based on the consensus of those very professionals.

And you still have not addressed the fact that their statements about the alleged threats were unequivocal when the very source upon whose authority they made those statements said just the opposite.

This is where Spiders philosophy comes into play , instead of trying to convience an idiot that he is an Idiot , I just insult them ;D
Noble effort though LABF

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, But what if you did not feel "uncertain" at the time? What if you felt confident that there were no sharks in the water because you are a incompetent lifeguard? What if you overstated your case because you're an idiot?

Is your reading comprehension that poor? ???

I just got done telling you that I knew in my own mind that I had no basis for my guarantee to you when I made it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is where Spiders philosophy comes into play , instead of trying to convience an idiot that he is an Idiot , I just insult them ;D
Noble effort though LABF

His compulsion to defend GeeDubya has definitely shut down the rational and logical part of his brain. :~ohyah!:

[The Lone Bolt]

But they said their claims were based on the consensus of those very professionals.

And you still have not addressed the fact that their statements about the alleged threats were unequivocal when the very source upon whose authority they made those statements said just the opposite.

Actually I believe that is not what they said. They were referring to others in the IC who were telling them that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk." They may have simply chosen to believe members of the IC who presented them with evidence that confirmed their own beliefs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually I believe that is not what they said. They were referring to others in the IC who were telling them that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk." They may have simply chosen to believe members of the IC who presented them with evidence that confirmed their own beliefs.

Roh already destroyed this argument a few pages ago:

Incompetent? He received information from professional intelligence officers that his casus belli was false and he subsequently refused to share that information with Congress or allow it to be included in an NIE report. That's not incompetence. That's deceit.

[baja]

You haven't proven they knew it was "not certain." It's palusible that they believed it to be at the time (but were in error).

Have you yourself ever said with confidence that something was absolutely, certainly true and then you ended up to be wrong? Does that make you a "liar"?

Not 973 times.

[The Lone Bolt]

Is your reading comprehension that poor? ???

I just got done telling you that I knew in my own mind that I had no basis for my guarantee to you when I made it.

If so you're saying that you were in fact uncertain (that is you believed that the evidence was inconclusive) and said otherwise? Then it's a lie. Your point?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They may have simply chosen to believe members of the IC who presented them with evidence that confirmed their own beliefs.

And how is this not deceit?

If they knowingly and willfully cherry-picked intel and presented it to the American people with the conflicting information redacted then this is deceit - plain and simple.

[The Lone Bolt]

Roh already destroyed this argument a few pages ago:

If you thought that info was false would you pass it on? Just a possiblity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If so you're saying that you were in fact uncertain (that is you believed that the evidence was inconclusive) and said otherwise? Then it's a lie. Your point?

My point?

This is exactly what Team Bush did:

If so you're saying that you were in fact uncertain (that is you believed that the evidence was inconclusive) and said otherwise? Then it's a lie.

[The Lone Bolt]

And how is this not deceit?

If they knowingly and willfully cherry-picked intel and presented it to the American people with the conflicting information redacted then this is deceit - plain and simple.

Have you ever been presented with conflicting info and had to make a choice of which info was true and which info was false? Have you ever started with a belief and chose only to accept the info that supported it. Have you ever chosen to promote info that you believed to be valid and reliable and discarded or downplayed or ignored info that you believed to be invalid or not credible?

Of course you have. It's is called bias, and its common.

[The Lone Bolt]

My point?

This is exactly what Team Bush did:

How do you know? you still have not presented conclusive evidence to that effect.

You still have not explained why the VOLUME of inaccurate statements proves intentional deception.

You still have not presented conclusive evidence that eliminates that possiblity of incompetence as I have described (e.g. bias in interpreting the facts).

Once again you are making an unsupported claim.

[The Lone Bolt]

OK, I've hung around long enough and it's time to go home. Maybe I'll pick this up later if I'm so inclined but really I have better things to do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Have you ever been presented with conflicting info and had to make a choice of which info was true and which info was false?

But in the run-up to the war, BushCo did not acknowledge that there was "conflicting info" - Bush and his minions made hundreds of unequivocal (and false) statements which they claimed were supported by the availible intelligence (also false.)

Therein lies the deceit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How do you know? you still have not presented conclusive evidence to that effect.

???

The conclusive evidence is that Bush and his team said they were certain that Iraq was a threat when they knew their case was far from certain.

They presented only those facts which supported their claims to the public while knowingly and willfully omitting facts and intelligence which called their statements into question. This is deception, no matter how you try to spin it.

As I said, your compulsion to defend Dubya has obviously shut down the rational side of your brain.

