Even after Bush and Cheney KNEW there were no WMD they continued to lie to the American public and say there were WMD in Iraq. And think about this, if the information that there were no WMD was so prevalent that even an Amy recruit was told there were no WMD - just how f*cking long had Bush and Cheney known the truth??

IndyStar (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/LOCAL18/803300370/1195/LOCAL18)
Derek Giffin, 27, an Army veteran from Schererville, Ind., said he had second thoughts when his 1st Cavalry Company from Fort Hood was briefed before the invasion that there were no chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the Bush administration kept making that claim.

"That's when I awoke to the fact that something was woefully amiss," he said.


I seriously wonder how anyone can support these two arse-holes? 4000 dead and tens of thousands physically handicapped and hundreds of thousands mentally scared.
Millions of American families ruined all because these dick heads lied.

As long as they keep making the right people money nothing will ever happen...its sad.

Millions of American families ruined all because these dick heads lied.

What about the Iraqies families, they have suffered even greater losses due to a very bad leader in America.

Even after Bush and Cheney KNEW there were no WMD they continued to lie to the American public and say there were WMD in Iraq. And think about this, if the information that there were no WMD was so prevalent that even an Amy recruit was told there were no WMD - just how f*cking long had Bush and Cheney known the truth??

Weird that you are bringing this up now, but it's interesting. Were these briefings known to the press?

4000 dead and tens of thousands physically handicapped and hundreds of thousands mentally scared.
Millions of American families ruined all because these dick heads lied.

Don't forget the non-Americans.

I'm not forgetting the non-Americans I'm just pointing out that Americans should f*cking remember their civil duty, do what the founding fathers would have done, and impeach and imprison these arse holes.

Is there an American alive that does not recognize that we were deceived, lied and scared into this war? I remember when sometimes Americans would say Saddam when they meant to say BinLaden. Their heads were so screwed with by these lieing crooks and they were so scared from 9/11 with images of WMD and nukes going off in NY they fell for it hook line in sinker. BUT now we know the truth - why aren't these guys being brought to justice?

THIS guy was told there were NO WMD at the exact same time when BUSH was on TV lieing to the Public saying there were WMD.

WMD was the whole f*cking justification for the God Damn war!

Michael

It just f*cking pisses me right off.

Actually WMD were only a small justification for the war. Saddam had for the twentieth time, since he sign the treaty after Desert Storm, had refused inspections. In fact he had expelled them from the country completely. We gave him a month to allow inspectors back inot Iraq. All this coupled with conflicting reports of WMD, No WMD, attemtpting to purchase Yellow cake and many others the decision to declare War was a wise one.

Remember Saddam had the chance to stop the invasion before it ever started. All he had to do was follow his agreement and allow the Inspectors back into Iraq. Despite knowing that his army would be crushed and likely he would wind up tried for his crimes, he refused to take the peaceful route. There must have been a really good reason why not.

Actually WMD were only a small justification for the war. Saddam had for the twentieth time, since he sign the treaty after Desert Storm, had refused inspections. In fact he had expelled them from the country completely. We gave him a month to allow inspectors back inot Iraq. All this coupled with conflicting reports of WMD, No WMD, attemtpting to purchase Yellow cake and many others the decision to declare War was a wise one.

Remember Saddam had the chance to stop the invasion before it ever started. All he had to do was follow his agreement and allow the Inspectors back into Iraq. Despite knowing that his army would be crushed and likely he would wind up tried for his crimes, he refused to take the peaceful route. There must have been a really good reason why not.

What a load of crap.

Actually WMD were only a small justification for the war. Saddam had for the twentieth time, since he sign the treaty after Desert Storm, had refused inspections. In fact he had expelled them from the country completely. We gave him a month to allow inspectors back inot Iraq. All this coupled with conflicting reports of WMD, No WMD, attemtpting to purchase Yellow cake and many others the decision to declare War was a wise one.

Remember Saddam had the chance to stop the invasion before it ever started. All he had to do was follow his agreement and allow the Inspectors back into Iraq. Despite knowing that his army would be crushed and likely he would wind up tried for his crimes, he refused to take the peaceful route. There must have been a really good reason why not.

and before that month was up he was willing to let the inspectors back in

and before that month was up he was willing to let the inspectors back in

He was willing to let them in, if he had another month to prepare. Meaning basically "Oooh we need a little more time to decide." We played this game with him before when he invaded Kuwait, and we kept pushing back the date, untill we'd reached our limit. This time our limit was much shorter. He thought he was calling a bluff, only we weren't bluffing.

He was willing to let them in, if he had another month to prepare. Meaning basically "Oooh we need a little more time to decide." We played this game with him before when he invaded Kuwait, and we kept pushing back the date, untill we'd reached our limit. This time our limit was much shorter. He thought he was calling a bluff, only we weren't bluffing.

he did everything we asked him to and we still invaded face it bush was going to invade no matter what

he did everything we asked him to and we still invaded face it bush was going to invade no matter what

Obviously someone wasn't close attention. If Saddam had gone along then Britain and the other Allies would not have joined the US in the Invasion. also Saddam was broadcasting to his people that he would never give into the demands of the Americans.

So obviously you're either not remembering or just plain lying.

Um, Iraq is owned.

WMD is so yesterday.

Nice to see y'all so comfy in denial.

U.N. weapons inspectors were working in Iraq in 2003, and had to leave because of the impending military action. Have a look, http://www.google.com/search?q=un+inspectors+2003&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

It's funny because it's true.

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31155

Obviously someone wasn't close attention. If Saddam had gone along then Britain and the other Allies would not have joined the US in the Invasion. also Saddam was broadcasting to his people that he would never give into the demands of the Americans.

So obviously you're either not remembering or just plain lying.

obviously someone needs to remove their head from there ass and get with reality. Ever here of the downing street memos. and of course he going to tell his people that he wasn't going to give in.

Um, Iraq is owned.

WMD is so yesterday.

Nice to see y'all so comfy in denial.

your a fool to ignore the past is to have no future

Even after Bush and Cheney KNEW there were no WMD they continued to lie to the American public and say there were WMD in Iraq. And think about this, if the information that there were no WMD was so prevalent that even an Amy recruit was told there were no WMD - just how f*cking long had Bush and Cheney known the truth??


The Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, and mobile weapons labs had all been leaked and discredited in the inside pages of major newspapers months prior Bush's state of the Union address and Powell's speech at the UN. Prior to the war the Media failed to make the American people understand what had already been revealed in the inside pages of a few major newspapers.

Fox news and some other media continue to try to help those Americans who do not want to know that they were lied to believe that they were not lied to. We have one hell of a sophisticated propaganda machine functioning here in the USA.

The Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, and mobile weapons labs had all been leaked and discredited in the inside pages of major newspapers months prior Bush's state of the Union address and Powell's speech at the UN. Prior to the war the Media failed to make the American people understand what had already been revealed in the inside pages of a few major newspapers.

Fox news and some other media continue to try to help those Americans who do not want to know that they were lied to believe that they were not lied to. We have one hell of a sophisticated propaganda machine functioning here in the USA.
you have to reliaze the average american is dumber than a box of rocks. The us is the least educated of industrial powers

TW Scott,

I have one specific question.

This solder was told there were no WMD in Iraq at the time when President Bush was saying there were WMD.

So, knowing this information, do you think that Bush was lying through his teeth or wasn't he?
It seems pretty obvious to me - but maybe I missed something. Unless you're going to tell me some crap that everyone in the Army knew there were no WMD except the Commander in chief!


So was he lying YES or NO?

Michael

The Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, and mobile weapons labs had all been leaked and discredited in the inside pages of major newspapers months prior Bush's state of the Union address and Powell's speech at the UN. Prior to the war the Media failed to make the American people understand what had already been revealed in the inside pages of a few major newspapers.

Okay, here's the deal, there were more things than just the Niger uranium, Aluminum tubes and Mobile Weapons labs. The later two of which could still have existed even as proof of their existance was debunked. Just becuase some proof of their existance turns out false does not mean they still couldn't be there.

What about all the components for missile that Saddam was supposed to destroy and provide proof of their destruction? This was mandated by the UN and the dictator not only ignored it but we find the very one that the Weapons inspectors marked for destruction in the hands of other countries.

Look, WMD are not the only reason we invaded Iraq. They were a side reason. Sort of a "Well while we're in the white slaver's den, let's see if we can find out what else he's been upto. Like maybe he is dealing drugs, too." We had many reason to go to war, WMD just sticks with people as it is one of the few reasons that we don;t have proof of yet. I do say yet becuase Iraq is huge and even though we are not looking there could be some accidental discoveries.


As for whether or not Bush wass lying, that is semantics. A person lies if they intentionally distort the truth. If you believe what you are saying is the truth, it is not a Lie, even if you are wrong. He might have seen all the information and came to conclusion that Saddam expelling the Weapons Inspectors was compelling evidence that he was going to or had built a WMD.

