Another for the archives
The Bush/ Cheney regime that gave us gems like, "Mission Accomplished," "We will be greeted as liberators," and "The insurgency is in its last thoes," now gives us, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The Washington Post article says the Pentagon knew two full days before Bush made that statement that it wasn't true. The good news is that they didn't keep this to themselves, they sent a report to Washington, the bad news is that it was ignored. Not only that, but the report was shelved while the administration continued to point to those trailers as evidence of WMD's, and as proof of justification for the war. There's a word for knowing something to be false but saying it anyway, I just can't think of it.
However, the White House is quick to respond. However, McClellans points bring up one biggie. McClellan said information for public reports from the CIA comes from many sources and takes time to vet." Which begs the question, if it "takes time to vet," and everyone knows this, why didn't the President give it time to vet? Why did he rush to make a statement? If someone give me information that takes time to vet, I don't go rushing to make a public pronoucement as strong as he did. That's just setting yourself up.
And some wonder why people are losing trust in W. If I had a friend that was repeatedly this wrong in business, I'm not so sure I'd invest in his next venture.
Posts
6 comments:
I'm confused by your conclussions. The article states that Bush was saying in May that we had found the weapons. This was based on the discovery of the mobile chem labs. After this, on May 27 a report was issued by a group of Pentagon experts saying that the chem labs were not used to make WMD. On May 28, both the CIA and the DIA disagreed with those findings. On May 29, Bush reiterated his ealier position based on the CIA and DIA positions.
I'm confused about who lied. Keep in mind that this was not the only nation involved in intelligence gathering nor the only nation drawing the conclussion that Saddam had the weapons. Or, perhaps more accurately, likely had the weapons.
Your second charge is an intellectually valid one. Perhaps Bush should have remained quiet until all information was received and processed. However, for someone who is as politically savvy as anyone on this magestic blog, you know full well that administrations distribute supportive data on a daily cycle. If it is not untrue and it supports your position, you spread it. This is not lying. It is certainly open to criticism and an unfortunate political reality, but not lying.
But then I know how well your inflammatory, extreme rhetoric goes over in Barcelona.
The great thing about Bush is that he forces his supporters into all kinds of uncomfortable arguements. I'll leave out a discussion on Cheney and Rumsfeld creating their own intellegence areas to "cherry-pick" information, and stick to the article and your points.
One, its not like the contrary view came from one of my many rants on this blog. It came from Pentagon experts, who were there personally investigating the cite. To ignore this information and make a bold announcement seems odd for someone who claims that, for example, you can't make strong statements on global warming because the scientists are not in complete agreement. You're right, it was a political move. He rushed an annoucement during a time when he needed something reassuring to point to. The fact that he was wrong only means he willfully ignored, for whatever reason, the right information to make a point. That falls into the "lie" category. Even if its not a lie, you must agree that it was a mistake.
On your second point, I don't care what the rest of the world thought. While the "rest of the world" arguement seems to resonate with you and McLieberman, it means nothing to me. Just as I ultimately don't care what the rest of world thinks on legal issues before the Supreme Court, I don't care what they think when it comes to intellegence. We are resposible to ourselves. If the rest of the world thought it was safe to jump off a brige, would you?
Your third point falls apart here: "If it is not untrue and it supports your position, you spread it. This is not lying." It was untrue, thats the point. If the first case is not lying, is the second lying?
However, I do agree. This was political, and mistakes happen in political cycles, and so does lying. This was not an epicly damaging mistake, or lie, either way. My point, and I did get ahead of myself, was that that quote deserves to go into the lexicon of other categorically wrong quotes to come out of the White House.
Finally, you would never contort, or make these points if Kerry said it, or McCain. Try to remember your "its ok to be wrong, or possibly lie (remember one persons honest mistake is another's lie) on major announcements" policy during the next election cycle.
OK, if I tell you that The Call is getting back together and Erik says it ain't true, but you decide to agree with me because there was something about Bean's last interview that seemed to imply a reunion and you tell Kelly this...are you a liar if it turns out Erik is right? Man, that is strange logic.
The Pentagon is just one of many government agencies. None is any more authoritative than the next. By listening to one and ignoring another is how countless international decision are made. The one that is correct this week will be incorrect next week. The same goes for global warming. There are experts on both sides. If you agree with global warmers and it turns out we are simply in a cyclical period of warming does that make you a liar? Of course not. That's ridiculous. It just means you chose the wrong experts to believe. Making mistakes is not deception. Otherwise your passing skills on the hardwood would be downright unethical!
