Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The president already admitted that our pre-war intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs was wrong. It's time that some of his followers agreed with him.<< Only the most partisan cling to the notion that all pre-war intel about Iraq's WMD was accurate. The point of disagreement was whether Bush knowingly lied about it. I will say here, quite clearly, that I do not believe that George W. Bush knowingly made statements that he knew were factually untrue during the 18 months of debate that preceded the invasion of Iraq. That others may diasagree with this statement is certainly their privilege. But I would hope that they will be prepared to justify their opinion in light of new information.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I thought the contention was that he was wrong, but not that he lied.<< Alas, all distinctions have been subsumed into that catchy phrase, "Bush lied; people died." Sloganeering rarely, if ever, leads to understanding. (P.S. It was former Ambassador Joe Wilson who suggested that Bush lied about the uranium.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The point of disagreement was whether Bush knowingly lied about it. I will say here, quite clearly, that I do not believe that George W. Bush knowingly made statements that he knew were factually untrue during the 18 months of debate that preceded the invasion of Iraq.<< I agree.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Did Wilson really say that Bush lied, or that the information was wrong?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Post 74---Except as I've told Tom repeatedly I have not seen anyone admit they're wrong. I won't lie Tom and say I've seen you admit a mistake. I take you for your word that you have, but I haven't seen it. I've publicly here admitted double digit mistakes but I am one of the few. I think it comes with a good self-image to admit mistakes as a person won't lose confidence by doing so and the way I look at making mistakes, it's kinda a good thing because it means I've learned something.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>publicly here admitted double digit mistakes but I am one of the few.<< Well, that's what happens when you're wrong more often than others.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tom ------------I'm leaving here now to play golf and I will have a smile on my face with your post. Thanks for being tough but funny.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The declarations may have been old and there may have been gaps, but that doesn't mean that Saddam had WMD stockpiles or an ongoing WMD program. You can't draw that conclusion.<< <Unlike some here, I haven't drawn any conclusions.> I think you have, Dug. I think you've drawn the conclusion, for instance, that the Times article is "spin." You said "Alas, the spinning here is by the august editorial board of the gray lady. Post #61 covers this." But I don't think your example shows this. <No, the article makes it clear that Saddam was even lying to his own generals, as he was playing shell ganmes with the very real WMDs that he did possess. But why take my word for it? Let's hear it from the Times: >>Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps.<< As Tom pointed out, that doesn't necessarily follow. Let me put it in different words. You assume (which I would call "drawing a conclusion") that Saddam still had some WMDs during this period, as you say "he was playing shell ganmes with the very real WMDs that he did possess." And you say the Times backs that up. But they don't. They only say that his declarations to the UN were old and had gaps. What's just as likely from that (indeed, what was probably the case) is that Saddam really didn't have WMD at this point, but wanted to create the impression that he did - or at least plant doubt - in the minds of his neighbors (especially Iran) and his own internal enemies. So he intentionally did not comply with the UN insistence that he account for destruction of all the old stockpiles, thus creating doubt in everyone's mind. But that's not mutually exclusive with the idea that he didn't actually have WMD any more.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I see. And crafty Saddam further enhanced this notion by telling his own generals that he didn't have WMDs. Curiouser and curiouser... (And yes, it is my opinion that the NYT is spinning this info, just as NewsMax spun it the other way. That is the only conclusion I have drawn thus far.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I see. And crafty Saddam further enhanced this notion by telling his own generals that he didn't have WMDs. Curiouser and curiouser...> He only told them that on the very eve of the war. Prior to that, he (quite successfully) planted the doubt in everyone's mind that he had them, even when he didn't. <(And yes, it is my opinion that the NYT is spinning this info, just as NewsMax spun it the other way. That is the only conclusion I have drawn thus far.)> I think you've also drawn the conclusion that he had WMD in the period in question. "he was playing shell ganmes with the very real WMDs that he did possess" sounds like you've drawn that conclusion. As for the relative spinning of the NYT and Newsmax... the former might be compared to the Sun Wheel during loading; the latter to three teenagers in a Mad Tea Party cup.
