Bush Knew Saddam had no WMDs.

[Adrian Laguna]

If we are just talking about casus belli, then the United States did, in fact, have an ironclad case, WMDs or no. Saddam Hussein had breached the terms of the ceasefire, which automatically allows legal resumption of hostilities. However, just because we could legally go to war doesn't mean we should have.

[Patrick Degan]

If we are just talking about casus belli, then the United States did, in fact, have an ironclad case, WMDs or no. Saddam Hussein had breached the terms of the ceasefire, which automatically allows legal resumption of hostilities. However, just because we could legally go to war doesn't mean we should have.

Not this again.

Not this bullshit which has been repeatedly smacked up, down and sideways so many times there isn't hardly a single smelly particle of it left in one cohesive smear on the grass.

Since you evidently missed out on the earlier threads in which a certain imbecile in this parts attempted that same bit of idiocy four years ago, the long-and-short of it is: NONE OF THE U.N. RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN REGARDS TO IRAQ INCLUDED AN AUTOMATIC TRIPWIRE-CLAUSE FOR WAR. Breaching the ceasefire did not make an automatic condition for resuming hostilities and does not lend Mr. Bush's War even the pretense of legality.

I suggest you read the previous threads on this issue as well as the texts of the actual U.N.S.C. resolutions before attempting to make such a silly argument again.

[Vympel]

Not this again.

Not this bullshit which has been repeatedly smacked up, down and sideways so many times there isn't hardly a single smelly particle of it left in one cohesive smear on the grass.

Since you evidently missed out on the earlier threads in which a certain imbecile in this parts attempted that same bit of idiocy four years ago, the long-and-short of it is: NONE OF THE U.N. RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN REGARDS TO IRAQ INCLUDED AN AUTOMATIC TRIPWIRE-CLAUSE FOR WAR. Breaching the ceasefire did not make an automatic condition for resuming hostilities and does not lend Mr. Bush's War even the pretense of legality.

I suggest you read the previous threads on this issue as well as the texts of the actual U.N.S.C. resolutions before attempting to make such a silly argument again.

Thanks Patrick, I was about to fucking lose it.

[Adrian Laguna]

Since you evidently missed out on the earlier threads in which a certain imbecile in this parts attempted that same bit of idiocy four years ago,

I do believe that I was not a member of the this forum four years ago.

the long-and-short of it is: NONE OF THE U.N. RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN REGARDS TO IRAQ INCLUDED AN AUTOMATIC TRIPWIRE-CLAUSE FOR WAR. Breaching the ceasefire did not make an automatic condition for resuming hostilities and does not lend Mr. Bush's War even the pretense of legality.

*shrug*
What I understand on the matter is that violating the terms of a cease fire, any ceasefire, is grounds for resumption of hostilities.

I suggest you read the previous threads on this issue as well as the texts of the actual U.N.S.C. resolutions before attempting to make such a silly argument again.

Well, the UNSC resolutions would be quite irrelevant to my point. But I'll consider looking at earlier threads.

[Patrick Degan]

What I understand on the matter is that violating the terms of a cease fire, any ceasefire, is grounds for resumption of hostilities.

That works for maybe within a limited scope: such as the suspension of a battle or a surrender negotiation of one army to another during the prosecution of a larger war. In practical terms, however, where nations which have been in ceasefire for several years, it is up to the UNSC to authorise a new war and only under certain terms laid down in international law, informed by the experience of two world wars. This is not 1896.

the UNSC resolutions would be quite irrelevant to my point. But I'll consider looking at earlier threads.

They are not irrelevant if you're going to attempt to argue legalities in relation to this issue.

[Axis Kast]

How is this particular revelation evidence that Bush lied? He'd already come to a conclusion. You can fault him for bad logic and poor intellectual practice. Gambling when the stakes were too high.

On the other hand, Shep is correct. Bush had a lot of circumstantial evidence and a context that pegged Saddam as possessing WMD programs, or hiding their true extent (which, given the post-9/11 emphasis on eliminating even minor threats, was considered the same thing). As former intelligence official Mark Lowenthal argued, in 2002, the U.N. debate was about whether war was merited by Saddam's possession of WMD, not over whether he had them. It was easy for Bush to feel secure in his conclusions. Whether he should have is another matter. Yet one cannot conclude that, by choosing to discredit documents tendered by one individual in a notoriously personalistic government, Bush lied or hid the truth in that instance.

[SirNitram]

How is this particular revelation evidence that Bush lied? He'd already come to a conclusion. You can fault him for bad logic and poor intellectual practice. Gambling when the stakes were too high.

You're a looney, aren't you? He committed a lie by omission by failing to let people know this. And I can fault him for more than that; it takes criminal incompetence to reach this level, but, yes. Failing to include relevent info is, in fact, lie by omission.

