Secret missile plans -- very sophisticated!

Politics International Politics
41

Spit on the UN all you want, but there were sanctions, on-going inspections, plans for a watchdog, illegal no-fly zones etc. - and no agressive actions, serious fighting back by Iraq or attempts to threaten anyone - all of which supports the conclusion that Iraq was not a threat.
Not anymore if you like to warm up things we all know and agree to / accept as facts (those facts that you can’t prove wrong :wink: ).

You may want to read that again - the poster mentioned Rumsfeld wanting to go to war against Hussein, 911 was only mentioned as en event in terms of timeline and you brought Al Kaida into the game - for reasons not obvious to me.

The term “imminent” was not used by Bush and neither was the threat imminent - we agree on that and that was also said in the report / by flike.
But everytime somebody says “The threat was not imminent” you respond with “But Bush didn’t say it was imminent” - which is not exactly the same.

It’s so funny because you used it so many times, kind of a trademark of yours.

I dunno where I said that it’s inappropriate - you are making up arguments again - my ‘comment’ did not refute your statement or it’s content, in fact I didn’t even expect a response - the excessive use of smilies should have told you that.

Look up the definitions. You may present an argument as fact and later it’s proven wrong, but that doesn’t make the argument a fact in the first place, does it?

Please elaborate what you mean by ‘we agree on certain facts’, i.e. you discard some ‘facts’ because you are not sure if they are facts or you decide what is fact and what is not?

Simple: if the opinion is based on wrong or incomplete information.

Perhaps I am too stupid, but can you give me an example about a fact which is wrong and still qualifies as a fact?

It’s like saying a lie can be wrong or right …

Unfortunately we are not talking about opinions here.

I didn’t think so … :mrgreen:

I intend(ed) to prove the lie on the way the case was presented, I did not say I based the lie on wrong information alone! That’s a big difference and you obviously missed or ignore that.

This are actually two arguments, aren’t they? For one the verification of the WMD status and secondly the claim that Iraq had WMD.
Unfortunately the case was not made on verification alone, but instead it was made primarily by the ‘has WMD’ argument.
With verification alone the US would have a hard time to justify the war and get support, but the ‘has WMD’ argument made it all possible.
So again Tigerman is attempting to excuse action taken on a failure with something else, that something which alone nor with the other (non-WMD) arguments would have made the invasion possible.

I guess I am being willfully stupid again - but is ‘not admitting’ equal to ‘having’ [WMD]?

In which case the USG should never have claimed that Saddam had WMD. But they did, even specifying the quantities.

Since the process was on-going your argument doesn’t hold up. And since the US interrupted this process we will never know what the UN would have concluded on the account status.
But we know that inspections and sanctions prevented Saddam for getting WMD materials / making WMD, as such they did work and prevent exactly that what the US was worried about.

And ‘mother’ also said that Iraq’s co-operation was improving and that more time was needed (not more than a year I think to recall).
The time the USG now pretty much used up and found - nothing. Not to mention that the UNSC did not authorize the use of force.

42

So, how do you explain the documented fact that “regime change” had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of Saddam was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary?

43

Yeah, for 12 years there were those things. But that doesn’t prove that Iraq was not a threat… it was not an imminent threat. Had the UN had its way, inspections would have gone on for a bit longer and the Iraqis would have successfully hid their intention to restart programs after the UN was finally gone. That would have been a mistake. 12 years was long enough.

Please explain to me then why people continue to state that the threat was not imminent. What point are they attempting to make?

No, Rascal. An argument is an opinion supported by facts. The strength of the opinion depends upon the accuracy of the facts that are used to support the opinion.

In many cases, not all the facts are clear or knowable, and are sometimes simply in dispute. Where certain facts cannot be ascertained as either true or false, the parties often agree on certain facts that can be ascertained and arguments are then based on these.

No, that makes the opinion of lesser or greater quality.

“Rascal is a woman”. This is a fact. It can be proven correct or incorrect. Conversely, if I state “Rascal is like a woman”… this is an opinion. You cannot prove this correct or incorrect… but we can argue about whether you are like a woman or not.

Actually, we are.

