Read the SOTU address for 2003; I think there is but one brief mention of WMDs. Most of the rationale for needing to do something in Iraq is about the brutal dictator. Look at the section basso quotes; GWB is outright saying that the threat is not imminent! Talk about spin....
If that had been the ONLY WMD claim, you might have a point, but before the SOU, administration officials had made round after round on the talking head shows to hype the growing WMD threat from Iraq. They were claiming that Saddam was planning on selling to terrorists (later shown to be untrue), that they were loading unmanned drones with the stuff (proven false), and that the weapons were deployed and ready to attack their neighbors (absolutely false). The Niger claim in the SOU was the proverbial straw for me and pushed me over after hearing about all of the "intelligence" that had been gathered. Again, spin it all you want, but remember that there is more than the SOU that went into making the case for war.
andymoon: I'm just trying to figure out how a very timid claim in the SOTU2003 is what pushed you over the edge. I don't recall any of those other claims being made with certainty. They were presented as possibilities... even eventual likelihoods. They are not beyond any reason.
At the end of the following article, there is a bold section to take note of. Rumsfeld actually said that they knew where the WMDs were. That was one of the big ones for me. I thought he was saying that not only were there WMDs, but that we had intelligence that was SO good that the US knew FOR A FACT where those WMDs were. Now, he says he sometimes overstates for "emphasis." They lied, misstated, overstated, and exaggerated and you expect me to believe a word they say? They are ADMITTING that they did these things and you are defending them. If perjury is such a huge crime as to warrant an impeachment, what does lying to start a war get you? Nothing if you're a Republican, I guess.
Basso, You gave us the SOTU speech and I am going to cut some relevant stuff. Here is a claim that Saddam has kept arming himself with WMDs for the entire 12 years since GWI. He can't exactly lay out and destroy something he doesn't have, can he? Sounds like we invaded because Saddam didn't complete his paperwork. Paperwork is important, but is it important enough to start a war? Again, the US and UN SAY that they have intelligence that Iraq has these weapons and the violation is that Saddam didn't document their disposal. He gave no evidence that they had been destroyed, but we have provided no evidence THAT THEY EVER EXISTED. Clearly. He goes on to hype the WMD claim even more and also to try to link Saddam to 9/11, a claim which has also been debunked. We threatened to invade Iraq TO DISARM SADDAM. Bush mentioned some other humanitarian concerns, but the reason he gave that we would be invading was to disarm them. And as was mentioned in another thread, we IGNORED Iraq's efforts to work this out peacefully and WE are the ones who forced this war, on Iraq, on the world, and on the American people. All over lies.
Yeah, that's right I like to murder and torture people and children. I am happy with that. That's the way I want it. There's nothing I like after a hard days work more then torture. What is torture is the fact that assholes like Wolfowitz say such things(well you opposed the war? THerfore you are a child killer!) and that people such as yourself repeat them. Why don't YOU go back and read the speeches again, humanitarian aspects are given lip service, yes, wonderful, but if you think that the but/for cause/selling/planning of this war was not the WMD line which we were fed over and over again, you are delusional. Look at the very excerpt you quoted; there's like 10+ paragraphs about WMD, 1 or 2 throwaway paragraphs on human rights. So yeah, it was about human rights...way to cover the bases. Now, you tell me what the rationale is again? I'll be in the basement torturing children so I'll check you out later.
It is my experience that when people talk about Saddam and WMDs, they are really talking about nuclear WMDs. That is what was unknown; he is known to have had and used bio/chem WMDs. Those are not what I was referring to. The Niger hysteria referred to nukes and nothing else; isn't that the knot in the hanging rope?