[Patrick Degan]

How is this particular revelation evidence that Bush lied? He'd already come to a conclusion. You can fault him for bad logic and poor intellectual practice. Gambling when the stakes were too high.

On the other hand, Shep is correct. Bush had a lot of circumstantial evidence and a context that pegged Saddam as possessing WMD programs blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

You just never tire of making a fool of yourself over the same discredited arguments you've gotten your ass kicked over time after time after time, do you, Tiger-Boy?

[wautd]

Well at least he still hasn't got sex with another women yet. That's the worst thing that could happen after all
(well that or with another man)

[Axis Kast]

Failing to include relevent info is, in fact, lie by omission.

Bush is not legally obligated to inform the American public of the basis on which he counts or discounts intelligence.

Based on the facts at hand, you have not made the successful case that Bush is guilty of anything but bad policy practice. Intelligence products can be flawed. Policymakers often discount intelligence that does not meet their preconcieved "gut read" of the situation. They can and should be held accountable for that, but to suggest that Bush should have enumerated each and every piece in the puzzle in terms of how he read the intelligence is to set the bar ridiculously (and unachievably) high. Colin Powell and others were not about to stand up and go throught reams of intelligence data, explaining the hows and whys of the vetting process. Very often, analysts conduct that kind of thing on their own; the end user has little exposure to the specifics of those decisions. Also, given that Bush was recieving reports contrary to what this one said, it is harder to argue anything but false optimism. There is no objective standard as to what can or should be believed. Why is Report A better than Report B? And while Tenet pushed this issue once, he subsequently dropped it, and therefore becomes guilty of knuckling under. Meeting with only limited resistance tends to embolden individuals who have the wrong idea.

You have fixed on this issue because you believe it would have broken the case for war, which is something you, personally, want.

[K. A. Pital]

Bush is not legally obligated to inform the American public of the basis on which he counts or discounts intelligence.

What is the basis? His personal will to invade Iraq, as it became clear.

[Patrick Degan]

Axi, is it REALLY going to be necessary for one of us to link to the several threads on which you attempted this very same bullshit argument you're now trying to trot out yet again, and for which you got your ass kicked between your shoulder-blades multiple times?

Also, I'm not quite sure, but is there some sort of posting-rule covering this sort of thing...?

[SirNitram]

Failing to include relevent info is, in fact, lie by omission.

Bush is not legally obligated to inform the American public of the basis on which he counts or discounts intelligence.

So, finding yourself unable to refute the fact he lied, you will now quibble over legalities. Were you literate, you would see I did not say he committed a crime by lying. I simply said he lied by a lie of omission. I did not say this was criminal, nor actionable.

So you can take your nitpicking and ram it up your ass, you pathetic turd.

[Axis Kast]

What is the basis? His personal will to invade Iraq, as it became clear.

Actually, the real question there is what about Iraq made it so appealing to Bush as the national security threat par excellence.

Also, I'm not quite sure, but is there some sort of posting-rule covering this sort of thing...?

Are you actually going to join the conversation on the topic at hand, or snipe from the peanut gallery, as usual?

There’s definitely a rule about vendettas.

So, finding yourself unable to refute the fact he lied, you will now quibble over legalities. Were you literate, you would see I did not say he committed a crime by lying. I simply said he lied by a lie of omission. I did not say this was criminal, nor actionable.

The first post of this thread demands impeachment, implying that Bush is guilty of a crime.

But even beyond the question of whether he is guilty of anything but bad judgment, I ask you again: why was this particular report that Iraq had nothing more credible than other reports that Iraq had something, at the time?

Why ought Bush have believed Iraq’s foreign minister about technical programs? Saddam was notorious for keeping his cards close to his chest. Even the international community thought he had something.

[SirNitram]

So, finding yourself unable to refute the fact he lied, you will now quibble over legalities. Were you literate, you would see I did not say he committed a crime by lying. I simply said he lied by a lie of omission. I did not say this was criminal, nor actionable.

The first post of this thread demands impeachment, implying that Bush is guilty of a crime.

Thank you for confirming your illiteracy, Axis. Hell, you'd have to be blind to mistake Einy for me, given the non-written differences.

But even beyond the question of whether he is guilty of anything but bad judgment, I ask you again: why was this particular report that Iraq had nothing more credible than other reports that Iraq had something, at the time?

What were the credible reports that there were weapons there, again? Wasn't the weapons inspectors, wasn't the intel from this, wasn't other countries...

You see, little boy, this has been done to death. We knew it was fabricated. This just nicely removes doubts on whether he flat out lied.

