quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's simply not true. there is no doubt that the administration "sexed up" the intel they were receiving. indeed, after being presented with a dossier by CIA, bush's response was "is that all we have?" dont blame the intel services, they were completely marginalised by the government.

Why would they sex it up if they knew that once they went in to Iraq, they were going to be proven wrong? And then they would receive this storm of criticism for "lying"?

That makes ZERO sense.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why would they sex it up if they knew that once they went in to Iraq, they were going to be proven wrong? And then they would receive this storm of criticism for "lying"? That makes ZERO sense.

because they didn't think they were wrong. they extrapolated upon the intel that they did have and made all kinds of errors.

there is at least one excellent doco available that details how the bush admin treated the intel services up until 2003, i suggest you check it out.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...because they didn't think they were wrong. they extrapolated upon the intel that they did have and made all kinds of errors...

Raisin, you can't have it both ways.

They either "extrapolated" because they thought that they were right and the WMD's were there, or they "extrapolated" while knowingly lying.

Either way, it breaks down to lying, or not lying.

Now which version do you believe?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

interesting..........



then

quote:

Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate! This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks." What the AP forgets to mention is that the "two nonprofit journalism organizations" can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation -- all of which are exclusively leftist in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these "non-profit journalism organizations" shares most of its board members with the first. So, the Fund for Independence in Journalism can hardly be considered a separate entity from the CPI. The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.": "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq -- including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam's own generals. So, it was not a "lie" if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That Saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure! Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren't "meaningful." Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are. In these very first two instances, Bush's "lies" turn out not to be lies at all. The New York Times also regurgitated this "study" without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda-pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line...: There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has "no startling new information" in it? Was it just a new chance to say, "Bush lied, people died"? It must be because there isn't any real news here. Finally, it is also interesting to note that the database of "Bush lies" does not notate the context of those "lies." How many of them were widely believed by Democrats and Republicans alike at the time, but were proven later to be less than true? A statement given that is thought to be true (even if it turns out untrue later) is not a lie. It is just mistaken! Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called "non-profit journalism organizations" behind this "study" is unforgivable

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...ed-george-soros

The bottom line is this:
Both Parties are full of shit... this nation is going to hit some trouble times... and its not because of Iraq.....

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "Bush is probably THE worst president in the history of the United States." Bush the CEO of America on CNBC LOL... 2008 is the year of the unraveling of that truth.

I never, EVER thought I'd EVER hear Trump speak some common sense. I'm stunned. Wow!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

Incredible! Instead of people trying to find solutions to americas challenges they prefer to bash at the bush administration. only history can judge this administration, these phony articles are useless.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Incredible! Instead of people trying to find solutions to americas challenges they prefer to bash at the bush administration. only history can judge this administration, these phony articles are useless.

Who is responsible for "americas challenges"? Are you that fucking stupid?

Last edited by Krypton on Jan-25-2008 at 04:16

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 In other news, the sun is a star and is quite bright.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Either way, it breaks down to lying, or not lying.

No it doesn't.

I really do wonder about the mentality of people who seek to exonerate the Bush administration by derailing the debate into an argument about the semantics of "lying". Did the members of the Bush admin know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs in the lead-up to the invasion? I guess we'll never know, but they certainly should have known. The way I see it, an act of deception produced by wilful ignorance is hardly any more justifiable than an act of wilful deception - what we would call a "lie".

It was plain for all to see that the intelligence was flimsy. Colin Powell's presentation the UNSC - the major case that the administration made supporting their push for war - was an absolute joke. They had absolutely no evidence to support their assertion that Iraq was in possession of WMDs and the reason, in hindsight, is obvious: there weren't any there. They persisted in presenting information (Nigerian yellowcake, al Qaeda training camps etc.) that the intelligence communities disputed. They aborted UNMOVIC inspections - a process that would have given us a clear indication about the state of Iraq's WMD programs - because delaying the invasion by a couple of weeks to ensure that it was being waged on just grounds was apparently too much to ask.

If the administration had sincerely wanted to know whether Iraq was in possession of WMDs or not, they could have done so. Instead - blinded by self-deception (which, as Sartre taught us, we are usually in some way responsible for!) - they overstated the strength of the evidence that supported their position and ignored contrary evidence altogether. The idea that apologists for the administration find this reality somehow palatable because they may not have unequivocally "lied" in the process is, for me, completely unfathomable. This was the worst foreign policy of a generation and it could have been completely avoided if the administration was capable of a modicum of objectivity or reason. You really want to tell me that the issue here "breaks down" into whether wilful ignorance and self-deception constitutes lying or not? No donny, this issue "breaks down" into whether the Bush administration is entirely culpable - not in spite of, but because of its ignorance - for the debacle that has been made in Iraq: the answer here, plainly, is "yes".

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

^ what he said

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I really do wonder about the mentality of people who seek to exonerate the Bush administration by derailing the debate into an argument about the semantics of "lying". Did the members of the Bush admin know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs in the lead-up to the invasion? I guess we'll never know, but they certainly should have known.

Why "should" they have known? Monday-morning Quarter-backing is all you're really doing. They no more had a crystal ball back then than you did. They believed their intel...and they viewed Saddam's behavior prior to the war as incriminating and suspicious, with him going back and forth all the time on letting the weapons inspectors in to Iraq. So he claimed he'd let them back in yet again just before the war started, so what? He'd been blocking and restricting them on and off for YEARS! What good was honoring another potential lie going to accomplish? For all we know, he'd have blocked them again at the last minute anyway for self-serving purposes (check this thread):

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...5&forumid=66&s=

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The way I see it, an act of deception produced by wilful ignorance is hardly any more justifiable than an act of wilful deception - what we would call a "lie".

