Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome
..
If you actually read anything I said I mentioned already that Iraq has violated several resolutions countless times, failed to declare WMD, failed to record their disposal. Could you imagine without the dossiers where those WMDs are?
The basis to go to war is that Iraq is an imminent threat. Iraq had nothing in it's arsenal that was capable of hitting US soil. The Iraq war was argued the basis that Iraq is an imminent threat based on 5 year old evidence and cherry-picked intelligence. Not to say there was no threat but not directly to the United States. While Iraq did produce WMD, none had the capability of reaching US soil without the use of a intermediary. There are far more countries threating to the security of the United States than attacking a country we were already containing.
Even in the article you posted it came from a discredited source. As you can see in this article 2 years later. To this day, they still have not proven those labs indeed produced biological weapons.
Iraqi Exile Denies Misleading U.S., Chalabi Tells Lesley Stahl He Wants To Testify Before Congress - CBS News
With regards to the irrevelent article on UN inspectors dragging a man out clutching a notebook that might've contained weapon information, how is that Hans Blix's fault? He was not personally responsible for the incompetence of one UN inspector. Nor does it mention great detail because the whole story isn't disclosed, the credibility of the witness, how he approached the UN inspector etc.. Right now you are engaging in the infamous puffery of the Bush Administration. Exagurating a claim based on little information. It could've been a refugee finding a way out of Iraq. The article does not provide any details to make that determination. If we were to base the entire credibility of an organization based on a employee making a wrongful determination, alot of organizations would not be credible, including many governmental agencies.
The 2nd link you provided from Dean's world is like giving me a link to a 9/11 conspiracy site. Damn that purely bias, simply parapharasing from the Amnesty International webpage.
As for that article from The Boston Globe, Hans Blix did not state anything that differed from what he determined at the time. That's why it's called a status report. Why exactly are you going to include evidence that hasn't been fully substanciated and determined it delivered biological/chemical weapons? That's called Puffery. Oh yeah, it's also been proven it didn't.
Iraqi Drones Not For WMD, Evidence Matches Pre-War Dissenting View Of Air Force Analysts - CBS News
But imagine that a news organization engaging in outright puffery before evidence was verified accurate. It turned out to be very effective propaganda.
FOXNews.com - Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities - U.S. & World
As well as posting it myself in it's entirety, in the style you posted you are omitting an important parts of Hans Blix presentation to the UN, however I'll highlight one specific part you omitted from the report:
Quote:
In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.
_________This is where you decided to omit this piece of information_________
Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues ?? even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.
A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.
In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to ??freeze? large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.
Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.
Mr. President,
We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
Did the conclusion of this report determine that Iraq is an imminent threat? No. The evidence that the US used to go to war was very weak. The only way it could was to engage in puffery. Notice how I mention this word over and over again. I'm not accusing them of lying. Puffery means to make claims that are subjective and not objective. That's exactly what Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush Administration were engaging in, using evidence and witnesses that have been discredited.
As for the quotes from other cannabis.com members, what is the point? Not once did I mention anything about gas prices as it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. If anything, it simply proves how bias you are. Sure I don't like Bush, but I do agree with his decision on the Iraq war from an economic perspective. It shows you have no clue what I am even stating to begin with. The war was engaged because of global economics. That's the concept you are failing to grasp and you are the one failing to understand the real reason the US went to war with Iraq and why government official have to engage in puffery. It's not about Saddam, WMDs, terrorism. It's about the long-term economic health of the United States.
The Iraq war revived the economy by all the investment made to the military complex and oil companies which is money being pumped into the economy at the cost of devaluing the dollar. Those two industries are stable and profittable thanks to the Iraq war. As soon as Iraq security situation progresses, more investment is opened up. With US companies opening businesses in Iraq, that only means more money for our economy. Iraq becomes prosperous, US even more. Win-win situation if the US sticks it out on the occupation. If you are going to argue the positives about the Iraq war, turn to economical events and data, not some repeated puffery written by people trained in PR.
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
The problem is there is an excuse for everything and there always will be. There will always be someone to take the fall and someone to push them.
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Sorry about that, you're right. Things are getting pretty off topic over here...