Okay, here's the deal, there were more things than just the Niger uranium, Aluminum tubes and Mobile Weapons labs. The later two of which could still have existed even as proof of their existance was debunked. Just becuase some proof of their existance turns out false does not mean they still couldn't be there.

What about all the components for missile that Saddam was supposed to destroy and provide proof of their destruction? This was mandated by the UN and the dictator not only ignored it but we find the very one that the Weapons inspectors marked for destruction in the hands of other countries.

Look, WMD are not the only reason we invaded Iraq. They were a side reason. Sort of a "Well while we're in the white slaver's den, let's see if we can find out what else he's been upto. Like maybe he is dealing drugs, too." We had many reason to go to war, WMD just sticks with people as it is one of the few reasons that we don;t have proof of yet. I do say yet becuase Iraq is huge and even though we are not looking there could be some accidental discoveries.


As for whether or not Bush wass lying, that is semantics. A person lies if they intentionally distort the truth. If you believe what you are saying is the truth, it is not a Lie, even if you are wrong. He might have seen all the information and came to conclusion that Saddam expelling the Weapons Inspectors was compelling evidence that he was going to or had built a WMD.

you state more than one reason was given forgeting every single one was bullshit
bush wanted to invade iraq from day one . the first thing he asked the cia to do after 9/11 was to try and link saddem to it.
the reason given for war were as follows in no order
1. WMD- Lie
2. did 9/11- lie
3. ties to al-qadia- lie
4. saddem was a tyrant- true but bs as it was given only after the invasion happened.
5. saddem killed his on people with cem and bio weapons. true but because we gave them to him we haven't the right to complain. bs because given after invasion
6. Saddem supported terrorism- true but bs because given after the invasion
7. to make a med east democracy- debatable but bs because given after invasion.
8. to control the oil. unconfirmed but probably true.

did i miss any

TW Scott

Quick note: We are still uncovering forgotten Chemical weapons caches from WWII in Australia today.

Saddam was a very meticulous and cunning man, and i'm sure that if he had WMD's and he hid them, then he would have done so using only his most trusted aides... which btw are either mostly dead or are on trial etc etc.. So the chances of us finding said weapons would be quite remote... but may happen one day... if its true...

Also, has anyone got a link to that US military intelligence website? It was a particular unit who were involved in the translation and analysis of a large amount of documents found during Gulf War II? Long story short they were releasing documents (in PDF format) that were no longer deemed classified and i remember reading one that was essentially a journal entry from a truckie who was paid a large sum of money (along with a number of other truckies) to transport unnamed cargo into Syria. They were paid this money not only for their services, but also their silence...

Just food for thought really

P.S.

I agree with Mr. G

WMD's are so yesturday... how about we focus on the now rather than dwell on the past. Sure we can learn lessons from it, but what lessons are we learning right now?

All i'm getting is alot of hate... no light bulbs going off

P.S.

I agree with Mr. G

WMD's are so yesturday... how about we focus on the now rather than dwell on the past. Sure we can learn lessons from it, but what lessons are we learning right now?

All i'm getting is alot of hate... no light bulbs going off

the stuff we were lied to about is not the kind of thing you just forgot you have to go for the balls to insure no one will ever do it again

I think the point has been made... If it were a lie

You're saying that the backlash dubya has recieved is being ignored by the current generation in power and the ones coming?

I'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on?

I think the point has been made... If it were a lie

You're saying that the backlash dubya has recieved is being ignored by the current generation in power and the ones coming?

I'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on?

true true there are more recent scandels we could harp on

I think the point has been made... If it were a lie

You're saying that the backlash dubya has recieved is being ignored by the current generation in power and the ones coming?

I'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on?

Oops your country was destroyed and family killed for a bunch of lies.

But...lets move on.

How about a trial for war crimes?

II'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on?Duh? How can you say "it's been five years" since an event, when the event is still occurring?

That's like saying, "Hey it's been five years since I killed your son, it's time to move on." No it's not, because my son is still dead. You have incurred a debt and it remains in force until you repay it or until you die. Or, as many Americans believe: both.

I find it shocking that people could still think Bush and Cheney were not knowingly lying through their teeth. Whether they think their intentions were good is besides the point, they are Civil Servants and are paid to do a job which does not include lying to the people who hired them and pay them!

It seems reasonable to me that is any single person here had a business and found out that the manager you hired to do a job was lying to you and causing your business to go bankrupt over these lies you'd at the very least fire them and more than likely take them to court where they would be sentenced.

Why then do I hear over and over to give Bush a break?


TW Scott, again, given the information from the opening post it is crystal clear that BUSH knew there were no WMD in Iraq BUT that at the exact same time was telling us, the American Public, that there were. Gievn this information do you concur that he was lying to the American Public about the existence of WMD: YES or NO?

Please pick either YES you think he was lying or NO you do not think he was lying. I am asking you what you think. You do think don't you?

Michael

I think the point has been made... If it were a lie

You're saying that the backlash dubya has recieved is being ignored by the current generation in power and the ones coming?

I'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on?

Back in the early 1990's, one of the former commanders of the Khmer Rouge returned to Cambodia, and faced angry mobs. His defense was basically a variation on what you're saying; "It was a long time ago, can't we just let bygones be bygones"? (By golly, even though it has been years ago, I wasn't paraphrasing - those were his exact words.)
Former Khmer Rouge President

A French-educated intellectual, Khieu Samphan was the face of the Khmer Rouge to the outside world. Urbane and diplomatic, he is believed to have been merely a figurehead behind those in real power.

In 1991, after the Khmer Rouge had signed a U.N. peace agreement, Khieu Samphan and Son Sen returned to Phnom Pen for the first time in more than 20 years. They fled immediately after mobs attacked them.

After he came under Ta Mok's rule in 1997 (after Ta Mok's coup of Pol Pot), he and Nuon Chea negotiated safe passage and an immunity deal from Prime Minister Hun Sen and defected in December 1998. Their brief sojourn in Cambodian society was accompanied by angry mobs of Khmer Rouge victims. After being prodded at a hostile press conference, Khieu Samphan apologized for the killing fields (but did not accept personal responsibility) and urged that Cambodians "let bygones be bygones."
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/khmer2.html

I can't help but think of the Grail; Please, please, this is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jO1EOhGkY0)

Nazi war criminals have generally had a similar defense when they have been caught decades after the fact. It doesn't work for any of them.

Actually WMD were only a small justification for the war Without making the american public think that Sadaam was an immediate threat to many of them they would not have approved the war. Hence the lies.


Remember Saddam had the chance to stop the invasion before it ever started. All he had to do was follow his agreement and allow the Inspectors back into Iraq. Despite knowing that his army would be crushed and likely he would wind up tried for his crimes, he refused to take the peaceful route. There must have been a really good reason why not.
This isn't about Sadaam. Hell, he could have been saying no to save face or because he's stubborn. We were lied to. We have not made Iraq better for Iraquis after 6 years. More americans have died in Iraq than died in 9/11. We have spent money that could have been used, for example, to fight AIDs in Africa, find a cure for some cancers, open up many inner city hospitals, improve health education at home and abroad. Now we are heavily in debt, having shifted money from taxpayers and taxpayers to come to a few corporations. We made the world skeptical about US motives and scared. We alienated former allies. We also, simultaneously, had long standing rights eroded via the Patriot act.

I'm just saying its been 5 years since the invasion... move on? Move on to the subpoenas, impeachments, indictments, trials, fines and imprisonments ?

Works for me. Gitmo is still open, and "stress" interrogation in IIRC unit 7 (including waterboarding, if done by the CIA) there is still available. Let's find out what the CEOs of Exxon and Chevron and Shell and so forth knew about the reasons we invaded Iraq. And then we can fine them all the extra profits they made - over and above a normal good year in the oil business - off of this war. That would go a long ways to rebalancing the US economy.

As far as the Commander in Chief (and the Vice), what is the penalty, in the military, for knowingly sending the men under one's command into battle for monetary profit by one's business associates and political power for one's self ?

Or we could just hold them for extradition to Iraq, whenever the Iraqis get some kind of government together.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Found here: Just have to scroll down a bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441)

Which is closely followed by this one on the same page...

The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis[12]: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Look IMO, I think Dubya is innocent of lying. I mean look at the guy, he's one of the most awkward guys i've ever seen. He can't speak properly and i have to have a laugh everytime i see him in the news. I think him lying would be blatantly obvious if he stutters and stammers when gets nervous/excited (Its funny to watch aswell). He is a genuine guy who has strong moral convictions but he gets branded and lumped into the same categories as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc etc...

I have a strong feeling that he made the decision beliving it was the correct one based on a thousand or so reports sitting in front of him. I wouldn't blame him if a couple of those were incorrect. I just can't believe that people think the President of the USA is perfect and wouldn't make mistakes. Who is perfect? SAM, i'm sure you've never done a horrible thing in your life. I say everyone on these forums at some time or another have been less than perfect. Its human nature to err.