Calling this lying is so much of a stretch you must be limbering up for a political career of your own.
Granted you seemed to move away from your accusation of lying in your post but I'm still pounding because of "That falls in the 'lie' catagory". It most certainly does not.
Your point about a Kerry/Bush swap is valid. I most certainly reserve the right to accuse those I don't trust of lying, but I will also admit when it is just my hunch or my feeling and not an objective provable event. You have a gut feeling and you are confusing it with established fact. You and the mainstream media may be the ones right on this. Bush may, in fact, have known his statements were false when he made them. However, no one can prove that, so you can't reasonably start with that assumption and expect everyone to come along. I believe Clinton was dirty in whitewater, but I also acknowledge that it couldn't be proven so I don't assert it as fact unless I'm just ranting. Which I also reserve the right to do.
I'm curious to your answer on, "our third point falls apart here: "If it is not untrue and it supports your position, you spread it. This is not lying." It was untrue, thats the point. If the first case is not lying, is the second lying?"
Also, if the scenario was such that he had to make an immediate decision you may have a point (ignoring history and the set-up and taken as a point in time). But this was no emergency. There was plenty of time to vet the data. There was no need for the President of the US to state "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
But back to the "lie" discussion. There is "truth" and everything aroud it. The question is what to call something that is not "true." And this is where pattern and history come in. If I set up a situation where I only hear what I want, those with dissenting information or opinions are marginalized or fired, and I even go so far as to set up my own intellegence operations, to put out information that is favorable to either myself or my views, then I believe at some point mistakes aren't "mistakes" they become lies used to prop me up. The truth behind these trailers is so far from reality that someone lied. When the President voices that "mistake" then he's resposible for it. When he doesn't reprimand or punshish those who make the "mistake" then he endorses those them.
I never said I think he told an abject lie. My point is that he set up a scenrio that obscures the truth to his benefit. Again, taken as a point in time, I think you have a case, taken in reality with the history and circumstances then I think it falls somewhere between white and flagrant in the "lie" category. You're the king of intent, and I think the intent was to deceive, or at least not dig far enough to find any contrary views. I think its deceptive and that's a type of lie.
Again, your defense of Bush forces you into convoluted positions. Come voting season try to remember your "if it can't be proven it can't be used" thesis. Also, try to apply it to Bush and you will understand why so many people don't trust him. Your, "You have a gut feeling and you are confusing it with established fact" statement defines his presidency. He starts with his gut, "Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks" and expects everyone to follow. Clearly you think this is wrong, yet you follow. If you're waiting for proof before you follow you surely must still be on the sidelines. Think about it, most of the lead up to Iraq was based on gut, circumstance, and opinions, accusations not proof (remember the "proof may be a mushroom cloud over NYC" quote) yet you supported it. In another case, most of the people at Gitmo are there under circumsances far from "provable" and no chance to prove their innocence, yet you strongly support their incarceration, and srongly support their lack of access or ability to have a case proven agaist them. Why the chage?
Which do you cherish, "proof" or "gut." If its the former, you may have to go back and amend most of your posts in this blog.
But remember, I cherish you.
A lie is to say the opposite of what you know is true.
If you repeat misinformation that someone else tells you because you believe it was true, that is not a lie.
There is no way a fair minded person can conclude the Bush has lied in any of this. You can have a hunch that he did because you don't trust him, but that is no stronger than having a hunch that Bill Clinton is a rapist. I think Clinton may have raped the woman (who's name a already forgot) but I know that that is just a hunch. I refuse to extend the benefit of the doubt (and there is inarguably doubt) because of my hunch. That is what you are doing. You are not extending the benefit of the doubt even though doubt clearly exists (in this case the doubt is about the lying).
My 24 hour news cycle argument already answered your "he should wait" argument. That's simply not how it works. I wish we had calm and deliberative populace/media/education system, but we don't. You have to control the news cycle and frame the arguments. If your position is challenged you put out your view. And you stick with it until it is proven that its wrong. One new report that is contrary to all the other views is not definitive. It takes time to verify the new information and until it is verified you'd be a political fool to start backing away from your position. Because if it turns out you are still right, you look weak and indecisive.
