PDA

View Full Version : Fact



sevan
15-03-2005, 07:23
It is undeniable that the Bush administration systematically and knowingly lied to the people of the United States (and the rest of the world), playing on their worst fears, in order to gain support for the war in Iraq.

No one denies that Hussein was a tyrant - but how do you feel about your president and his administration treating you and your people like brainless idiots who need to be scared and lied to in order to achieve policy goals? And what the heck was the real policy goal anyway?

Fa-Q!
15-03-2005, 13:10
They lied not only to us, but to the entire world on our behalf. In my opinion, it's treason of the highest degree and warrants the ultimate punishment.

sparky
15-03-2005, 13:13
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
and warrants the ultimate punishment.

Lifelong servitude as a moderator on expat.ru?

Ghost
15-03-2005, 13:19
What's the matter, Sevan? There weren't enough threads about this already?

Fa-Q!
15-03-2005, 13:45
Some people are a bit slow in getting pissed off about the situation, ghost. I was. besides, there was a show on tv last night about the war. I would imagine that's the catalyst for Sevan's thought today. On the show, a US military spokesman was being shown video footage of mutilated Iraqi babies and he just kept saying "another poor victim of Saddam Hussein and his WMD". It was terribly sickening. Americans-our people- killing babies. We're supposed to be the good guys. Rumsfield just shrugs the scenes of dead children off as Arab propaganda. Wonder what Americans would think about video footage of dead American children. They'd probably think the people that killed the children were evil and should be stopped. It'd be an atrocity to kill OUR soldiers on YOUR land, but we can kill you, your women, your children. And we have a good excuse, too! WMD!
The topic, of course, is old, but the bodies are still dropping with no end in sight, so I think the discussion should continue. We can't just close our eyes to these atrocities.
I'm certainly not liberal and , honestly, I feel quite uncomfortable being critical of the US, but damn...

sevan
15-03-2005, 13:54
Originally posted by Ghost
What's the matter, Sevan? There weren't enough threads about this already?

not that i participated in. :) I'm feeling participatory today.

tbill
15-03-2005, 20:22
Originally posted by sevan
It is undeniable that the Bush administration systematically and knowingly lied to the people of the United States (and the rest of the world), playing on their worst fears, in order to gain support for the war in Iraq.

No one denies that Hussein was a tyrant - but how do you feel about your president and his administration treating you and your people like brainless idiots who need to be scared and lied to in order to achieve policy goals? And what the heck was the real policy goal anyway?

Ok I'll bite. What lies? I don't see any lies.

Ghost
15-03-2005, 21:30
Oh, Christ. Here we go.

Ned Kelly
15-03-2005, 22:28
quickly off the top of my head:

nigerian uranium sales for iraqi nuclear device
iraq posing direct threat to america
saddam hussein’s (murderous) secular regime having ties to religious nuts: al qaeda
stove-piping dubous intelligence to cheney to avoid all normal intelligence checks and then running it through the papers as fact
declaring “mission accomplished” a couple of years too early

there are scores of them. things have just moved on/deteriorated so much/fast and the administration run a pretty skilled pr offensive so that the media and public don't reflect on them any more.

Ghost
15-03-2005, 22:34
Yes, the public becomes numb to the cries of "conspiracy!" and "Lies!" much in the same way we all become numb to the concern of it as it is brought up 50 or 60 times on this message forum.

The first few posts about it were interesting, though provoking, debated, and even passionate. Now it's just friggen annoying.

tbill
15-03-2005, 23:22
-nigerian uranium sales for iraqi nuclear device

If you're talking about the famous 16 words in the 2003 SotU speech, that was not debunked.

-iraq posing direct threat to america

That is a subjective judgment. A threat to the US could be disrupting oil production in the gulf.

-saddam hussein’s (murderous) secular regime having ties to religious nuts: al qaeda

Al-Zawihiri was given sanctuary in Iraq before the war began. You know him, he is the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Jihadis and Baathists are working together in Iraq now. What do you want, a photo of Saddam and Osama at club med.

-stove-piping dubous intelligence to cheney to avoid all normal intelligence checks and then running it through the papers as fact

This must be some Aussie verbiage, could you explain what you mean?

-declaring “mission accomplished” a couple of years too early

Yes, this was stupid. In their defense they only said that major operations were over which was true. A guerilla war is still a significant event and they should have seen this thing coming.

There are a lot of people who say Bush lied and most of the evidence is the fact that we did not find WMDs. My answer is that he said something he honestly believe to be true because he received confirmation from his intelligence agencies and those of our allies. Lying implies foreknowledge. You have proof that Bush knew there weren't WMDs in Iraq?

One other thing I ran across today. Apparently Saddam was offering bribes to UN officials in order to get them to look the other way. Link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html)

No riddle me this, who pays bribes to hide something they don't have? You see, none of this adds up. That is why I am giving Bush a pass on this. If Saddam was not doing anything wrong he sure acted like a guy who was.