[TailgateNut]

OK, I've hung around long enough and it's time to go home. Maybe I'll pick this up later if I'm so inclined but really I have better things to do.


Do you have to go defend someone?Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you have to go defend someone?Hilarious!

Ha!

Come to think of it, O.J. is in trouble again...

[Rohirrim]

Have you ever been presented with conflicting info and had to make a choice of which info was true and which info was false? Have you ever started with a belief and chose only to accept the info that supported it. Have you ever chosen to promote info that you believed to be valid and reliable and discarded or downplayed or ignored info that you believed to be invalid or not credible?

Of course you have. It's is called bias, and its common.

You're right. Certainly people make biased decisions in their day to day lives all the time. If they did it in court they would be held in contempt. In court, even in a misdemeanor case, withholding evidence is a crime, regardless of what you think the value of that evidence is.

How should we look upon a president who withholds evidence from Congress and the people in the midst of driving the country toward a war? In fact, if our present Congress had a single testicle between them, they would have little trouble in finding the Bush administration in contempt of Congress, and probably much more. And believe me, if such a case was presented before an impeachment hearing, your specious arguments would be swept aside in opening arguments. In fact, I can only think of one type of person who would find any validity to your arguments; A mob lawyer. ;D

[BroncoInferno]

You know what, Bolt, if you believe it's possible that the Bush administration got wrong literally hundreds of pieces of info presented to us in an honest fashion, go right ahead and believe it. The rest of us will continue operating in the real world.

[gunns]

Have you ever been presented with conflicting info and had to make a choice of which info was true and which info was false? Have you ever started with a belief and chose only to accept the info that supported it. Have you ever chosen to promote info that you believed to be valid and reliable and discarded or downplayed or ignored info that you believed to be invalid or not credible?

Of course you have. It's is called bias, and its common.

Sounds to me like you just described yourself. And it seems you're one of the few who are viewing the info as conflicting. The info makes sense, you're bias doesn't.

[baja]

You know what, Bolt, if you believe it's possible that the Bush administration got wrong literally hundreds of pieces of info presented to us in an honest fashion, go right ahead and believe it. The rest of us will continue operating in the real world.

Not to mention those conveniently missing emails coming from the White House, ya that was an accident. They say that with a straight face even.

[The Lone Bolt]

???

The conclusive evidence is that Bush and his team said they were certain that Iraq was a threat when they knew their case was far from certain.

You still haven't established what they believed and what they did not believe. You have only established that they were presented with evidence that they SHOULD have taken seriously but may not have. If they did not then they may have erroneously believed that they were "certain" there were WMD in Iraq.

They presented only those facts which supported their claims to the public while knowingly and willfully omitting facts and intelligence which called their statements into question. This is deception, no matter how you try to spin it.

Would you omit or disregard facts that you did not believe to be credible? Could that be what happened? Is that deception?

[Rohirrim]

Not to mention those conveniently missing emails coming from the White House, ya that was an accident. They say that with a straight face even.

Maybe the secretary was stretched out too far, trying to answer the phone, and inadvertently pushed the delete button? :clown:

[The Lone Bolt]

You know what, Bolt, if you believe it's possible that the Bush administration got wrong literally hundreds of pieces of info presented to us in an honest fashion, go right ahead and believe it. The rest of us will continue operating in the real world.

Actually it's not "hundreds of peices." It's the same info repeated many different ways. You make it sound like they came up with a completely different untrue piece of information every time.

And that being the case, that it was essentailly the same info restated hundreds of times, I'm still waiting for somebody here to explain to me why the VOLUME of repeating essentially the same incorrect info is evidence of intentional deception.

[TailgateNut]

Maybe the secretary was stretched out too far, trying to answer the phone, and inadvertently pushed the delete button? :clown:


Maybe when the IRS comes to audit you, you can use the Bush excuse: "I accidentially erased the info".

The back-up tapes were re-used!:rofl: RIGHT!

This whole administration has treated our citizens as if we were all morons. They hope to walk away leaving them mess for others to clean up, with no recourse. IT'S BS, nothing less!

[TailgateNut]

Actually it's not "hundreds of peices." It's the same info repeated many different ways. You make it sound like they came up with a completely different untrue piece of information every time.

And that being the case, that it was essentailly the same info restated hundreds of times, I'm still waiting for somebody here to explain to me why the VOLUME of repeating essentially the same incorrect info is evidence of intentional deception.
The only reasoning you would understand, IMO, is a fat lip!

[The Lone Bolt]

You're right. Certainly people make biased decisions in their day to day lives all the time. If they did it in court they would be held in contempt. In court, even in a misdemeanor case, withholding evidence is a crime, regardless of what you think the value of that evidence is.

