Weapons of Mass Destruction

Memnoch

Here is a compiled Diary of quotations made by the current US administration about WMD.... this shows CLEARLY and BEYOND ANY DOUBT that they LIED through their teeth from the beginning and continue to do so..

Having proved that they are LIARS... how can you ever believe another word they say??


Bush Administration Officials Lies about Iraqs Supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Their Own Words

* Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

* Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

* No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

* The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.

- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

* If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

- Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

* We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

- Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

* What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.

- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

* Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent&. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

* We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

* 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.

- George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

* If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.

- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

* So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?&.I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 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.

- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

* The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

* Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly&..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

- Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

* There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And&.as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

* I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

* One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

* Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.

- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

* But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

- Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

* We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

- George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need&.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

*We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

* I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

* I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein because he had a weapons program.

- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

Memnoch

* We said what we said because we meant it&..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

* Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

- Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, interview with reporters, May 21, 2003

*Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003

* Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

- Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency, press conference, May 30, 2003

* You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.

- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

The backpedaling begins:

* We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

- Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

* U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

- Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

* I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they're still hidden.

- Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003

* I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].

- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

* We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

* They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

- Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

* It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

- Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003

* I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent. Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [SEE NEXT QUOTE].

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

* This is about an imminent threat.

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

* After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: Well, of course he is

- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
*After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Husseins alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

And finally, some truth:

* We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

* The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape "the international security order in line with American principles and interests," push for "regime change" in Iraq and China, among other countries, and "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars&.While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

- "Rebuilding Americas Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000

* Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]&.Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.

- Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001

* For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

* From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

- former Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill, CBS 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

* Intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

NOTE: Republicans impeached Clinton over a lie involving a private extramarital affair that he told in public, in which no one died. The Bush administrations lies about Iraqs supposed weapons of mass destruction have resulted in the deaths of more than 500 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

MeatProduct

Here is the lovely video where Mr. Rumsfeld gets completly cornered. It's great stuff. These guys are utter liars.

Nick

Rock Climber

Having proved that they are LIARS... how can you ever believe another word they say??

I see no evidence of lies there, only evidence of mistakes.
Embarassing mistakes for them but proof of them being liars-frankly no.

Let me give you a simple example:
I tell you I am going to the bookies, the other week and I tell you to bet on Monty's pass it is going to win the national the other week....
Monty's pass didn't win...
Now did I lie to you?
Based on all reasonable information on it's form, I was counting on it winning...and I told you that I 100% expected it to win...
So did I lie to you?
Let me help you with a definition from dictionary.com

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Now in order to prove that they lied, you must show credible proof that, they knew at the time of making the statements that they were untrue.
If you can satisify that criteria, then the use of the word lie is good...
Otherwise, the more acurate description would be
Stuipid, one of whose definitions would be:

Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Rock Climber, you didn't get your horse race tip from CIA or FBI or other multi billion $$$ agencies all over the world. These people are pure liars and twisters that they even ignore their own intelligence agencies and come up with as much as sh!t they can to win their case. Memnoch didn't give just one example of this. It is clear and present with dates and voices. What do you want? Them to be put on machine and see if they lie? I'd love to see that too:D Your definition "A false statement deliberately presented as being true" exactly what they do very good. As for mistakes, you make it once, twice or three times but eventually you realise your mistakes. So tell me how many more mistakes these people needs to do to convince you they are liars? And don't forget these are not your avarage bookie tippers, we are talking about United States of Liars Ok, for you, I put it as United States of Mistakers :P

Well done Memnoch, nicely done .

Victor

Originally posted by Rock Climber
I see no evidence of lies there, only evidence of mistakes.

Oh, please don't insult us.

* I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent. Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [SEE NEXT QUOTE].

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

* This is about an imminent threat.

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Victor
Oh, please don't insult us.

Again you would have to show that Scott McClellan was aware last january that he had used the word "imminent" a year previous.Have you evidence to show that he deliberately tried to disceive in january?
He was caught out, for sure,he was careless, for sure and he made a mistake but I see no evidence of deception on his part, only stupidity which as defined above means " Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes."

And thats something on which I think we can possibly all agree, that administration do tend to make poor decisions and careless mistakes.

MeatProduct

I would have thought that if one is in the public eye or indeed a politician then it is vital that one would never contradict ones self. If they do then I feel that they should be investigated. If they do it repeatedly then they should be removed.

I do believe that the US administration has lied repeatedly.

Nick

Victor

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Again you would have to show that Scott McClellan was aware last january that he had used the word "imminent" a year previous.Have you evidence to show that he deliberately tried to disceive in january?

