I guess the evidence is in.

[Brassmask]

Sirs,

It really is tiresome how you just continue to put up posts that say "Prove it!" when the guy is rating in the low to mid 30's and GOP candidates refuse to be seen in public with him.  The guy is a moron and what's worse, he's a dangerous, lying moron.

How you can continue to be one of his cult members is beyond me.  Decency counts.  Principle counts.

Look at how I've been fighting the Kossacks on Ford.  I have been called everything from a "concern troll" to a traitor over there and I have refused to back off putting Ford in a bad light every day and meeting every glowing Ford-loving diary with the latest of his outrages against the Democratic Party.

Party loyalty has ruined this country and cult like love of each party's candidate due to the letter behind their name is what is wrong with America and how we got ourselves into the messes we're in.  They allowed Bush to have the power to invade IRaq illegally.  He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  He said evidence from 20 years ago was evidence to invade IRaq.

On and on.  America knows it.  Well, most of America.  There are still the 35% out there of you crazed, cult members who will never, ever admit to Bush having lied even when he eventually resigns like his pattern predecessor, Nixon did and there are all sorts of hearings and people testifying that they lied.  Then Cheney will pardon him and he'll just fade away only to be paraded around eventually and have you cultists talking about what a great "statesman" he was but even that won't stick.

You know why?  Because we all know that Bush isn't fit to tie Nixon's shoes, much less follow in his footsteps.  Its like having Angelina Jolie come on TV and a little while later they show a pig with lipstick on.  Sure they both have on lipstick but it's not even remotely the same thing.

[Plane]

" He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  "



This is not right.

First you have to have ever been there.


I really don't think that President Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever , I prefer Reagan quite a bit.

But to falsely accuse him of lieing is a false accusation no matter how tenaciously you refuse to be swayed from it.

Invadeing Iraq was a good idea , much better than the alternatives , it was an expensive and painfilled choice , but the alternitives carried potential for even worse loss .

[Lanya]

from John Dean's column in FindLaw:
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. [.........]
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

and this is the one that always gets me:

WMD Just A Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz
By David Usborne
Independent
May 30, 2003

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found. [.........]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0530wmdexcuse.htm

[Plane]

Thanks Lanya but every word of it is moot.


What part of that couldn't have been said by President Clinton?
Or Senator Clinton for that matter.


Being wrong is not lieing , not at all.


And Where did the WMD go?

We still do not know.

[Lanya]

"We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others," Dobson said. "The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ."

"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."

I am of the opinion these people have no idea what they're talking about. Bringing Jesus down with him? A completely inane and ignorant notion. How can these people be leaders in the Christian community?

http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist-20061103288348488.html

I won't even quote a bit of this article. It is long.  It's about Haggard. Quite interesting.

[Michael Tee]

<<And Where did the WMD go?

<<We still do not know.>>

Of course you know.  That's just another one of Bush's lies.  In strict compliance with the UN-imposed deadline, the Iraqi government delivered a complete accounting of its WMD.  The small percentage of unaccounted for WMD was entirely consistent with normal human error in record-keeping over a long period of time.  Sorta like "corkage" in a tavern.

<<Thanks Lanya but every word of it is moot...>>

That's why it's no longer possible to take you and sirs seriously any more.  When a statement is made that Bush lied, a banshee-like wailing arises - - "not a shred of evidence," "mantra," "repeated endlessly," and of course demands for proof.  When proof in meticulous detail is presented, we get some lame-ass answer that "every word is moot." Period.  Case settled.  Who do you really think you are fooling?  Not me.  Not Lanya.   So what is the point of presenting evidence to someone who refuses to treat it seriously, who dismisses it in a one-liner?  No point.  None at all.

To add insult to injury, a few days will pass.  When another reference has to be made to Bush's lies, the same wall of bullshit arises, and we learn that despite repeated requests for proof that Bush lied, the "liberals" have never been able to come up with a shred of evidence.  IMHO, this is not only intellectual dishonesty (that goes hand-in-glove with being a conservative) but it's just plain rudeness as well.  Lanya can speak for herself, but I will tell you it is God-damn annoying to see somebody take the trouble to assemble the irrefutable proof of Bush's lies, only to be told, "Thanks, it's all moot."  The least that you owe Lanya is not a dismissive "Thanks" but some kind of reasoned response to her sources.

