‘Overestimating’? I like that. But there would be no triggering of reforms in the ME by invading and (forcefully) democratizing Iraq nor humanitarian concerns (“bad Saddam”) by the US without the WMD claim, at least no concerns that would have caused the US to interfere in the way they did.
As such you shouldn’t be surprised if people feel mislead and put so much weight on that (WMD) argument.
Let’s be clear and honest about this.
Its very possible (but not certain) that Bush would not have received support of the US congress nor popular support to invade Iraq absent the WMD claims.
However, it is a distorion of the facts to state that Bush “misled” anyone regarding this issue.
Until you can show proof that Bush lied about WMD, you really should be honest and stop claiming that Bush lied or misled anyone.
A mistake is not a lie. I really shouldn’t have to keep pointing this out to you. Surely you know the difference.
And you should reading my arguments/statements more carefully because your response implied that I had just said so - which I did NOT.
I know the difference but then again can you prove that it was not a lie, that he was not misleading?
I phrased my statements carefully and left out my personal view on Bush & WMD to avoid this kind of accusations and avoid a back-and-forth discussion, but it seems you just can’t do without it and must make up some argument again that just isn’t there … :s
You never said that Bush lied and you didn’t just say that Bush misled the US people?
I don’t need to prove that. Do we really need to explain this to you AGAIN?
What are you talking about. You accused Bush of misleading the US population.
I did say before, at other places, he lied - but I did not just say that Bush misled the US people.
Put on your reading glasses - or if you still insist I said so quote the relevant part.
Shouldn’t that be: I don’t want to prove that!? You know, ignorance is bliss and all that?
Anyhow, since we had this discussion before I think we should spare us and the others the back-and-forth that would result from going further, so let’s concentrate to what I said just now only.
Related to the post in question I did not accuse Bush of misleading the US population - read the post.
Instead I accuse you of not reading other people’s arguments properly but reading things into their statements that aren’t there and responding with false accusations.
Given that I have explained / elaborated further I don’t actually understand why you still insist on this.
Do you believe that Bush lied or misled re WMD?
Why should it be as such?
Well, as we cannot now take anything you previously posted with any seriousness, would you at least clarify whether or not you now believe that Bush lied or misled re WMD?
Semantics!
Well, as we cannot now take anything you previously posted with any seriousness, would you at least clarify whether or not you now believe that Bush lied or misled re WMD?
Well, as we cannot now take anything you previously posted with any seriousness, would you at least clarify whether or not you now believe that Bush lied or misled re WMD?
What is this supposed to mean? You are mixing two things up - my personal view given at some other point and an argument I made about what people could read into the fact that there would be no war without the WMD claim (what Bush based his case primarily on) - which should answer the question IYBF was asking.
If you don’t understand my conclusion feel free to ask for clarifications, if you disagree argue against it - but stop your silly accusations and diverting the attention to other things.
What I believe about Bush and WMD was not part of the argument but I have given you the answer to that question in my previous post. ARE YOU BLIND?
No, you took my conclusion out of context. Read the entire post and relate the last statement in the context to that - nothing to do with scemantics nor my believes or my views on Bush (and his statements about WMD) previously given.
(I guess I shouldn’t ask why you did not quote my entire post but only the first paragraph while then basing you accusation on that part you left out?)
Seriously Tigerman, you fail to follow the simplest of arguments and construct something that just isn’t there, which I take as prove of your extreme prejudice against me.
Your “argumentation” seems to be nothing but a personal attack, disturbing the on-going discussions and your repeated asking of questions that have been answered already and repeating accusations that you can’t back up doesn’t really help you much. Maybe it’s time for you take a break … :yinyang:
Rascal:
Bush only had to convince the American people. We can and did invade Iraq without Germany and France and can do so any time we wish. We have many more European countries on board than supported your view. Why? Were they “fooled?” If so, they can leave like Spain any time they want, but you do not have a veto over our actions. We can and will continue to act with or without your approval or those of your nations Germany France and Belgium.