No, I didn’t miss or ignore that… at least no more than your missing or ignoring the fact that just about every other intelligence agency and government believed that Iraq possessed WMD. You haven’t explained why Clinton was not “lying” when he opined that Iraq had WMD. Are you ignoring that fact?

Yes.

The case was taken to the UN and it was based on Iraq’s failure to comply with the conditions of the UN cease fire agreement. That’s a pretty big part of the case.

I agree. But again, Bush explicitly stated that the threat was NOT imminent. He referred to the threat as a growing threat that needed to be dealt with pre-emptively.

Doesn’t matter. Iraq was obligated to make a complete accounting… a complete accounting that illustrated that Iraq no longer had WMD would, I think, have been sufficient to get Saddam off the hook, at least for the time being. You are so concerned about the UNSC… but apparently the fact that the UNSC demanded Iraq to comply immediately… 12 years ago… is of little import to you.

Those statements were based on what Iraq stated it had. How can you fault the US with relying on that?

The process was only ongoing because the US pressurd the UN and Iraq into allowing inspectors back into Iraq… but the US was not willing, for very good reason, to wait indefinitely. After 12 years of resolutions, “immediate” finally had to mean “immediate”.

We only know that now (and we really aren’t certain yet, are we?). The fact is, evidence that Saddam harbored intentions to restart WMD programs has been uncovered in Iraq. So, even if the inspections had worked to the time just prior the invasion, there could be no guaranty that once the inspections ended and the UN left Iraq, Saddam would not have restarted his programs. That is what the US was worried about, again, with very good reason.

44

Has anyone here managed to build a missile using the plans posted here ? I’m having trouble finding a gyroscopic guidence sensor and a set of fluffy dice to hang in the window.

45

Just to be clear, you do mean the inspectors who went back only after the current Bush administration insisted that something be done, right? Not the inspectors who got thrown out of Iraq back in 1998 despite the ever-so-effective UN?

Oh, so it was just fine by you that the Iraqi army was shooting at the American planes which were enforcing the no-fly zones?

I guess you Germans don’t mind if the U.S. is forced to waste time and money and put its people’s lives in danger, as long as you get to sell illegal weapons systems to Iraq under the table.

46

Quote: “Bush didn’t say the threat was imminent”. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

But seriously, again you are just making a statement yet you fail to support it. Do you have any PROOF that Iraq actually was a threat? I mean proof like in something we can look at, not proof like in “but Bush said so in his speeches”.

I did mention watchdog, didn’t I? Yes.

Dunno, you gotta ask people. Doesn’t explain why you commented it though in the way you did.

That said perhaps people just try to point out that they perceived the threat as imminent in the way Bush & Co. made their case those days, even though he didn’t use that word. And now perhaps they think not only was it not imminent, but there wasn’t any threat at all. Of course Bush and you might be of a different opinion, but people are perhaps not that ‘convinced’.

First you claim facts can be proven wrong, then throw in opinions and now even arguments - but fail to explain or give an example about facts as it was asked for (at this point).

“I think you are a woman.” That’s an opinion, right? Say I haven’t seen you before and assume so, based on whatever, but don’t actually have any evidence / proof - as such I can’t call it a fact.
Now I see/meet you, as such you are proven to be a man. Now is my opinion that you are a woman of lesser quality (lesser than what actually?) or isn’t it just plain wrong?

[You don’t believe this, but I just typed the above before reading your next argument where you use a similar example (“woman”)!]

It’s not a fact - it’s a statement, an unproven and baseless one (since you don’t support it). Or it’s a lie if you know already that I am not a woman.

Maybe in lawyer-terms ‘fact’ has a different meaning, dunno, but from what I gathered (by the definition of the word ‘fact’) the above does not qualify to be called ‘fact’.

[quote]Conversely, if I state “Rascal is like a woman”… this is an opinion.
You cannot prove this correct or incorrect… but we can argue about whether you are like a woman or not.[/quote]
Disagree: if the statement would have been proven to be correct (and IMHO there is a way to ‘measure’ this) then it would be(come) a fact.
But if you, without further information or proof, make this statement then it’s an opinion (or when you put something like e.g. “I think …” in front) .