Why ought Bush have believed Iraq’s foreign minister about technical programs? Saddam was notorious for keeping his cards close to his chest. Even the international community thought he had something.

Except the people with training to look, you know, the weapon inspection teams. Yet in your syphilis-corroded brain, these people obviously aren't credible.

Once again, you obsess over what he's guilty of. But this is because you're a little fuckup who can't actually tell who writes what.

[Durandal]

So Iraq's military, which was so fragmented and dysfunctional that Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves during the initial invasion, was also a military capable of undertaking, sustaining and making progress with nuclear and chemical weapons research? Please.

The Bush people knew that the Iraqi military was a shell of its former self and wouldn't amount to much resistance during the initial invasion. Hell it's about the only thing they were right about. That they could plan for steamrolling such a pushover while crying about how that same pushover was a threat to our national security is pretty indicative that they were lying from the beginning.

Is anyone really that surprised?

[The Yosemite Bear]

old news to everybody.

[Axis Kast]

Thank you for confirming your illiteracy, Axis. Hell, you'd have to be blind to mistake Einy for me, given the non-written differences.

My point, you dolt, was that I figured your contribution to the conversation was taking into account the guiding call of the thread.

What were the credible reports that there were weapons there, again? Wasn't the weapons inspectors, wasn't the intel from this, wasn't other countries...

In 2002, the debate at the international level (i.e., in the U.N.) was over whether or not military action was an appropriate solution, not over whether Saddam did or did not possess illicit weapons programs. And Bush was receiving positive intel – it turned out later to be untrue.

Except the people with training to look, you know, the weapon inspection teams. Yet in your syphilis-corroded brain, these people obviously aren't credible.

Except that such teams have a notoriously poor record. Iraq was an unexpected “success” – and an unlikely one, at that, given the context in which they were operating.

In any case, you’ve yet to provide conclusive evidence that Bush lied. He came to an erroneous conclusion, yes. Dismissing the report of the foreign minister and deciding not to share that source with the world is not, however, a lie by any definition of the term. If it were, policymakers with any connection to any intelligence they deemed useless or defective would be lying every time they opened their mouths.

So Iraq's military, which was so fragmented and dysfunctional that Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves during the initial invasion, was also a military capable of undertaking, sustaining and making progress with nuclear and chemical weapons research? Please.

A national military has a much larger footprint than a small WMD program, and anyway, the one is not a necessary precursor for the other. Aum Shinrikyo had bio-weapons. It did not have an army.

[CmdrWilkens]

Failing to include relevent info is, in fact, lie by omission.

Bush is not legally obligated to inform the American public of the basis on which he counts or discounts intelligence.

No but himself and the executive agencies including the CIA are NOT legally allowed to withold vital informtion from the legislative branch both in its initial request for the NIE and in its later investigation with the Robb commission. While others can get into the point of the tacti admission of deceit I would rather point out that not only did Bush (and Bush by extension through his subordinates) fail to inform the public they failed to inform the Congress and the prinicpal executors of american policy to wit the Secretary of State and his staff.

The omission to the public is almost minor next to failing to give the complete picture to those charge by the public with executing our foreign and domestic policy. THAT is criminaly negligent.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah that's really moving the goal posts to equate the house intellegence committee with joe blow.

[Axis Kast]

No but himself and the executive agencies including the CIA are NOT legally allowed to withold vital informtion from the legislative branch both in its initial request for the NIE and in its later investigation with the Robb commission. While others can get into the point of the tacti admission of deceit I would rather point out that not only did Bush (and Bush by extension through his subordinates) fail to inform the public they failed to inform the Congress and the prinicpal executors of american policy to wit the Secretary of State and his staff.

And once again, the problem lies in that Bush can be understood to have formed an opinion that the intelligence was worthless, not vital. Neglience and mismanagement, not willful misrepresentation.

Moreover, Bush wouldn't have been without grounds to dismiss Sabri as a likely liar. As I pointed out earlier, Saddam's cabinet wasn't necessarily in position to know what he was thinking or doing.

[SirNitram]

Thank you for confirming your illiteracy, Axis. Hell, you'd have to be blind to mistake Einy for me, given the non-written differences.

My point, you dolt, was that I figured your contribution to the conversation was taking into account the guiding call of the thread.

In short, you pathetic cretin, you shove words in my mouth in a desperate, flailing attempt to try and wipe away the fact you couldn't rebut me with anything like my own arguments. You committed a strawman, and are now lying your ass off to avoid that.

Pathetic.

I do love how you try and claim that the UN inspections should be disregarded when they were credible, and it piles on all the other fingers pointing to no weapons. You just keep desperately trying to throw out excuses in a way like Creationists; instead of presenting jack or shit for your own case, you just try scattergun tactics to cast as much doubt as possible as the evidence mounts and mounts.

