If you were in a court of law?

Question

Would you want to be convicted with the same kind of "proof" that you have against Bush on WMDs?

Not about not finding any, I concede that. But about him lying about it to start the Iraq war.

This is an example of how Liberals tell a lie often enough so it eventually seems true. It must be true so many people are saying it.

Answer 1

Yes, I'd love to see them try to lock me up with that kind of evidence.

OK, I know liberals don't have a great grasp of the English language but just because there were no WMDS doesn't mean a lie was told. If someone states something that is incorrect but they believe it to be correct that is NOT a lie. A lie would be an intentional deception through saying something they KNOW not to be true.

Answer 2

The proof is circumstantial but convincing: We have never attacked a country that actually has WMDs. India and Pakistan are the only WMD equipped countries to have ever fought each other directly.

Can we prove Bush fabricated evidence? Not with what has been released so far.

But there is such a thing as criminal negligence. That is, knowing that American lives would certainly be lost, he should have taken reasonable care to assure that the WMDs actually existed. However, he ignored the evidence to the contrary and acted upon what he wanted to be true without investigating further.

The logical conclusion is that he didn't care whether they had WMDs or not. This was the excuse, not the rationale for attacking.

Answer 3

If it was the truth , wouldn't there had been wmds? Now I ask whats the opposite of truth?
Now you and the right wing media can and do spin this all kinds of way but the TRUTH is he LIED.

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:


"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for WMD, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMD continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMD. None were found.

During the past two-and-a-half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

Answer 4

sure I'd love to see them try to pin a crime on me, with the same evidence that Bush had claiming Iraq had WMDs. I wouldn't even bother getting an attorney, I would give the prosecution half a chance and represent myself!

Answer 5

Well...Jeff I'm typing real slow so you can understand me, When he used only the evidence that supported his Contention ( that means view or side) that Saddam had WMD that was in fact manipulating the evidence that was presented, Because he is president of the united states he was privileged to see all of the evidence so whether by omission or commission he did not tell the whole truth, and by that omission he became guilty. the whole truth is part of the oath.

Answer 6

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- evidence.

For any conviction, it must be shown by admissible evidence that the only reasonable conclusion is that the crime happened -- that's effectively proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, is there evidence he lied -- I'd say yes, there is circumstantial evidence given how vehemently he asserted facts that he could not have known were true (since he was incorrect in his factual assertions).

But it's circumstantial, and it's not sufficient to meet the burden of production -- there is no evidence that he knew the information was incorrect at the time he said it. Without consciousness of the falsity, it's an error -- not a lie.

Answer 7

If I was in a court of law, with no "Executive Privilege" to hide behind, this would scare me:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010607D.shtml
Contains a complete list of offenses. Charges explicitly citing statutes and laws are listed below:

I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
(1) Self-Exemption From Laws Upon Signing.
(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings.
(3) Promoting Illegal War
In direct violation of Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1945 and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution.
(4) Promoting Torture.
In direct violation of, and as part of a pattern of consistent attempts through executive orders, legal memoranda and alterations to regulations such as the Army Field Manual, to undermine the Federal Torture Statute [18 USC Sec. 2340A];
"The Third Geneva Convention banning torture and abuse of Prisoners of War, as well as non-combatants and unarmed ("enemy") combatants held in detention; and Articles 4 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention... these declarations and treaties being ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution"
(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Torture.
In direct violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 3, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 31 and 45, the said conventions having been ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution.
(6) Use of Illegal Weapons.

II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection.
(2) Replacing the Veto With Signing Statements.

III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
(1) Suspension of Due Process.
Violation of rights of habeas corpus and Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
Violation of Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
-- Non-Cooperation with Congress:
In derogation of the legislative functions of the Congress, granted under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
(3) Non-Cooperation With Congress.
(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System

Answer 8

So instead of saying he lied about them, would you like us to say that he fabricated the facts on WMDs?

Answer 9

I think we've got enough witnesses to win a conviction, yes.

Obviously, you yourself have heard it said that he lied. We could even put you on the list to testify if you wanted.

Answer 10

Sure.........I would want to be convicted on that evidence.....then I could get a presidential pardon from fearless George W........


OH! Excusim moi...... I got thumbed down.... I meant to say "HONEST GEORGE W".