As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Study: False statements preceded war

krodoskrodos Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
WASHINGTON - 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.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"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."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

___



wow...

Gilbert, it's the Burger Barn! It's the Burger Barn, Gilbert, the Burger Barn!
krodos on
«134

Posts

  • Options
    Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Surprised much?

    Manning'sEquation on
  • Options
    corcorigancorcorigan Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's called propaganda. This is why when a politician says anything, you have to think "where's the money?".

    corcorigan on
    Ad Astra Per Aspera
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Politicians saying things that are wrong?!!??

    When did this start happening?

    Apostate on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I wouldn't quite call this breaking news.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I was pretty certain they were lies when they told us the first time.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    "An additional study to be announced tomorrow will confirm the wetness of water."

    It's sad that we accept this as a matter of course, but the damage has been done. Let's hope we learn more the second time around.

    galenblade on
    linksig.jpg
  • Options
    GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Next you'll say he stole the election!

    Greeper on
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I was born during the Nixon adminisration. Heres a president renouned for lying - and yet, when I watched one of his speaches, I was amazed at how obvious his lies were.
    See, I've been lied to by the very best - Nixon may have been A-material in the 60's, but I've had people telling me catsup is a vegatable, no new taxes, nuclear war is winnable, and the meaning of 'is'. The worst thing is, I dont mind the 'is' lie, because I would have lied if I had sex with Monica Lewinsky. I'd have lied about it if I was single! "What? Her. No, not me man. I, uh, I might have left with her at last call, but I passed out in the gutter, I swear to god."
    Bush lied? This is news? Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney lied all the time. Every day. Every press conference.
    Yeah, sure the war is winable. Sure Global Warming is a liberal myth. Sure the economy will improve, any time soon.

    The only difference between Bill's lie and Bushie's lie - Bill could read his lines without screwing them up.

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The gross inaccuracies that preceded the war have been well documented in many books. Try Curveball or any of Woodward's 3 works on the Bush admininstration.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I thought it to be interesting that someone decided to start counting.

    I can only imagine The Count from Sesame Street starting this, and then, at the end, blowing his brains out due to the sheer depression of it all...

    Tach on
  • Options
    MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    NEWS AT 11!

    I guess it is nice to have big, flashy statistics.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's too bad that these well documented lies won't lead to impeachment.

    We only impeach presidents for harmless lies, apparently.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's too bad that these well documented lies won't lead to impeachment.

    We only impeach presidents for harmless lies, apparently.

    Kuchinich tried impeaching Cheney (good man!) but the measure was sent off to the Island of Lost Bills by Pellosi - because she rightly understood that it would make the dems look vindictive in an election year, and would probably blow up in their face. The whole bunch of them are going to walk away from this whole disaster without a scratch.

    I'd say thats the real tragedy of this whole mess, if it werent for the thousands of dead and the tens of thousands of wounded Americans (and the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and the hundreds of thousands of refugee Iraqis, and the one member of Al-Qaida who is still breathing my air and shouldnt be)

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's too bad that these well documented lies won't lead to impeachment.

    We only impeach presidents for harmless lies, apparently.

    Kuchinich tried impeaching Cheney (good man!) but the measure was sent off to the Island of Lost Bills by Pellosi - because she rightly understood that it would make the dems look vindictive in an election year, and would probably blow up in their face. The whole bunch of them are going to walk away from this whole disaster without a scratch.

    I'd say thats the real tragedy of this whole mess, if it werent for the thousands of dead and the tens of thousands of wounded Americans (and the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and the hundreds of thousands of refugee Iraqis, and the one member of Al-Qaida who is still breathing my air and shouldnt be)

    Nice perspective there, Sword.

    I'd like to see the families of the dead sue the shit out of Bush & Co. for wrongful deaths after they're civilians again. There's enough of them for a class action lawsuit.