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
yeah i hear ya 2, i can get back to why hes the worst president,i have a pleathera of reason's why i think so
bush is still one of if not the crappiest president since i been around and i remeber johnson.
he is a criminal,constitutionally and war crimes.the word i herd was invertible liar. not puffy,when you seek to not tell all the truth and pick out what favors you're point of view,to skew public opinion that is to me a lie.
this is what makes him a bad president. he has never lived by the rules so he does'nt think he has to now and has said so.
go read the patriot act.
im gw heheh i own your ass.
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Sorry about that, you're right. Things are getting pretty off topic over here...
By this point it's not surprising that it's starting to veer off topic. But I was trying to keep up, and some of these war posts are so long that I'm afraid the war will actually be over before I finish reading. I'd hate to miss the end!
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
By this point it's not surprising that it's starting to veer off topic. But I was trying to keep up, and some of these war posts are so long that I'm afraid the war will actually be over before I finish reading. I'd hate to miss the end!
Just do it like i do if the post is bigger than a paragraph
skip it ,works really good. All you bush bashers you
outta be ashamed of your self's always looking to blame
someone else for your lifestyle!! stop driving your gas guzzler
get out there and ride your bike or walk!! :hippy::hippy:
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddyonefiddy
yeah i hear ya 2, i can get back to why hes the worst president,i have a pleathera of reason's why i think so
bush is still one of if not the crappiest president since i been around and i remeber johnson.
he is a criminal,constitutionally and war crimes.the word i herd was invertible liar. not puffy,when you seek to not tell all the truth and pick out what favors you're point of view,to skew public opinion that is to me a lie.
this is what makes him a bad president. he has never lived by the rules so he does'nt think he has to now and has said so.
go read the patriot act.
im gw heheh i own your ass.
It's puffery and that's exactly how you define these "lies." It's not lies because the case that was made to the UN was subjective. When Anti-Bush people go around saying Bush lied, it's not technically correct. It's not like he made shit up out of the blue. He took data/argument/case and projected it to sound more severe than it really was.
Example would be if I said my marijuana is the bestr than yours. You'd call that a lie but there would be no way you could prove it unless you compared all the marijuana with mine and you smoked every single bit.
That's exactly what the Bush Administration did. They claimed A + B = D without proof and saying we must go invade because Iraq is an imminent threat. It's was subjective at the time whether Iraq was an imminent threat or not. There was no objectivity involved and now it's been proven they weren't.
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
I think GW is a fat head. To me the only "quality" he seems to have is ambition. And his ambition is all about himself, period.
That said, I think that although I said that I think he is the worst president ever, I don't think he is a aweful person, just a spoiled, ambitious man child. His cool public appearance/style is just part of the polititians bag of tricks. I wouldn't want to toke up with him.
$.02
Shovelhandle
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
It's puffery and that's exactly how you define these "lies." It's not lies because the case that was made to the UN was subjective. When Anti-Bush people go around saying Bush lied, it's not technically correct. It's not like he made shit up out of the blue. He took data/argument/case and projected it to sound more severe than it really was.
Example would be if I said my marijuana is the bestr than yours. You'd call that a lie but there would be no way you could prove it unless you compared all the marijuana with mine and you smoked every single bit.
That's exactly what the Bush Administration did. They claimed A + B = D without proof and saying we must go invade because Iraq is an imminent threat. It's was subjective at the time whether Iraq was an imminent threat or not. There was no objectivity involved and now it's been proven they weren't.
No. It wasn't a "subjective" interpretation of some facts that could be seen either way. Colin Powell went to the UN and offered what they claimed was solid objective proof. It turned out to not be true. SOME of it can be attributed to bad intelligence, but a good portion of it was things that the CIA already knew to be false. That amounts to a lie.
Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
No. It wasn't a "subjective" interpretation of some facts that could be seen either way. Colin Powell went to the UN and offered what they claimed was solid objective proof. It turned out to not be true. SOME of it can be attributed to bad intelligence, but a good portion of it was things that the CIA already knew to be false. That amounts to a lie.
At the time much of the intelligence used, verification of the authencity was not complete. There is no doubt in my mind they manipulated intelligence to make their case to go to war. However it's the method they used to sell their case, there's no way anyone can prove they lied, that's the magic of puffery. No one can prove intent. No one can prove they fabricated evidence. No one can prove they intentionally used faulty intelligence to go to war.
If that were the case, wouldn't the democrats have jumped at the chance to impeach Bush? They know that they don't have a case, nor can they prove it.
The day the lies are affirmed is the day it'll be in history books. Until then you'll have people like Rusty who could still make a case that the Iraq invasion was legitimate.
