08 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioWrong. Sorry, Nemesio, but you are the one with his head buried in the sand. Check the facts.
You can disagree with it all you want. You're essentially disagreeing with what actually happened,
however. These are facts that are verifiable.
Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't.
Bush said that Iraq was a proponent of terrorism. It wasn't.
Bush said that we were in imminent danger. We weren't.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_41_18/ai_95358025
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84005,00.html
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasSticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear the facts and then screaming, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" is not doing your argument any service. I am spoon feeding you the facts and you're ignoring them. Let me make this perfectly clear. YOU are the liar.
If any president lied, then WTF?
Well, a president stands above the truth so it dosn't matter, does it?
We're talking about United States of America now. Run by a liar. What does that make the American people, supporting a resident who lies, a liar?
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothOnly one of your links is about WMDs and doesn't say Iraq had them.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear the facts and then screaming, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" is not doing your argument any service. I am spoon feeding you the facts and you're ignoring them. Let me make this perfectly clear. YOU are the liar.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothI'm the liar here? I'm not even a president! 🙂
Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear the facts and then screaming, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" is not doing your argument any service. I am spoon feeding you the facts and you're ignoring them. Let me make this perfectly clear. YOU are the liar.
Are you telling me that no president, ever, has lied? Really? Can you say this without being a liar yourself?
But you and me are not at stake here. Presidents of the mighty United States are.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIraq had hundreds of tons of uranium. Bush stated that British intelligence had learned that Iraq was trying to obtain more uranium. In spite of all the lies to the contrary, that was a true statement, as is verified on the link from factcheck.org. Repeated claims that Bush was lying about this are patently false.
Only one of your links is about WMDs and doesn't say Iraq had them.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothIraq had hundreds of tons of uranium ............... locked up by UN inspectors in the same place for 12 years. British intelligence hadn't "learned that Iraq was trying to obtain more uranium"; learning something requires it to be true and that claim is false. Even Bush apologists concede it was a mistake to put those words in the speech; only a few rabid right wingers like yourself continue to claim that the statement was true.
Iraq had hundreds of tons of uranium. Bush stated that British intelligence had learned that Iraq was trying to obtain more uranium. In spite of all the lies to the contrary, that was a true statement, as is verified on the link from factcheck.org. Repeated claims that Bush was lying about this are patently false.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe're not talking about whether or not any president has ever lied. Of course they've lied. Everyone of them has lied at some point--as has every other person on the planet. I seem to recall that even the great [...moment of silence....] Ronald Reagan lied when he had to, in order to protect the security of an ongoing clandestine military mission.
I'm the liar here? I'm not even a president! 🙂
Are you telling me that no president, ever, has lied? Really? Can you say this without being a liar yourself?
But you and me are not at stake here. Presidents of the mighty United States are.
We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not Bush lied about the reasons for toppling Saddam. We're discussing whether Bush was a liar, or whether his attackers are liars.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothBush said: "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction".
We're not talking about whether or not any president has ever lied. Of course they've lied. Everyone of them has lied at some point--as has every other person on the planet. I seem to recall that even the great [...moment of silence....] Ronald Reagan lied when he had to, in order to protect the security of an ongoing clandestine military mission. ...[text shortened]... ling Saddam. We're discussing whether Bush was a liar, or whether his attackers are liars.
Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, Bush couldn't have known that he did.
Ergo, the first statement was a lie.
QED.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderRather than continuing to make false statements about discredited liberal lies, why don't you try reading the above article from factcheck.org. Or are you going to claim that factcheck.org is a bunch of "rabid right wingers" also.
Iraq had hundreds of tons of uranium ............... locked up by UN inspectors in the same place for 12 years. British intelligence hadn't "learned that Iraq was trying to obtain more uranium"; learning something requires it to be true and that claim is false. Even Bush apologists concede it was a mistake to put those words in the speech; only a few rabid right wingers like yourself continue to claim that the statement was true.
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothI read it. All it shows is that the statement while misleading and inaccurate wasn't a complete falsehood. That isn't overly impressive.
Rather than continuing to make false statements about discredited liberal lies, why don't you try reading the above article from factcheck.org. Or are you going to claim that factcheck.org is a bunch of "rabid right wingers" also.
Here's a list of statements that were falsehoods: http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAn excerpt from the factcheck.org page:
I read it. All it shows is that the statement while misleading and inaccurate wasn't a complete falsehood. That isn't overly impressive.
Here's a list of statements that were falsehoods: http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
08 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothFour years prior isn't "recent" in the context that Bush used it.
An excerpt from the factcheck.org page:
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had inte ...[text shortened]... addam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
You did read in the article where everybody in the administration admits that the words shouldn't have been in the speech, didn't you? Why do you think that is?
Quote: "In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech."
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothThat is not information that shows Saddam has WMDs. It's information that suggests Saddam might have wanted to buy material that could be used to make WMDs in the past.
An excerpt from the factcheck.org page:
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had inte ...[text shortened]... addam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.