How should we look upon a president who withholds evidence from Congress and the people in the midst of driving the country toward a war? In fact, if our present Congress had a single testicle between them, they would have little trouble in finding the Bush administration in contempt of Congress, and probably much more. And believe me, if such a case was presented before an impeachment hearing, your specious arguments would be swept aside in opening arguments. In fact, I can only think of one type of person who would find any validity to your arguments; A mob lawyer. ;D

Well I'm no lawyer. Can you tell me exactly which law bush allegedly broke by withholding the info from congress?

As for withholding info from the people, I agree that he should have been more unbiased in his assessment of the evidence, but is that illegal? Once again, I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure which laws would apply.

[The Lone Bolt]

The only reasoning you would understand, IMO, is a fat lip!

Good counter argument! :thumbs:

[TailgateNut]

Good counter argument! :thumbs:


It's the only one which makes sense when dealing with "broken records" like you.


I'd hate to be on jury duty with you. Talk about hung jury!

[alkemical]

It's the only one which makes sense when dealing with "broken records" like you.


I'd hate to be on jury duty with you. Talk about hung jury!

If i were on jury duty - it'd be deadlocked :)

[The Lone Bolt]

But in the run-up to the war, BushCo did not acknowledge that there was "conflicting info" - Bush and his minions made hundreds of unequivocal (and false) statements which they claimed were supported by the availible intelligence (also false.)

Therein lies the deceit.

Yes he should have acknowledged the conflicting info, and he did overstate his case with unequivocal statements.

But if he chose to believe info that was false and disregard info that was accurate is that intentional deception or stupidity?

If he and others in his administration made "unequivocal" statements based on their biased misinterpretation of the intel was that intentional deception or incompetence?

I'm not saying I know that's how it occurred but you still have not eliminated those possibilities with conclusive evidence.

[The Lone Bolt]

It's the only one which makes sense when dealing with "broken records" like you.


I'd hate to be on jury duty with you. Talk about hung jury!

I'll keep pointing out the objective truth until it sinks in.

And can you explain to me how repeating the same incorrect information is intentional deception by virtue of the volume of statements alone? I'm still waiting for an explanation.

[Rohirrim]

Well I'm no lawyer. Can you tell me exactly which law bush allegedly broke by withholding the info from congress?

As for withholding info from the people, I agree that he should have been more unbiased in his assessment of the evidence, but is that illegal? Once again, I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure which laws would apply.

You need to work on your civics. In America, the Congress is the people. Congress determines what contempt of Congress is through hearings and the gathering of evidence that in this case would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a pattern of deceit and abuse of power while leading this country into an unnecessary war. Obviously, you agree with Cheney that executive privilege is absolute and the president is above the law, otherwise you couldn't possibly believe that the president can conduct himself in a manner that would not be acceptable in the simplest misdemeanor case. It is also obvious to me that you are just the kind of puppet that slimeballs like Dick Cheney and George Bush rely upon to cover their flank when they issue their tissue thin claims of plausible deniability with a wink, wink to their supporters (like you). If, on the other hand, you truly believe what you have posted here and truly cannot see this Himalayan-sized pattern of deception coming from the Bush WH, all I can say is that you are a rare human being, devoid of simple discretion and further argument would be useless.

[The Lone Bolt]

You need to work on your civics. In America, the Congress is the people. Congress determines what contempt of Congress is through hearings and the gathering of evidence that in this case would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a pattern of deceit and abuse of power while leading this country into an unnecessary war. Obviously, you agree with Cheney that executive privilege is absolute and the president is above the law, otherwise you couldn't possibly believe that the president can conduct himself in a manner that would not be acceptable in the simplest misdemeanor case. It is also obvious to me that you are just the kind of puppet that slimeballs like Dick Cheney and George Bush rely upon to cover their flank when they issue their tissue thin claims of plausible deniability with a wink, wink to their supporters (like you). If, on the other hand, you truly believe what you have posted here and truly cannot see this Himalayan-sized pattern of deception coming from the Bush WH, all I can say is that you are a rare human being, devoid of simple discretion and further argument would be useless.



The problem with your reasoning is that you have already appointed yourself judge and declared a verdict before any such hearings have taken place. You seem supremely confident in your case. Is there any possibility you could be wrong?

All I'm advocating here is that people stay open-minded and consider all plausible alternative explanations.

[Rohirrim]

The problem with your reasoning is that you have already appointed yourself judge and declared a verdict before any such hearings have taken place. You seem supremely confident in your case. Is there any possibility you could be wrong?

All I'm advocating here is that people stay open-minded and consider all plausible alternative explanations.

