Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
I still have a problem with the one person that doesn't see reason and says it's just not his opinion, it's fact.
If that person says it's fact, and he can't be 100% sure, (even though most of us will believe it) then he is doing exactly what he is accusing BUSH of. Claiming fact without 100% proof. Which by his own definition, makes him a liar.

Oooh, now I am the unnamed poster..have I died?

One minor (OK, not minor) point to you comparison:Lets look at this logically: Fact: as of today, no stockpiles of WMD's have been found. That everyone agrees on.
Members of the admin. said they knew Iraq had WMD's. This runs counter to the one fact we have. I say the admin. lied about knowing Iraq had WMD's. This statement is in conformity with the one fact we know. Ergo, my statement is not in the same league as the admins.

[GePap]

Rah would make a lousy prosecutor:

ladies and gentlemen on the jury, it it my honest opinion that the defendant robbed the home in question-I do not have proof, but in my opinion, he did do it. believe me sir.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
You all have made good points. And yes I mocked Molly, and didn't say she was wrong. I even said she has SOME good things to say. But her style makes it hard for her to convince anybody that doesn't already agree with her. Most good columnists are trying to convince people.

I would agree with this. But after a while, it's hard to be nice to scumbags like Bush.

And everyone in this thread but one has stated that it's only their OPINION that he lied. I think it's a possibility that he did. And I respect those that say it's just their opinion, no matter how much they believe it.

I still have a problem with the one person that doesn't see reason and says it's just not his opinion, it's fact.
If that person says it's fact, and he can't be 100% sure, (even though most of us will believe it) then he is doing exactly what he is accusing BUSH of. Claiming fact without 100% proof. Which by his own definition, makes him a liar.

And yes, I'm more likely to go with idiot option. But since that's my opinion of most politicians, that won't keep me from voting for him again.

I wonder if your loose interpretation of what is a lie was present during the Clinton years. Judging from your political persuasion, I doubt it.

Here's how I define a "lie". Propagating something that is not true. As the president of the US, Bush has access to information above and beyond what you and I could ever hope for. We have extraordinary surveillance capabilities. DONALD ****ING RUMSFELD even said, "WE KNOW WHERE THE WMD'S ARE!!!!!"

so how did Bush not lie?

But you are right... it's my opinion he lied. There are not many hard truths in this world. My opinion is based on a miriad of facts concerning the behavior of this administration. They could just be bumbling idiots (I consider Bush to be particularly ignorant, but not completely stupid considering his political success). The other thing that is shaping my opinion is the pattern of lies that the admin has. Whether it be the "clear skies initiative" that allows polluters to pollute more, or the "economic stimulus" that doesn't have any short term effects, or the "no child left behind" that goes notoriously underfunded, or the "no nation building" from his campaign, I mean, I could go on and on.

When someone establishes themselves as a serial LIAR, and something like this comes up, I'm going to go with the safe bet and say HE IS A LIAR.

It sounds like you are relatively successful, so I don't blame you for voting with your pocketbook. I just wish you would grow a conscience and vote with it for once.

[MrFun]

All Rah is arguing, is that there's two possibilities -- either he lied, which, in his opinion, has not been proven, or that Bush was wrong, but Bush will not admit his mistake.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MrFun
All Rah is arguing, is that there's two possibilities -- either he lied, which, in his opinion, has not been proven, or that Bush was wrong, but Bush will not admit his mistake.

oh I understand rah's point... and he's right... the fact is, it cannot be proven (with the information at hand) whether or not Bush lied or not. I'm just saying that rah's point is irrelevant and my position is he most likely DID lie because he's established a pattern of lying and there is a ton of circumstantial evidence indicating he did lie.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
All Rah is arguing, is that there's two possibilities -- either he lied, which, in his opinion, has not been proven, or that Bush was wrong, but Bush will not admit his mistake.

Seems a common theme here at 'Poly.

[MrFun]

Oh lord -- we can make a whole thread about what THE common theme would be here on Apolyton.

[rah]

Originally posted by MrFun
So answer GePap's question -- what do you consider proof then, other than a memo titled, "How I Lied About Iraq" written by President Bush himself??

Well, I'll have to use the same level of proof that I did with Clinton. It was my opinion that he had sex with ML, but I never stated it as a fact until he admitted it. (which he eventually did after being confronted with evidence) So yes, until Bush says he did (after being confronted with evidence, which can still happen) my thoughts on it will remain just Opinion.

Innocent until proven guilty. This is the USA.

So I have no problem with people that say "I think he lied", that's their right. But People that say, "bush lied" will not command any respect from me. They're just as bad as what they're accusing Bush of.

[MrFun]

Oh, and don't get me wrong -- I disagree with Rah, but I just wanted to make sure his argument was not being misunderstood.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Innocent until proven guilty. This is the USA.

So I have no problem with people that say "I think he lied", that's their right. But People that say, "bush lied" will not command any respect from me. They're just as bad as what they're accusing Bush of.