What "deception"? Being "ignorant" of the truth or the facts, only makes you "ignorant" of them, nothing more. There is no malice then, because nobody "chooses" to be ignorant. You're either engaging in deception (lying), or you're a believer in your own ignorance of the facts (not lying, but simply being ignorant of the truth).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It was plain for all to see that the intelligence was flimsy. Colin Powell's presentation the UNSC - the major case that the administration made supporting their push for war - was an absolute joke. They had absolutely no evidence to support their assertion that Iraq was in possession of WMDs and the reason, in hindsight, is obvious: there weren't any there.

Right. Collin Powell showed up to that meeting with NO evidence what-so-ever. pfft...NOW who's perpetuating propaganda?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You really want to tell me that the issue here "breaks down" into whether wilful ignorance and self-deception constitutes lying or not? No donny, this issue "breaks down" into whether the Bush administration is entirely culpable - not in spite of, but because of its ignorance - for the debacle that has been made in Iraq: the answer here, plainly, is "yes".

I never said that the buck doesn't stop with the President!

It's his watch, so even if things don't pan out in his favor (i.e., the reason for the war) he has to take responsibility.

I'm just arguing the fact that there was no "lie" on his part in terms of his personal belief that Saddam had the WMD's, that's all.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Last edited by donnybrasco on Jan-25-2008 at 10:18

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why "should" they have known?

Because:

1) It was something they were willing to go to war over.
2) They had the best-funded intelligence agency in the world at their disposal.
3) They had several braches of the UN specialising in the proliferation of WMDs (IAEA, UNMOVIC etc.) at their disposal.
4) They had been closely monitoring activity in Iraq (economically, via satellite etc.) for 12 at least years prior to the war.
5) It was something they were willing to go to fucking war over.

War should always - always - be a final resort: one forced by an intractably desperate situation. The Bush administration, in this case, used war capriciously as a means of realising a greater geo-political policy initiative. When you make a decision that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and costs tax-payers hundreds of billions of dollars, the excuse "well, with the benefit of hindsight, I guess we weren't that sure" just really doesn't fucking cut it.

quote:

Monday-morning Quarter-backing is all you're really doing. They no more had a crystal ball back then than you did.

I was saying exactly the same things in 2003 that I am saying now (by all means, check the old Iraq threads in this forum). Was I prescient? Was I somehow channelling the spirit of Nostradamus? Was I just lucky? Or did I just see what three-quarters of the people on this planet happened to see - that the Bush administration never really had a palpable case for this war at all?

quote:

They believed their intel...

No they didn't. They believed the intelligence that supported their case for war and dismissed the intelligence that didn't. Much of the evidence channelled by the US administration about Iraqi WMD programs was specious at best (much of the UNMOVIC and IAEA evidence actually contradicted the claims of the administration) and none of it - at any stage - could ever be described as sufficient to launch a war over.

quote:

they viewed Saddam's behavior prior to the war as incriminating and suspicious

An argument that would serve them well in a court of law, I'm sure.

quote:

with him going back and forth all the time on letting the weapons inspectors in to Iraq. So he claimed he'd let them back in yet again just before the war started, so what? He'd been blocking and restricting them on and off for YEARS! What good was honoring another potential lie going to accomplish? For all we know, he'd have blocked them again at the last minute anyway for self-serving purposes

Um, Saddam did let weapons inspectors back into the country prior to the war. If the real aim of the US was to eliminate Iraq's WMD programs, then they should have allowed the inspectors the opportunity to complete their work there. The fact that the inspectors were withdrawn early - despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that they had found nothing to support the claims of the US administration - demonstrates the ideological rather than the factual basis for the war.

quote:

What "deception"? Being "ignorant" of the truth or the facts, only makes you "ignorant" of them, nothing more. There is no malice then, because nobody "chooses" to be ignorant. You're either engaging in deception (lying), or you're a believer in your own ignorance of the facts (not lying, but simply being ignorant of the truth).

My point is that ignorance can be deliberate and self-serving. You can't drive home with your eyes closed and then claim that you aren't responsible for all the people you run over along the way. The facts were there for all to see and the Bush administration chose not to acknowledge them. An ignorance deliberately maintained is not excusable.

(If you want to explore the epistemic distinction between "willed" and "deterministic" ignorance, then I'm happy to go there.)

quote:

Right. Collin Powell showed up to that meeting with NO evidence what-so-ever. pfft...NOW who's perpetuating propaganda?

Have you actually seen his presentation? Go back, watch it, and provide me with a single instance of solid evidence supporting the claims being made about Iraq's WMD programs by the administration at the time. If you can't be bothered, my review - posted a couple of hours after the presentation - is available for your perusal here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=88933

quote:

I never said that the buck doesn't stop with the President! It's his watch, so even if things don't pan out in his favor (i.e., the reason for the war) he has to take responsibility.

Now you're starting to get it.

quote:

I'm just arguing the fact that there was no "lie" on his part in terms of his personal belief that Saddam had the WMD's, that's all.

As I have already said, "the Bush administration is entirely culpable - not in spite of, but because of its ignorance - for the debacle that has been made in Iraq". That is all I'm asking you to acknowledge.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/