This sums it all up real well

[Michael Tee]

<<Is thre an objective measurement for the quality of proofs?>>

I would say, yes.

1.  Universal acceptance of a fact (Albany is the capital of New York state)
2.  Credibility of the source of the report (past reputation, confirmation from other sources, internal consistency and coherence, motivation, personal interest in the subject matter, known associates and sponsors, etc.)
3.  Plausibility of the story, does it accord with our own life experiences or run counter to them?
4.  Consistency - - how many times has the guy's story changed?  ("We're in Iraq because of the threat of its WMD, no, to bring democracy, no, because the whole fucking place will fall apart without us, no, because we can't let the "terrorists" take it over, no because . . . ")
5.  Experience and common sense - - this is very important.  IMO, the most important - - does it make sense?  If it happened the way they say it did, what else would you have expected to have happened, what else that did happen would you have expected not to have happened?  How did similar situations play out, and if this story is different, why would you expect or not expect it to be so different?  This is sometimes referred to as "the smell test."

[Michael Tee]

T<<he fatal flaw to your timeline here is that the FIRST time you tried pulling this, was largely with a big finger pointing at some Bush Lied web site. >>

Uhh, actually not.  The topic of Bush and his lies has been a perennial favourite in this group for as long as Bush has been around, ever since he stole his first Presidential election.  I and others have posted numerous examples.

<< Like you'd say "ok" for anyone else pulling up a Newsmax web site as the end all for proving innocence.  >>

Wrong again.  Many times I have gone as directed to right-wing sites and examined their evidence.  Usually it's hilarious and I have a great time with it.  They're a lot of fun to pick apart although "Newsmax" itself doesn't ring a bell.

<<You actually refused to pick it a lie, just basically told everyone to go there.  >>

That was sporting of me - - with so many lies to choose from, I allowed you to pick at the weakest (in your perception) pup in the litter.

<<Plane had no problem pulling just one of those lies out and showing it for the sham that it was. >>

He did?  Funny I don't remember it that way.  Leaving what?  999 more lies completely unexamined and uncontested?  Notice it was plane who went there, YOU wouldn't bestir your lazy ass.

<< Let's move along the time line here now>>

Right, how many times can you shoot yourself in the same foot?

<<Your "back-up" has been consistently and systematically debunked. >>

Haw Haw Haw.  Declare victory, hit enter.

<< Now you can sit there, jump up and down and claim I'm simply doing the same thing, by saying such.  >>

So even YOU are starting to see through your own bullshit.

<<Difference is I, Plane, Ami, Bt, can all back it up, by doing it all again.  >>

Better let them speak for themselves, but their defence of Bush's honesty was never any more successful than yours. 

<<When I originally posted this challenge . . . >>

Proving that Bush lied is a challenge?  Proving that water runs downhill is more of a challenge.

<< . . . only Brass made an effort . . . >>

He's a good-natured guy.  I was sick and tired of posting the same stuff over and over again, only to be told a week later, as if I had posted nothing at all, that there was "not a shred of evidence."

<< . . . to which it was shot out of the water pretty quick. >>

You're definitely the marksman.  In your dreams.

<< The 2nd go around, we got your Bush lied link.  >>

That should give you plenty to work on.  Oh, I forgot - - you're the moron who prefers the "You're a bare-faced liar" argument.  Much less work.

<<The 3rd time was your paltry effort to claim Bush lied about WMD, which also was shot down. >>

Yeah?  Shoot this down, muthafucka:

<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 <<President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
The East Room

<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . .
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

<<Consistently every one of your supposed "back-ups" was debunked for what it was, a plethora of weak accusatory innuendo, with prescious little valid circumstantial evidence.>>

ahh, Jesus, sirs, if you don't stop smoking that stuff it will stunt your growth.