I say move on from the whole WMD's because there are more poignant things we can discuss on this forums and i think this place is becoming too full with Anti US threads. Not enough global politics. Just hate hate hate

TW Scott, man, that is so McCain! I am surprised, because generally I agree we you, but saying "what happened, happened and we are where we are..." is just fucking ridiculous.

By the way I would like to point out, that strictly speaking, biochemical weapons are not WMDs, just so you guys know.

The WMD was a casus beli, a BS to feed the American public. The problem is that the world is not as stupid as the American public in general, so pretty much everybody think the occupation was/is for the big prize, oil...

I was glad to help...

TW Scott, man, that is so McCain! I am surprised, because generally I agree we you, but saying "what happened, happened and we are where we are..." is just fucking ridiculous.

By the way I would like to point out, that strictly speaking, biochemical weapons are not WMDs, just so you guys know.

The WMD was a casus beli, a BS to feed the American public. The problem is that the world is not as stupid as the American public in general, so pretty much everybody think the occupation was/is for the big prize, oil...

I was glad to help...

holy shit someone used the phrase casus beli.

You are welcome, although I misspelled it:

Casus belli is a Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means "of war". It is usually distinguished from casus foederis, with casus belli being used to refer to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and casus foederis to refer to offenses or threats to another, allied, nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO.[1][2]

It is often misspelled and mispronounced as "causus belli" since this resembles the English "cause" (and a different Latin word, causa {cause}). "Casus belli" is also pronounced this way because the term is used with the meaning of "cause for war", instead of "case of war" (notice that "case" comes from Latin "casus").

Look IMO, I think Dubya is innocent of lying. So you are telling me that at the EXACT same time as the Army was telling officers there were NO WMD IN IRAQ that the Commander in Chief was not aware of this?

By the way I would like to point out, that strictly speaking, biochemical weapons are not WMDs, just so you guys know.

What?!? Of course they are. :bugeye:

TW Scott, man, that is so McCain! I am surprised, because generally I agree we you, but saying "what happened, happened and we are where we are..." is just fucking ridiculous.

No, it isn't ridiculous. We can analyze the situation all we want. We can learn from it. However we cannot just leave an entire country to clean up a mess that it's Leader should have avoided.

By the way I would like to point out, that strictly speaking, biochemical weapons are not WMDs, just so you guys know.

Strictly speaking no they aren't, however used in massive quantities they can be .

Strictly speaking no they aren't.....


Strictly speaking, yes they are (as designated by the UN).

No, it isn't ridiculous.

Hey, I just fucked your wife! We can analyze the situation for years, but why don't we just move on?

Strictly speaking, yes they are (as designated by the UN).

Nope they aren't. Technically speaking only nukes, some radiological tricks and maybe MOABs are WMDs.

"The application of the term to specifically nuclear and radiological weapons is traced by William Safire to the Russian phrase oruziye massovovo porazheniya. He credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a November 15, 1945 meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush — or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction". That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).[3] The same phrase found its way into the UN resolution to create the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)), which used the wording "…atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction".

Hey, even kitchen knives can be WMDs if used in massive quantities. Imagine a million Chinese attacking with the butterknife!

OK, let me explain: The reason why biological-chemical weapons are not really WMDs. because they are not killing people in massive quantities, at least not more than normal other weapons would. They are also very instabil and hard to maintain, not to mention dangerous to the user...

Bush simply lied and extended the meaning, since he knew we sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis 10-15 years earlier.

Nope they aren't.


Yep, they are. The UN designates biological weapons as weapons of mass destruction. Period.

http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/index.html


Technically speaking only nukes, some radiological tricks and maybe MOABs are WMDs.

Your “technical” knowledge is incomplete and/or inaccurate. Examples of nuclear/radiological, chemical and biological agents are all designated as WMDs by the U.N.

Look IMO, I think Dubya is innocent of lying. I mean look at the guy, he's one of the most awkward guys i've ever seen. He can't speak properly and i have to have a laugh everytime i see him in the news. I think him lying would be blatantly obvious if he stutters and stammers when gets nervous/excited (Its funny to watch aswell). He is a genuine guy who has strong moral convictions - - We know, from the Downing Street memos, that the White House promised to deliberately rig the WMD intelligence so that the British could legally join the invasion of Iraq.

Are you claiming that was done without telling the President ?

We know that W went out of his way to assure questioners, in his first term ( and the videos of him doing this show him in his normal speaking style, very sincere), that no Americans were or would be wiretapped without a warrant from a judge - months after he himself had personally signed the executive orders authorizing the NSA to bypass the FISA court and wiretap Americans without a warrant from a judge.

Are you claiming he forgot ? That he did not know what he had signed ?

W is one of the better Presidential liars. Possibly that is because he is always lying, in a sense, always presenting a false image or mask - which may partly explain his difficulties with syntax, coherence, and articulation. (His father had similar difficulties in public speaking, and Dana Carvey described the strategy used to reproduce them in comedic mimicry: Carvey said he pretended he was Mr Rogers trying to act like John Wayne.)

(edited to remove urban legend exaggeration) (and to fix misattributed quote)

Mainly I am interested in HOW in HELL people can see the OP and still think Bush wasn't lying? Either he would have had to be completely outside of entire military organization and know less then a grunt or he lied.


It's obvious he lied.

your a fool to ignore the past is to have no future
I didn't ignore the past at the time. I remember the past. I live in the present.

How about you?

Mainly I am interested in HOW in HELL people can see the OP and still think Bush wasn't lying? Either he would have had to be completely outside of entire military organization and know less then a grunt or he lied.


It's obvious he lied.

Ever thought that maybe they thought they were lying to the troops. Telling them "Sure, there's no real threat." but in truth they are shocked to find out they can't find one.

We know that W went out of his way to assure questioners, in his first term ( and the videos of him doing this show him in his normal speaking style, very sincere), that no Americans were or would be wiretapped without a warrant from a judge - months after he himself had personally signed the executive orders authorizing the NSA to bypass the FISA court and wiretap Americans without a warrant from a judge.


Actually the wiretap involved is on the other end. We are settting up taps thatcapture calls going TO certain numbers from the US. We'd do it for everywhere but we can't without pissing countries off.

To make it clear your line is not tapped. However if your line connects to acertain set of numbers OUTSIDE the US the tap activates.

Want to make sure your conversation is never overheard, don't call known terrorists.

Actually the wiretap involved is on the other end. We are settting up taps thatcapture calls going TO certain numbers from the US. We'd do it for everywhere but we can't without pissing countries off.

To make it clear your line is not tapped. However if your line connects to acertain set of numbers OUTSIDE the US the tap activates.

Want to make sure your conversation is never overheard, don't call known terrorists.

the whole if your not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about is not a reason, it is not an argument, it is bullshit

Hey, I just fucked your wife! We can analyze the situation for years, but why don't we just move on?

Well, if I was married this might be an issue, even so i will use it as a good analogy.

Let's say you did do my wife. In the process you have wronged me and my marriage. I will look into why it happened and learn. I will also rearrange your organs according feng shui. After i remove you presence in my and my wife's life we will work on our marriage aand make it stronger.


In this example I would the US efforts to rebuild, my wife would be the iraqi people and you would be insurgents.

the whole if your not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about is not a reason, it is not an argument, it is bullshit

Actually. it's validly legal. According to some treaties we have we are only allowed to tap the phones of suspected enemies of the US when someone from the US is calling them. It's a little weird I know and we widely give similiar rights to other countries with legitmate governments.

But this literally as long as you don't call these few numbers the US governemt will never hear a word you say. Those numbers can even call you and we would have no clue.

But to help you understand, anytime they to wiretap a phone, they hear the private conversations of people there are no warrants out for. Mainly becuase whoever calls that phone or is called by that phone will be recorded. No additional warrants needed.

Actually. it's validly legal. According to some treaties we have we are only allowed to tap the phones of suspected enemies of the US when someone from the US is calling them. It's a little weird I know and we widely give similiar rights to other countries with legitmate governments.

But this literally as long as you don't call these few numbers the US governemt will never hear a word you say. Those numbers can even call you and we would have no clue.

But to help you understand, anytime they to wiretap a phone, they hear the private conversations of people there are no warrants out for. Mainly becuase whoever calls that phone or is called by that phone will be recorded. No additional warrants needed.

ok let me rephrase in the context of worrying of abuse its bullshit

Actually the wiretap involved is on the other end. We are settting up taps thatcapture calls going TO certain numbers from the US. - - Unfortunately, that is apparently not true. Nothing in the executive order provided any such assurances, the essence of the program was that there was no control over the taps or supervision of their emplacement (that's what a warrant is for) - and as we have learned in court documents since, monitoring facilities were set up in major domestic phone exchanges with access to all phone conversations passing through those exchanges (and email, of course).

The telecom companies are even now attempting to get retroactive immunity for cooperating with that arrangement. They need that immunity because that phone monitoring required warrants, according to the Constitution that W swore to uphold.