Well in the context of the "45 minute" claim .....

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Again you would have to show that Scott McClellan was aware last january that he had used the word "imminent" a year previous.Have you evidence to show that he deliberately tried to disceive in january?
He was caught out, for sure,he was careless, for sure and he made a mistake but I see no evidence of deception on his part, only stupidity which as defined above means " Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes."

And thats something on which I think we can possibly all agree, that administration do tend to make poor decisions and careless mistakes.

seriously rock climber, stop trying to insult our inteligence and be patronising. They clearly contradicted their own statements, stop trying to make "excuses" saying they might have forgotton about them. These statements made by them originally were no small things, and were driven with deliberate ferocity to "convince" people about their war.. to claim that they simply "forgot" about them is completely ludicrious.

By YOUR LOGIC... anyone who lies about anything and is then caught out, can simply claim "oh i'm sorry, I forgot I had said that"

anyone with half a brain can see these guys were lying through there teeth, but you can continue to live in denail.. it really surprises me how people can be in such complete denail even after evidence is presented to them.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
seriously rock climber, stop trying to insult our inteligence and be patronising. They clearly contradicted their own statements, stop trying to make "excuses" saying they might have forgotton about them.

Tiz not very democratic of you to be telling me to stop giving my view
I merely asked you to prove yours, not to stop giving it

By YOUR LOGIC... anyone who lies about anything and is then caught out, can simply claim "oh i'm sorry, I forgot I had said that"

No you mis understand me again...
If you can show that the person didn't actually make a mistake or that they weren't making a statement which they believed to be true knowing it to be false, then you can call it a lie.
The racing punter who tells you that monty's pass is going to win, is basing his statement on all the information and inteligence available to him also, which could be quite considerable...
But he did not lie by saying Monty's pass is going to win, unless of course you can present evidence that that person was aware of some material fact that meant at the time that monty's pass could not win, ie a lame leg for example...

These statements made by them originally were no small things, and were driven with deliberate ferocity to "convince" people about their war.. to claim that they simply "forgot" about them is completely ludicrious.

... in front of the worlds media and subject to the scrutiny that you have presented.
Tiz a big example of stupidity alright, but not proof of a deliberate lie.

it really surprises me how people can be in such complete denail even after evidence is presented to them.

It should be no surprise at all, because it's not denial
I'll be the first ( if you let me...) to congratulate you here if you come up with proof of a deliberate lie.
Otherwise you are presenting examples and proof of stupidy and incredulity but not downright lies as you suggest.

Victor

Do you accept that at any point that **systematic** negligent misstatement, malicious misstatement, spin, half-truths, forgery, deception and propaganda together become lies?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Tiz not very democratic of you to be telling me to stop giving my view
I merely asked you to prove yours, not to stop giving it

you seem to continually ask me to "proove" commen sense. He made statements he claimed he did not make, sounds like a lie to me. If you are in court under oath giving evidence, and you contradict yourself, it is considered a lie, you cannot claim you did it out of stupidity, that is not an excuse

No you mis understand me again...
If you can show that the person didn't actually make a mistake or that they weren't making a statement which they believed to be true knowing it to be false, then you can call it a lie.

by your logic, anyone who lies can simply claim later that they were "mistaken". You are once again trying to argue from a framework of "legal" loopholes as you tried to do in the other post. This isn't a court of law, we don't need to burrow inside his head and prove that he "knew" this was false, we have "commen" sense. We can see that these people made outrageous claims, that they said they had pleanty of evidence for. Then when these claims did not come to fruitition, they said that their "evidence" had been unreliable. The truth is, that they MISREPRESENTED the facts when making those original claims. Either they had convincing compelling evidence or they did not..

so lets take the sequence of events in question...

1) They tell us Iraq has WMD, that they have conclusive evidence for this (which they can't show us for security reasons).
2) They told us there was "no doubt" that the weapons were there. This is not a speculative statement.
3) As the invasion progressed they claimed they were "confident" they would find them, they even went as far as pointing out specific areas where they claimed huge caches were located.
4) the backpeddling then began...

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."

this is a clear example of a lie, as it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they did "believe".

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons

so from all these facts we can make a reasonable conclusion, that they systematically misrepresented the truth.. the mislead the public and the media, in effect THEY LIED. You cannot simply claim "stupidity" as a get out of lie free card, when you're lies are later caught out. You are clutching at thin air here in your semantical arguements.

for the final nail in the coffin... the bush administration made this statement..

