Comments on: Bush didn’t lie, and fewer people probably died

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:10:57 +0000

I think Bush did lie. Bush lied about how he would do everything in his power to defeat terrorism and protect the United States of America. Given that Bush hasn’t even used secret police tactics, turning a jihadist into a woman as a torture method (to go along with the JIhadist’s wearing burkha fantasies), nor even nuclear detonations as a method to execute American killers, then I cannot truly claim that BUsh has told the truth always.

Bush lied and people refused to die, would be more accurate a term.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:46:41 +0000

The Bush lied/people died mantra is founded on a really fundamental error about language. Or, at least, I’ll ascribe to the rank and file a linguistic error. At the upper echelons, I think it falls into Orwellian misuse of language. It is not a lie if you are fed intelligence that you genuinely believe is true, if you base your decisions on that intelligence, and if you cite to that intelligence when you’re speaking. Bush may have been misinformed, but that is not a deliberate lie.

It is, of course, a lie if you know the truth of a statement, and nonetheless insist on repeating an untruth, rather along the lines of the Bush lied/people died crowd.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:03:41 +0000

The problem is, the military already found bio and chem weapons. They just weren’t in the numbers necessary to sate the blood lust over Iraq.

As if WMDs ever mattered to the Left. What mattered is international cooperation. It could be global warming, ebonics, crops, genetically engineered foods, whatever. So long as it was under the writ of international law, the Left will be satisfied.

By: ravana

ravana — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:35:35 +0000

WMD doesn’t just include nuclear weapons, and when Bush lied about WMD, it was mainly with regards to chemical and biological weapons. He didn’t say they were going to get them, he said they ALREADY HAD them. Clearly, he lied.

“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:51:58 +0000

What matters Danny is that Op thinks war fatality numbers are bad statistics and facts. That is a clue to how he views other data and information.

One should always use the indirect approach to argument, if you ask me. Hammering on the WMD issue is what the Left wants to do because they were the ones that first prepared the killing field for use. Not us.

By: Ophiuchus

Ophiuchus — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:40:12 +0000

As a matter of fact, Danny, all of those programs were well-known long before they got anywhere. And so was Iraq’s. How do you think the Israeli’s knew to bomb Osirak? And BTW, South Africa worked on a bomb for a while, and even Brazil poked around with the idea for a very short time.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:19:52 +0000

I guess that explains why Pakistan’s, Libya’s, Israel’s and North Korea’s nuclear weapons were all so obvious for all to see when they were in development. Thanks, Ophi, I will sleep much better at night, now.

By: Allen L.

Allen L. — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:01:48 +0000

It can also be done via a gaseous diffusion plant, or a large number of calutrons. Similarly hard to hide. One only needs to visit Oak Ridge. Hanford is also difficult to conceal.

By: Ophiuchus

Ophiuchus — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:54:46 +0000

Enriching uranium is an industrial problem and can be solved with brute force methods.

Yes, and the brute force methods require those damn centrifuges that are so hard to make and impossible to hide.

This requires a nuclear reactor and a subsequent processing plant.

Yes, and Iraq had neither of those nor was it even building one.

By: Allen L.

Allen L. — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:41:11 +0000

I would just like to interject a few items about Iraq’s program. I’ll leave conclusions to others. Enriching uranium is an industrial problem and can be solved with brute force methods. It is hard to miss.

The actual weaponization is an art. Iraq’s systems were incredibly advanced, and obviously well tested. The inspectors gathered up and confiscated all the equipment that went into that testing. Iraq appeared to be heading for a plutonium based system. This requires a nuclear reactor and a subsequent processing plant.