If you want to assume that this access was not abused, in a situation of absolutely no accountability or discouragement of such abuse, you must at least acknowledge the unusual - completely unprecedented - nature of such forbearance by a government. The writers of the Constitution had a less naive take on governmental exercise of power.

Meanwhile, by accident, several instances of apparent monitoring involving purely domestic calls not remotely connected with "known terrorists" have come to light. In addition, some people have attempted to sue in the belief that their domestic calls were monitored. So far in all cases the suits have been thrown out or denied because they could not prove injury or crime - a difficult task, since without a warrant to subpoena there is almost no way to show that a domestic call was monitored. Catch 22.

That's the beauty of warrantless search and seizure - no accountability.

Meanwhile, the situation you describe - calls to a terrorist number from the US - are absurdly easy to get warrants for under existing FISA law. There is no delay involved - the call can be monitored as soon as detected, and the warrant applied for days afterwards, retroactively. Special FISA judges are on call 24/7/365, to approve however many warrants are requested.

Since there was no need, the question of why the special warrantless wiretapping was so important is worth asking, no? Again: the only feature different is the lack of accountability - there is no record of the monitoring available to a court, or oversight of any kind, without a warrant.

If (for example) Karl Rove was using the program to wiretap political enemies - such as Eliot Spitzer, whose whoring was discovered by means still not well explained - there is no ordinary way of proving that.

So this: To make it clear your line is not tapped. is simply guesswork on your part. You have no way of knowing that. For one example: Many Quakers in the antiwar movements simply assume - from long experience - that all their phones are tapped, just as if they were a Mafia operation - only nowdays, unlike with the Mafia, the taps are not covered by warrants and there is no accountability for their employment. If I were one of them, my phone might easily be monitored. Your assurances are naive.

Ever thought that maybe they thought they were lying to the troops. Telling them "Sure, there's no real threat." but in truth they are shocked to find out they can't find one.Who do you mean by "they".

Anyway, you have got to be kidding me. So Bush is on TV telling the Amercian public there are WMD but then he instructs the army to lie to the grunts, who ALSO watch TV, that there are NO WMD? What kind of logic is that?

I think the much simpler explanation is that Bush wanted to go to war and used the excuse of WMD to get the Public's support. Think about this. Would the Public have supported Bush IF he said Saddam did NOT pose a threat but was a bad guy? No Way In F*cking Hell.

Hence, the only logical answer is he lied.


What I don't get is why some people are so loath to admit as much,

Michael

Where are those downing street memo's? I've never heard about them...

And in response to the man who claimed his commander said there are no WMD's... i can claim any number of things but does that make them true? a disgruntled ex or current troop can say what they want and you're claiming it as true. Thats not very objective. I was told the other day by my commanding officer that the defence force is secretly using its budget to launch a political campaign to re-instate national service... Did i just tell you the truth? or am i just being a disgruntled troop?

Bush doesn't instruct the military how to conduct its operations. The only thing he has overall command of in regards to military action is what the overall objective is. It would be stupid to allow a politician to conduct war... Hitler new nothing of tactics and when he became the puppet master in WWII... Things went to shit pretty quickly. If the comments are true then maybe it was a ruse by military commanders to get troops to not shit themselves when enterring combat. Its not exactly the first time military chiefs have lied to troops in order to gain an extra advantage, or a positive outcome. Its happened throughout history and although personally i would never lie to the boys under my command, if i needed to say something to motivate them just that tiny bit more... I would do it.

Its not a case of loathing to admit things. If there were solid proof that george bush lied then i will admit that he lied. There isn't! The proof's that you claim to be so are either biased or heresay.

I want facts, links to reports, links to memo's etc etc.

All i'm getting is neo liberal tripe... I'm sorry but its true

Where are those downing street memo's? I've never heard about them... Which goes a long way toward explaining why a third of this country thinks we've found Saddam's WMDs.

Rather than chase down a plug for every single hole in the roof here, a general tip: any time something like "downing street memos" turns up, and you don't know what it is, just copy the phrase whole - highlight, Ctrl + C in Windows - paste it into the "exact phrase" box of Google Advanced Search, and hit Enter.

This takes less time than asking other people here, and you get to pick your own sources rather than the "liberal tripe" sources you'll get from me.

Haha, nice condescending attitude. I asked for you to provide me a link so that you can prove your own comment. Even if it were neo liberal tripe, i wouldn't of minded a link, it would have at least let me read the document.

Alas i did my own research and although its a pretty damming document, its authenticity can be debated. Firstly it was a photocopy of the original document... If it were the original document then we would have some problems. Alot of documents can be altered and we know journalists are capable of doing this as proven by the recent Israeli conflict in lebanon.

Secondly the comment "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." is a very unprofessional statement to make in any classified piece of material. The document is for addressee's eyes only... That is a standard rule regarding the distribution of classified documents.

Thirdly. The document doesn't have a copy number which means that the source of the information is not from the original document.

I'm not saying that the document is false, but its hardly conclusive evidence in my professional opinion.

Before i sign this little post off. How come a large number of the intelligence agencies around the world concurred with US intelligence reports that Iraq had WMD's? If bush was able to create intelligence to fit policy then he would have to do it in countries including Canada and Iran... Just a thought really

Where are those downing street memo's? I've never heard about them...

And in response to the man who claimed his commander said there are no WMD's... i can claim any number of things but does that make them true? a disgruntled ex or current troop can say what they want and you're claiming it as true. Thats not very objective. I was told the other day by my commanding officer that the defence force is secretly using its budget to launch a political campaign to re-instate national service... Did i just tell you the truth? or am i just being a disgruntled troop?

Bush doesn't instruct the military how to conduct its operations. The only thing he has overall command of in regards to military action is what the overall objective is. It would be stupid to allow a politician to conduct war... Hitler new nothing of tactics and when he became the puppet master in WWII... Things went to shit pretty quickly. If the comments are true then maybe it was a ruse by military commanders to get troops to not shit themselves when enterring combat. Its not exactly the first time military chiefs have lied to troops in order to gain an extra advantage, or a positive outcome. Its happened throughout history and although personally i would never lie to the boys under my command, if i needed to say something to motivate them just that tiny bit more... I would do it.

Its not a case of loathing to admit things. If there were solid proof that george bush lied then i will admit that he lied. There isn't! The proof's that you claim to be so are either biased or heresay.

I want facts, links to reports, links to memo's etc etc.

All i'm getting is neo liberal tripe... I'm sorry but its true

never heard of them do you not watch the fucking news

Where are those downing street memo's? I've never heard about them...

And in response to the man who claimed his commander said there are no WMD's... i can claim any number of things but does that make them true? a disgruntled ex or current troop can say what they want and you're claiming it as true. Thats not very objective. I was told the other day by my commanding officer that the defence force is secretly using its budget to launch a political campaign to re-instate national service... Did i just tell you the truth? or am i just being a disgruntled troop?

Bush doesn't instruct the military how to conduct its operations. The only thing he has overall command of in regards to military action is what the overall objective is. It would be stupid to allow a politician to conduct war... Hitler new nothing of tactics and when he became the puppet master in WWII... Things went to shit pretty quickly. If the comments are true then maybe it was a ruse by military commanders to get troops to not shit themselves when enterring combat. Its not exactly the first time military chiefs have lied to troops in order to gain an extra advantage, or a positive outcome. Its happened throughout history and although personally i would never lie to the boys under my command, if i needed to say something to motivate them just that tiny bit more... I would do it.

Its not a case of loathing to admit things. If there were solid proof that george bush lied then i will admit that he lied. There isn't! The proof's that you claim to be so are either biased or heresay.

I want facts, links to reports, links to memo's etc etc.

All i'm getting is neo liberal tripe... I'm sorry but its true

there is evidence of him saying things and evidence said things aren't true the proof is there.

Where are those downing street memo's? I've never heard about them...

And in response to the man who claimed his commander said there are no WMD's... i can claim any number of things but does that make them true? a disgruntled ex or current troop can say what they want and you're claiming it as true. Thats not very objective. I was told the other day by my commanding officer that the defence force is secretly using its budget to launch a political campaign to re-instate national service... Did i just tell you the truth? or am i just being a disgruntled troop?

Bush doesn't instruct the military how to conduct its operations. The only thing he has overall command of in regards to military action is what the overall objective is. It would be stupid to allow a politician to conduct war... Hitler new nothing of tactics and when he became the puppet master in WWII... Things went to shit pretty quickly. If the comments are true then maybe it was a ruse by military commanders to get troops to not shit themselves when enterring combat. Its not exactly the first time military chiefs have lied to troops in order to gain an extra advantage, or a positive outcome. Its happened throughout history and although personally i would never lie to the boys under my command, if i needed to say something to motivate them just that tiny bit more... I would do it.

Its not a case of loathing to admit things. If there were solid proof that george bush lied then i will admit that he lied. There isn't! The proof's that you claim to be so are either biased or heresay.

I want facts, links to reports, links to memo's etc etc.