Bush is from Texas. Fact or opinion?

Again: you use the word “believe” which already disqualifies the content of the argument as being a fact.
(It might have been a fact that other intel agencies believed Iraq had WMD, but that’s hardly proof that Iraq had indeed WMD.)

But if you really don’t like the word “fact” then replace it with something like “correct” or “true”, don’t care.

WTF has Clinton to do with anything? I can’t even recall he was part of the discussion so far and as such I certainly have no reason to explain anything.
That’s your “typical way of arguing” nowadays, isn’t it? Just say you dispute an argument without providing anything to back it up and throw in some other SHIT which has nothing much to do with it. Lame, really lame.

Yeah, with the little detail of the missing UNSC authorization.

You disappoint me (because you are distorting things again): The argument was the claim by the USG that Iraq had WMD (which then supposingly posed a threat), the argument here is not about something being imminent or not. And of course: no WMD, no threat - neither imminent nor growing - hence nothing that needed to be dealt with pre-emptively by Bush.

Ah-ja, the “doesn’t matter” argument when we fail to explain or admit to being wrong, followed by the repetition of the old and well known arguments no-one has ever disputed … :unamused:
Throw in some other comment for good measure (‘my concern’) and of we go - argument avoided, distorted and - so you perhaps wish - forgotten.

ROTFL! You are the one that told me Iraq/Saddam could not be trusted but now you are telling me you belive exactly what he stated!? Then yes, I do fault the US for relying on that.

Though shouldn’t the correct time be “have had” actually?

Now we do now for a fact that the UN inspectors went back in - so that’s also a part of the proof that “it” worked.
That the US became impatient might be a fact, too, but hardly a good argument for interrupting the on-going process by starting a war.

Aeh, no, we had good indication of that already before and knew that some of “the best” US intelligence [about WMD] was proven wrong. That’s a fact.
Of course we aren’t 100% certain yet, but the longer it takes the less likely it is to find anything. That’s an opinion.

I just say one word: W-A-T-C-H-D-O-G

Yes, I mean the recent ones - not the ones who got kicked out because they were spying on behalf of the USG.
Or to put it in Tigerman’s terms: “That was not their job. Read the ******* resolutions.” :wink:

Honestly, shooting back at someone doing something illegal (like violating “my” airspace in this case) is not what I have a problem with or consider agressive, more of a defensive nature I rekon. I thought the pro-war crowd supported eye for an eye, so what’s the problem? Not fair because you couldn’t nuke them?

However the fact that Iraq hardly (never?) caused any substantial harm to those who imposed the illegal no-fly zones shows of what Iraq was (not) capable of; and with agressive I actually meant threatening or attacking e.g neighbouring countries or, if you want, US troops stationed around Iraq.

Appreciate if you spare me those kind of comments, I am well aware of your opinion about Germans (though I am speaking here on nobodys behalf than my own, and that has nothing to do with me being a German).

That said - forgot how to use the ignore function?

47

Guess what? The fact is that the US won. The fact is Saddam is gone. The fact is that regardless of wmds being discovered or not, Saddam ain’t going to be developing any more in the future. The fact is Iraq is better off. The fact is that the region is better off. The fact is that the lesson is having a salutory effect on Syria, Iran, Libya and Sudan. The fact is that even North Korea may be paying attention. The fact is that the US took out one of the nastiest regimes in the Middle East no world with only 500 troops lost and given the next rotation, we should be down to the originally envisioned 90K to 100K very soon and hope to see that fall to 50K by Fall. Fact is that things went pretty well. Don’t hear too much about the water, the power, the museum, the sewage, the crime, the attacks, the UN anymore. Iraq will never be perfect but it might eventually be better than France though not as good as Estonia. We can only do so much.