The admin. lied (as in they said things they knew could not be true. what else can this be but a lie?), and the buck stops at Bush.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah
Innocent until proven guilty. This is the USA.

That only applies to court, not personal opinions. Just be sure to steer clear of libel and slander.

[Sava]

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

from 2-24-01

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

COLIN FREAKING POWELL

It's a shame that "moderate" Republicans are so hard to find these days.

[rah]

This is freaking hilarious. Gepap still can not admit that it's just his opinion. He is still claiming it's fact. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

I tip my hat to the rest of you.

and, when the democrats find someone that isn't just another scummy politician, I'll consider voting with my conscience. But until then, I'm voting with my pocketbook. With the exception of Carter, they've all been found lacking. Unfortunately, I didn't believe it of Carter till he was already out of office. I always thought it was a facade up to that point.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Or just wrong.

So if someone hedges their bets on the Pats for the Superbowl because all signs indicate they will win, and then they lose, are they totally incompetant?

There's a difference here. Not many people die because of a wrong Super Bowl bet (go Pats!) and while those horrible hot dogs you can buy at games are probably as lethal as depleted uranium shell splinters, that's where the similarity ends.

As I see it the accusations of lying fall into the following categories:

1) That Saddam was a threat to world peace.

This is so laughable that, to continue the football metaphor, it's like claiming the Buffalo Bills will win the Super Bowl.

Fact: Even before Gulf War I Saddam was at most capable of invading his neighbours.

2) That Saddam was a threat to his neighbours.

Fact: After Gulf War I Saddam was contained, had no air force and would have been crushed had he decided to attack anyone. He was like a beaten dog.

Fact: none of the neighbours apart from Israel wanted the war, so they must have felt really threatened. Anyone suggesting that Israel felt threatened by Iraq needs their head examined.

Fact: if Saddam ever attempted to attack Israel with chemical warheads, the response would be nuclear (the Israelis have made that quite clear).

3) That Saddam had a nuclear program.

Fact: you can't just make nuclear weapons. You need enough electricity to power a small city as well as wads and wads of cash.

Fact: he may have wanted nukes but he couldn't make them while undere such stringent surveillance and even if he got them he could only use them for defensive purposes.

Fact: you can't just make nuclear weapons. You need enough electricity to power a small city as well as wads and wads of cash and specialist equipment. Unless you have a closed society like North Korea, it's pretty hard to hide them. Everyone knows Israel had them despite that country's refusal to confirm it.

Anyone can get documents relating to the construction of nuclear weapons if they really want them. You can probably get them at any university library or on the internet. But without a lot of money and industrial capacity - you ain't getting any nukes.

4) That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Fact: unless he had nukes, it's not worth worrying about. Chemical weapons are a battlefield weapon for use against mass infantry. They are wholly useless for anything else. Why did Saddam have them in the first place? Because he was facing massed infantry attacks from Iran. Why is vastly more money spent on nuclear weapons than chemical weapons? Because nuclear weapons actually work. If you want to see how useless chemical weapons are, look at the Tokyo subway attack. A nail bomb would have killed more people.

Fact: bio weapons don't work either. Smallpox could be contained by a mass vaccination program and anthrax is next to useless. What was the death toll from anthrax in the US? Four or five people. It's also increasingly unlikely that Saddam had access to smallpox since it was eradicated in the wild before he came to power.

Summary: no serious person believed he had nukes or was close to developing them. It doesn't fit the facts. No serious person believed that even if he did have chemical or bio weapons that these were all that threatening. BECAUSE THEY ARE NEXT TO USELESS. If he did have them, we shouldn't worry that much.

EVEN IF HE HAD CHEMICAL OR BIO-WEAPONS, ITS NO BIG DEAL SINCE HE COULDN'T DO JACK WITH THEM.

5) That Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to "terrorists".

fact: al Quaeda is an organization that is devoted to overthrowing secular Arab leaders.

fact: Saddam Hussein was a secular Arab leader. What reason would he have for helping people committed to his own destruction?

fact: only an idiot would believe that Saddam would give a terrorist organization a nuclear weapon (if he ever got one) that he had spent millions of dollars and risked his life on. There is a reasonable chance of such a weapon being traced after its use and of Iraq being destroyed by massive retaliation. Again, not something Saddam would go for.

fact: if terrorists wanted chemical weapons they could make them themselves as the Aum cult did. There is no need for them to go begging to Saddam. In any case THEY DON'T WORK.

fact: if terrorists managed to get bio weapons there is little reason to think that they could do much more damage than the anthrax guy. The Aum cult tried bio weapons and guess what: THEY DIDN'T WORK. There's a reason 99% of funds go to nukes - NUKES WORK.

Unless Bush and Blair are complete morons, they know all this. They both deliberately gave the impression that Iraq was a threat. But even the most cursory visit to your local library and a basic knowledge of history and world politics is enough to show you that they were full of ****.

[Agathon]

And those people who say that Bush was misled by his intelligence agents.

If your intelligence agents told you that the Queen was an alien, would you believe them?