<<Actually the lack of "shreds" is more in line with proof.  I realize you have miniscules of circumstantial evidence.  I believe there's circumstantial evidence that could be presented that Elvis is still alive.  >>

Let's see.  The wisdom of sirs:  "There is circumstantial evidence that could prove Elvis is alive.  But Elvis is NOT alive.  Therefore circumstantial evidence is wrong."  I'm sorry sirs, but this is NOT your year to win the Nobel Prize for jurisprudential studies.

<<Your problem is the overwhelming circumstnatial evidence to the contrary . . . >>

Oh, yeah, what "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" would THAT be?

<< . . .  the direct evidence to the contrary>>

And that direct evidence would be what, the word of the "President" and his handlers that everything is all one big coincidence and that they weren't really lying and didn't really steal the election?

<< and this reality's parameters for common sense.  >>

Common sense was that Bush was really afraid that if he didn't invade Iraq, Iraq would attack the U.S.A.?  That brother Jeb just coincidentally scheduled a state-wide police check for fake driver documents for election day in black neighbourhoods?  Common sense is actually the WEAKEST link in your argument.  I wouldn't even MENTION common sense if I were you.  It's the only thing that remains to connect the dots when these guys lie and conceal what they really did.

<<When you continually ignore all that and keep claiming as if it's a documented certainty that Bush lied . . . >>

Well, calm down here.  I never claimed documented certainty, only that it's by far the likeliest explanation of otherwise bizarre and improbable events.

<<THAT lie is going to be exposed for the lie that it is.  and no amount of repeating it is going to make it any more valid that when 1st tried >>

Well there isn't going to be any more repeating it because I am getting a little sick and tired of having to waste my time in here defending myself against your bullshit accusations of lying.

<<The molehill of "evidence" you chose to rely on while ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary. >>

There IS no "mountain of evidence" to the contrary, just a wall of lying bullshit from the "President," his right-wing commentator-allies and flacks and that rapidly-dwindling band of morons who still believe his BS.

<< My apologies for you choosing to take this as some personal attack. >>

What, being called a bare-faced liar?  Don't worry about it, happens all the time, that's what everybody calls me.  All the time, every day.  All over the world.  FUCK YOU  and fuck your "apology."

 <<It was an attack, but it was on the preponderance of the lies you keep perpetuating regarding Bush & American military, not on you. >>

[Huh?  Maybe he's not responsible for what he's saying.  Maybe he's just crazy.]

<<Beyond that, I can't control how you're going to feel.>>

That's not your problem, sirs, I feel fine and every time you try your sleazy tactic of "debate by character assassination" I'll smack you down one more time and feel better and when I've had enough of the endless debate over my own character, I'll find a group that has more interesting topics to offer.

[sirs]

We'll make this simple, even for Tee to comprehend

Yeah?  Shoot this down, muthafucka:

<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 <<President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
The East Room

<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . .
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

So, how's it a LIE? 

Hint, you have yet to show, with any assemblence of evidence, that Bush knew that Saddam's WMD were no longer present, that the intel had concluded were.  So, how is your above bwahahahahah, minus the incoherent rant, a supposed documented lie??  And where's the connection to 911, with Saddam's fingerprints supposedly all over it??

This is where that black hole of a void in backing up your claims come from.  Leaving us with your Tee version connecting of non-existant dots 

[Lanya]

Michael, keep writing here, please.  We would be poorer for your loss. 
That was a great rebuttal.  I've given up, because it is still true that you can lead a horse to water (truth, knowledge) but you can't make him drink. 

[Michael Tee]

<<So, how's it a LIE?  >>

How's it a lie?  Let me count the ways.

First there is the entire improbability that SADDAM HUSSEIN would attack the USA with nukes.  Saddam, who wouldn't even take on the US conventional army to conventional army in Kuwait, when he had a huge oil field at stake was, when he was greatly weakened and out of the Kuwaiti oil fields completely was suddenly going to take on the suicidal enterprise of attacking the US with nukes?  Even YOU should know better.

<<Hint, you have yet to show, with any assemblence of evidence, that Bush knew that Saddam's WMD were no longer present, that the intel had concluded were.>>

The intel that was cooked to order?  The intel that could all be traced back to the same Iraqi National Congress source?  The intel that relied upon crudely and obviously forged documents?  THAT intel?