    Now THAT would be a hell of an interesting trial. Fuck this O.J. shit.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Second, why is it relevant to count how many times Bush said, "Hey, Iraq has WMDs"? If he makes allusions to Iraqi WMDs ten times over the course of a speech, that's ten lies? Buh?

    Third, what's the point of this? I mean, seriously? How are we going to use this information to make the world a better place? Oh, wait, that's not the point. The point is to spend a bunch of money in order to codify how much Bush sucks. You know, I think Joe McCarthy was kind of a dick, too. Let's get someone to fund a study of how many times he said "communist".

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    Third, what's the point of this? I mean, seriously? How are we going to use this information to make the world a better place? Oh, wait, that's not the point. The point is to spend a bunch of money in order to codify how much Bush sucks. You know, I think Joe McCarthy was kind of a dick, too. Let's get someone to fund a study of how many times he said "communist".

    726,432.

    I'm joking.

    But seriously, Bush always used to talk about how history would vindicate his Iraq policy. The study is a contribution to history regarding the legacy Bush leaves behind.

    In a way, they're helping him out. He wanted to know, so they told him.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    ScikarScikar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    Scikar on
    ScikarSig2.png
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quite frankly I'm astonished anyone ever thought it might be true.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    I believe it was a given by almost every western intelligence agency on the planet. Much of the info used by Bush and Blair came from foreign agencies. There was a general consensus that Saddam was hiding a rather large stockpile because there were no records of much it of being destroyed.

    Most of the debate in UN leading up to the war was about whether to use force or more diplomacy to get Saddam to give them up, not whether he actually had WMDs. It was almost a formality as far showing WMD evidence because almost everybody thought he had them.

    Apostate on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    There's no way to know for sure either way, but Bush simply being mistaken is the much more plausible option. He may well have been myopically ignoring evidence that contradicted his belief that they had WMDs, but that just makes him a shitty decision maker, not a liar. His entire presidency is dominated by him deciding he believes something and then working towards his goals with flagrant disregard for opposing viewpoints. Him being similarly mistaken on Iraq would be entirely consistent with his behavior in other theaters. Further, there was enough validity to certain claims so as to make it plausible that one could look at all the facts and still buy into the idea of Iraqi possession of WMDs if one was intent on believing so.

    Recall that Saddam's people were basically lying to him about their progress on certain development projects, and that in many cases his attempts at developing weapons were basically held back by the sanctions that kept him from acquiring certain materials. The intel, on balance, painted a portrait of a man who really wanted WMDs, who was trying to make some, and who erroneously thought he was getting somewhere.

    At the end of the day, though, look at it this way: Go visit some fundie forum. Check out a debate on evolution. Witness the ridiculous crap put out in defense of creationism. Now, do you think all of these people are lying, and they really all believe in evolution? Of course not. They're simply so invested in their worldviews that they can support their beliefs with whatever half-truths and misconceptions they find lying around. They start with a belief and then look for evidence to support it. So it was with Bush - he believed Iraq had WMDs, and paid attention only to the intel that supported this.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    MattDanteMattDante Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I know some of you probably don't care one way or another, but you should recognize that this study was funded by George Soros. While it does not mean that the data may not be correct, I would ask that those who constantly say that studies on global warming done by oil companies are garbage need to take the same approach to this as well.

    MattDante on
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    I believe it was a given by almost every western intelligence agency on the planet. Much of the info used by Bush and Blair came from foreign agencies. There was a general consensus that Saddam was hiding a rather large stockpile because there were no records of much it of being destroyed.

    Most of the debate in UN leading up to the war was about whether to use force or more diplomacy to get Saddam to give them up, not whether he actually had WMDs. It was almost a formality as far showing WMD evidence because almost everybody thought he had them.


    To which I will respond exactly the same way I responded in 2003:

    So what? So do we. Everyone from a country that nuked another country raise your hands.

    Goddamn Candians. Stop looking so smug. You...well...you....fuck...you....got.....Celine Deon, OK!?