I've already rested my case.

[The Lone Bolt]

I've already rested my case.

So he's guilty no matter what? If Congress did hold hearings and they did not find him guilty, how would you react? Would you be willing to accept a verdict that did not support your own beliefs?

Once again is there any chance at all you could be wrong?

[TailgateNut]

The problem with your reasoning is that you have already appointed yourself judge and declared a verdict before any such hearings have taken place. You seem supremely confident in your case. Is there any possibility you could be wrong?

All I'm advocating here is that people stay open-minded and consider all plausible alternative explanations.


..and you've constantly appointed yourself as defense counsel for the Bush Administration.
...all we want is a trial.

You have yet to explain why Bush would feel the need to pardon himself and his entourage, if, as you insist, he has not broken any laws.

You have yet to explain why, conveniently, e-mails from periods which cover dates when questionable activities occured related to the Iraqi war.

How stupid do you think the avg. american citizen is? Are we to believe these are SOP's (in regards to the pardon issue), and honest mistakes (in regards to the missing e-mails).

Same goes for the inconvenient lies!

[baja]

Maybe the secretary was stretched out too far, trying to answer the phone, and inadvertently pushed the delete button? :clown:

Maybe! Convenient how she was stretched out on the days when the white house was scrambling to cover it's tracks about who outed the CIA agent.

[Rohirrim]

So he's guilty no matter what? If Congress did hold hearings and they did not find him guilty, how would you react? Would you be willing to accept a verdict that did not support your own beliefs?

Once again is there any chance at all you could be wrong?


If the glove don't fit, they must aquit? :wiggle:

[baja]

Actually it's not "hundreds of peices." It's the same info repeated many different ways. You make it sound like they came up with a completely different untrue piece of information every time.

And that being the case, that it was essentailly the same info restated hundreds of times, I'm still waiting for somebody here to explain to me why the VOLUME of repeating essentially the same incorrect info is evidence of intentional deception.

You came up with that line of reasoning laying awake in bed last night reliving you day on the internet didn't you. ;D

[TailgateNut]

Maybe! Convenient how she was stretched out on the days when the white house was scrambling to cover it's tracks about who outed the CIA agent.
Maybe they didn't pay their Office Depot bill, and were unable to purchase more back up tapes, so they had to resort to reusing tapes which had certain incriminating evidence on them!

Could be?!? Right LoneBrainCell?

[baja]

Well I'm no lawyer. Can you tell me exactly which law bush allegedly broke by withholding the info from congress?

As for withholding info from the people, I agree that he should have been more unbiased in his assessment of the evidence, but is that illegal? Once again, I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure which laws would apply.

Tell the truth you are really Jenna Bush arne't you.

[The Lone Bolt]

..and you've constantly appointed yourself as defense counsel for the Bush Administration.
...all we want is a trial.

You have yet to explain why Bush would feel the need to pardon himself and his entourage, if, as you insist, he has not broken any laws.

You have yet to explain why, conveniently, e-mails from periods which cover dates when questionable activities occured related to the Iraqi war.

How stupid do you think the avg. american citizen is? Are we to believe these are SOP's (in regards to the pardon issue), and honest mistakes (in regards to the missing e-mails).

Same goes for the inconvenient lies!

Actually I want a trial too. And show me where I insisted that he hasn't broken any laws. I'm only say it hasn't been conclusively proven -- yet. There's a difference.

Sure there are a lot of suspicious issues to be addressed. But suspicious events do not = conclusive evidence. That's my point.

And I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of intentional deception (i.e. "lies"). All I see here are facts that have reasonable alternative explanations that have not been eliminated with conclusive evidence.

All I'm saying is until a jury or Congressional hearing says otherwise we should all consider the possiblity of innocence and the plausible alternative explanations for events. Keep an open mind.

[baja]

It's the only one which makes sense when dealing with "broken records" like you.


I'd hate to be on jury duty with you. Talk about hung jury!

How do you know Lone Dolt is hung anyway Nut.

[TailgateNut]

Tell the truth you are really Jenna Bush arne't you.


LOL

[TailgateNut]

How do you know Lone Dolt is hung anyway Nut.

I meant to say the rest of the jury would "HANG THEMSELVES" after dealing with his "repeat-a-thon".

[The Lone Bolt]

You came up with that line of reasoning laying awake in bed last night reliving you day on the internet didn't you. ;D

If you look back over this thread you'll find that's always been my line of reasoning.

And I'm still waiting for an answer. Care to take a shot? Can you tell me how essentailly repeating the same inaccurate information over a period of time is evidence of intentional deception by virtue of the volume of statements made? I'm still waiting for anyone here to offer a logical explanation. How about it baja?