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

by their own standards and statement of logic, they have lied. What holds good for saddam according to them, surely holds good for them also.


So in summary,
These people, at the top echelons of the US administration, were so entirely convinced, without any shadow of a doubt, based on solid unshakable evidence, that Iraq had WMD, that they decided to take a nation to war over it. But then a year later, when no weapons were found, they claimed they had not really been convinced after all. But when they were shown proof that they claimed they were convinced, they realised that they had suddenly just forgotten their convictions, beliefs and statements that were strong enough to lead them to war?

if you honestly want us to believe, that all this was a result of "stupidity", and not malicious, misrepresentation and distortion of the truth by them, then you must really think we are very stupid.

Your arguement reminds me of a joke ( a bad joke) that was told to me once... it went along the following lines.

Mr. Banta comes home to his wife, and askes her, what is 2 + 2?
She replies: Why do you want to know?
Mr. Banta says, I had a bet with Santa that 2+2 = 5, for 5 pounds
Then you have lost five pounds says his wife because 2+2 = 4
Mr. Banta laughs. Hah, he says, I just won't accept it.

halkar

Rock Climber going by your horses would you be keep betting if your friend keep mistaken about that Monty horse? How many times he has to mistake and you have to bet to realise your friend is liar?

Memnoch

nice one bonkey you just deleted your entire post, is it because you realised u had made a mistake with regards to the US officials categorically denying they never made statements that they did make?

abuse of mod power to cover a mistake you made?

edit - typo

I was just about to reply to ur post with "quote" but b4 I could it said the post couldnt be found or something, hit back twice and same result, then refreshed the politics page and found your reply had dissapeared all together

edit - also in reply to your post(that has since dissapeared), I realise and accept that people make mistakes, however I contend that this is not the case here, as the gross discrepencies between their statements and attitudes indicates, also weighing in other factors such as the circumstances, not to mention recent testimony by Richard Clarke on the issue

bonkey

abuse of mod power to cover a mistake you made?

I didn't know it was some sort of crime to change your mind and decide that you're not interested in taking part in a discussion. My apologies - I'll make sure and get your permission next time.

And no, its not mod abuse of power. If you ever edit one of your own posts shortly after making it, you'll see all the options for deleting said post at the top. Oh - hang on...you have edited posts shortly after making them. The one I'm replying to appearst to be a case in point.

I do find it pricelessly ironic, though, to see you making such allegations about mod abuse (albeit formed as a question) in a thread where you are criticising others for saying things that they should clearly have known were false.

You've just edited a post. The very top of the form has the option to delete your post...and yet you question if I am abusing my powers because I deleted my own post??

Just as well I don't apply your standards of what one can use common sense to base decisions on, isn't it.


jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
I didn't know it was some sort of crime to change your mind and decide that you're not interested in taking part in a discussion. My apologies - I'll make sure and get your permission next time.

And no, its not mod abuse of power. If you ever edit one of your own posts shortly after making it, you'll see all the options for deleting said post at the top. Oh - hang on...you have edited posts shortly after making them. The one I'm replying to appearst to be a case in point.

I do find it pricelessly ironic, though, to see you making such allegations about mod abuse (albeit formed as a question) in a thread where you are criticising others for saying things that they should clearly have known were false.

You've just edited a post. The very top of the form has the option to delete your post...and yet you question if I am abusing my powers because I deleted my own post??

Just as well I don't apply your standards of what one can use common sense to base decisions on, isn't it.


jc

actually I didn't know a delete function existed, still can't seem to find a delete button, so I assumed it was a moderator only function, since apparently its not, fair enough....

I don't see why you are getting so defensive here? you made a mistake in your original post which was that they never made certain statements, even though I quoted those statements, this showed that you probably didn't read the entire post, could have been embarressing so it seems like you deleted it...

again not my reply above...

i'll re-iterate...
I accept that people CAN and DO make mistakes, however if we can please take the incident as well as my statements regarding it in "context" with regards to Bush and his administration, its clear that this incident is no simple "mistake" of "forgetfullness" or simple "stupidity" but rather of deliberate misrepresentation, and manipulation of facts to suit their own agenda and then trying to pretend that such a manipulation never occurred.

You're attempt at drawing an analogy between my not knowing about a "delete" button(thats why it was a question regards moderator abuse and not a statement), and the bush administrations intentional and systematic cover up is weak at best.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
I don't see why you are getting so defensive here?

Well, maybe its because you jumped to conclusions about my reasons for having done something, made allegations against me based on those conclusions, without bothering to wait for my answer to teh allegation in the first place.