    Point is, the reson for whacking Saddam was BS - so what if he has WMDs? We're hardly in any position to say dont, because we have enough to end all life on the planet. It reminded me of that old Beastie Boys lyric "Dad caught you smokin' and he said 'no way', that hypocrite smokes two packs a day." There was no proof, there was no smoke gun, there was no evidence of radioactives, of chemical agents, we knew nothing of the sort.

    That reason was never good enough to send our men and women into harms way. Not ever.

    Oh, well, Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Thats a good reason to go to war, right. Yes, it is, except:

    No they werent. Thats bullshit. I know, because I'm a student of history - I know because I know how fascism works - and rule number one for a dictator : Never, ever, ever let anyone else have an ounce of power. Hilter knew that rule, which was why he had Rhom executed, first thing, and you can say a lot about Saddam, but you cant say he was stupid. Al-Qaida represented an entirely seperate power base that was under control of foreign powers - folks like Al-Qaida tend to overthrow dictatorships and install their own Islamic version of facsism. Thats why Musharref is sweating bullets - he's not that different from the Shah of Iran - a U.S. supported dictator in an Islamic nation.

    Whats that leave?

    Oil: Lots of oil.
    Pride: Because daddy Bush failed to oust Saddam, and every time he thumbed his nose at the UN it was a snub to House Bush
    Jesus: Its not a coincidence that Bush refered to this war as a 'crusade against evil'. He's slapped a red cross on a white shield and gone a killin' for the Lord.

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Cherry-picking your intel to support a conclusion that you've already decided is the "right" one and ignoring the intel that says otherwise isn't an "honest mistake."

    That said, their counting methods are screwy, and this really isn't news to anyone. Reality didn't line up with what the Bush Administration wanted, so they manufactured their own reality. I don't really care if people call that "lying" or not; it is what happened.

    Doc on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Cherry-picking your intel to support a conclusion that you've already decided is the "right" one and ignoring the intel that says otherwise isn't an "honest mistake."

    Perhaps not, but there's a distinction between trying to get people to believe something you also believe, and trying to get people to believe something you think is a lie. I contend that Bush did the former, even though he was myopic and sleazy about it.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    I believe it was a given by almost every western intelligence agency on the planet. Much of the info used by Bush and Blair came from foreign agencies. There was a general consensus that Saddam was hiding a rather large stockpile because there were no records of much it of being destroyed.

    Most of the debate in UN leading up to the war was about whether to use force or more diplomacy to get Saddam to give them up, not whether he actually had WMDs. It was almost a formality as far showing WMD evidence because almost everybody thought he had them.


    To which I will respond exactly the same way I responded in 2003:

    So what? So do we. Everyone from a country that nuked another country raise your hands.

    Goddamn Candians. Stop looking so smug. You...well...you....fuck...you....got.....Celine Deon, OK!?


    Point is, the reson for whacking Saddam was BS - so what if he has WMDs? We're hardly in any position to say dont, because we have enough to end all life on the planet. It reminded me of that old Beastie Boys lyric "Dad caught you smokin' and he said 'no way', that hypocrite smokes two packs a day." There was no proof, there was no smoke gun, there was no evidence of radioactives, of chemical agents, we knew nothing of the sort.

    That reason was never good enough to send our men and women into harms way. Not ever.

    Oh, well, Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Thats a good reason to go to war, right. Yes, it is, except:

    No they werent. Thats bullshit. I know, because I'm a student of history - I know because I know how fascism works - and rule number one for a dictator : Never, ever, ever let anyone else have an ounce of power. Hilter knew that rule, which was why he had Rhom executed, first thing, and you can say a lot about Saddam, but you cant say he was stupid. Al-Qaida represented an entirely seperate power base that was under control of foreign powers - folks like Al-Qaida tend to overthrow dictatorships and install their own Islamic version of facsism. Thats why Musharref is sweating bullets - he's not that different from the Shah of Iran - a U.S. supported dictator in an Islamic nation.

    Whats that leave?