Remember that we were unable to veto Germany when it sold 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmd arsenal. If you did not listen to our concerns and proceeded to UNILATERALLY sell 64.5 percent of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction to him, why are we supposed to listen to you? Ditto for France and Russia. Who sold Saddam his first nuclear reactor? France. Who is selling Iran one now? Russia. Are their UNILATERAL actions acceptable to the American people? No. Why then should we be concerned about how our UNILATERAL actions affect them particularly since we have more European supporters and allies than they do? Who else agreed to or was given the opportunity to discuss Germany’s sales of 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmd program? Did you submit this to the UN? Did you submit it to NATO? Who’s the true unilateralist here who does not respect the views of its allies and other nations in the world?
HH:
You are behind the times. No one said Saddam was responsible for 911. We have said that he had connections with terrorist organizations and was a long-term threat to regional peace and security. We chose to remove him. Wmds were a part of that equation and one that Tony Blair chose to emphasize most to get UN approval. Given that the hundreds of thousands of women and children died from lack of proper food and medicine first and foremost because of Saddam, second because of corruption at the UN and among the ambassadors and leaders of France and Russia, how does this buttress your argument?
[quote=“Rascal”]Seriously Tigerman, you fail to follow the simplest of arguments and construct something that just isn’t there, which I take as prove of your extreme prejudice against me.
Your “argumentation” seems to be nothing but a personal attack, disturbing the on-going discussions and your repeated asking of questions that have been answered already and repeating accusations that you can’t back up doesn’t really help you much. Maybe it’s time for you take a break … [/quote]
No, no. Not at all. Its time for me to be ever more vigilent against your vile insinuations and diabolical games of semantic.
Perhaps you should change your name to “The Artful Dodger”, so intent and adept at dodging questions you are.
So long as you attempt to portray Bush as a liar or to insinuate that Bush misled people re WMD, or that there is cause for making such baseless insinuations, I will be here to counter your sinister and baseless insinuations.
And I will badger you to explain yourself, even though you will attempt to dodge the tough questions.
HA HA HA!
Sure… I understand that. A misunderstanding/lie (whatever you believe) of ONE key fact led to a big consequence. And it is reasonable/understandable to hold the government accountable for what they said.
But how, then, can anyone argue that Michael Moore’s big conclusions are not compromised by his deliberate misuse of a relatively small number of key facts???
I find those that criticise Bush and yet who are reluctant to criticise Moore are operating double standards.
Is Mr T doing the same by his defense of Bush, yet his refusal to defend Moore? No, because the key difference is Moore has been shown to deliberately distort facts - Bush has not been shown to do the same. He has been shown, at worst, to have been misinformed.
Despite your denials, Rascal, your inability to grasp the importance in Mr T’s mind of this key difference underlies your inability to have a decent debate with the guy!
But given that it would not have been possible to convince the American people without a threat (i.e. the WMD) one should not be surprised if people now feel mislead because no WMD have been found. For the same reason we can conclude that certain groups take most interest in that particular argument, as that was one which was used as the primary justification for the war but that didn’t stick (yet).
That’s what I said and that’s what Tigerman obviously fails to understand.
The latest poll result support the conclusion that American people doubt the justification now:
[quote]…
The survey taken Monday through Wednesday shows a turnaround in views toward the war in less than a month. Continued violence in Iraq and questions about the war’s justification apparently are eroding support even as the U.S. moves to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government next week.
…[/quote]
usatoday.com/news/politicsel … poll_x.htm
What nonsense you peddle! Why should we feel misled due to what looks like a mere mistake?
Is that all it boils down to, Rascal?
People feel misled?
Lumme. If you want to direct national policy on the basis of feelings, I suggest that the whole cabinet retreat to a day spa and get in touch with their inner child.
