 |
|
LoneWolf
|
|
So each time you have been wrong about something, you have been lying?
Or is being wrong (assuming, hypothetically, that he was wrong) something different from lying?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
Bush and the admin. said we had solid intelliegcne that showed Saddam had not only the possible ability of a small program, nor even a more significant program, but weaposn ready to use, that very same day: in tony's little report, it went as far as saying that Saddam could use his WMD's and ballistic missiles in under 1 hour, and all this solid evidence was the "proof" that when Iraqis said "we have NO WMD's", they were 'lying', cause we had all this solid evidence that they did.
Now, two things are possible: either the admin. knew this to be false and yet went ahead (this would certainly make Bush a liar), or, the intelligence we had was presented to the president as "proof" by those under him and by the intelligence agencies. That would mean Bush is not a liar, but that people under him either were outright lying, or more likely, manipulating the facts they had, sought out the worst possible scenrios from all they had in their hands, as opposed to the most likely scenerio. What that wouold mean is that our intelliegnce agencies were not doing their job, which is to provide the clearest, most correct picture they can, but instead were being used, (or were being the manipulators) to shape info into politically acceptable answers that could then be used to justify policy. To me, that is just as bad as outright lying, if not worse, because presidents get only 8 years top, but institutions live on.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LoneWolf
|
|
Well, there is another possibility. It is that the world is not perfect, and not all is knowable. It is that you look at the evidence at hand, and make a judgment, which may not turn out to be right. It is that political leaders are just people doing work, subject to the same rules of life as the rest of us.
But again, this assumes that President Bush was wrong, which is not at all clear.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999 time: 23:28
|
|
There's plenty more. From September 2002
("Agency disavows report on Iraq arms"):
quote: In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president... |
Well, for starters, numbnuts, there's the fact that the report you're citing never existed:
quote: The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday... |
Later the White House tried to say that Bush had been referring to an IAEA report from 1991. Another lie: there was no such IAEA report from 1991.
This was all public knowledge long before the war. I'm sure you all remember the ultra-leftwing American newsmedia harping on it day after day after day.
Of course, part of being a Good Patriot is knowing when you are expected not to look too closely at something. And behaving accordingly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Iraq is about the size of California, so give the allies a little more time to comb the country. After all, they haven't been able to snag any of the major players either, have they? OTOH I really doubt that the Iraqis had the capability of destroying significant quantities of NBC weapons and eradicating every trace within a matter of the short duration of the war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elden
|
|
There are no WoMDs - if he had any the capitals of the coalition of the "willing" would have been attacked with them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Elden
There are no WoMDs - if he had any the capitals of the coalition of the "willing" would have been attacked with them. |
Errrr......Have you not noticed the unique competence of the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein? They would have more likely hit Baghdad or Damascus than any enemy capital city.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elden
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Errrr......Have you not noticed the unique competence of the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein? They would have more likely hit Baghdad or Damascus than any enemy capital city. |
The point is they would TRY to use them against the coalition - whatever did get damaged is another matter.
The fact that they didn't use any shows they don't have any.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|