Originally Posted By woody >>He only told them that on the very eve of the war. Prior to that, he (quite successfully) planted the doubt in everyone's mind that he had them, even when he didn't.<< Whoa!!! Saddam did not plant "doubt". He planted suspicion that he concealed WMDs. Everyone doubted Saddam was telling the truth. Therefore, Saddam's generals believed he always had them. Fooled them all. Saddam did a good job of concealing the truth. The only conclusion is the war was based on the truth of the situation. That Saddam would never meet the requirements of the UN Resolution. Bush had an obligation to respond. It's too late to keep rehashing the decision, but this fact means there is no LIE except from Saddam.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>He only told them that on the very eve of the war. Prior to that, he (quite successfully) planted the doubt in everyone's mind that he had them, even when he didn't.<< <Whoa!!! Saddam did not plant "doubt". He planted suspicion that he concealed WMDs.> Two sides of the same coin, woody; suspicion that he concealed them/doubt that he got rid of them. He wanted to plant that doubt, wanted to raise that suspicion. <Everyone doubted Saddam was telling the truth. Therefore, Saddam's generals believed he always had them. Fooled them all.> Correct. We're not disagreeing here. <Saddam did a good job of concealing the truth. The only conclusion is the war was based on the truth of the situation. That Saddam would never meet the requirements of the UN Resolution.> But, of course, concluding that he had WMD did not have to equal invading and occupying the country. Clinton seemed to have believed he had them, but didn't invade. We KNOW North Korea has the worst WMD of all, and we don't invade. There is more than one way of dealing with a threat. <Bush had an obligation to respond. It's too late to keep rehashing the decision, but this fact means there is no LIE except from Saddam.> Not necessarily. There are many areas where Bush may have lied, and/or intentionally misled. Note I never claimed he did.
Originally Posted By woody "There are many areas where Bush may have lied, and/or intentionally misled. Note I never claimed he did." Did you say "two sides of the same coin"? You keep hoping.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"There are many areas where Bush may have lied, and/or intentionally misled. Note I never claimed he did." Did you say "two sides of the same coin"? You keep hoping.> For the life of me, I can't see how that follows.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob: The coin sides are "Bush may have lied" and "Bush did lie". You may not have made this claim, but you certainly did not rule it out.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<the former might be compared to the Sun Wheel during loading; the latter to three teenagers in a Mad Tea Party cup. >> LOL, very good Dabob. That Sun Wheel takes longer to load than I always think. We still have people in Portland with the Bush Lied! stickers on their junkers, errr, cars. How nice it must be to live in the world of the misinformed. Then they wonder why they can't get a good job or drive a decent car.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Dabob: The coin sides are "Bush may have lied" and "Bush did lie".>> <You may not have made this claim, but you certainly did not rule it out.> Appropriately so. He MAY have lied and/or intentionally misled. This is a serious charge, though, and until the evidence is unmistakable that he did, I won't be making it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <LOL, very good Dabob. That Sun Wheel takes longer to load than I always think.> It was THE longest line of anything we did in 4 days at the DLR. We saw "30 minute wait" on the sign... and not that many people in line... and thought "that must have been the case a while ago; surely not now. They just haven't updated the sign." Wrong.
Originally Posted By woody "Appropriately so. He MAY have lied and/or intentionally misled. This is a serious charge, though, and until the evidence is unmistakable that he did, I won't be making it." Of course you won't mind saying it over and over again. LOL!!! You're so objective. Silly bias!!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The only person who lied was Joe Wilson who went to Niger and then went on to spin tales in the NY Times. Doesn't the Whitehouse have the right to set the record straight? If a reporter askes them how Joe Wilson was picked to go to Niger on such an important mission when he was clearly a moonbat... doesn't the White House have the right to tell the reporters that his wife sent him?? And isn't it really stupid to say his wife was some undercover James Bond type agent when the entire town knew who she was and that she was doing magazine stories with her lying husband?