Your charges in your third paragraph are such wild conjecture. No one is firing everyone who disagrees. It has long been known that the state department is left leaning in terms of war and intervention. It would have been gutted if your conjecture was true. What intelligence service has been set up to control information? Much of the intel coming out has been contrary to Bush. The truth behind the trailers is that someone was WRONG. That is not lying. Did you lie on all the math tests you failed? (disclaimer: this was levity, UBlo has a very capable mathematical mind)
The links between Saddam and Al Qaeda were and are legitimate. That has never been disproven. Bush never claimed that Saddam was directly responsible for 911. Those are Michael Moore created deceptions that should be kept out of reasonable debates. Al Qaeda carried out the attacks, Saddam has well defined connections to Al Qaeda, Saddam is violating all the UN imposed restrictions, take him out. No brainer. This attempt at a media created revision is simply a shame. (I'm really not sure if you are buying the revision, but you are arguing so closely to it that I'm afraid I'm assuming you are. If you are not, then I apologize and request you be a bit more clear as to what you do believe)
It was gut based on very strong evidence that fell just short of being conclusive. The man did his job and did it well. He has made many mistakes in his presidency but invading Iraq was not one of them.
Just for the record, still no reply on, ""If it is not untrue and it supports your position, you spread it. This is not lying." It was untrue, thats the point. If the first case is not lying, is the second lying?"
However, it seems like we're either getting to the same place, you don't think he's lying and I do, both based on "hunch," with neither of us having proof. However, if I were a laywer, and thankfully I'm not, I have enough to go to trial (and if I have a jury full of fawning simpletons like yourself, yes, I would probably lose). Or, we're into a deeper philosophical discussion on what is lying?
*pretty clever second to last sentence there. I concede that I may lose, but manage to get a zinger in on you, and frame it so that while I lose, its only because you're stupid, not because I'm wrong. I hope you're taking notes here.
The UAE has ties to Al Quaeda and Bush wanted to give them control of the ports without even taking the legal time to examine the deal. Did he "look into their soul" like he did Putin and decide they're ok? My point forever has been that every state in the Middle East has ties to Binny. That's not a differentiating factor.
Again, don't want to get into this on this thread, but...The general who vocally stated that there weren't enough troops committed to the occupation was fired. Cheney made daily trips to the CIA and personally gave instructions as to what to follow up on, and what to ignore, and Rummy set up his own intellegence group inside the DOD. This was not looking for the truth, this was looking to qualify a decision that was already made. It's bad science and wouldn't fly in any other area than propoganda. And propoganda's lots of things, but it aint truth.
Speaking of propoganda, did Bush ever say, "Saddam is responsible for 9/11," nope, not that I know of. Did he link them in his speeches, creating the illusion of a conspiracy, yup. An example of that link is the fact that so many people and soldiers feel that the number one reason for the invasion, or why they're fighting is becasue of Saddam's role in 9/11.
That last paragraph makes me nervous. You will immediately put me into the Moore camp which makes want to light myself on fire. But I know propoganda and manipulation when I see it.
Finally, this is how I see your point on Iraq. We invaded because a) Saddam had links to Binny. But so did everyone else in the region, so why him? That leads to b). He was in violation of UN sanctions. Which leads me to beleive that you favor using US citizens, troops and assets to do the UN's bidding. This is odd because normally your very anti-UN. So in your opinion, it's a great use of several hundred billion dollars, and several thousand US lives, with ten's of thousands of non-fatal injuries, becasue Iraq was in violation of UN policies. Since when did we become the military arm of the UN? I can unequivically state that I don't support that, and if that's really one of the reasons, I'm even more upset than ever.
I would have had more respect for your answer if you stated, "look, Bush said that Saddam had WMD's, and was an imminent threat to US security (which is the story I remember-Ed). So I supported the invasion. Yes Bush was wildy wrong on both cases, and he badly judged how expensive the war would be, but his job is to protect the nation, and he acted." Then, at least we could debate "real" motive. But as long as you feel that Binny and the UN were the reasons, always have been, and they were good, then we're far apart.
Finally, nothing about what has happened since the invasion qualifies as "just short of conclusive." As stated above, he was way off in every real reason, cost, and estimate. You can say he made honest mistakes, and trusted his gut, but I just don't see how you can say he was "close."
Post a Comment