48

So, how do you explain the documented fact that “regime change” had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of Saddam was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary?[/quote]
Well, I don’t know about Fox, but I would explain that “documented fact” by showing how it (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) was actually driven by the neocons and their congressional allies through a GOP-led Congress and placed in front of a president, Clinton, who was under heavy fire from the same GOP (the Monica bj war waged during off-year elections; Clinton signed the bill on Oct 31, 1998, a week before said elections and when Henry Hyde’s House Judiciary Committee was releasing weekly Progress of the Impeachment Inquiry briefings. See: house.gov/judiciary/101498.htm ). Just to refresh your memory,

[quote=“Joshua Micah Marshall”]…the CPD and PNAC advocacy were both cases in which outside pressure groups — groups of neoconservatives — basically B-teamed the given [Clinton] administration, getting around their flank by working congress and the media to force the administration’s hand or make certain policy options politically unviable.

With Iraq policy this involved getting the Clinton administration off its policy of “dual containment” and toward one which, on paper at least, embraced the principle of “regime change” as American policy. This in fact was what happened with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in late 1998. The embryonic PNAC and other prominent neoconservatives worked the press, lobbied in congress, coordinated with the INC, and the then-weapons inspectors to push for a harder line against Iraq. And in significant ways they succeeded.

This isn’t a secret or a slur. It’s something the neocons see, with some good reason, as a feather in their cap. The Clinton administration never truly embraced the hawkish position. But what the Iraq hawks were focused on was setting down benchmarks, the principle of “regime change” as official policy, official monetary support from Chalabi’s INC, widely signed public letters advocating a more hawkish policy, and so forth.

This all got underway in mid-1996 and followed through more or less through the end of the administration. Much of the big stuff took place during 1998, in part because there was a quite conscious effort (one of the architects walked me through it a year or so ago) to use Clinton’s weakness during the Monica scandal to advance the ball, so to speak.

talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002044.html[/quote]

Again, you guys kill me. You cite UN resolutions as conditions to wage war, yet blithely ignore getting UN support prior to waging said war. Indeed, you casually discredit and disparage the UN overall, choosing to call it a “debating society” and ineffective despite the fact that sanctions and inspections largely worked. In fact, going by the amount and timing of WMD evidence found by all inspectors to date, the UN sanctions resolutions succeeded wildly. You insist that Bush’s unilateral war on Iraq was only the natural result of a policy change during Clinton’s presidency, when the neocons were behind it all along.

The UN sanctions succeeded in reducing any WMDs Iraq may have had, but, post-9/11, the UN wouldn’t provide the justification sufficient to wage the war the neocons wanted all along–not on Bush’s timeline, anyway. 9/11 allowed Bush to achieve what neocons had wanted to do, had worked actively to achieve, since at least 1998 (likely since early 1992, when two things happened roughly at the same time: the end of Iraq I hostilities in 1991, and Clinton first won the US Presidency in 1992): convince Americans to support a unilateral war in Iraq, the UN be damned.

49

Jesus Christ, Rascal… Saddam was a threat. He started two wars on his neighbors… he attacked Israel… he possessed WMD and desired to obtain and or develope more (this is a fact that we know now… read the freaking Kay report). Even if the intelligence was wrong concerning what he actually possessed just prior to the invasion, he was still a threat to develope or obtain other WMD when he would be able to in the future. If you don’t think Saddam was a threat, then you are a freaking idiot, IMO. That is why Bush’s argument that Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat is so important… only you seem incapable of understanding this concept.

Get serious… who was going to be the watchdog… the Germans? No, the US was the party at risk as long as the policy was merely containment of Saddam. Sorry… maybe you Germans are willing to accept that risk to the US, but don’t expect us to shoulder the same.

He didn’t merely not use that word… He stated clearly that the threat was NOT imminent. What is so difficult about this?

Yes… some things are matters of fact and others are matters of opinion. Its really not so difficult.

Rascal, whether or not you are a man or a woman is a matter of fact… not a matter of opinion.

[quote]Conversely, if I state “Rascal is like a woman”… this is an opinion.
You cannot prove this correct or incorrect… but we can argue about whether you are like a woman or not.[/quote]

WTF are you disagreeing with? “Rascal is like a woman” is a freaking opinion. It is not a fact.

Fact.