[baja]

Actually I want a trial too. And show me where I insisted that he hasn't broken any laws. I'm only say it hasn't been conclusively proven -- yet. There's a difference.

Sure there are a lot of suspicious issues to be addressed. But suspicious events do not = conclusive evidence. That's my point.

And I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of intentional deception (i.e. "lies"). All I see here are facts that have reasonable alternative explanations that have not been eliminated with conclusive evidence.

All I'm saying is until a jury or Congressional hearing says otherwise we should all consider the possiblity of innocence and the plausible alternative explanations for events. Keep an open mind.

Too bad we can't find a dress with some cum stains on it

[The Lone Bolt]

Too bad we can't find a dress with some cum stains on it

EEEWWWW!

[TailgateNut]

If you look abck over this thread you'll find that's always been my line of reasoning.

And I'm still waiting for an answer. Care to take a shot? Can you tell me how essentailly repeating the same inaccurate information over a period of time is evidence of intentional deception by virtue of the volume of statements made? I'm still waiting for anyone here to offer a logical explanation. How about it baja?


Proof, Proof, Proof......blah,blah,blah......hand the MF and save the taxpayer the cost of a trial.

That should make you come in your panties!

[baja]

If you look back over this thread you'll find that's always been my line of reasoning.

And I'm still waiting for an answer. Care to take a shot? Can you tell me how essentailly repeating the same inaccurate information over a period of time is evidence of intentional deception by virtue of the volume of statements made? I'm still waiting for anyone here to offer a logical explanation. How about it baja?

ask Colon Powell I bet he's about ready to spill his gut.

[Rohirrim]

Actually I want a trial too. And show me where I insisted that he hasn't broken any laws. I'm only say it hasn't been conclusively proven -- yet. There's a difference.

Sure there are a lot of suspicious issues to be addressed. But suspicious events do not = conclusive evidence. That's my point.

And I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of intentional deception (i.e. "lies"). All I see here are facts that have reasonable alternative explanations that have not been eliminated with conclusive evidence.

All I'm saying is until a jury or Congressional hearing says otherwise we should all consider the possiblity of innocence and the plausible alternative explanations for events. Keep an open mind.

Read this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GXF2CZ26L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
Then get back to me.


(I was going to list all the lies myself but then I realized I didn't want to sit here typing all day. Better to just refer you to a source. ;) )

[TailgateNut]

Read this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GXF2CZ26L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
Then get back to me.


(I was going to list all the lies myself but then I realized I didn't want to sit here typing all day. Better to just refer you to a source. ;) )


Is this book based on Facts?

[baja]

If you look back over this thread you'll find that's always been my line of reasoning.

And I'm still waiting for an answer. Care to take a shot? Can you tell me how essentailly repeating the same inaccurate information over a period of time is evidence of intentional deception by virtue of the volume of statements made? I'm still waiting for anyone here to offer a logical explanation. How about it baja?

If I had proof I'd be asking for a public flogging, I am about an investigation than a trial as you know.

[The Lone Bolt]

Read this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GXF2CZ26L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
Then get back to me.


(I was going to list all the lies myself but then I realized I didn't want to sit here typing all day. Better to just refer you to a source. ;) )

I will if you can point to one "lie" contained in the book which absolutely cannot be explained any other way. This means he said something that was untrue and there is conclusive, indesputable evidence that he said it with the intent to deceive. He could not have possibly said it because tht is what he believed to be true at the time.

Simply producing a list of untue statements is not evidence that they were said with intent to deceive. And the volume of such repeated statements also proves nothing. Likewise the fact that bush ignored some evidence does not prove that he did so with intent to deceive.

Does this book contain anything more than those lines of reasoning? Can the author present audio, video, documentation, or multiple, credible eyewitness accounts which demonstrate that bush or anyone in his administration definitely believed that there were no WMD in Iraq before telling the public otherwise?

[TailgateNut]

I will if you can point to one "lie" contained in the book which absolutely cannot be explained any other way.

LOL


I would think that a president could sue for libel and /or slander if someone were to publish LIES about them.

What do ya think?

Or would they need PROOF that the person who published their lies, lied!:~ohyah!:

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL


I would think that a president could sue for libel and /or slander if someone were to publish LIES about them.

What do ya think?

Or would they need PROOF that the person who published their lies, lied!:~ohyah!:

Maybe he should. That would be interesting.:wiggle:

[TailgateNut]

Maybe he should. That would be interesting.:wiggle:

Does he have proof the author is lying? :rofl:


He's destroyed any incriminating evidence on record. What could he use as evidence which would convince a jury? His WORD?

