Reply
Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:18 pm
1) Bushs states Hussein refused to allow inspectors in.
whopper # 1
Quote:
"[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
?-President Bush, in a Q and A with reporters after an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, July 14.
2) Bush states WMDs found.
Whopper #2
Quote:
In asserting that "we found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, President George Bush has presented a far less expansive estimate of Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities than the one he used for months to justify the war.
Since last August Mr Bush and his top lieutenants said it was an absolute certainty that Iraq remained in possession of significant quantities of banned weapons, particularly chemical and biological munitions.
But Mr Bush's remarks on Thursday, in an interview on Polish television, made it clear the United States had lowered its standards of proof. Mr Bush said the discovery in Iraq of two trailers, with laboratory equipment but no pathogens, was tantamount to a discovery of weapons.
3) We know exactly where they are, etc....
Whopper #3
Quote:
On March 30 on US television, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said of the prohibited weapons: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
4)We did not start this war, etc...
Washington Week Video
Thanks, Hobitbob--
#1--
Bush was obviously stating an overview to what led to the war.
He started by saying it was obvious that Saddam had possessed WMDs. This was long before the run up.
Then, the supposed lie is supposed to be that Saddam wouldn't allow the return of inspectors. This is true.
...as evidenced here.
Then, he mentions our reasonable request. That is UN Resolution 1441.
No lie. Just a matter of context.
Nice try Sofia, but I have to disagree. Any statement of teh boy-king's that requires that much digging to support is pretty much insupportable. Again, read the quote:
"[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
?-President Bush, in a Q and A with reporters after an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, July 14.
I prefer to think he is a liar than to face the possibility that he is insane or stupid. recall if you will that the Bush administration had to be dragged into allowing inspectors in in the first place. Hussein may be an evil twot, but he was at least willing to play along. Our fearless leader was not. Please try again.
although it was a valiant try on your part.
The progression of his statements is factual.
The jury is still out on #2. You can say he hasn't been proven correct, but you cannot say, truthfully, that he has been proven wrong. The labs could have been used for WMDs.
With much suspension of disbelief. I am curious the process by which you were able to come up with something that would verify such a whopper.
I read your quote, and saw that it was an overview of events preceding the war.
I knew there was a time (before US and UN pressure) during which Saddam refused the return of inspectors.
#3 is the same unsatisfying response as to #2.
It is entirely possible that the administration had strong evidence that WMDs existed in the area Rummy says. They could still be hidden there, or could have been moved after the intel was shared, but before we could get there.
This answer most likely won't satisfy you. I don't find it satisfying, either--but a lie has not been proven. Therefore, Rummy's comment could have been based on fact.
Sofia, in the short amount of time I have been at A2K, you and Timber haev been paragons of decency and intelligence as far as the far right has been concerned. Therefore I am baffled by the way you and Timber defend this scurrilous administration. I do, however, respect your opinions, and if you feel these are adequate explanations, then I will accept that you fell they are adequate explanations. Come visit the rest of us in the "re-education" camps when your little buddy Bushy buys his re-election, eh?
Of course, being an Arab, I will probably be summarily executed, but oh, well...
I would wade into any group of rednecks alongside you, Hobit.
...and thought it looks like a defense, it is actually a patience for the facts. If they are proven wrong, I will not hesitate to admit it.
it appears to me that the offered explanation for Bush's statements is based on his intention or lack of intention to lie. be that as it may, what statements he did make were not wholly truthful and therein lies the rub in my eyes.
The Bush lies are blatant and indefensible, in my view.
edgar, It seems it depends on which side of the fence is more comfortable. If any administration makes the claim that they know where the WMD's are hidden to justify any war, I'd expect them to produce within a reasonable period of time. Since Rummy made the claim they knew the location of those sites, I'd expect it to be found within a month or two. How long are other people willing to wait? It seems to me that the "urgency" issue is long past if that was used as the case for immediate war.
I'm not sure how you explain that to the over three thousand dead innocent Iraqis. Give us more time, please! If found too far into the future, the question becomes, who buried them? With the US denying UN inspectors, it becomes a big credibility problem.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace