|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 22, 2008 23:35:01 GMT -4
Is that 935 false statments, or knowingly false statments. There is a difference between lying and just being wrong. Like I said in another post, the more lies you tell, the harder it is to tell the difference between lies and the truth. And that can lead to doing bad things... ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 23, 2008 3:19:10 GMT -4
Is that 935 false statments, or knowingly false statments. There is a difference between lying and just being wrong. The thing is, though, I'm not sure that having that many simply false statements is better by all that much than lying. Surely it's a bad sign either way!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 11:53:36 GMT -4
Well, when everyone else was wrong too then it's not nearly as bad. It would be nice to be the person who was right all along, but at least they were doing no worse than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 15:13:09 GMT -4
Oh, bother. All of the statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda were "knowingly false." There was never more than a meeting between the two entities and that meeting amounted to nothing. Yet the Bush administration continued to hammer away with allegations that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. And no matter what shady distinction you might want to draw, (falsely) linking Iraq to Al Qaeda had the effect of making the public believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
On top of that, all of the claims of weapons of mass destruction were greatly overblown. Some claims were outright lies, while others were amplified to the greatest extent possible. NO solid evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction was presented before we went to war.
And, as I recall, several countries in Europe warned us that we were making a mistake. In response, we renamed French fries "freedom fries."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 15:46:01 GMT -4
Several European countries disagreed with our tactics for dealing with Saddam, not with our intelligence assessments.
The claims that Al Qaeda had some contact with Saddams government were not false.
We had as solid evidence of WMDs as we could get without actually invading (or seeing them used).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 15:47:45 GMT -4
Arguments about why the war started, by the way, are almost completely irrelevent to deciding what action should be taken now.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 17:02:37 GMT -4
Invasion is not the only way to gather intelligence. Having a meeting with someone that results in zero cooperation is hardly evidence one can use to support an invasion. Our intelligence assessments were corrupted and overblown by those wanting to use them as a pretext for war. The Bush administration wanted war with Iraq and they twisted the slim intelligence available to support their intentions.
National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice -- Nov. 18, 2001 Meet the Press
RICE: Now, as to Iraq, we didn't need September 11 to tell us that Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous man. We didn't need September 11 to tell us that he's trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. There could be only one reason that he has not wanted U.N. inspectors in Iraq, and that's so that he can build weapons of mass destruction. We know that he tried twice before to acquire nuclear weapons. In 1981, when the Israelis pre-empted at Osyroc, he was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. In 1991, when our forces arrived in Iraq, they saw that, again, he was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. He is a very dangerous man. We have to deal with him on his own terms. We didn't need September 11 to tell us that he's a threat to American security.
I was in Colorado with my girlfriend when this interview aired and I recall looking over at her after the above statement and saying, "well, we're going to war with Iraq." Six weeks after 9/11, they had already made up their minds that they didn't need any evidence to know that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction. Turns out they were wrong. They did need evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 17:35:00 GMT -4
Invasion is not the only way to gather intelligence. True, but it's a pretty thorough way to make sure you get everything. That was not the only evidence we had.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 18:00:34 GMT -4
I heard today that the "non-profit journalism organization" the Center for Public Integrity has in fact received funding from George Soros (the Hungarian billionare who is attempting to restructure the Soviet bloc). The Fund for Independence in Journalism is in fact just a spinoff of the Center, as it's primary purpose is "providing legal defense and endowment support" for the Center.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 18:32:42 GMT -4
And four thousand US killed. And the real perpetrator of acts of terror against us was nowhere around. And, oh, no imminent threat and no evidence of any long-range threat.
You are incorrect. There was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I've previously linked to plenty of statements and studies that show this. To just blandly repeat that there was some relationship does not withstand scrutiny.
As you say, Jason -- evidence?
Except for the part where they claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship and that satellite imagery of semi trailers was proof of mobile weapons labs and yellow cake and on and on on....
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 19:17:47 GMT -4
You are incorrect. There was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I've previously linked to plenty of statements and studies that show this. I disagree that the studies you've previously linked to have proven their case. I was only emulating your typical attitude. If memory serves, you were unwilling to admit that Alexander the Great existed. I am willing to accept the word of the President and his staff until they are proven wrong. They are in the position to know much more about how our intelligence agencies really viewed Iraq at the time than most other sources. The mobile weapons labs were apparently inaccurate, but the yellow cake claim is true.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 19:37:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 19:46:32 GMT -4
George W. Bush -- February 2003 radio address: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad." Colin Powell, Thurs., January 2004: “I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed." www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/Yeah. It's good to be so sure without actual evidence. It's the sureness that counts, not the evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2008 19:53:44 GMT -4
Whenever we try to determine whether controversial historical events occurred or how they occurred it boils down to "which sources do we find more credible." I don't find your sources credible, so we're at an impass. I haven't provided sources because I don't believe I can make any actual headway against your personal article of faith that the President is a despicable, stupid, individual who lied to the country for ulterior motives, similar in many ways to your unshakeable beilef that Christianity is a negative, oppressive force. It simply doesn't matter what facts I marshal to my side, so I might as well spare myself the effort, declare this particular subject closed, and we can move on to some other topic. The forum didn't really need another thread about the origins of the Iraq war anyway.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 23, 2008 19:59:28 GMT -4
Peachy.
|
|