[TailgateNut]

All of the books which have been written and all of the statements which have been made regarding the LIES of this administration must all be hogwash, and all of those authors and speaker are just "out to get your hero"!
Right?

Damn. Bush better get busy filing lawsuits. He'll be in court for decades!

[The Lone Bolt]

All of the books which have been written and all of the statements which have been made regarding the LIES of this administration must all be hogwash, and all of those authors and speaker are just "out to get your hero"!
Right?

Damn. Bush better get busy filing lawsuits. He'll be in court for decades!

Well it could be that those books were written and speeches made by people with political bais and/or motives. But yeah, dubya may want to defend himself in court once he's out of office. Would look bad if he doesn't.

[TailgateNut]

Well it could be that those books were written and speeches made by people with political bais and/or motives. But yeah, dubya may want to defend himself in court once he's out of office. Would look bad if he doesn't.



It already "LOOKS REAL BAD". Why wait? Could it be that he doesn't want the truth to be revealed while in office. ME THINKS SO!

[Rohirrim]

I will if you can point to one "lie" contained in the book which absolutely cannot be explained any other way. This means he said something that was untrue and there is conclusive, indesputable evidence that he said it with the intent to deceive. He could not have possibly said it because tht is what he believed to be true at the time.

Simply producing a list of untue statements is not evidence that they were said with intent to deceive. And the volume of such repeated statements also proves nothing. Likewise the fact that bush ignored some evidence does not prove that he did so with intent to deceive.

Does this book contain anything more than those lines of reasoning? Can the author present audio, video, documentation, or multiple, credible eyewitness accounts which demonstrate that bush or anyone in his administration definitely believed that there were no WMD in Iraq before telling the public otherwise?

You know, the more you post the more I realize, you are the one person in this world I've been looking for. You see, many years ago my grandfather passed away. We found some deeds in his personal papers. Believe it or not, one of those deeds was to the Brooklyn Bridge! Imagine! Anyway, for years I've been looking for just the right person to share this opportunity with. Of course, it's not as if you'd have to pay for the entire bridge in one lump sum. We could work out a reasonable payment schedule. Don't pass this up. It's the opportunity of a lifetime. PM me for more info.

[The Lone Bolt]

It already "LOOKS REAL BAD". Why wait? Could it be that he doesn't want the truth to be revealed while in office. ME THINKS SO!

Ok, could look "worse." And maybe you're right. (See, I'm not dismissing the possibility;) )

[The Lone Bolt]

You know, the more you post the more I realize, you are the one person in this world I've been looking for. You see, many years ago my grandfather passed away. We found some deeds in his personal papers. Believe it or not, one of those deeds was to the Brooklyn Bridge! Imagine! Anyway, for years I've been looking for just the right person to share this opportunity with. Of course, it's not as if you'd have to pay for the entire bridge in one lump sum. We could work out a reasonable payment schedule. Don't pass this up. It's the opportunity of a lifetime. PM me for more info.

Translation: you can't point to any such "lie" in that book. I didn't think so.

[baja]

I will if you can point to one "lie" contained in the book which absolutely cannot be explained any other way. This means he said something that was untrue and there is conclusive, indesputable evidence that he said it with the intent to deceive. He could not have possibly said it because tht is what he believed to be true at the time.

Simply producing a list of untrue statements is not evidence that they were said with intent to deceive. And the volume of such repeated statements also proves nothing. Likewise the fact that bush ignored some evidence does not prove that he did so with intent to deceive.

Does this book contain anything more than those lines of reasoning? Can the author present audio, video, documentation, or multiple, credible eyewitness accounts which demonstrate that bush or anyone in his administration definitely believed that there were no WMD in Iraq before telling the public otherwise?

If he believed all of those false statements that fill that book at the time he said them than He should not be tried for lying rather he should be shot for stupidity.

[baja]

Maybe he should. That would be interesting.:wiggle:

We'd all love that. Even he is not that stupid.

[baja]

Well it could be that those books were written and speeches made by people with political bais and/or motives. But yeah, dubya may want to defend himself in court once he's out of office. Would look bad if he doesn't.

Wanta bet a hundred dollars right now that Bush will take anyone to court for slander? I'll even give you 3 to 1 odds on that.

[TailgateNut]

Wanta bet a hundred dollars right now that Bush will take anyone to court for slander? I'll even give you 3 to 1 odds on that.



He'll never take that bet. Even he knows deep down that Bush is guilty as hell, and will run for cover once he finishes destroying our country!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes he should have acknowledged the conflicting info, and he did overstate his case with unequivocal statements.