Come back when you've got more than Appeal To Ignorance and Strawmen Fallacies, kid.

[Patrick Degan]

Tiger-Boy evidently believes nobody possesses a memory span longer than that of a gnat's or the ability to use this site's search function or simply plough back through the archives.

Herewith are just the first three threads on which Axi attempted to peddle the bullshit now once again on display for our lack-of-entertainment four years after the fact:

1


2


3


The page of the above-linked thread (The "Saadam Was Bluffing Theory" thread of August 2003) on which Tiger-Boy actually began the effort to redefine the word "lie" to suit his own purposes in an argument:


Comedy gold


BTW, this little blast-from-the-past is worth a looksee:

Linky

It is necessary at this point to address the most tortured tautalogy which has been indulged thus far: the "Bush didn't lie because he stands by Tony Blair's word and Blair stands by his own word" argument. Leaving aside for the moment the truly bizarre attempt by Kast to redefine the word "lie" to make it mean something else entirely, even the developmentally-challenged must be able to pierce this childish bit of "reasoning" —that the truth of a thing cannot be grounded merely on somebody else's say-so (hence the logical fallacy known as the Appeal To Authority). Even if we were to make the assumption that both men believed genuinely the face value veracity of the data they based their case for war on, the fact remains that a)the alledged IAEA report stating existence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons programme simply did not exist —except in the form of a forged document— and that its utter lack of credibility was well known; and b)the Niger Yellowcake story was known to be baseless by the CIA and the State Department even as Bush et al. continued to state falsehoods regarding the Iraqi nuclear threat. The only conceivable defence is that both Bush and Blair are either complete idiots or so negligent that they cannot be bothered to verify the factual bases for the statements they make in public and in governmental forums in making a case for war.

There are more examples. Many more. Along with evidence which has been kept on file and can be recalled quite easily.

Nobody ever said Bush wasn’t guilty of an Appeal to Authority. The question here is whether he did so with malignant intentions in mind.

Deliberately using information already known to be baseless and bogus answers that question —that is, for anyone who isn't trying so desperately to redefine the word "lie".

As Nitram has pointed out, this has been done to death.

Other examples which can also be recalled are Axi's flogging of the Atta-in-Prague Myth (a Dick Cheny favourite) long after it had been exploded definitively by Czech Intelligence mere weeks after it was first reported.

[CmdrWilkens]

No but himself and the executive agencies including the CIA are NOT legally allowed to withold vital informtion from the legislative branch both in its initial request for the NIE and in its later investigation with the Robb commission. While others can get into the point of the tacti admission of deceit I would rather point out that not only did Bush (and Bush by extension through his subordinates) fail to inform the public they failed to inform the Congress and the prinicpal executors of american policy to wit the Secretary of State and his staff.

And once again, the problem lies in that Bush can be understood to have formed an opinion that the intelligence was worthless, not vital. Neglience and mismanagement, not willful misrepresentation.

Moreover, Bush wouldn't have been without grounds to dismiss Sabri as a likely liar. As I pointed out earlier, Saddam's cabinet wasn't necessarily in position to know what he was thinking or doing.

Once more you make excuses for WILLFULLY denying information to those charged with making the decision. Whether he had reason to suspect or not that does not give him the right to refuse to offer the information to the debate. This is without even getting into the point that Sabri's informaiton was backed by intercepts and other data while Curveball was simply telling them what they wanted to hear with NO documentary proof.

Again the point you cannot avoid is that Bush witheld information based on HIS PERSONAL VIEW. That is a complete abrogaiton of his responsibiity as President to provide data to those charged with making the decision and not just data which fits his world view. The whole point of the NIE is to examine contrarion data in order to find the most likely ground truth. Bush, by deliberately or negligently, denying the informaiton to the NIE staff and Congress lied by omission as they were unable to asses competing data. The were instead given facts which consistently supported Bush's pre-existing view while competing data was brushed off as untrustworthy and the value of the data they used was never questioned. It is the height of arrognace to claim that kind of narrow-minded approach to war-making is not evidence of negligence and failure on Bush's part.

[mingo]

Maybe I'm naive, but even if Saddam had WMD's, did we honestly think he would somehow start launching them toward the U.S.? I'm sure Saddam was a megalomaniac, but I really doubt that even he would have made such a stupid and suicidal move. Bush tried to make the case that Iraq, a broken country with little in the way of infrastructure, suddenly became a threat. How ridiculous is that?

This is the real point. If Iraq, or anybody else had in fact attack us, (like Afghanistan did) then they could expect the same or worse than Afghanistan got. Conquered at best, annihilated at worst