ROTFLMFAO

Keep digging the same hole, keep falling in head first.  Don't you schmucks ever learn anything?  Is there some kind of contest going on that I don't know anything about, "Be the Last Dumb Guy in America to Still Believe in Bush's Bullshit?"  What's the First Prize?  A one-way trip to Anbar Province with an AK-47, a three-day supply of ammo and a cyanide capsule?

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael, keep writing here, please.  We would be poorer for your loss. >>

Thanks, Lanya, as long as sirs and the others stick to the issues and avoid the personal attacks, there isn't much danger of me leaving.  I'm having a great time here and I have to thank sirs for lobbing those great, slow pitches right over the plate at belly-button level.
 
<<That was a great rebuttal.  I've given up, because it is still true that you can lead a horse to water (truth, knowledge) but you can't make him drink.>>

That was my dad's favourite comment and it's true but I actually figure that what I write is more for the onlookers than the ostensible target because most of those guys will never learn and never change.  What I'd really love to understand is how they got that way in the first place.  Parental influence naturally, but why did they never grow?

[sirs]

<<So, how's it a LIE?  >>

How's it a lie?  Let me count the ways.

First there is the entire improbability that SADDAM HUSSEIN would attack the USA with nukes.  Saddam, who wouldn't even take on the US conventional army to conventional army in Kuwait, when he had a huge oil field at stake was, when he was greatly weakened and out of the Kuwaiti oil fields completely was suddenly going to take on the suicidal enterprise of attacking the US with nukes?  Even YOU should know better.

Reading for comprehension issues I see.  Or at least in this case, the continued out-of-context approach to claiming Bush lies.  Kinda like the Mission Accomplished lie.  Well, to folks with a grasp of what Bush was saying, especially as it relates to why we went into Iraq, his comments are perfectly in line with that reality.  Intel said Saddam had WMD.  Saddam had used WMD.  Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911.  Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"

At least most sane people understood that

<<Hint, you have yet to show, with any assemblence of evidence, that Bush knew that Saddam's WMD were no longer present, that the intel had concluded were.>>

The intel that was cooked to order?  The intel that could all be traced back to the same Iraqi National Congress source?  The intel that relied upon crudely and obviously forged documents?  THAT intel?

ROTFLMFAO

Boy, must be nice to be able completely disregard massive amounts of direct evidence to the contrary of your molehill of an accusation.  then again, that's what we've been able to establish now, your ability to chose what YOU think is valid, while disregarding all else.....which amazingly is everything that happens to contradict your already made up mind of what is, is  Strangely it also doesn't demonstrate any ioda of evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD.  Zip, nada, zilch

So back to your query, no, as I'm referring to the global intel that corroborated our intel.  The British intel, the Geman intel, the French intel, the UN's intel, the Israeli intel, ....and oh yea, Clinton's intel.  ALL THAT intel.  Or are we back to claiming it was one big massive lie by all of them?  At the behest of then Governor Bush?  This again is the abyss of supposed "back-up" of yours, I'd be referring to again

[_JS]

Intel said Saddam had WMD.  Saddam had used WMD.  Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911.  Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"

Oooh oooh, I want to play.

The United States has WMD.
The United States has used WMD.
The United States has supported terrorists.
Therefore the United States is a direct threat to the United States and to all free people.

The United Kingdom has WMD.
The United Kingdom has used WMD.
The United Kingdom has supported terrorists.
Therefore the United Kingdom is a direct threat to our country.

Wow Sirs. That is some incredible logic you've stumbled upon there. Aristotle and Kant would be proud I'm sure.

[sirs]

Oooh oooh, I want to play....snip...

Cute.  So, when did we start supporting directly & indirectly the same terrorists that would then use our own WMD on ourselves?  Apply that to the UK next 

This should be interesting

[_JS]

So, when did we start supporting directly & indirectly the same terrorists that would then use our own WMD on ourselves?

