Mo links between Saddam and terrorism starting to emerge....

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Sure, Bush has made false statements. It doesn't make them lies, according to your own definition.

If you researched any of my posts on this forum you would realize that I'm far from a Bush supporter, but I do not appreciate arguements that aren't grounded in reality.

You must also realize that all the intelligence agencies around the world persuaded leading republicans, democrats, the president, and leaders of other countries that Saddam had these weapons, yet you are so quick to lay all the blame at the foot of Bush.

Why would he purposefully lie, knowing that it would make him look like a fool in the end?

Frank

As the definition of "lie" shows, it is any statement made intending to mislead. There are a variety of ways to do this, and Bush 9and his advisors) selectively picked out any and all intel that aligned with their pre-determined conclusions and ruled out more authoritative sources which disputed them. That way, they could claim that they were "misled by bad intel", but the truth is obvious to anyone with a brain.

Why would he lie? Simple. To accomplish his objectives which in this case was to topple the regime of the man who humiliated his father, was the direct cause of his lopsided defeat for re election, and by some sources, actually tried to generate a plot to kill his father.

Bush lies the same way all politicians lie: believeing they will have others to blame if the truth comes out.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I don't remember anyone claiming that he possesed 100% working nuclear devices.

Regarding your "brain" comment, you must believe that many of the world's leading intelligence agencies and everyone working for them don't have brains as well.

Frank

You forgot Condi's famous "mushroom cloud" hysteria? I never said he possessed a working nuke. I repeat: if Iraq had any active nuke development program, facilities which might lead to their having a nuke, or any WMD that could inflict mass casualties: Israel would have vaproized those facilities. The proof of that is history, just open your eyes and look.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

As the definition of "lie" shows, it is any statement made intending to mislead. There are a variety of ways to do this, and Bush 9and his advisors) selectively picked out any and all intel that aligned with their pre-determined conclusions and ruled out more authoritative sources which disputed them. That way, they could claim that they were "misled by bad intel", but the truth is obvious to anyone with a brain.

I bolded the key word for you. Again, please provide supporting evidence that Bush intended to mislead people. You can prove he made false statements, but you can't prove intent, which legally is usually required to prove perjury and lying.

Also, could you mind showing some evidence that supports you claim that Bush's advisers "selectively picked out any and all intel that aligned with their pre-determined conclusions and ruled out more authoritative sources which disputed them"?

Thanks again in advance,

Frank

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Regarding your "brain" comment, you must believe that many of the world's leading intelligence agencies and everyone working for them don't have brains as well.

That's a non sequitir which flows from the assumption that I believe the admin BS that the world's "leading intellignece agencies" believed Iraq had an active nuke program within any reasonable distance of success.

That's one of the many lies the admin peddles regarding that issue.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

You forgot Condi's famous "mushroom cloud" hysteria? I never said he possessed a working nuke. I repeat: if Iraq had any active nuke development program, facilities which might lead to their having a nuke, or any WMD that could inflict mass casualties: Israel would have vaproized those facilities. The proof of that is history, just open your eyes and look.

Who are you arguing with? Did anyone claim that he possed a 100% working nuclear device?

Why do you keep making that point if nobody ever claimed that in the first place?

Frank

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I guess it is all about public perception



The purpose of our entry has changed over time. Not many will argue this point.

Amen brother.... if you don't like the reason we invaded, just wait. New reasons are fabricated daily....


1) He was about to have the MUSHROOM CLOUD!

No nuke program? Ok...

2) He had stockpiles of WMD like VX and other chems!

No WMD's? OK...

3) He was harboring and supporting Al Qaeda!

What, they were actually enemies?

4) He was a bad man who killed people.....

Well, that one is true. But they fail to mention a lot of the people he killed were people we wanted killed, like when he slaughtered all those Iranians in the surrogate war Reagan fought to get even for Iran's humiliation of the USA (remeber the embassy hostages?)

So, it's kind of a hollow reason for a Bush to suddenly realize Hussein is a bad guy when his daddy was VP at the time Hussein was gassing civilians by the thousands with their quiet blessing.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Who are you arguing with? Did anyone claim that he possed a 100% working nuclear device?

Why do you keep making that point if nobody ever claimed that in the first place?

Frank

So, then why is it you were the one who raised the issue?

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40 View Post
I don't remember anyone claiming that he possesed 100% working nuclear devices.

And, it's a semantic difference to say nobody claimed it was a WORKING device if the admin is selling the hysteria with speeches about MUSHROOM clouds.

How does that work:

CONDI: "Well..... OK, I did say they were about to have a mushroom cloud, but I didn't say exactly WHEN......"

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I bolded the key word for you. Again, please provide supporting evidence that Bush intended to mislead people. You can prove he made false statements, but you can't prove intent, which legally is usually required to prove perjury and lying.

Dude, try reading my posts. I'll repeat it for you:

I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

That's a non sequitir which flows from the assumption that I believe the admin BS that the world's "leading intellignece agencies" believed Iraq had an active nuke program within any reasonable distance of success.

That's one of the many lies the admin peddles regarding that issue.

BLATANTLY FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!

I guess you selectively forget history whenever it doesn't conform with your own internal bias.

FOXNews.com - Panel: Global Intel Failure Led to Iraq WMD Belief - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

CNN.com - Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong' - Apr 1, 2005

U.S., Brits Defend Prewar Intel, Expert Tells House Panel That Admin. Pressed Him On Intelligence - CBS News

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of

Several agencies were all wrong regarding the pre-war intel.

If there weren't lots of agencies claiming that, then why did everyone think it?

Why did even anti-war democrats believe he had wmd?

And yes, I have a brain.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

Dude, try reading my posts. I'll repeat it for you:



I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

By proving there was intent to deceive.

Don't you know the difference between a false statement and an intended false statement?

You haven't proved anyone intended to decieve anyone.

I could say something that was wrong without knowing it was wrong and I wouldn't be lying because I didn't intend to deceive anyone.

Please try again; I'll give you another chance. Please don't make me post the definition of intent.

Frank