Text 16451, 102 rader
Skriven 2005-11-18 12:38:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 16438 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Saddam Hussein's Murders
================================

 > 17 Nov 05 10:46, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 MvdV>>>> GWB said: We have proof that he has WMD's".

 >>> That's a direct quote from which speech or words from your own
 >>> mouth(hand)?

 MvdV>> I heard him say it on TV.

 > No you didn't.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

 >>> One can not be lying if the information they rely on says
 >>> there are WMDs.

 MvdV>> If the information is false and one presents it as true,
 MvdV>> one is lying.

 > You're almost right.

I am dead right.

 > Someone is lying if they consciously present a known falsehood
 > as truth.

And that is precisely what happend. GWB said *he had proof* that there were
WMD's. If he actually had propof, they would have been there. They were not
there, ergo he lied when he said he had proof.

 > If one does not know their information is untrue,

if one does not know the information is true, presenting it as true is lying.

 > one cannot be lying, one is merely relaying what one believes
 > to be true. Big difference.

If GWB's conviction of the presence of WMD's in Iraq was based on belief
instead of facts, he should have said so. Not saying so was a lie by omission.

 > A nice example of telling it as you believe it was the days
 > when everyone thought the earth was flat. Many sailors of the
 > day wouldn't venture too far out to sea because they were told
 > that they would fall off the edges of the world.

The syated in view of the cost as they could not navigate in open sea.

 > Were they told a lie, or were they told a falsehood that
 > the teller believed to be true?

If the teller had told them he had *proof* they could fall off the earth, it
was a lie.


 >>> I'm waiting for your proof that he lied.

 MvdV>> The proof is in the report of his own weapon inspectors.

 > Really? I'd think the proof would be presented 'after' there
 > was a completed search. That inspector only looked in the
 > obvious places.

The inspectors would not have left had there seacrh not been complete. Surely
GWB would have instructed them not to give up before they were absolutely sure
they had looked everywhere. That they'd come upo empty handed must have been
the ;ast thing he wanted.

 MvdV>> Yet the US weapon inspector said they were not there. Not after
 MvdV>> 1991.

 > So? He didn't search everywhere.

If they didn;t, they must have know beforehand there was nothing to find.

 MvdV>> GWB lied when he said he had proof.

 > No, he presented what he believed to be true.

If what he presented was his belief, he was guilty iof a lie by omission.

 > Iinformation that he was told was correct (correct by at least
 > 5 other nations).

That, in itself, is a lie. His own CIA told him they could not positivley
confirm the presense of WMD's. George Tennet resigned over it.

 > There were no lies...accept in your imagination.

There were plenty of lies. And more lies to cover up the previous lies.

Face it Roy, you may believe yor president made an honest mistake, but very few
outside the US believe that. even in the US his support is dwindling to a
record low.

Your president will go down in history as a liar and a war mongerer.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)