Originally Posted By woody The charge of lying is mostly to do with the reasons of getting us into the Iraq War. What else? 1. WMDs (bad intelligence) 2. Niger Yellowcake (Britain stands by their report) 3. Saddam and Al Qaeda collaboration(Bush never made this claim) On what basis should there be an investigation?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob2: You asked me to lookup JeffG's response. If you didn't expect me to respond to JeffG, then why did you ask me to read it?> Sure I wanted you to read it. What are you getting at here? You read it, you resonded to it, and you got it wrong. <I admit that I don't write the best sentences around here, but you're no better. You can't or won't stay with the argument. That's too bad.> On the contrary, I'm with the argument; you're off on your usual tangents. <It's sad that you won't read JeffG's responses as critically as I do.> Why should I, when he got it right, and you got it wrong? You're trying to say that any accusation amounts to a slimy insinuation, but that's only true if it's baseless. I gave the example of saying Bill First "may" beat his wife (baseless) vs. saying OJ Simpson "may" have beat his wife (not baseless). Jeff reiterated similar points; you have to look at if it's baseless or not. And when someone says things that prove to be untrue, it's legitimate to say he MAY have lied. Note I didn't say he did - only that he may have (or, more likely, intentionally overstated and misled), since the statements themselves were not true. That's legit.
Originally Posted By woody Am I wrong? You really have to be more specific. There is no lie about WMDs. The CIA intelligence is wrong. Saddam (in newly released documents) destroyed his WMDs without telling his generals. Is there more to the lying charge? In this web site, it details everything about the Bush lies. There is very little about the Iraq War (see #7, 8, 9). Each charges deserves to be refuted, but they are probably in another web site. ---------- <a href="http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bushlies.net/pages/ 10/index.htm</a>
Originally Posted By woody I left off three additional lies. Total 6 Iraq lies: #1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17. <a href="http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bushlies.net/pages/ 10/index.htm</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug It has been interesting to see reactions to this story, particularly as more documents are released. Despite the prediction (wishes?) of some here (ie: >>This story is BS and we won't hear about it again...<<) this story has just begun. Here's an interesting article from the Boston Globe: <a href="http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/18/us_puts_iraqi_documents_on_the_web/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/business /articles/2006/03/18/us_puts_iraqi_documents_on_the_web/</a> The last two paragraphs are most telling, in my opinion: EXCERPT: >>While conservative US bloggers, and some Iraqis, are eager to translate and read the Iraq documents, some prominent liberal bloggers scoffed at the release. ''To me, this is just more evidence that the Bush administration doesn't take national security seriously," wrote Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the popular Daily Kos website. ''Why doesn't our government have enough translators to handle this job?" Jonathan Singer, weekend editor of the liberal site MyDD.com, was equally dismissive. ''The Hussein documents are not of great interest to me," said Singer, ''for the simple reason that they simply reinforce the notion that the Bush administration cherry picks intelligence to suit their needs."<< I understand perfectly. Why bother looking at information when your mind is already made up?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why bother looking at information when your mind is already made up?<< And with that advice, I point everyone to the thread I just created that links to an article that shows that Saddam had no WMD program.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And with that advice, I point everyone to the thread I just created that links to an article that shows that Saddam had no WMD program.> The difference, of course, is that Saddam purposely concealed the information, so it couldn't be looked at.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Am I wrong? You really have to be more specific.> I was referring to you being wrong about what constitutes a baseless accusation vs. one with enough credibility to have to investigate, not any of the possible Bush lies per se - there are enough threads about that back and forth.
Originally Posted By DlandDug re post #140: Good to see you're starting to see the light on this story, Tom. May I assume your enthusiastic embrace of this document negates your original reaction? (ie, post #9: >>This story is BS and we won't hear about it again...<<) Right now a great deal of information is appearing. Rather than "cherry pic the intel," why not wait to see what kind of concensus emerges? Simply put, it's rather dishonest to dismiss any documents that contradict what you have previously believed, and proclaim as gospel truth only those that support your point of view. (And yes, this cuts both ways.)
