For the Last Time: It's Not a Lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, let me put this straight once-and-for-all. I don't care which oppinion you have about the war, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LYING AND BEING WRONG!!!!. I'm talking, of course, about the decision to go into Iraq. Look, even if you're a hardcore liberal, this isn't just politics; it's semantics. I'm SO SICK of EVERY time I go into a Bush bashing thread hearing this: "He lied to the American people and killed millions (even though it's not even close to a million) of people because of that lie". He went off of the intelligence he had, ok!?!? Even if you're anti-Bush, PLEASE, for the sake of intelligence, just say he was wrong!!!!!!

Look, pretend you go into a room blind-folded and with ear plugs so that you can't see or hear ANYTHING in the room, and someone asks you "Are there people in the seats behind you?". Pretend they're making you give an answer. Also pretend this is like Who Wants to be a Millionair and you get some lifelines. You call all of your closest advisors, as well as people who know alot about this room. Now, not EVERYONE is telling you that there are people here, but the good majority of them are. You know that there were people in this room in the past. You know that your people SENT people to this room before. You also know that there have been people in this room for a long time. You HAVE to make a decision. You say "based on what I've heard....I think there are people in this room behind me". You take off the blindfold, and there are no people in the room. Did you just lie? NO!.

You were wrong, you didn't lie because you didn't know the answer when you made the decision. I think this analogy fits pretty well. Also, if you want to make it MORE fitting, add that there are OTHER rooms that you STILL cannot see if there are people in them or not and we're going to check it out.

I'm sorry, this has just really been irritating me lately.


[Edited on 13-10-2004 by Herman]

[Edited on 13-10-2004 by Herman]

Here is the problem, Bush had all the evidence and chose to ignore what he did not want to see. The evidence was there and presented to the president that there were no WMD's but he chose to ignore it because it did not work with his plans. Now he is blaming faulty intelligence, not true unless you consider that the faulty intelligence is his own, then its true. Now as to whether Bush lied I don't know but he certainly did not come clean with the American people on the fact that there were many people who should know what they were talking about saying there were no WMD's or take the time to check the facts that they were presenting.

www.ucsusa.org...




Cases: National Security
Evidence on Iraq�s Aluminum Tubes Misrepresented
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

The George W. Bush administration�s use of faulty intelligence in making its case for war against Iraq drew much attention from the media. One particular case shows that the administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data that contradicted its case.
In the weeks leading up to the war, senior administration officials repeatedly stated that Iraq had attempted to acquire more than 100,000 high strength aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges to be used for enriching uranium. Highly enriched uranium is one of the two materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.





[Edited on 23-10-2004 by goose]

Of course he didnt lie, he just told a twisted version of the truth... his truth.

Originally posted by goose
Here is the problem, Bush had all the evidence and chose to ignore what he did not want to see. The evidence was there and presented to the president that there were no WMD's but he chose to ignore it because it did not work with his plans. Now he is blaming faulty intelligence, not true unless you consider that the faulty intelligence is his own, then its true. Now as to whether Bush lied I don't know but he certainly did not come clean with the American people on the fact that there were many people who should know what they were talking about saying there were no WMD's or take the time to check the facts that they were presenting.
[Edited on 13-10-2004 by goose]

Well, like I said, not everybody said that Saddam had them, but his closest advisors as well as the majority of people agreed that Saddam had WMD's and needed to be stopped.

I'm not completely denying the credibility of your link, but I can say that internet facts aren't always reliable. I remember in one argument, someone put a link to an "FBI's most wanted" picture of Osama Binladen, as well as a list of his crimes he had committed underneath. Now, because there was nothing about the WTC, this user was tying to prove to me that Bin Laden was not behind the attacks.... When I questioned...everything...he said I wasn't worth his time and he left the argument. If I look hard enough (Well not hard at all, it's only the 8th down in a google search for "Evidence that Saddam Hussein Had WMD's), I can find this supposedly "credible" news web-page saying that we did indeed fine WMD's in Iraq after the invasion. Now I'm not necessarily using this as evidence that he had them, just trying to show you that you can find anything on "reliable" websites.

WMD's Found.

Again, his closest and best advisors, as well as the majority of people told him he needs to stop Saddam because he has WMD's. Some people said that Saddam didn't have them. Bush made a choice based off of the intelligence he had, and may be wrong. (People are ignoring the possibility that there still could be WMD's) This is being wrong, not lying.

[Edited on 13-10-2004 by Herman]