But if he chose to believe info that was false and disregard info that was accurate is that intentional deception or stupidity?

If he and others in his administration made "unequivocal" statements based on their biased misinterpretation of the intel was that intentional deception or incompetence?

He didn't "overstate his case" (nice spin) - he knowingly and willfully cherry-picked intelligence he hoped would support his case while disregarding conflicting reports and omitting them from his statements to the American people.

He knowingly and willfully misrepresented the availible intelligence as a slam-dunk case for war when, in fact, his own intelligence professionals were telling him that his case was far from certain.

This is deliberate deception, no matter how you try to spin it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually it's not "hundreds of peices." It's the same info repeated many different ways. You make it sound like they came up with a completely different untrue piece of information every time.


:bs:

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

BTW, notice the emphasis on the word "unequivocally?"

Now, if Team Bush had presented its case as "this is what we think" or "this is what we believe," then your defense might have some merit.

However, Bush and his minions made unequivocal claims when they knew full well that the intel was far from unequivocal.

http://www.bartcop.com/drowning-scrutiny.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/935-is-all.jpg

[baja]

But, but, but some of them were repeats

[alkemical]

Don't worry baja - since bush didn't know the bilderburgs were lying to him, he can't be held accountable.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No More Investigations Please

by David Swanson | January 26, 2008 - 11:38am

In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted the current president and vice president of the United States for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing U.S. and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on "imperial fantasies."

Bush's and Cheney's crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to and lies about Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past 12 months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment.

And Bush and Cheney have gone further by announcing on July 19, 2007, that the Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings. So, that alternative to impeachment would be out even if Pelosi were willing to allow a vote on it.

There are well-intentioned impeachment advocates who want to hold yet more hearings without the I word, with the idea that then the public will demand impeachment (as if the public hasn't already demanded impeachment).

These people are largely oblivious to the fact that the Congress has held dozens of hearings on impeachable offenses over the past 12 months. Holding more will do nothing but eat up the clock. Most of the ones they've already done didn't even make it onto C-Span. Most invited witnesses refused to show. Most subpoenaed witnesses refused to show. Most of the significant witnesses who have shown up have either refused to answer questions or have arrogantly asserted unconstitutional power knowing Congress would not do anything about it.

There is zero chance of new information making impeachment happen. That claim has been made over and over again as we've learned of war lies, spying, detentions, torture, murder, gang rape, political firings, signing statements, refusals to comply with subpoenas, destruction of tapes, commuting of sentences, etc.

The only thing likely to put hearings on TV or to compel witnesses to appear is to make the hearings impeachment hearings. I wish this were not the case, but it is. Congressman Jerrold Nadler held hearings on "The Constitution in Crisis" last summer. Did you know that?

My brothers and sisters, you can't crawl out from under a rock at this late date, go to one meeting, hear about good intentions to find a compromise and have confidence you're not being played. At least I wouldn't if I were you.

What will help make contempt or moderately interesting hearings happen will be unrelenting public pressure for impeachment.

Yes, we need good cops as well as bad cops in this effort. We have to talk with the committee members. But we don't have to believe every word they say or fail to do minimal research.

Contempt votes don't happen without Pelosi, and the Justice Department has already said it will not enforce anyway.

What can happen is impeachment, but the enemy is the clock. We don't have time to waste on the same things we've wasted the past few years on. I'm honestly sorry about that. It's not my fault.

If you want impeachment, insist on impeachment, and do it now.

Robert Wexler is pushing forward within the Judiciary Committee. Ask your representative to sign his letter to Conyers.

Dennis Kucinich will introduce Bush Articles of Impeachment on Monday. Ask your representative to co-sponsor, and ask the media to wake up!

http://www.davidswanson.org

[baja]

The swiftest road back to global respectability is to impeach both Bush and Cheney now. If we let them serve our their terms we are saying with our non-action we condone their crimes and we are saying to the world we are OK with that so you can expect more of the same meddling in you affairs. It will be a missed opportunity to show the world we are not the Imperialist nation George Bush would have us be.

[alkemical]

The swiftest road back to global respectability is to impeach both Bush and Cheney now. If we let them serve our their terms we are saying with our non-action we condone their crimes and we are saying to the world we are OK with that so you can expect more of the same meddling in you affairs. It will be a missed opportunity to show the world we are not the Imperialist nation George Bush would have us be.

No doubt baja.

[TailgateNut]

The swiftest road back to global respectability is to impeach both Bush and Cheney now. If we let them serve our their terms we are saying with our non-action we condone their crimes and we are saying to the world we are OK with that so you can expect more of the same meddling in you affairs. It will be a missed opportunity to show the world we are not the Imperialist nation George Bush would have us be.