Originally Posted By woody I agree that the wife beating charge could be baseless or serious depending on the situation. However, since the discussion is about the Bush lies accusation, if proven true, the remedy is only political (censure or impeachment). The major problem is you can't get to the penalty without discussing the accusation. The charge in itself is completely amorphous. The Bush lies charge has taken a life of its own and has extended beyond the reasons for entering the Iraq War. The major accusation of WMDs is mitigated with the CIA handling of intelligence. You're not going to get far with this accusation. The other accusations about yellowcake and Saddam/Al Qaeda connection are disproved based on what the President has said. In other words, read the text. We can go on and on, yet this has a life of its own. Don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I agree that the wife beating charge could be baseless or serious depending on the situation. > Thank you. That was really my point. As for Bush, he's said so many things about Iraq over the years, sometimes contradictory, that it would indeed be a chore to prove anything like intentional lying. Plus, one would have to get into mindset at the time... notoriously hard things to prove. Intentionally misleading might be more fertile ground; certainly one can find statements that seem to have been constructed only to serve to imply, for example, that Saddam was involved with 9/11, WITHOUT actually saying so, thus preserving cover against a "lie" charge. And, of course, on the eve of war, a solid majority of Americans thought Saddam WAS involved with 9/11. They didn't get that idea from nowhere. It was very carefully planted into their heads. But it's hard to base anything like impeachment or even censure on that. Particularly since the more extreme statements were typically said not by Bush, but by surrogates. The political price Bush pays when (and if) all this comes out in the wash is more likely to be a tarnished legacy than anything concrete while he's still in office.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And, of course, on the eve of war, a solid majority of Americans thought Saddam WAS involved with 9/11.> Not really. A majority of Americans found that it was "quite likely" or "very likely" that Saddam was involved. Since they had been hearing that Al queda and Iraq were linked since 1998, it's not to hard to see why they drew that conclusion.
Originally Posted By woody >>Intentionally misleading might be more fertile ground; certainly one can find statements that seem to have been constructed only to serve to imply, for example, that Saddam was involved with 9/11, WITHOUT actually saying so, thus preserving cover against a "lie" charge.<< This is worse. It suggests deafness and stupidity. That was how Bush was able to portray Senator Kerry as a flip flopper. Did he vote based on convictions or on political expediency? To say the public is equally gullible is a mistake. The public does support the war effort. Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public. >>And, of course, on the eve of war, a solid majority of Americans thought Saddam WAS involved with 9/11. They didn't get that idea from nowhere. It was very carefully planted into their heads.<< This is the most frustrating part of the whole Bush lied conspiracy. Many people did think Saddam was involved. That would include Rumsfeld who thought Saddam harbored terrorists (a truth). The reaction is real; however, it wasn't the reason for the Iraq War. The confluence of activities in the middle east was unavoidable. It was, afterall, a long time coming especially with Iraq problem unresolved and the Middle East having extreme terrorist cells throughout its states and regions. >>It was very carefully planted into their heads.<< Hmm... maybe the mainstream media has something to do with this?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And, of course, on the eve of war, a solid majority of Americans thought Saddam WAS involved with 9/11.>> <Not really. A majority of Americans found that it was "quite likely" or "very likely" that Saddam was involved.> Since (or course) no proof had been presented that he was, what else could they say? This is a distinction without a difference. <Since they had been hearing that Al queda and Iraq were linked since 1998, it's not to hard to see why they drew that conclusion.> Give me a break. Before 2001, most Americans had never HEARD of Al Qaeda. Sad, but true. You know as well as I that they drew the conclusion that Saddam was linked to 9/11 because the Bush admin. studiously planted that idea, again and again and again.