Not only that, but you did it twice - once in the thread, and once via PM.

you made a mistake in your original post

And now, despite me clarifying why I did what I did, you completely ignore my reason and continue to use your assumption of my reasoning instead!!!!!

I said I deleted the post because I decided against getting into this discussion. You can decide that this is a lie if you wish, but all you're doing is reinforcing my belief that my decision was the correct one.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, maybe its because you jumped to conclusions about my reasons for having done something, made allegations against me based on those conclusions, without bothering to wait for my answer to teh allegation in the first place.

Not only that, but you did it twice - once in the thread, and once via PM.


And now, despite me clarifying why I did what I did, you completely ignore my reason and continue to use your assumption of my reasoning instead!!!!!

I said I deleted the post because I decided against getting into this discussion. You can decide that this is a lie if you wish, but all you're doing is reinforcing my belief that my decision was the correct one.

jc

i don't think we should argue this here as its going more and more off topic, so we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. If you wish to discuss it further in pm or whatever i'll be happy too.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
you seem to continually ask me to "proove" commen sense. He made statements he claimed he did not make, sounds like a lie to me. If you are in court under oath giving evidence, and you contradict yourself, it is considered a lie, you cannot claim you did it out of stupidity, that is not an excuse

Yes one would be a liar if under oath, one tried to say someting which contradicted something else one said under oath.
But he (Rumsfeld) was not under oath, you would have to be able to state that he should reasonably remember what he said , six months ago , 3 months ago or a year ago.
What age is he? 70+?
My Grandad would be about that age and still welds without injuring himself, but I'll pluck gooseberries from an apple tree, if he'd remember exactly what he said a year ago or 3 months ago.
Remember what I said , I think this administration is stupid,If it was it wouldn't have old fogies like him in that job.
It's hardly surprising that they made a mess over Iraq, and doubly unsurprising that the administrations agenda is coming to pieces in the way that it is.

We can see that these people made outrageous claims, that they said they had pleanty of evidence for. Then when these claims did not come to fruitition, they said that their "evidence" had been unreliable. The truth is, that they MISREPRESENTED the facts when making those original claims. Either they had convincing compelling evidence or they did not..

Again , you don't have to tell me, what they did,but if you are going to call them liars, I'd like to think that you would apply definite proof of this rather than just conjecture.

1) They tell us Iraq has WMD, that they have conclusive evidence for this (which they can't show us for security reasons).2) They told us there was "no doubt" that the weapons were there. This is not a speculative statement.
3) As the invasion progressed they claimed they were "confident" they would find them, they even went as far as pointing out specific areas where they claimed huge caches were located.
4) the backpeddling then began...

I've given my view on the war to you already,and in many respects I would be on your side.However your summary of the events leading up to it is just evidence of stupidity and incredulity, unless you can show a deliberate lie took place.
Apart from the funny ramblings of a 70 year old man, the nearest you can give me so far is a whitehouse spokesman being caught out with a word he used and which he probably couldn't remember using, which is stupidity.
The use of the word last year isn't actually a lie, given that he was spokesman for an administration that believed the inteligence they had at the time was accurate.
The rest of what you posted at the start of the thread appears to be a progression of the situation revealing itself after the coalition has invaded Iraq.

Hindsight is great, but I suggest you take consolation in the fact that , the U.S governments stupidity is becoming very transparent, rather than getting hung up on the incorrect use of the word liar.

the mislead the public and the media, in effect THEY LIED. You cannot simply claim "stupidity" as a get out of lie free card, when you're lies are later caught out. You are clutching at thin air here in your semantical arguements.

May I respectfully suggest that you are misrepresenting the word lie there unless you can prove, that it wasn't with hindsight that you or the U.S government came to these conclusions.
In January 2003, the US/Coalition troops weren't in a position to know what was on the ground in Iraq, they could only rely on what now appears to be a sham of inteligence.
Certainly some of the intel, available to them was clearly shown by the inspectorate to be false/forged and thats something that should have raised alarm bells but it didn't-more stupidity... Or equally as likely,it didn't suit their agenda to close down their plans ( for world domination or whatever one likes to think...) because of one or two bits of correctly identified false intel... ie they were both stupid and clever at the same time... or more to the point, the brains behind the operation was trying to be clever (while the rest were there to act stupid)
They could have waited for the weapons inspectors to come to a full conclusion and they were wrong in not doing so in my opinion, the rest is history.