This is excactly what I've seen as the ONLY answer to his failed policy and his deception of the american public. His has SPIT in our faces and laughed at us with his actions. I think we should also dump Pelosi for her agreement/to not pursue impeachment.

It needs to be done, not only because they do not deserve to govern this country, but to also send a message to future administrations that we will not condone these types on monumental failures of and by our goverment. It will also restore some of the confidence we have lost and the repect we had worked so hard to recieve from other nations across the globe.

I know I will have to keep a "BARF BAG" handy for the "speech" his HIGHNESS will give this evening. The man (I use this term very lightly) just makes me sick!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The swiftest road back to global respectability is to impeach both Bush and Cheney now. If we let them serve our their terms we are saying with our non-action we condone their crimes and we are saying to the world we are OK with that so you can expect more of the same meddling in you affairs. It will be a missed opportunity to show the world we are not the Imperialist nation George Bush would have us be.

+1 :thumbsup:

Post of the day!

Yes, Pelosi should walk the plank too.

[The Lone Bolt]

:bs:



BTW, notice the emphasis on the word "unequivocally?"

Now, if Team Bush had presented its case as "this is what we think" or "this is what we believe," then your defense might have some merit.

However, Bush and his minions made unequivocal claims when they knew full well that the intel was far from unequivocal.



Absolutely he should have been more cautious in his assessment.

But once again I ask you: have you yourself ever been so sure of something that you "unequivocally" stated it to be true only to find out later that you were wrong? Have you ever done so because you decided that conflicting information your were exposed to was not credible (and it turns out you were wrong)? Because you chose to believe on set of evidence over another?

I'm willing to bet you have at some point in your life. I think everyone has at least once and more likely many times. Did that make you a "liar"? Were you, in that instance, trying to intentionally deceive anybody?

I don't know if that was the case with bush, but it is plausible. I'm sure it is because I'm sure there is nobody on this board who can say they've never made the same mistake at one time or another, INCLUDING YOU.

If that is the case it makes bush stubborn, narrow-minded, and arguably incompetent. But it's not intentional deception.

[TailgateNut]

Absolutely he should have been more cautious in his assessment.

But once again I ask you: have you yourself ever been so sure of something that you "unequivocally" stated it to be true only to find out later that you were wrong? Have you ever done so because you decided that conflicting information your were exposed to was not credible (and it turns out you were wrong)? Because you chose to believe on set of evidence over another?

I'm willing to bet you have at some point in your life. I think everyone has at least once and more likely many times. Did that make you a "liar"? Were you, in that instance, trying to intentionally deceive anybody?

I don't know if that was the case with bush, but it is plausible. I'm sure it is because I'm sure there is nobody on this board who can say they've never made the same mistake at one time or another, INCLUDING YOU.

If that is the case it makes bush stubborn, narrow-minded, and arguably incompetent. But it's not intentional deception.



LOL HE'S BAAAAACK! The defender of EVIL. The naysayer of all truths. The Doubter of the printed word.

[Rohirrim]

Absolutely he should have been more cautious in his assessment.

But once again I ask you: have you yourself ever been so sure of something that you "unequivocally" stated it to be true only to find out later that you were wrong? Have you ever done so because you decided that conflicting information your were exposed to was not credible (and it turns out you were wrong)? Because you chose to believe on set of evidence over another?

I'm willing to bet you have at some point in your life. I think everyone has at least once and more likely many times. Did that make you a "liar"? Were you, in that instance, trying to intentionally deceive anybody?

I don't know if that was the case with bush, but it is plausible. I'm sure it is because I'm sure there is nobody on this board who can say they've never made the same mistake at one time or another, INCLUDING YOU.

If that is the case it makes bush stubborn, narrow-minded, and arguably incompetent. But it's not intentional deception.

What proof do you have that Bush is stubborn, narrow-minded or incompetent?

[TailgateNut]

What proof do you have that Bush is stubborn, narrow-minded or incompetent?


Slam-Dunk!

[The Lone Bolt]

What proof do you have that Bush is stubborn, narrow-minded or incompetent?

I'm not saying that I do.

Let me put this in scientific terms:

We have an observable phenomenon: bush made statements that turned out to be incorrect.

We have two competing explanitory hypotheses:

1) Bush intentionally mislead people.

2) Bush is an idiot and screwed it all up (but not intentionally)

Neither hypothesis has been eliminated by conclusive evidence, therefore neither can be described as a "fact."

That's my position. I'm not saying for certain that bush made those inaccurate statements because he's incompetent. I'm only pointing it out as a plausible alternative hypothesis.