All i'm getting is neo liberal tripe... I'm sorry but its true

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
here read and learn

ah yes, please note my reply above and you'll see that i've already had a look at the memo. Like i said the authenticity of the document is questionable.

I watch the news regularly. Global events affect me in ways that you couldn't imagine so its vital that i watch it. I was probably in training or doing something with work that made me miss out on that headline.

Your “technical” knowledge is incomplete and/or inaccurate. Examples of nuclear/radiological, chemical and biological agents are all designated as WMDs by the U.N.

I don't care how the UN "designates" them (they are trying to be PC), technically speaking a WMD should be able to cause casualties to big masses in a large area. Chemical and biological weapons are not good for that purpose, but feel free to show me examples with deathratio and covered area...

I don't care how the UN "designates" them

Thats surprising since its UN inspectors who are usually sent in.

Like i said the authenticity of the document is questionable. No one has seriously questioned it. It's authenticity has never been denied, by the English or the Americans.
I watch the news regularly. In the US, you can't get the news by watching. You have to read.
Before i sign this little post off. How come a large number of the intelligence agencies around the world concurred with US intelligence reports that Iraq had WMD's? They didn't. Not even the US own intelligence agencies internal reports (Joe Wilson's report from Niger, famous example) concurred with the public announcements by W&Co.

Well, if I was married this might be an issue, even so i will use it as a good analogy.

Actually, the analogy only worked for being wronged and moving on, not for the Iraqi situation. Why? because there was no marriage (contract) involved between USA and Iraq, so your analogy doeasn't fit the situation.

But you did a good try...

Thats surprising since its UN inspectors who are usually sent in.

You don't get the problem. We are arguing about semantics and technical abilities.

Semantically speaking if I throw out 1 million kitchen knives from an airplane over a football game that is a WMD, because it has the ability to cause mass casualties, right? But generally we wouldn't call kitchen knives WMDs...

The point is, anything could be called WMDs, but in strict military meaning only nukes and some radioactive weapons are....

You don't get the problem. We are arguing about semantics and technical abilities.

Semantically speaking if I throw out 1 million kitchen knives from an airplane over a football game that is a WMD, because it has the ability to cause mass casualties, right? But generally we wouldn't call kitchen knives WMDs...

The point is, anything could be called WMDs, but in strict military meaning only nukes and some radioactive weapons are....

Does anyone send in a military advisor to ascertain WMDs? If not, its just military semantics; we'll talk about knives when the UN adds them to the list.

I don't care how the UN "designates" them (they are trying to be PC), technically speaking a WMD should be able to cause casualties to big masses in a large area. Biological weapons can definitely do that.

Actually, the analogy only worked for being wronged and moving on, not for the Iraqi situation. Why? because there was no marriage (contract) involved between USA and Iraq, so your analogy doeasn't fit the situation.

But you did a good try...

Small problem. We did promise during Desert Storm that we would help the people overthrow Saddam. But just like every other time that we were on the verge of success Party politics pulled the funding and let it become a quagmire.

So when do we start with North Korea? Before or after China?

So when do we start with North Korea? Before or after China?

Considering the suffering North Korea suffers under their current leadership, they will take care of themselves sooner or later.

If I were the leader of my nation, and so much as a rumor of WMD's I heard of a neighboring nation, I would invade at all costs; I don't blame Bush for what he did, but I sure as hell don't like him.

If I were the leader of my nation, and so much as a rumor of WMD's I heard of a neighboring nation, I would invade at all costs; I don't blame Bush for what he did, but I sure as hell don't like him.

What if you started the rumours yourself and knew they weren't true? Would this get yourself all riled up?

Considering the suffering North Korea suffers under their current leadership, they will take care of themselves sooner or later.

Wrong assumption, because they survived the last 5 decades...

If I were the leader of my nation, and so much as a rumor of WMD's I heard of a neighboring nation, I would invade at all costs; I don't blame Bush for what he did, but I sure as hell don't like him.

Lucky you are not German, because you would be in Paris by now... :)

What if you started the rumours yourself and knew they weren't true? Would this get yourself all riled up?

lol no

@syzgys, please clarify what you mean...............


My nation, my flag, my banner, and my faction are worth everything; if other people from foreign nations have to die so MY people live, then that's how it is. Survival of the best.

Small problem. We did promise during Desert Storm that we would help the people overthrow Saddam. But just like every other time that we were on the verge of success Party politics pulled the funding and let it become a quagmire.

"Party politics"? That was all Bush. He urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, then decided that his absence might create a power vacuum that would result in chaos. This resulted in a crushed rebellion, and a massacre.

Bush 1 had no problem with Saddam's policies, at least until he invaded Kuwait. Prior to that, crank up the wood chippers and release the poison gas, we won't say a word. And we'll continue to sell you all the wheat you want!

My nation, my flag, my banner, and my faction are worth everything; if other people from foreign nations have to die so MY people live, then that's how it is. Survival of the best.

This would be only valid if youactually believed the WMD bullshit and you also had to believe that he actually wants to use it against the USA, which was plain stupid.

Now if every country were using the same preemption logic, than we would be waring with each other all the time, because there is always a threat, real or imaginary....

This would be only valid if youactually believed the WMD bullshit and you also had to believe that he actually wants to use it against the USA, which was plain stupid.

Now if every country were using the same preemption logic, than we would be waring with each other all the time, because there is always a threat, real or imaginary....

It's also vital to be prepared; any preparation is invaluable, including the degradation of surrounding states (unless they are allied) or other, foreign and threatening states

iceaura: I'm not claiming the downing street memo to be fake, it could very well be a valid and true document. I'm just saying the authenticy of the document is questionable, subsequently its not a document i would be parading around as proof that bush lied.

If you did a little research on intelligence reports from 02/03 you'll find that countries such as Iran, Canada, UK, France, Australia, USA etc etc etc had intelligence reports suggesting Saddam had WMD's. Now my argument is that claiming George bush lied and that he fixed reports to shape around policy is irresponsible as it is highly unlikely that the President has much influence in foreign intelligence agencies... especially Iran.

And just to be pedantic

WMD's in military speak refer to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons. If you define the acronym exactly word for word then ofcourse you can argue that Chem and Bio weapons don't count. But military speaking, they are referred to in CBRND training programs as WMD's

iceaura: I'm not claiming the downing street memo to be fake, it could very well be a valid and true document. I'm just saying the authenticy of the document is questionable, subsequently its not a document i would be parading around as proof that bush lied. The document has never been seriously questioned, and no one in authority from either government has denied its authenticity.

You can't get much better evidence than that.

But if you don't like it, just go with the videos of W assuring questioners that all wiretaps of Americans would be with warrants, or W's continual pairing of 9/11 and Saddam, etc.

If you did a little research on intelligence reports from 02/03 you'll find that countries such as Iran, Canada, UK, France, Australia, USA etc etc etc had intelligence reports suggesting Saddam had WMD's. I have never seen a single independent intelligence report from any country - including the US - that supported the claims W&Co made about Saddam's WMDs in 2003.

The most anyone not involved in the scam ever said is that there was a possibility he might have some small quantities of chemical weapons left over from earlier stockpiles, and a few forbidden missiles, and that he might be trying to begin to set up a nuclear weapons development program for the future.

Now my argument is that claiming George bush lied and that he fixed reports to shape around policy is irresponsible as it is highly unlikely that the President has much influence in foreign intelligence agencies... especially Iran. The "intelligence" the US got from Iran, much of it laundered through Chalabi, was just what W&Co wanted for their scam - and it now seems that was no coincidence. That is not independent intelligence. Chalabi seems to have hitched his wagon to the right horse, and Iran seems to have played its cards very well in a dangerous game so far.

So if we are to avoid irresponsibility by assuming W actually believed what he was saying about Saddam's WMDs, we are left with the spectacle of the entire White House (Cheney and all) being played for fools by Adnan Chalabi, some Iranians, and maybe Israeli intelligence.

There is evidence against that: the "fools" all got very rich off the war, they more or less dumped Chalabi, there are the Downing memos and other documents - as well as Cheney's energy task force meetings and similar coincidences - that point to Big Lie manipulation, and last but not least one simple circumstance: the UN inspectors were in Iraq. If W&Co actually had info about WMDs in Iraq, everything from quantity to location as they claimed, they were treaty bound to give that info to the inspectors, who were right on the scene and could have made Saddam destroy the weapons,

rather than, as happened, send American soldiers into battle in a country claimes to hold large stockpiles of nerve gas and biological weaponry in known locations.

So the responsible, evidence based conclusion is that W&Co lied about the WMDs.
But just like every other time that we were on the verge of success Party politics pulled the funding and let it become a quagmire. The funding has never been pulled for any aspect of the Iraq war (or any other war) over the past 25 years, let alone by Party pollitics.

iceaura:

Ok so we've determined you don't work in government which means you've formed opinions on media reports which are based largely on documents released by various government agencies from across the world. I accept that.