That was the "knot" as you put it, but LOOK AT ALL THE ROPE HE USED IN THE SOTU ALONE! Add to that all the press conferences and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on all the talking heads shows and all the leaks about intelligence we had on WMDs. We were saturated with talk of WMDs in Iraq and now they (and you) just want to be left alone about it. I am sorry that I can't leave it alone when I was lied to to get me to support a war. I remember seeing Clinton that night and saying to myself "he should not have claimed that he didn't have sex with her." I was sorely disappointed in my President when he looked at me in the eye (sort of) and lied to me flat out. I knew he was lying, so did everybody else. Now Bush has done the same thing only this time A WAR CAME OF IT!
I am not asking to be left alone about it. I think President Bush et al spoke very cautiously about nuclear WMDs. People get sloppy talking about this. WMDs is a broad subject. Nuclear is one thing; bio/chem is another but usually in the conversation no distinction is made. I don't find Rumsfeld's truncation of his remarks as lying; if you believe your intelligence to be true, you live that truth.
People do get sloppy, such people as the Vice President and the National Security Adviser: not much caution there....whoops....
"is reconstituting... is actively pursuing ... <b>has, in fact, reconstituted</b>... is actively pursuing ... actively trying to pursue ..." All but <b>one</b> use the present progressive tense (I think). That implies ongoing activity which has been indicated by hard-earned intelligence. One statement ("has constituted") uses a past tense which makes it sound already accomplished. This last one could easily be a misspoken phrase. I don't know the context. At any rate, it's certainty is overwhelmed by the tentativeness of the other examples. In other words, nothing is imminent. Everything (except one) is formulative.
No distinction necessary for me. When they were talking about WMDs, I was thinking of chemical/biological weapons until the claims about nucular (lol) weapons started cropping up. I was convinced that our troops were going to have to invade through clouds of sarin and VX. The nuclear claims were what pushed me over the edge, but not before I had been driven there by all the OTHER WMD claims that preceded. Lies, misstatements, and exaggerations have been the hallmark of this administration. Every time we turn around, there seems to be another official saying that they misspoke. Day after day we are treated to the repressive policies of this administration as they stonewall on requests for information, spin the stuff they can, and lie about the rest. GWBs version of the Serenity Prayer: God, grant me power to cover up the things I cannot spin, The strength in Congress to spin the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. Amen
And so far each of these claims has been proven to be false. So I guess it just depends on what the definition of "is" is.
In normal daily living, you would be much more cautious about calling someone a liar. Can you prove any of these assertions that you are making? That's cute, the is thingy but it is off-target. As Rush says, "words have meaning." Cheney's remarks (except the one) echo no certainty just speculation. Call it certainty if you want, but that <b>would</b> be lying.
Sam, i appreciate the outrage, but i didn't say you wanted to murder women and children, but rather that not acting would've left saddam in place to do same. you can't have it both ways. you can't say "oh, the war was unjustified, bush lied, we shouldn't have invaded and violated iraqi sovereignity" and ignore the logical consequence of those actions. had we not invaded, saddam would still be in power, murding, raping, and torturing. there is no third choice. unless you believe UN weapons inspectors would bother themselves about such "trivial" human rights violations. i respect your opposition to the war, misguided though it is. but you should at least be honest with yourself about the consequences had we stayed out.
If Dubya would have used this as the rationale behind invading Iraq, I would have supported it. I'm sure others that were against the war would have as well. He didn't. He used WMD as the rationale behind invading Iraq. Now that no WMD have been found, those in power are dancing as fast as they can to justify invading Iraq by using the rationale that they should have used in the first place. Revisionist History? Fair and Balanced? We report and you decide!
So, since he only actually lied once, the rest of the misstatements and exaggerations should be ignored? I don't think so. All you have to do is lie once and you are a liar, yes. It was that way with Clinton and it is that way with Bush. Rumsfeld stated that they knew where the WMDs were for a certainty, Bush claimed that they were trying to buy uranium, and Cheney actually claimed that Iraq had an active nuclear program going. How many lies, misstatements, and exaggerations do you need before you will open your eyes (and more importantly, your mind)?