    Oil: Lots of oil.
    Pride: Because daddy Bush failed to oust Saddam, and every time he thumbed his nose at the UN it was a snub to House Bush
    Jesus: Its not a coincidence that Bush refered to this war as a 'crusade against evil'. He's slapped a red cross on a white shield and gone a killin' for the Lord.

    Well I guess you got it all figured out there huh?

    Apostate on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Cherry-picking your intel to support a conclusion that you've already decided is the "right" one and ignoring the intel that says otherwise isn't an "honest mistake."

    Perhaps not, but there's a distinction between trying to get people to believe something you also believe, and trying to get people to believe something you think is a lie. I contend that Bush did the former, even though he was myopic and sleazy about it.

    Yeah, like I said, you can call it a "lie" or not, I don't really care. If you like, I can change my stance to "Provable reality didn't line up with what the Bush Administration wanted, so they manufactured their own reality. I don't really care if people call that "lying" or not; it is what happened."

    Doc on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Fair enough.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    I believe it was a given by almost every western intelligence agency on the planet. Much of the info used by Bush and Blair came from foreign agencies. There was a general consensus that Saddam was hiding a rather large stockpile because there were no records of much it of being destroyed.

    Most of the debate in UN leading up to the war was about whether to use force or more diplomacy to get Saddam to give them up, not whether he actually had WMDs. It was almost a formality as far showing WMD evidence because almost everybody thought he had them.


    To which I will respond exactly the same way I responded in 2003:

    So what? So do we. Everyone from a country that nuked another country raise your hands.

    Goddamn Candians. Stop looking so smug. You...well...you....fuck...you....got.....Celine Deon, OK!?


    Point is, the reson for whacking Saddam was BS - so what if he has WMDs? We're hardly in any position to say dont, because we have enough to end all life on the planet. It reminded me of that old Beastie Boys lyric "Dad caught you smokin' and he said 'no way', that hypocrite smokes two packs a day." There was no proof, there was no smoke gun, there was no evidence of radioactives, of chemical agents, we knew nothing of the sort.

    That reason was never good enough to send our men and women into harms way. Not ever.

    Oh, well, Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Thats a good reason to go to war, right. Yes, it is, except:

    No they werent. Thats bullshit. I know, because I'm a student of history - I know because I know how fascism works - and rule number one for a dictator : Never, ever, ever let anyone else have an ounce of power. Hilter knew that rule, which was why he had Rhom executed, first thing, and you can say a lot about Saddam, but you cant say he was stupid. Al-Qaida represented an entirely seperate power base that was under control of foreign powers - folks like Al-Qaida tend to overthrow dictatorships and install their own Islamic version of facsism. Thats why Musharref is sweating bullets - he's not that different from the Shah of Iran - a U.S. supported dictator in an Islamic nation.

    Whats that leave?

    Oil: Lots of oil.
    Pride: Because daddy Bush failed to oust Saddam, and every time he thumbed his nose at the UN it was a snub to House Bush
    Jesus: Its not a coincidence that Bush refered to this war as a 'crusade against evil'. He's slapped a red cross on a white shield and gone a killin' for the Lord.

    Well I guess you got it all figured out there huh?


    Yes. I do. I'm a veteran, and I take this sort of thing very seriously. Iraq is bullshit. Its Vietnam for people too stupid to learn from history. You dont believe my opinion? Walter Cronkite said Iraq was Vietnam, almost play for play.
    Afganistan - thats a war that we should be fighting 100%, because the reasons for sending our troops into harms way were good ones. Al-Qaida is directly responsible for an attack on American soil, and if left alone, represent a continuing threat to the safety of America; and that there is a direct, causal link between Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

    What we're doing in Afganistan is too much with too little - take every unit in Iraq, and place them in Afganistan and BinLaden would be dead. The Taliban would be history, instead of counter-attacking, and Al-Qaida would be history, instead of blowing up world leaders and little kids.

    Thats Bush's legacy.

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, people paid money for this?

