Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I'm trying HARD to get the logic of this, because this has been your answer to "Bush Lied" for the last six months or so.
You're saying that if I tell a lie in order to get something, and you want me to have that thing anyway, for reasons other than the ones I lied about, that means I didn't lie?
|
Many people including Bush thought Saddam had WMD. There was some evidence suggesting that he did not, and there were some people who believed he did not have WMD. To my knowledge, other than a handful of Iraqis at the time no one knew with certainty. In spite of the WMD question, there were other reasons to use military force to remove Saddam.
I repeat this, because I don't understand why many don't want to accept this, and I find it interesting how in the end the response ends up being something like - well he just lied, and he has you (meaning me) fooled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
No, it means if the person lies, but someone says he didn't lie, but someone else says he did, the other someone has to lie about the lie that the first one made to cover the lie he made himself, about the Non-Lie that started the second person saying he lied, even though the fist lie wasn't actually a lie to the third person who didn't believe the second persons lie in the first place.
Its really that simple.
|
DC has used a NIE report to substantiate the view that the war in Iraq has caused the number of terrorist to increase. He criticized me for suggesting that conclusions in the report and those drawn from the report are speculation, he further stated that the NIE is credible even without knowing how they arrived at their key judgements.
This is the same NIE that did a report supporting the view that Iraq had WMD.
Quote:
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
|
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
I ask you to revisit the simplicity of your description on the series of lies because either it ain't so simple or the first "lie" was not a lie.
Also, please continue ignoring serious review of real data supporting or disputing the preconceived notions we all bring to the table. The refusal to see the possibility that Bush has not lied tells us a lot at this point about the agenda of the Bush detractors.