[quote=“Rascal”] Again: you use the word “believe” which already disqualifies the content of the argument as being a fact.
(It might have been a fact that other intel agencies believed Iraq had WMD, but that’s hardly proof that Iraq had indeed WMD.)[/quote]

That’s right. But if they “believed” that Iraq had WMD and they stated such belief as fact, they were not lying. They might be wrong. But they are not freaking lying.

No, this isn’t the first time Clinton (or other intelligence agencies or governments) have been brought into this discussion. Its relevant because you insist that Bush was lying about what he believed to be a correct factual situation. If, in your opinion, Bush was lying, I want to know how you distinguish the statements made by other governments, including the German government and Chirac in France and Clinton in the US… were they lying too? Or were they simply factually in error?

Its not lame. Your dodging the question, however, is really lame.

Oh, come on. Your statement was that Bush’s argument for war completely disregarded the UN. That’s simply wrong.

Bullshit, Rascal. Those statements by Iraq were considered very important by the UN… and that is why the UN conditioned the cease fire on Iraq’s accounting of those weapons. If you want to fault the US you must likewise fault the UN, which you seem to think was entitled to the last word on everything.

You completely disregard the fact that Saddam continually attempted to evade his responsibilities per the cease fire agreement and attempted time after time to conceal his weapons and programs from the inspectors. The threat is that he would be successful just once… then what?

No good. One success by Saddam is all he needed. The risk was too great.

I can’t believe I’m reading this crap. You keep saying that inspections and containment (including no-fly zones) were working and should have been retained longer… indefinitely… But then you see nothing wrong with Iraqis shooting at US/UK planes enforcing the no-fly zones.

What do you expect? Read your own posts.

50

So, how do you explain the documented fact that Clinton TODAY still supports the policy of regime change?

By the way, did Clinton not have veto power while he was President?

51

Flike is spot on. This in turn only makes my point again that all the players were in place waiting like wolves for the right moment to launch their attach. 9/11 simply formed the catalyst. So this argument that 9/11 changed everything is wrong. Most likely it changed nothing. The policy was already in place waiting its turn.

If anything it adds more credence to the wako idea that the Bush administration allowed the 9/11 event to unfold rather than aggressively preventing it. After all what kind of event was it really a known known, a known unknown or an unknown unknown? The evidence already suggests it was a known unknown, but the leap from the known unknown to the known known is only the UN- and that’s my point and I’m sticking with it!

52

There is a huge difference between regime change and a hegemonic war.

53

So, how do you explain the documented fact that Clinton TODAY still supports the policy of regime change?[/quote]
Can provide a cite that shows the level of his support? Did/does he unequivocally support the Bush-led, no-UN, unilateral policy of regime change?

Please read the Marshall article.

54

[quote=“Clinton on July 22, 2003 on CNN”]Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. [color=red]So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions[/color].

edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html[/quote]

That seems like support, IMO, especially in light of Clinton’s statements while he was in office… statements where he warned that the US might have to go it alone to get regime change.

55

OK, I read it. I still didn’t see where it said that Clinton didn’t have the veto power.

56

Seems a stretch to claim that it was the big bad Republicans and the nasty neocons who pressured Clinton in light of the bipartisan support for the Act as detailed below:

[quote]The Iraq Liberation Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. [color=red]Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29[/color], with 20 not voting, and the House’s sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.

The [color=red]Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut)[/color] and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.

In the House, those [color=red]backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri)[/color], Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), [color=red]Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) [/color]and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).

usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/ir … 19cngr.htm[/quote]

57

Jesus Christ, Tigerman. I didn’t ask how bad Saddam was 20 years ago. Again you are just citing the past and repeat what we all know already.

But tell me, what proof do you have that Saddam was a threat just prior to the war, given sanctions, inspections, military presence of foreign troops around Iraq and plans for a (UN) watchdog? PROOF please.

I didn’t say containment, I said watchdog. The UN had planned this to prevent Iraq from obtaining WMD materials, it’s of no concern at this stage who will be the one executing this.

It’s very clear - but the questions remains: was there really a threat in the way Bush stated it, given the circumstances (see above)?

Since I am not a native English speaker I might have a disadvantage here, but isn’t “matter of fact” something different than “fact” by itself? I mean of course they do relate, but as a phrase it has a slightly different meaning AFAIK.