    First of all, I like the cute way in which "false statements" lumps in both lies and honest errors in such a way as to make even the latter sound sinister. We had shitty intel, we thought there were WMDs, we were wrong. ZOMG, lies.

    Is there anything to back up that the Bush administration even thought there WMDs in Iraq? Because if you're referring to the info from MI6, they were saying all along that Iraq didn't have anything.

    I believe it was a given by almost every western intelligence agency on the planet. Much of the info used by Bush and Blair came from foreign agencies. There was a general consensus that Saddam was hiding a rather large stockpile because there were no records of much it of being destroyed.

    Most of the debate in UN leading up to the war was about whether to use force or more diplomacy to get Saddam to give them up, not whether he actually had WMDs. It was almost a formality as far showing WMD evidence because almost everybody thought he had them.


    To which I will respond exactly the same way I responded in 2003:

    So what? So do we. Everyone from a country that nuked another country raise your hands.

    Goddamn Candians. Stop looking so smug. You...well...you....fuck...you....got.....Celine Deon, OK!?


    Point is, the reson for whacking Saddam was BS - so what if he has WMDs? We're hardly in any position to say dont, because we have enough to end all life on the planet. It reminded me of that old Beastie Boys lyric "Dad caught you smokin' and he said 'no way', that hypocrite smokes two packs a day." There was no proof, there was no smoke gun, there was no evidence of radioactives, of chemical agents, we knew nothing of the sort.

    That reason was never good enough to send our men and women into harms way. Not ever.

    Oh, well, Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Thats a good reason to go to war, right. Yes, it is, except:

    No they werent. Thats bullshit. I know, because I'm a student of history - I know because I know how fascism works - and rule number one for a dictator : Never, ever, ever let anyone else have an ounce of power. Hilter knew that rule, which was why he had Rhom executed, first thing, and you can say a lot about Saddam, but you cant say he was stupid. Al-Qaida represented an entirely seperate power base that was under control of foreign powers - folks like Al-Qaida tend to overthrow dictatorships and install their own Islamic version of facsism. Thats why Musharref is sweating bullets - he's not that different from the Shah of Iran - a U.S. supported dictator in an Islamic nation.

    Whats that leave?

    Oil: Lots of oil.
    Pride: Because daddy Bush failed to oust Saddam, and every time he thumbed his nose at the UN it was a snub to House Bush
    Jesus: Its not a coincidence that Bush refered to this war as a 'crusade against evil'. He's slapped a red cross on a white shield and gone a killin' for the Lord.

    Well I guess you got it all figured out there huh?


    Yes. I do. I'm a veteran, and I take this sort of thing very seriously. Iraq is bullshit. Its Vietnam for people too stupid to learn from history. You dont believe my opinion? Walter Cronkite said Iraq was Vietnam, almost play for play.
    Afganistan - thats a war that we should be fighting 100%, because the reasons for sending our troops into harms way were good ones. Al-Qaida is directly responsible for an attack on American soil, and if left alone, represent a continuing threat to the safety of America; and that there is a direct, causal link between Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

    What we're doing in Afganistan is too much with too little - take every unit in Iraq, and place them in Afganistan and BinLaden would be dead. The Taliban would be history, instead of counter-attacking, and Al-Qaida would be history, instead of blowing up world leaders and little kids.

    Thats Bush's legacy.

    Hey I'm veteran too. But I don't agree with you. I guess it's a wash then.

    So do you have this stuff all written out somewhere ahead of time and just paste it on random forums any time some one brings the subject up?

    Apostate on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Quite frankly I'm astonished anyone ever thought it might be true.

    Yeah really. It was obvious back in 2002 that the Bush admin was lying through its teeth. Turns out Iraq wasn't actually much of a threat to anyone, let alone the US? Yeah, nobody saw that one coming.

    And the beauty is that the American public is probably too stupid to learn from its mistakes, and will go along just as happily to the next big war. Thanks America!