Originally Posted By woody >>This is a distinction without a difference.<< There is a difference. The difference is the perception of being mislead. Being definite "Saddam was involved" is different than "Saddam may be involved". We do know why the Democrats voted for the war resolution. They did it for political expediency. They had every chance to reject it, but did not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Intentionally misleading might be more fertile ground; certainly one can find statements that seem to have been constructed only to serve to imply, for example, that Saddam was involved with 9/11, WITHOUT actually saying so, thus preserving cover against a "lie" charge.<< <This is worse. It suggests deafness and stupidity.> Can't argue with that. <That was how Bush was able to portray Senator Kerry as a flip flopper. Did he vote based on convictions or on political expediency?> That's a non-sequitur. I'm not talking about convictions vs. political expediency. <To say the public is equally gullible is a mistake. The public does support the war effort.> No they don't. They did at first, but the polls have shown that although they always support the troops, a solid majority of Americans now thinks that going into Iraq was a mistake. <Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security> Not really. Many polls have shown Bush well below 50% even on that question these days. This is from Rasmussen, which generally rates Bush higher than the other polls: <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March" target="_blank">http://www.rasmussenreports.co m/2006/March</a>%20Dailies/National%20Security.htm <A separate survey found that 41% of Americans trust Democrats in Congress more than the President on national security issues. Forty percent (40%) have more trust in the President.> <and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq.> Depends how the question is asked. I've seen several polls that say most Americans want the troops out "within a year" or "within two years" if the question is put that way. If the question is worded along the lines of "when the Iraqis can take care of their own security" then of course people will say we should stay until then - although it's very hard to say exactly what that situation would look like. So it depends how the question is framed for that one. <That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public.> It's not a non-starter at all. Polls also show a majority of Americans believing he misled the public. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9981177/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/99 81177/</a> "Indeed, Iraq — which has emerged as the public’s top priority in the poll — has become a particularly thorny issue for Bush. Fifty-seven percent believe he deliberately misled people to make the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most accurate information he had. " But keep believing what you want. >>And, of course, on the eve of war, a solid majority of Americans thought Saddam WAS involved with 9/11. They didn't get that idea from nowhere. It was very carefully planted into their heads.<< <This is the most frustrating part of the whole Bush lied conspiracy. Many people did think Saddam was involved. That would include Rumsfeld who thought Saddam harbored terrorists (a truth).> Do you not see how you moved the goalposts there? Support for, or even harboring terrorists, is not the same as involvement in 9/11. Nearly every nation in that region harbored terrorists and/or supported them to one degree or another. Involvement in 9/11 is a completely different thing. <The reaction is real; however, it wasn't the reason for the Iraq War.> It WAS a reason a solid majority of Americans gave for initially supporting the war. They thought - because they were led to believe - that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and they wanted payback for that. <The confluence of activities in the middle east was unavoidable. It was, afterall, a long time coming especially with Iraq problem unresolved and the Middle East having extreme terrorist cells throughout its states and regions.> It was not unavoidable. We avoided invading countries with closer ties to terrorism than Saddam had. >>It was very carefully planted into their heads.<< <Hmm... maybe the mainstream media has something to do with this?> Did they aid and abet Bush and company by playing their misleading soundbites and not calling bs on them? You bet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>This is a distinction without a difference.<< <There is a difference. The difference is the perception of being mislead.> If one is being misled, by definition, one doesn't catch on till later. On the eve of the war, most Americans believed Saddam was involved with 9/11 somehow. And they supported the war partly on that basis. When it came out that he was not involved, they quite rightly felt misled. And the polls show this. <Being definite "Saddam was involved" is different than "Saddam may be involved".> Wasn't it you who objected to me saying "Bush may have lied" because supposedly the accusation itself was slanderous? But if Bush hints "Saddam may be involved" when he had NO evidence to that effect (and involvement with unrelated terrorists doesn't count), that's okay? Make up your mind. <We do know why the Democrats voted for the war resolution. They did it for political expediency. They had every chance to reject it, but did not.> Now on this, we agree, at least partly. There are some Dems who say that the resolution did not call for war in itself, only the threat of the "big stick" that they thought the US could wield to get Saddam to agree to more intrusive inspections. From some of them, I buy this. From others - it was political expediency.
Originally Posted By woody >>Wasn't it you who objected to me saying "Bush may have lied" because supposedly the accusation itself was slanderous? But if Bush hints "Saddam may be involved" when he had NO evidence to that effect (and involvement with unrelated terrorists doesn't count), that's okay? Make up your mind.<< I did make up my mind. I said Bush wasn't the one who said it based on his previous comments. The public had a strong reaction after 911. Some probably thought Saddam may have been involved. How would they not? And since the discussion was the perception of being misled, the difference was clear. There is NO misleading intentional or inadvertent. The public has a right to their opinion. They thought wrong. Should we start blaming the public for being stupid. Let's go there.
Originally Posted By woody >>It WAS a reason a solid majority of Americans gave for initially supporting the war. They thought - because they were led to believe - that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and they wanted payback for that.<< WMDs was the reason for the invasion, but this was based on how the Bush Administration oversold the assertion, but if you read the Congressional resolution, it is many reasons. 911 and Saddam wasn't the reason, but why is this pushed consistently? This is clearly disinformation.