[Brassmask]

But to falsely accuse him of lieing is a false accusation

Oh I quite agree.  But I'm not "falsely accusing" him.  I"m factually accusing.  I can see how you'd come to your conclusion.

[BT]

If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?

As Plane has explained on numerous occasions, i think we are dealing with different definitions of what a lie is. What is yours?

[Michael Tee]

<<If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?>>

Speaking for myself only, my accusation was that Bush lied the country into war.  He LIED and because of the lie, the country went to WAR. 

While many politicians lie ("I did not have sex with that woman") there is only one recent case of a politician lying and bringing the country into a war on the basis of his lie.

So it's kind of a red herring to look to the cases of other politicians lying.

There's also an escalating degree of seriousness to be attached to the lie depending on where the liar stands in the pecking order.  When the guy is the leader of your nation and the Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces, the matter of his lying is somewhat more important than if he were only the junior Senator from Rhode Island.

Finally, an issue of lying can only be examined on a case-by-case basis.  There are many politicians, many lies are told.  To debate each and every politician on each and every lie is a pointless waste of everybody's time.  I think you are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in the cases of other politicians, each of whom has had different levels of access to incoming intelligence at different points of time.  You could spend a lifetime debating whether others have lied.  You could debate which TV anchors lied, which Hollywood actors.  Again, what is the point?

The main issue that overshadows all the others is whether the President of the U.S. lied to the nation in order to get support for a planned invasion of another country.  That's a serious matter and that's what you ought to be discussing.

[BT]

So it's kind of a red herring to look to the cases of other politicians lying.

I disagree. If Bush was lying about WMD's did all the other politicians who said WMD's were a problem in Iraq also lie? Apples to apples was Clinton lying about WMD's in 98? We aren't mitigating the WMD's lies if that is in fact what they are.


And what exactly is your definition of lie?


We are simply setting a baseline.

[Plane]

Ahhh ...


You are just being obtuse on purpose.


It is not anything like a lie , and Clintons both told the same thing.


You may say Lie x N and consider that the proof is in the frequent repitition , but if N=one hundred Billion and lie =0 you still have nothing.

And you do have nothing.

Lanya found a lot of Bush saying what he said and his advisors agreeing, it would be easy to doubble that list with all the statements of Bushes opponents who thought the same way because they had the same sorces .


Bush may have lies in his past , but you have not found ONE yet.


Much less many.

[Plane]

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. "



?


How about it does not at all suggest that the reasoning was an empty shell.

It does suggest that everyone could agree on WMD as the clearest reason because everyone was in agreement that it was true?

I do remember a few who didn't think so , but I think that most of the people involved did think so ,
genuinely.


So where is the LIE?

[Lanya]

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. "

?
How about it does not at all suggest that the reasoning was an empty shell.

It does suggest that everyone could agree on WMD as the clearest reason because everyone was in agreement that it was true?

I do remember a few who didn't think so , but I think that most of the people involved did think so ,
genuinely.
So where is the LIE?

______________________________________


"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

For bureaucratic reasons!   They "settled" on one issue!  Because the numbskulls could agree on it.

If there's no lie to it, they would just say that it was for reasons of national defense.  This sounds like the completely ass-backwards way they got us into this war: We want to attack Iraq. Find reasons to do so.
  You do understand that's not commonly the way people decide to go to war? Usually we have to have cause first, THEN decide to attack?
 
This sounds like they said, "Hey, here's one everyone can agree on: WMD! Sounds scary, it'll play in Peoria, we gave them some back in the 80s, yeah, that's the ticket!"       

[Plane]

No

It seems as if they had a multitude of reasons , and to avoid sounding scattered they picked the one that most universaly agreed on.


And that WMD was one of Saddams favorite projects before we began disarming him in 91 is a fact.


What was supposed to let us know he was such a pussycat? That he was so completely stripped?


It was Saddam that ejected the UN inspectors years before , untill he started to beleive that President Bush really could lead an attack as he said Saddam didn't let anyone know  what was going on with the WMD.

Saddam was claiming that thousands were dieing every month due to the Sanctions , but he wouldn't allow in the inspectors who could have lifted the sanctions by finding nothing during the Clinton years.

[Lanya]

Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.
And we said, "Oh no, we need ___________, this is insufficient. "  I can't remember what our objection was.  It was moot anyway---machinery of war was already started.  Jesus's return to Earth  could not have stopped that war, I don't think.