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    BernardBernoulliBernardBernoulli Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    snip

    Nobody's saying Bush looked at every individual piece of evidence, determined whether it was accurate and then only repeated the stuff he knew was untrue. No one actually says that. It's more like a matter of apathy on his part whether what he was saying was true. He said *anything* that justified invading Iraq, without caring whether if it was true or not. Him telling the truth was incidental. Really, calling him a liar is a fairly true (intentionally saying things that were false) and a fairly quick way to sum up someone's opinion.

    Actually, having said that, he claimed Iraq was a breeding ground for Al-Queda, which anyone who knew anything about either said was blatantly false. It's hard to argue he was going out of his way to find out the truth. As Doc said, it's a "make your own reality" thing, which is either as bad as or worse than lying when you're doing something that'll get people killed

    And all those who supported the war doing this "we were all duped, it's not our fault, let's not talk about it" act are pretty pathetic. More than enough of us could tell Bush was lying constantly, even people normally inclined to believe or support that kind of nonsense, so there really isn't an excuse.

    BernardBernoulli on
  • Options
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Cabezone on
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »


    So do you have this stuff all written out somewhere ahead of time and just paste it on random forums any time some one brings the subject up?

    No. Its called 'reasoning'. Give it a shot some time.

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Go on, or is this just a flame?

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    BernardBernoulliBernardBernoulli Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Well, it is clearly hypocrisy

    BernardBernoulli on
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Well, it is clearly hypocrisy

    No, it isn't. The argument that Mike D of the Beastie Boys' dad makes in "Fight for Your Right to Party" is correct: Mike shouldn't smoke; presumably he's too young and it's not good for him regardless.

    The United States is committed to not using nuclear weapons; sure, our policy allows for it under very specific and dire circumstances, but I am pretty sure that's not going to ever happen in my lifetime, due to the literal and figurative fallout. The difference is that we can't trust Mike D to smoke safely or in moderation, and we can't trust a petty dictator not to nuke his neighbors.

    Do I think that the United States should go policing the world for this reason? No, that's what the United Nations is for. Where we went off-track was taking the policing of WMDs on ourselves. Once we get into Team America: World Police territory is when we lose our credibility.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    Sword_of_LightSword_of_Light Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Well, it is clearly hypocrisy

    No, it isn't. The argument that Mike D of the Beastie Boys' dad makes in "Fight for Your Right to Party" is correct: Mike shouldn't smoke; presumably he's too young and it's not good for him regardless.

    The United States is committed to not using nuclear weapons; sure, our policy allows for it under very specific and dire circumstances, but I am pretty sure that's not going to ever happen in my lifetime, due to the literal and figurative fallout. The difference is that we can't trust Mike D to smoke safely or in moderation, and we can't trust a petty dictator not to nuke his neighbors.

    Do I think that the United States should go policing the world for this reason? No, that's what the United Nations is for. Where we went off-track was taking the policing of WMDs on ourselves. Once we get into Team America: World Police territory is when we lose our credibility.


    But should our policy allow it? When we conducted the air war against Yugoslavia, we hit the Chinese embassy with a cruise missile, and there was a huge uproar - because this is the age of the smart bomb. Well, the nuke is the ultimate dumb bomb - it does not care if theres a hospital or school or cultural monument in the way, everything goes boom. It does not respect peace treaties - leukiemia rates in Hiroshima are four times the Japanese national average.
    There is not, cannot, be any target that is wholy military in nature - the radioactivity will always go out of bounds. I think the use of nuclear weapons should be classified as a crime against humanity.
    No exceptions.

    That said, yes, I do think its hypocritical - because there is no such thing as 'smoking safely' - dad shouldnt be smoking, because its killing him, and the secondary smoke is raising the risks of cancer in his kid. I tell my doctor when he asks if I smoke "I was a secondary smoker for 18 years". My risk of cancer is much higher now thanks to my father's addiction. Thanks dad.
    There is no difference in our possession of WMDs - any of the alphabet soup CBRN - and Saddam's. Its wrong for us to use nerve gas on our enemies, just as its wrong for Saddam to use it on his enemies - internal or otherwise. And when we say 'the rules apply to you, not us' we loose credibility.