Rascal:
Most people FEEL that they have been misled but there is no proof that they have nor are there any FACTS on which to base their assertions. Prove that Bush lied. Prove that he misled the country. Can you? Can you?
In the meantime, the US will continue to have an independent foreign policy that is not held in thrall to the leaders of France and Germany. Did you ask us how we felt about your sales of 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmds? Did France ask our permission to sell Saddam a nuclear reactor? Did France, Russia and the leadership of the UN conspire to keep the Oil for Food program in place so that they could all benefit financially whilst caring not a fig for the deaths of innocent Iraqis?
When the people of America decide that they have had enough of Bush for “lying” or “misrepresenting facts” or “misleading the people” then and only then will he be voted out in our tried and true democratic practice-- an election. But regardless of the outcome, this will not in any way give a veto of any kind to Germany or France. And that is what bothers you. You want to sell Saddam 64.5 percent of his wmds without anybody’s approval certainly not the UN nor the US but our foreign policy must be subject to your approval? Why?
Should that be ‘whatever you believe’ like in me (Rascal) or people? Just to make sure, my argument was not about me, it was about the group of people you questioned.
(I stand by what I said before but I didn’t see it as necessary to repeat it)
I however think it should be THE key fact since it was the primary reason. As said none of the other “facts” (personally I prefer the word reason here) would have been strong enough, not on their own and not even all together without the WMD claim.
Sorry, I didn’t get that part - what denial? My view on Bush about his reasoning going to war was not the issue here, so Tigerman’s argumentation was off the mark.
Who cares what you think Rascal? The American people voted to support the war in Iraq and if that is a true concern of most of the voters, then we will pay. I said three weeks into the invasion that failure to find wmds would be a big PR black eye but that does not mean that the action was not worthwhile, but now we may pay for those impressions by people who “feel” like you do rather than “think” like we do, but again, we would not have had to deal with saddam at all if countries such as Germany had not sold Saddam 64.5 percent of his wmds. 64.5 percent, 64.5 percent!!!
Dodger.
Thus, we can conclude that Rascal does not think that invading/interfering for humanitarian reasons alone is a sufficient reason… and thus, I was correct when I stated that Rascal apparently cares little for the plight of the suffering Sudanese.
You raised the issue of Bush misleading the people. I’ve asked you point blank about your view… but you insist on dodging the question.
Fred, now you are being deliberately argumentative. As the most senior spokesman for the USG where they made assertions over Iraqs WMD ability, which have subsequently as yet not been proven to be true, then yes he as the head of the USG did mislead the American people, as well as many others. The same issue can be levelled at any Gov’t that did the same, including mine, the UK.
Was it deliberate, that is still an answer to be resolved, maybe and then again maybe not, was it due to bad intelligence, almost certainly, but at the end of the day, he DID mislead those who listened.
Even you as an out and out Bush supporter have acknowledged that the WMD are unlikely to be found, why is that, the simplest though not the only reason is that they do not and did not exist. The USG made comments such as we can prove that Iraq has such and such, where is that proof, without it then Bush and the USG is guilty as charged.
Please note that i am not talking about WMD as a reason to go to war as valid or not, this is purely over whether Bush misled the American people, before you try to take this off topic.
The solution is simple, prove that Iraq still had WMD as the USG said they could, then i will accept that the USG did not mislead the people.
[quote=“Traveller”]Fred, now you are being deliberately argumentative. As the most senior spokesman for the USG where they made assertions over Iraqs WMD ability, which have subsequently as yet not been proven to be true, then yes he as the head of the USG did mislead the American people, as well as many others.
The solution is simple, prove that Iraq still had WMD as the USG said they could, then I will accept that the USG did not mislead the people.[/quote]
“Mislead” means to deceive. Unless it can be proven that Bush lied or intentionally deceived the people, it cannot be stated that he “misled” anyone.
Exactly. So why did Tigerman bring it up and insist it was my argument what I think when it was not? Duh!