Members of congress are privy to more information than you and i could imagine despite the fact that i work in government too. If dubya lied and the evidence as you say is conclusive, then it would be acceptable and hell even necessary for dubya to be impeached. If this were the case i would gladly support it. My point here being why hasn't he been impeached? There has to be a good reason for it.

If the case is as black and white as you say it is then at the end of the day bush should be in jail. Clearly it is not, clearly he isn't. Don't give me any conspiracy theories because they usually just don't add up. Dubya can't buy everyone in washington.

iceaura:

Ok so we've determined you don't work in government which means you've formed opinions on media reports which are based largely on documents released by various government agencies from across the world. I accept that.

Members of congress are privy to more information than you and i could imagine despite the fact that i work in government too. If dubya lied and the evidence as you say is conclusive, then it would be acceptable and hell even necessary for dubya to be impeached. If this were the case i would gladly support it. My point here being why hasn't he been impeached? There has to be a good reason for it.

If the case is as black and white as you say it is then at the end of the day bush should be in jail. Clearly it is not, clearly he isn't. Don't give me any conspiracy theories because they usually just don't add up. Dubya can't buy everyone in washington.

the republican are blocking it a the dem leadership are to big of pussys to do it

the republican are blocking it a the dem leadership are to big of pussys to do it

Bullshit. The republicans would have the most to gain if they did it. "Look we go after one of our own." they would retake Senate, House and the Whitehouse in landlsides.

And the Dems would love to have the ammunition in election year. They would have a clean sweep.

It's OBVIOUSLY not as balck and white as you would have it appear. Hell it's not even close enough to make the attempt and hoping the poor popularity of Bush would help it along.

The funding has never been pulled for any aspect of the Iraq war (or any other war) over the past 25 years, let alone by Party pollitics.

LOL, quite niave aren't you. The only reason it has not happened this time is that George is a little too smart to sign it and they can;t get super majority.

Members of congress are privy to more information than you and i could imagine despite the fact that i work in government too. If dubya lied and the evidence as you say is conclusive, then it would be acceptable and hell even necessary for dubya to be impeached. If this were the case i would gladly support it. My point here being why hasn't he been impeached? There has to be a good reason for it. There are certainly reasons. Whether or not you find them "good" migtht depend on how much you care about your country, and regard its government as something that ought to be acting for the good of that country.

For one thing, it would require that the Republican s who have been backing him lockstep from day one would have to publicly admit they were very wrong about their entire system of governance, and either incompetent or corrupt in their jobs.

But this would make an interesting line of research for you. I'd start with John Conyers's committee findings, and his reasons for not proceeding with impeachment proceedings back when the Reps controlled Congress. Then a look at the progress and changes since 2006, when the Dems gained a very slim and undependable technical majority - not enough to overcome serious opposition (and the Reps have been filibustering regularly), but enough so that for the first time the Judicial committee can begin - and has begun - considering articles of impeachment against at least Cheney, and maybe W. Then look at the calendar - in an election year, many old-line Dems fear making those kinds of waves.

And I leave you with a quote from Representative John Conyers, when he was asked why he bothered with hearings on the deceptions and corruptions leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he lacked the muscle to do much of anything at all about it, let alone impeach.

He said: "To take away the excuse that we didn't know".

I don't care how the UN "designates" them (they are trying to be PC)

Oh I see, so whose definition of WMD should we use? Should we define WMDs in terms of green goblins and space turtles?

You’re making your own special definition of what a WMD should be then drawing the specious conclusion that everyone else’s definition is wrong. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif

And how the hell can classifying chemical and biological agents as WMDs be considered “PC”? Double http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif


….technically speaking a WMD should be able to cause casualties to big masses in a large area. Chemical and biological weapons are not good for that purpose…

Yes, you keep saying “technically” this and “technically” that as if you have some sort of scientific knowledge and actually know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you impress us all with your technical knowledge? Your “technical” reason why chemical and biological agents are not WMDs is not any that I have ever seen. Why don’t you start by showing us a reference that substantiates your proposed definition? And the fact that you do not think that chemical and biological agents can cause “casualties to big masses in a large area” fully demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this area.


…but feel free to show me examples with death ratio and covered area...

I don’t have to do that because they are merely your own made-up criteria.


The point is, anything could be called WMDs, but in strict military meaning only nukes and some radioactive weapons are....

You are wrong. I challenge you to show me a military source that says chem and bio agents are not WMDs.

For one thing, it would require that the Republican s who have been backing him lockstep from day one would have to admit they were very wrong about their entire system of governance, and either incompetent or corrupt in their jobs.

But this would make an interesting line of research for you. I'd start with John Conyers's committee findings, and his reasons for not proceeding with impeachment proceedings back when the Reps controlled Congress. Then a look at the progress and changes since 2006, when the Dems gained a very slim and undependable technical majority - not enough to overcome serious opposition (and the Reps have been filibustering regularly), but enough so that for the first time the Judicial committee can begin - and has begun - considering articles of impeachment against at least Cheney, and maybe W. Then look at the calendar - in an election year, many old-line Dems fear making those kinds of waves.

And I leave you with a quote from Representative John Conyers, when he was asked why he bothered with hearings on the deceptions and corruptions leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he lacked the muscle to do much of anything at all about it, let alone impeach.

He said: "To take away the excuse that we didn't know".


You have no clue what you are speaking of. First of all the Republicans ahave been complaining against Bush as much as the Democrats. Second whichever part actually impeaches him would win next presidency, senate and house hands down. Don't tell me the political powers have not figure that out. this is their profession.

LOL, quite niave aren't you. The only reason it has not happened this time is that George is a little too smart to sign it and they can;t get super majority. You said this:
But just like every other time that we were on the verge of success Party politics pulled the funding and let it become a quagmire. I say that has never happened - not just that it didn't happen every time, as you claim, but that it never happened even once.

This quagmire, like all the others have been, is the fault of the people who led us into it. It is and will be a quagmire whether the Dems cut funding (it's already cost more than Vietnam) or not.

You have no clue what you are speaking of. First of all the Republicans ahave been complaining against Bush as much as the Democrats. Second whichever part actually impeaches him would win next presidency, senate and house hands down. Don't tell me the political powers have not figure that out. this is their profession.

your ignoring the fact of what the the repubs used as a base to get bush elected

I challenge you to show me a military source that says chem and bio agents are not WMDs.

In short: In small quantities they don't cause mass destruction. Why did I say small quantities? Because in large quantities EVERYTHING can be WMD even rain....

If you research the phrase, originally it was only used for nukes, although even back then other type of weapons already existed. Today's wider meaning came much later.

I say that has never happened - not just that it didn't happen every time, as you claim, but that it never happened even once.

This quagmire, like all the others have been, is the fault of the people who led us into it. It is and will be a quagmire whether the Dems cut funding (it's already cost more than Vietnam) or not.

The Quagmire that was Vietnam was DIRECTLY becuase of lack of funding. Though i will note it was a Democrat who got us involved in that and oddly cut the funding while we were succeeding.

As for this situation, we are NOT IN A QUAGMIRE. Every successful counterinsurgency in the history of the world has taken Nine years minimum. We are already seeing progress. The recent fighting between the Democratic Governemnt of Iraq and the extremist has been a major vicotry for our goals. The Iraqi army is handling this situation on their for the most part. We are seeing vast improvement in the political arena as well. Or were you to busy reinventing history.

The Quagmire that was Vietnam was DIRECTLY becuase of lack of funding. Though i will note it was a Democrat who got us involved in that and oddly cut the funding while we were succeeding.



Really? I thought it was because we were supporting an unpopular puppet regime. This is reinforced by the fact that the ARVN were not up to the task of defending their country against the NVA and Viet Cong. In spite of our advisers, training, and billions in military aid.

It is said that the military operated with one hand tied behind their backs. To the extent that that refers to a restriction on land invasion by U.S. forces on North Vietnam, that's true. But today, General Westmoreland, who was the commander in Vietnam at the time, says that while at the time he felt he was constrained, he now understands that that was an effort by the president to prevent the U.S. coming into open military conflict with China and the Soviet Union. And Westmoreland says, "Thank God we avoided that. That was a correct policy at the time." Could more military pressure have been applied, in the sense of more bombing of the North? In one sense, no. We dropped two or three times as much bombs in North and South Vietnam as were dropped by all Allied Forces throughout World War II against all enemies. It was a tremendous air effort. But there are certain things bombing can't accomplish. They can't break the will of people under certain circumstances. They didn't break the will of the North Vietnamese. And it cannot stop the movement of the small quantities of supplies that were necessary to support the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese forces in the South. They didn't, and it couldn't; and no additional amount of money [or] bombing could have. - Robert McNamara
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

When were we "succeeding"?

The Quagmire that was Vietnam was DIRECTLY becuase of lack of funding. Though i will note it was a Democrat who got us involved in that and oddly cut the funding while we were succeeding. What year was that, when the funding was cut while we were succeeding ? And what were we succeeding at ?