    Sword_of_Light on
    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    corcorigan wrote: »
    It's called propaganda. This is why when a politician says anything, you have to think "where's the money?".

    This should be recited in grade school instead of the Pledge of Allegiance.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The smoking is not a good analogy, it's more akin to not letting known felons have firearms. there's nothing wrong with that or keeping nukes out of the hand of people likely to use them.

    I also disagree about the use of nuclear weapons, if it comes down to living under Chinese communist rule or nuking them, I choose nuclear war every time. It should be a last ditch weapon only to be used to stop the gravest threats to our country. I would have preferred that the nukes in WWII had been dropped on groups of the Japanese navy, but it's not like we had sure fire delivery methods like we do today and they went with the option with the best chance of success.

    Cabezone on
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cabezone wrote: »
    The argument that says countries with nuclear weapons have no right to tell others they can't have them is extremely childish and naive.

    Well, it is clearly hypocrisy

    No, it isn't. The argument that Mike D of the Beastie Boys' dad makes in "Fight for Your Right to Party" is correct: Mike shouldn't smoke; presumably he's too young and it's not good for him regardless.

    The United States is committed to not using nuclear weapons; sure, our policy allows for it under very specific and dire circumstances, but I am pretty sure that's not going to ever happen in my lifetime, due to the literal and figurative fallout. The difference is that we can't trust Mike D to smoke safely or in moderation, and we can't trust a petty dictator not to nuke his neighbors.

    Do I think that the United States should go policing the world for this reason? No, that's what the United Nations is for. Where we went off-track was taking the policing of WMDs on ourselves. Once we get into Team America: World Police territory is when we lose our credibility.


    But should our policy allow it? When we conducted the air war against Yugoslavia, we hit the Chinese embassy with a cruise missile, and there was a huge uproar - because this is the age of the smart bomb. Well, the nuke is the ultimate dumb bomb - it does not care if theres a hospital or school or cultural monument in the way, everything goes boom. It does not respect peace treaties - leukiemia rates in Hiroshima are four times the Japanese national average.
    There is not, cannot, be any target that is wholy military in nature - the radioactivity will always go out of bounds. I think the use of nuclear weapons should be classified as a crime against humanity.
    No exceptions.

    That said, yes, I do think its hypocritical - because there is no such thing as 'smoking safely' - dad shouldnt be smoking, because its killing him, and the secondary smoke is raising the risks of cancer in his kid. I tell my doctor when he asks if I smoke "I was a secondary smoker for 18 years". My risk of cancer is much higher now thanks to my father's addiction. Thanks dad.
    There is no difference in our possession of WMDs - any of the alphabet soup CBRN - and Saddam's. Its wrong for us to use nerve gas on our enemies, just as its wrong for Saddam to use it on his enemies - internal or otherwise. And when we say 'the rules apply to you, not us' we loose credibility.

    We need nukes because there will always be a risk of a rogue state gaining the technology and weighing the risks of bombing us or our allies (or just innocent victims), and that rogue leader must consider whether he'll get his country demolished like-for-like.

    I don't like the idea of a nuclear deterrant, but I can't think of a more effective option. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible crimes, by the way. I don't think it should be a deterrant for chemical or biological weapons, either. I don't think depleted uranium shells should be used. I mean... jesus christ.

    You're right, Dad shouldn't be smoking. I'm fervently anti-smoking, but it's legal for him to do it, but not Mike D (had this been when Mike was a teenager). But if someone has to be smoking, it should be responsible adults in designated areas where they won't hurt other people. If someone has to have nuclear weapons, it should be responsible states with laws and accountability (though lately, that doesn't seem like us so much...).

    Dracomicron on
Sign In or Register to comment.