I wrote it there, why can’t you see that? If I am wrong educate me, but don’t just claim I disagree only.

Agree, but why is that? Isn’t it a fact because we know, can verify / prove it to be correct?
So why is your statement “Rascal is a women” a fact, too, if you don’t know it to be correct and neither can you prove it (correct)?

Tigerman, they didn’t state their facts as believes, they claimed to be stating facts. Just look at the quotes agains.
I am very well aware that you can believe in something yet you are wrong but not lying, but unfortunately said statements do not show that the statements are based in believes, rather they are put forward as knowledge and that they are based on hard (verifiable) facts.

Still waiting for your explanation what is there to interpret in the statements btw …

I was just waiting for the Germany and France ‘argument’ … :unamused:

Let’s clarify this once and for all before it gets off-topic:

  1. I haven’t issued any opinion about statements by other governments, as such I haven’t distinguished their arguments in any way
  2. As such please refrain from even implying I have taken any position for (them) or against (US) just for the fun of it (“Anti-American” blabla)
  3. I don’t have to issue an opinion about those since we can very well establish if Bush & Co. were lying without looking at statements by Germany, France and Clinton or anyone else for that matter
  4. Even if they have been lying it would not change anything, i.e. it would not excuse Bush & Co and surely it would not make Bush right
  5. As such I don’t see any point to issue an opinion about them and will not do so

Tell me what merrit the answer to this question has? Did I ever say a word about Clinton or indicate that I support him (his actions, decisions, statements) etc. - in any way that it would differ what I argue against Bush?
Unless I have Alzheimer the answer is no. And why I am ‘dodging’ questions like this is explained above.

Anyone see anything about “completely disregarded the UN” here?

The last word would have been the outcome of the last inspections. And I fault the US for interrupting those, not the UN.

Conceal what weapons? You mean those that you can’t find? :laughing:

It would have taken quite a lot to get such a success, under the eyes of the watchdog.
Again all which is left is an assumption, a guess, a worst-case scenario - but no proof.

Obviously this response was just written in direct reply to MPDF who spoiled any possibility of a serious discussion with his last comment. Secondly inspections do not relate to no-fly zones and shooting back.
Thirdly containment is not equal to illegal no-fly zones, but while being used as part of the containment it does not mean I supported the (illegal) no-fly zones itself when I say I support containment. Rather I support containment in a way of preventing Iraq from moving (attempting to move) across it’s borders.
And lastly I based my statement on the no-fly zones being illegal.

It’s not that I didn’t highlight the word before … :unamused:

You did notice my reponse came after said remark!?

And where the FUCK does this have anything to do with me being German? Can you explain this properly so that it warrants those kinds of comments?

58

Not because we know. Because we can verify / prove it to be correct (or false).

Of course I could prove it to be correct (or false). Thus, its a fact.

59

[b]fact [f

60

Rascal,

I realize that many dictionaries define “fact” as something that is “true”. However, many dictionaries also define “fact” as something that can be “proved”. Something that can be proved can also, by implication, be disproven.

See this:

[quote]Determine the difference between FACT and OPINION
The accuracy of content is not always easy to detect in print or electronic material. To evaluate any kind of material you must be able to distinguish between fact and opinion.

[color=red]FACTS[/color] are statements that can be proven true or false.
OPINIONS are statements that represent a person’s point of view. Unless they can be proven true or false, they are not facts.

Understanding this simple difference can help you easily evaluate the accuracy of content.

library.kcc.hawaii.edu/main/eval … _check.htm[/quote]

and

[quote]The key difference between facts and opinions is that [color=red]facts[/color] can be verified, or checked for accuracy, by anyone. In contrast, opinions cannot be checked for accuracy by some outside source.

academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/310.HTM[/quote]

My point should have been obvious all along. We are distinguishing between fact and opinion/belief.

The only way you can assert that Bush lied is to hold him accountable for possibly being wrong with respect to his facts.

I’m sorry if this destroys your notion of Bush… but being wrong about the facts is not equal to being a liar.