We threw money at Vietnam like crazy. We built airports, roads, ports. We bombed it more heavily than any country had ever been bombed (until Cambodia and maybe Laos). We did that for more than twice as long as we have been throwing money at Iraq. And it paid off, for some of us.

As others have noticed, from the point of view of the people who got us into Vietnam it was a win - an excellent demonstration of what would happen to defiant countries. As with the otherwise incomprehensible blockading of Cuba and Nicaragua, and now the demonization of Venezuela, the threat of a good example is a serious threat and must be fought.

As for this situation, we are NOT IN A QUAGMIRE. Every successful counterinsurgency in the history of the world has taken Nine years minimum. We are already seeing progress. How long do the unsuccessful ones take ? And what do you have at the end of the successful ones that is so much better ?

If you've lost and you can't leave, it's a quagmire.

Though i will note it was a Democrat who got us involved in that and oddly cut the funding while we were succeeding.

Let's see Kennedy elected 1960, killed 1963
so it must have been in there we were succeeding.

How long do the unsuccessful ones take ? And what do you have at the end of the successful ones that is so much better ?

Actually every full counterinsurgency, (not the observer BS we did in Vietnam), that has gone on for 9 or more years has suceeded. the ones that fail are becuase people lose sight of the goal.

The goal can vary, as there are many reasons for a counter insurgency. In this case it would be a ally nation with a democratic government and an ally against religous extremist.

Really? I thought it was because we were supporting an unpopular puppet regime. This is reinforced by the fact that the ARVN were not up to the task of defending their country against the NVA and Viet Cong. In spite of our advisers, training, and billions in military aid.

It is said that the military operated with one hand tied behind their backs. To the extent that that refers to a restriction on land invasion by U.S. forces on North Vietnam, that's true. But today, General Westmoreland, who was the commander in Vietnam at the time, says that while at the time he felt he was constrained, he now understands that that was an effort by the president to prevent the U.S. coming into open military conflict with China and the Soviet Union. And Westmoreland says, "Thank God we avoided that. That was a correct policy at the time." Could more military pressure have been applied, in the sense of more bombing of the North? In one sense, no. We dropped two or three times as much bombs in North and South Vietnam as were dropped by all Allied Forces throughout World War II against all enemies. It was a tremendous air effort. But there are certain things bombing can't accomplish. They can't break the will of people under certain circumstances. They didn't break the will of the North Vietnamese. And it cannot stop the movement of the small quantities of supplies that were necessary to support the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese forces in the South. They didn't, and it couldn't; and no additional amount of money [or] bombing could have. - Robert McNamara
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

When were we "succeeding"?

Oy vey, taking a purely bombing look at it yes? Well I do have family that served in Vietnam in intelligence. To quote him "Before the funding was cut there was never a successful NV operation in southern vietnam. Suddenly one hand tied behind our back became two and we started losing ground almost imeediately."

Considering the NV could not have had a endless supply of vietcongs it is possible if we had just stayed in the war of attrition that Vietnam would be a Democracy today.

Ok, lets weigh the evidence. You have an anonymous family member, while I'm quoting the secretary of defense who served from near the beginning of our involvement, to its height. Who has said that he realized we couldn't win in 1968. And who also said that our involvement was a mistake, and a misunderstanding.

It could have been a democracy in 1955, but the south unilaterally rejected the nationwide election that had been agreed to in the Geneva accords.

And the first insurgent attacks in the south happened in 1957.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

Well I do have family that served in Vietnam in intelligence. To quote him "Before the funding was cut there was never a successful NV operation in southern vietnam. Suddenly one hand tied behind our back became two and we started losing ground almost imeediately." So what year was that ?
Actually every full counterinsurgency, (not the observer BS we did in Vietnam), that has gone on for 9 or more years has suceeded. the ones that fail are becuase people lose sight of the goal. We can't afford much more in the way of "counterinsurgency" than we launched at Vietnam, or are launching at Iraq.

And we spend as much money on such things as the rst of the world put together.

The "observer BS" that was not a "full counterinsurgency" in Vietnam was the heaviest bombing campaign seen on the planet to that time. We lost 55,000 soldiers, 4X that seriously wounded, and got upwards of a two million people killed among the three countries of the combat zone.

As far as the goal, we've already failed in Iraq. Whatever we succeed at doing now will be consolation or less.

We lost 55,000 soldiers, 4X that seriously wounded, and got upwards of a two million people killed among the three countries of the combat zone

So technically you're doing better this time round? :p

Ok ok i kid...

Back to what i was saying previously, You cannot prove with 100% concrete facts that bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. I think what you're also forgetting is that Bush is only one man. You can't expect him to know everything... thats why he has advisers, secretaries etc etc.. If anyone of them summarised a report using the words Saddam has WMD's, and bush went to air with that line... does that make bush a liar? I'd say an idiot but not a liar. He might be the CinC, but he's not god.

I know i'm coming up with all sorts of "excuses"... but these "excuses" are the doubts in my mind that cannot allow me to take a stand either side of the fence. You can throw all the information you can at me, but the variables at the end of the day make it so hard to state definately that he lied. I won't accuse a man of lying unless i know it to be 100% true.

On Vietnam:

I think what killed the war in the end was the public support, or lack thereof. Morale is one of the most important aspects in a military campaign, knowing that you're doing a good job to help people. When troops come home from a campaign overseas the last thing they want is to be spat on etc etc. Today it is different because despite the bad publicity, alot of soldiers (Australian ones at least), are satisfied with the job they have done and continue to do.

Our campaign in Iraq despite the overall unpopularity of it, is rather successful because all a digger has to do is look into the eyes of an Iraqi child, who just beat them in an impromptu game of soccer, and know that the job is worth it. Thats the aspect of the conflict people are forgetting.

Back to what i was saying previously, You cannot prove with 100% concrete facts that bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

When troops come home from a campaign overseas the last thing they want is to be spat on etc etc.


Our campaign in Iraq despite the overall unpopularity of it, is rather successful because all a digger has to do is look into the eyes of an Iraqi child, who just beat them in an impromptu game of soccer, and know that the job is worth it. Thats the aspect of the conflict people are forgetting.

And they say you can't fool people all of the time.:rolleyes:

I won't accuse a man of lying unless i know it to be 100% true. Then it is very, very rare you can accuse someone of lying. More important, Bush can be open and honest now and admit his incompetence. He either lied or was incompetent to this or that degree. Remember we are talking about decisions made in haste without involving other nations or the UN. Now he has people defending him and saying it is possible he did not lie. If you are going to be hasty and set up a situation where 1) more Americans will die than those who were killed and serve as the justification for the war 2) what you do will make it more likely for extemists think the US needs a lesson 3) allies are threatened and alienated 4) you tranfer taxpayer funds to corporations you and you staff have professional and personal connections with

than you need to take full responsibility for what you have done. In this case this would either mean admitting incompetence or lying of some combination of both.

The money spent on this war - not Bush's money by the way - could have been spent fighting Aids or on cancer research, let alone not stripping it from this and future generation americans in the first place.

'Mistakes were made' kinds of speeches are dishonest and are not the kind of thing we accept from children.

On Vietnam:

I think what killed the war in the end was the public support, or lack thereof. Morale is one of the most important aspects in a military campaign, knowing that you're doing a good job to help people. When troops come home from a campaign overseas the last thing they want is to be spat on etc etc.
This is a myth. Very few soldiers were spat on. However nearly all returning injured vets or those in need of rehabilitation found that the very people who sent them to war were not interested in giving them adequate medical care. Talk about spitting. And soldiers over in Vietnam did not need to arrive home to lose morale. They lost it because of what they had to do over there as any even quick read of their memoirs and interviews will let you know. They knew that the war was devastating civilians, they could not connect to the goals of the war and many of them poor black and while and hispanic were not treated well by their own governments back home in the first place and were not satisfied with the justifications for the war once they arrived. They were, to some degree, predisposed to be skeptical. And they were right to be so.

To blame the anti war movement or hippies for lack of morale skips the whole question of whether they were right to be anti Vietnam war. Remember this war was started by a lie: Tonkin Gulf incident. At least the increased US military beyond advisor presence there. Add to that that the war was being waged very much on civilians. Beyond direct bombing of villages, the anti civilian use of agent orange, mines, cluster bombs and so on was very much right in the faces of the soldiers there and this sure as shit affected morale.

A look at how long the government took to even begin acknowledged that Agent Orange was damaging american soldiers will tell you where the real spitting was coming from.

And they say you can't fool people all of the time.

SAM. Don't patronise me. You come across as a smart intellectual woman but your life experiences in certain fields appear to be lacking. You have a mindset that seems to generated from hate and anger towards the western world so everytime you write, i see the usual rhetoric i've come to expect.