When did Iraq start supporting the same terrorists that then use their own WMD on themselves?

You supplied the template for the syllogism, I just filled in the details.

[sirs]

So, when did we start supporting directly & indirectly the same terrorists that would then use our own WMD on ourselves?

When did Iraq start supporting the same terrorists that then use their own WMD on themselves?

You supplied the template for the syllogism, I just filled in the details.

No, you tweaked the template, to suit your own purpose.  I then applied your template to find out how illogical you could go. 

Iraq has been shown to have had both direct and indirect connections with terrorists, including AlQeada.  Saddam did have WMD.  The potential for Terrorists getting their hands on such WMD is precisely the threat Bush was referring to in Tee's supposed "bwahahahahahah" Bush lie.

As I said before, most rational people understood that concept

[_JS]

I did no such thing.

Intel said Saddam had WMD.  Saddam had used WMD.  Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911.  Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"

That was your syllogism. I applied the same standard to the United States and United Kingdom. The only factor you used for terrorists was "connections."

The problem with logic is clearly on your end.

A: Saddam had WMD
B: Saddam used WMD
C: Saddam had connections with terrorists.
D: WMD in hands of terrorists is a threat.
E: (implied) Therefore Saddam (Iraq) was a threat.

Wash, rinse, repeat with the United States and United Kingdom. You attached a "which" statement that is conditional, and if I really wanted to be picky about it the first statement you made was indirect (i.e. "intel said") which could lead to a plethora of illogical conclusions.

The poor use of logic in this case is all on you. Look at the leap from B to C, C to D, and D to E. Saddam had WMD. Saddam used WMD (so have many other nations). Saddam had connections with terrorists ("connections" is an ambiguous word at best and many nations and leaders have had such dealings with terrorists). WMD in hands of terrorists is a threat (obvious statements, but doesn't relate to Iraq specifically in any way). Therefore Saddam is a threat (there was no indication that Hussein was ever going to provide any terrorist organisation with WMD).

Poor logic? Looks like you wrote the book.

[sirs]

I did no such thing.

Intel said Saddam had WMD.  Saddam had used WMD.  Saddam had connections with terrorists, which included the same group that orchestrated 911.  Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people"

That was your syllogism. I applied the same standard to the United States and United Kingdom. The only factor you used for terrorists was "connections."

No, that was actually part of the chain of thought process.  You then chose to make it a game.  The point still stands unrefuted --> Iraq has been shown to have had both direct and indirect connections with terrorists, including AlQeada.  Saddam did have WMD.  The potential for Terrorists getting their hands on such WMD is precisely the threat Bush was referring to in Tee's supposed "bwahahahahahah" Bush lie.

The only folks that can find that illogical are the folks so bent on being Anti-war, Anti-Bush &/or Anti-american, they refuse to grasp the concept.  Which group would you be?  And you'll note, there's plenty of criticism that can be leveled at Bush, both on if it was justified to go to war, or how the post Saddam effort has been handled.  But for those that have thrown all reason and rational thought aside to push the Bush lied us into war garbage, those would be the folks perfecting the illogic book, you referred to earlier

[Plane]

"First there is the entire improbability that SADDAM HUSSEIN would attack the USA with nukes.  Saddam, who wouldn't even take on the US conventional army to conventional army in Kuwait.."


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Saddam knew he would loose , but he still fought us and talked a good game untill the fight was surely lost.

Quaddifi attacked us in what he hoped would be a secret way, this is not an improbable choice for Saddam to make .

The anchient adadge is to not strike a wasp gently because the wasp however wounded will sting but the dead one will not.

If Saddam had been set free of sanctions his actions might not have been warlike , probably would not have looked warlike from the outside , but I challenge your assertion that an attack from Saddam was "Improbable".

[Xavier_Onassis]

Saddam, or more specifically, Saddam's Iraq was not a wasp. A wasp you can kill, not a country.

It was highly unlikely that Saddam could have lauched any attack on the US proper, although US assets in the area were possible targets. Saddam was largely bluster. We saw this throughout his trial.