Zaphod B

I'm inclined to think that we should maybe stop accusing the US of lying (since they'll never be held to account for it even if we could prove it) and instead accept the suggestion that stupidity was to blame. After all the government of the most powerful nation in the world can't afford such stupidity and can't be allowed to continue being so stupid; I consider that a pretty good argument in itself.

By the way...

Originally posted by Rock Climber
But he (Rumsfeld) was not under oath, you would have to be able to state that he should reasonably remember what he said , six months ago , 3 months ago or a year ago.
What age is he? 70+?
My Grandad would be about that age and still welds without injuring himself, but I'll pluck gooseberries from an apple tree, if he'd remember exactly what he said a year ago or 3 months ago.

I'm personally not convinced that Being Old is an acceptable defence for someone wielding Rumsfeld's level of power; having said that I'd be happy if your grandad took Rummy's place in the administration

You did go on to make the same sort of point as me; that the administration is terminally stupid. Again I'd say let's stop arguing about why we don't like them and just agree we don't like them; the stupidity argument is a stronger one than the lying argument because it's much easier to prove that they're idiots - you just have to watch the news for 5 minutes.

MeatProduct

I really don't think they are stupid. It's easier for them if we think they are stupid. There is sinister intent behind their actions which, on the surface, look impressively stupid.

Nick

Zaphod B

I really must disagree with your suggestion that they're not stupid.

Of course it's not a case of "They had good intentions but went about it the wrong way because they're not too bright". There are always agendas, egos, etc influencing these things. My point is that we'll never get them for lying and you sure won't have them before an international court for Trying To Take Over The World (TM). If on the other hand we concentrate on proving their incompetence you might even get the support of some of those who hate Anti-American Hippy Student Commie Pinko Leftys.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Zaphod B
I'm inclined to think that we should maybe stop accusing the US of lying (since they'll never be held to account for it even if we could prove it) and instead accept the suggestion that stupidity was to blame. After all the government of the most powerful nation in the world can't afford such stupidity and can't be allowed to continue being so stupid; I consider that a pretty good argument in itself.

By the way...

I'm personally not convinced that Being Old is an acceptable defence for someone wielding Rumsfeld's level of power; having said that I'd be happy if your grandad took Rummy's place in the administration

You did go on to make the same sort of point as me; that the administration is terminally stupid. Again I'd say let's stop arguing about why we don't like them and just agree we don't like them; the stupidity argument is a stronger one than the lying argument because it's much easier to prove that they're idiots - you just have to watch the news for 5 minutes.

Yes that sums it up well.
Agreed one hundred percent!

I'll ask Grandad about Rumsies job, we'll get him to cash the cheques into a joint a/c for you and me Zaphod B... he'll never know

Zaphod B

Will there be a tank in it for me? Traffic is getting to be a problem my way

MeatProduct

They knew exactly what they were doing when they put Bush in power. The man has an IQ lower then his dog. It's no accident he is the public face of this administration. When anything a bit sinister happens it easy to point at their stupid scapegoat, our friend GW. We just assume he is retarded and that's the end of it. Remember that this is the most powerful country in the world. Nothing about this administration is what it seems on the surface.

Nick

Zaphod B

Originally posted by MeatProduct
They knew exactly what they were doing when they put Bush in power. The man has an IQ lower then his dog. It's no accident he is the public face of this administration. When anything a bit sinister happens it easy to point at their stupid scapegoat, our friend GW. We just assume he is retarded and that's the end of it.

.... We Know!!!! You're still assuming that we think George Bush is actually in charge. I'm well aware that there are other forces at work. "We're plenty tough"... the man can't string three words together and form a proper sentence, never mind run a nation and determine policy. But you're still missing the point that you will never prove to most people that George Bush is a puppet controlled by evil men stroking cats. As long as you keep referring to them using words like "sinister", most people won't take you seriously. It's sad but it happens to be true. If on the other hand you can show just how stupid some of the administration (ie not just Bush) are in their words and actions, and show how dangerous it is for stupid people to have that much power, you're more likely to have support.

halkar

Rock Climber, I am obsessed with your horses if your tipper told you to bet on Monty but Monty doesn't exist would you beleive him and bet?
No comment about your grandad, if he gets to job ask him to send the army engineers so they can fix my roads

The use of the word last year isn't actually a lie, given that he was spokesman for an administration that believed the inteligence they had at the time was accurate.....

It is the same administration that received intelligence about Osama is at their door but they didn't beleive that, I guess this was just as accurate as what they heard about Iraq or maybe more.