1. You're still not providing me with concrete facts despite the downing street memo's which i've already pointed out can easily be a fake. If the evidence is so damning then why hasn't bush been impeached? Obviously there is more to this story than meets the eye and i'm not gonna make a call until all the facts are released... Which sadly may never happen

2. Don't take my use of the word spat on so literally... i meant it figuratively like sowhatifit'sdark put it. They were denied basic medical treatment, National servicemen had red paint thrown at them during Anzac day marches in Australia and there service overseas was not recognised subsequently they weren't awarded any campaign or combat medals. Just to name some of the mistreatments they recieved. These gross errors are slowly starting to be rectified here.

3. When you have opportunity to talk to a large number of servicemen and women that have returned from the gulf, who in large numbers confirm what i have just said... sharing little stories like that, you know the usual bleeding heart stuff.. Then maybe you'll see the side that doesn't get told.

sowhatifit'sdark:

I'm not here to debate if Dubya is incompetent... I know he is... He has focused his entire presidency on two issues. Iraq and the War on Terror. He has let the american economy slide and has generally failed to have his finger on the pulse. This is true.

If it could be proven that he either lied or is grossly incompetent, then send him to prison or whatever you guys do to impeached presidents. I would fully support it. But as mentioned above, there is a side to the story you don't hear and unfortunately won't hear. The average soldier doesn't have as loud a voice as a disgruntled politician, the media, or liberal nut jobs (not all liberals because on the whole most can be good)

I didn't quite reply to the Vietnam point you raised sowhatifit'sdark.

I agree, the campaign was waged horribly under aweful conditions. There were gross inadequacies in the command structure and the overall effectiveness of the campaign. The operational plan was very much reactional and lacked substance... There was no real leadership in the upper echelons which gave way to the gross treatment of the general populous of vietnam. Having said that, and with no bias at all, my belief is that the Australians performed exceptionally well and were one of the more effective countries in that campaign.

I'm not blaming the failed campaign purely on hippies. That would be irresponsible of me. It is a mixture of the above things you have mentioned, plus mine, and the public response, that resulted in the loss of Morale... subsequently the campaign was doomed.

P.S. Some of the comments you make are a little misleading but i'll save that for another thread

despite the downing street memo's which i've already pointed out can easily be a fake. If the evidence is so damning then why hasn't bush been impeached? Since the D memos have never been seriously questioned by anyone in a position to know, let's accept that they are less likely to be fake than any other unofficially released documents pertaining to the justification of the war, right?

So they are about the best evidence you could possibly get - there's a lot of other evidence (Joe Wilson hands us some, Judith Miller some, John Conyers has a summary in the Congressional Record, etc), but those memos pretty much nail it in the short version (There are quite a few of them, btw - more than one batch of documents that have been sort of filed under the general category, and not just the one photocopied page with the famous "fixed" quote on it).

So the question of why Bush hasn't been impeached is an interesting one. Some of us have been pointing out that it has been an interesting question for several years now. His enemies have had a hard time getting organized or getting their case in the public eye, and his friends have proven remarkably loyal amid one scandal after another.
I'm not blaming the failed campaign purely on hippies. Why are you blaming any of it on "hippies" ?

SAM. Don't patronise me. You come across as a smart intellectual woman but your life experiences in certain fields appear to be lacking. You have a mindset that seems to generated from hate and anger towards the western world so everytime you write, i see the usual rhetoric i've come to expect.

1. You're still not providing me with concrete facts despite the downing street memo's which i've already pointed out can easily be a fake. If the evidence is so damning then why hasn't bush been impeached? Obviously there is more to this story than meets the eye and i'm not gonna make a call until all the facts are released... Which sadly may never happen

2. Don't take my use of the word spat on so literally... i meant it figuratively like sowhatifit'sdark put it. They were denied basic medical treatment, National servicemen had red paint thrown at them during Anzac day marches in Australia and there service overseas was not recognised subsequently they weren't awarded any campaign or combat medals. Just to name some of the mistreatments they recieved. These gross errors are slowly starting to be rectified here.

3. When you have opportunity to talk to a large number of servicemen and women that have returned from the gulf, who in large numbers confirm what i have just said... sharing little stories like that, you know the usual bleeding heart stuff.. Then maybe you'll see the side that doesn't get told.

sowhatifit'sdark:

I'm not here to debate if Dubya is incompetent... I know he is... He has focused his entire presidency on two issues. Iraq and the War on Terror. He has let the american economy slide and has generally failed to have his finger on the pulse. This is true.

If it could be proven that he either lied or is grossly incompetent, then send him to prison or whatever you guys do to impeached presidents. I would fully support it. But as mentioned above, there is a side to the story you don't hear and unfortunately won't hear. The average soldier doesn't have as loud a voice as a disgruntled politician, the media, or liberal nut jobs (not all liberals because on the whole most can be good)

dude the British admited the downing street memo was real

pjdude: Who admitted it was real.. links please,. So far in my research i've come across nothing the indicates admission on the british part

iceaura: The hippies had a great mindset and used the political system which encourages free speech to its full effect. Some great things came out of the era, especially some pretty cool music. But at the end of the day, the fact that the war was so unpopular at home was probably a contributing factor in the denial of basic services for veterans when they returned home.

I guess ultimately we're in a hazy agreement locked in a stalemate over the D street memo's. So lets leave that one there.

So the question of why Bush hasn't been impeached is an interesting one. Some of us have been pointing out that it has been an interesting question for several years now. His enemies have had a hard time getting organized or getting their case in the public eye, and his friends have proven remarkably loyal amid one scandal after another.

I don't think his enemies are as incapable as you label them, I think the situation that is more likely is that there ultimately is no way they can prove it. Bill Clinton lied about an affair... Ok so what.. Bush lied about WMD's... If i were his enemy i'd be all over that like a fat kid on a lollipop

I don't think his enemies are as incapable as you label them, I think the situation that is more likely is that there ultimately is no way they can prove it. Bill Clinton lied about an affair... Ok so what.. Bush lied about WMD's... If i were his enemy i'd be all over that like a fat kid on a lollipop So you are assuming that all the evidence implicating W in lying about the WMDs (have you read Conyers's provisional summary, or noticed House Resolution 635 12/18/05 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00635: ), wiretapping, contracting, attorney general manipulating, vote rigging, torture and renditioning, etc, is bogus because he has not been impeached.

As a theoretical exercise: suppose some of this accumulating pile of uncontradicted (even admitted, in the case of the wiretapping) evidence turns out to be valid - say the Downing Street memos, that a couple of British authorities have verified and no one has contradicted. What would that tell you ?

So far you have been dismissing evidence based on assumptions about political reality - that W&Co are vulnerable to their many enemies if they screw up, that the press is biased in the necessary way, or at least both honest and capable in the necessary arena, that Congress is both honorable and capable in at least this matter, and so forth. On the one side, assumptions. On the other side, a growing pile of dismissed evidence. Is there a tipping point ?

The tipping point would be either SOLID facts or an admission

I'm not dismissing evidence, i'm merely putting it into a pile that classifies it as not solid. The House resolution 635 you have pointed out, unless i'm reading it wrong, is merely telling me that there is an investigation underway... that this investigation/committee is taking their sweet time but there is one nonetheless. Doesn't prove a thing.

On Conyers's provisional summary. I have looked up a large amount of imformation regarding Conyer and as far as i can tell he hasn't had much to do with Bush lying about WMD's to justify war in Iraq. Just Vote rigging. Why are you trying to lead me down this garden path, i'm not debating whether he lied or rigged elections, i'm debating whether or not he lied to go to war

On Wiretapping, see above

On attorney general manipulation, see above

On vote rigging, above

On Torture, above

At the end of the day, you accuse me of dismissing evidence, i accuse you of dismissing reason and reality just to convince yourself that behind every rock there is a leprechaun. Look i don't blame you for doing this, Dubya is quite unpopular, but i'm trying to put forth the reality of the situation and on the balance of probabilities (sorry my phrase of the day) he's not guilty... not innocent.. but still not guilty

The tipping point would be either SOLID facts or an admission On WMDs, we have the solid facts (Downing Street memos prominent, but not the only - Judith Miller's disgrace at the NYT, White House involvement in the Plame business over Wilson's report, the failure of the White House to provide any legitimate sources for its claims since the humiliation of their exposure, etc etc etc)

On torture, we have solid facts and admission.

On wiretapping, we have pretty good facts and admission.

On attorney general manipulation, we have pretty good facts and otherwise inexplicable refusal to answer questions.

On vote rigging we have pretty good facts - statistical anomalies and aberrant poll results, for example.

Do you tip on any of those ?

[quote=spaceman] but i'm trying to put forth the reality of the situation You are determined to employ even quite far-fetched possibilities to avoid facing the most likely realities of the situation. You have asserted that W cannot lie convincingly to you, for example, so if he has been convincing to you he must not have been lying - that's fairly ridiculous.

Analogy: a farmer sees a trail of light from the sky, hears a loud boom, and finds what looks like a smoking, charred rock in a newly blown out pit in his hay field. He reasons as follows: I just saw whatever made this pit fall from the sky, I have no evidence that there are rocks in the sky, therefore there is no rock in this pit.