It was terribly sickening. Americans-our people- killing babies. We're supposed to be the good guys. Rumsfield just shrugs the scenes of dead children off as Arab propaganda. Wonder what Americans would think about video footage of dead American children. They'd probably think the people that killed the children were evil and should be stopped. It'd be an atrocity to kill OUR soldiers on YOUR land, but we can kill you, your women, your children. And we have a good excuse, too! WMD!

Hey Fa-Q, I am against killing babies, also. I want our military to go out of their way not to kill innocent civilians. So answer me this, does the chance of killing civilians preclude military action in your mind? Because if it does there would be no war zone we could enter. Even the good wars we might/could fight like in the Balkans, Rwanda or Darfur. Of course some might argue, like me, that American leftists would use dead women and children as agitprop (word of the day) so that is why Saddam put them in places where the US was likely to bomb.

Ned Kelly
16-03-2005, 06:17
t-bill, if you're going to start the debate then be across the story. read seymour hersch on "stove-piping".

the rest of what you wrote has been discredited (you must be among the last 10 people on earth that still behind the one about nigeria).

as to "subjective". so putin was right that "foreign forces" were behind beslan? what sort of argument is that?

go back to telling us about palestinians oppressing israel!

koba65
16-03-2005, 07:24
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
t-bill, if you're going to start the debate then be across the story. read seymour hersch on "stove-piping".


Well, if you're using the sh&tbag Hersch as an example from where to get information - I suggest you're very prone to believing lies (do a search on how many times he's had to retract or re-spin a story he's written, or has had his alleged sources come out and claim he twisted their words, or downright lied).

Ned Kelly
16-03-2005, 08:10
koba, we all use our judgement on what's crap and what's not - and in 30 years hersch has gotten plenty of things wrong (and one or two major ones right!). the article was on how us intelligence was so bad: the answer was it wasn't, it's just the raw intelligence skipped the usual vetting procedure as cheney demanded all potential incriminating evidence go straight to him, no matter how stupid.

hence all the crap we read in 2002 in the ny times and so forth from "senior officials" and "military sources". (i supported the war as i would like to see democracy take hold in the arab world but the evidence on wmd and so forth was always flimsy...)

lies? even worse, a total distortion of the checks and balances of america's usually very good governance system.

you go back to watching fox news t-bill. it should be reassuring.

koba65
16-03-2005, 09:51
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
koba, we all use our judgement on what's crap and what's not - and in 30 years hersch has gotten plenty of things wrong (and one or two major ones right!). the article was on how us intelligence was so bad: the answer was it wasn't, it's just the raw intelligence skipped the usual vetting procedure as cheney demanded all potential incriminating evidence go straight to him, no matter how stupid.

hence all the crap we read in 2002 in the ny times and so forth from "senior officials" and "military sources". (i supported the war as i would like to see democracy take hold in the arab world but the evidence on wmd and so forth was always flimsy...)

lies? even worse, a total distortion of the checks and balances of america's usually very good governance system.

you go back to watching fox news t-bill. it should be reassuring.

Hersch wouldn't have actual access to that sort of "intelligence information" - therefore, either someone violated security or he made it up. Personally, I wouldn't believe someone who feeds you what they claim is "classified" information with no means of verification of this information. Usually these "unnamed" sources have an axe to grind or are spinning a story to suit their own (or their "leaders'") agendas. Hersch is very manipulable since he's willing to publish anything and everything as fact as long as it makes the military or the Administration look bad. You should use the standards for which you judge the Bush Administration on Hersch - doubt it'd pass that muster. ;)

Lled
16-03-2005, 10:01
the arguments from the pro war side re the reasons for this war have changed alarmingly, from WMD then to Giving The World Democracy and Ridding The World of Terrorism.

perfectly noble aims all of them i reckon but i wish the story had been the same from the bginning so as i wasn't left with that revolting taste in my mouth that maybe, just maybe, George W., the leader of the free world, wherever that is, LIED through his teeth the last 2 years.

just imagine, for a brief moment, what if George W. actually did lie to us?

that's what bothers me. i'm all for spreading democracy, love and happiness around the world even if it means it has an american accent and can't spell words like "honour" properly but i don't need these morons treating ME like i'm as conniving, conceited and self-centered as them.

Josep de Maistre: "every country has the government it deserves"

hands up all those who feel alot safer now.

Fa-Q!
16-03-2005, 10:06
Hey Fa-Q, I am against killing babies, also. I want our military to go out of their way not to kill innocent civilians. So answer me this, does the chance of killing civilians preclude military action in your mind? Because if it does there would be no war zone we could enter. Even the good wars we might/could fight like in the Balkans, Rwanda or Darfur. Of course some might argue, like me, that American leftists would use dead women and children as agitprop (word of the day) so that is why Saddam put them in places where the US was likely to bomb.
=========================================
From a military point of you, you have a point. Fact is, dead children are dead children, not "collateral damage". When those children are killed by American bombs, it concerns me. When those bombs were dropped for reasons that are questionable at best and straight out lies, at worst, it infuriates me. When I see our political and military leaders shrug it off without a care and blame Hussein (who's been in custody for how long?), it's obsurd and down right sickening. It's easy to call those dead women and children collateral damage if they're not yours and you'd be singing a different tune if your baby had been blasted to bits and you had to try to find all the pieces bury.

Fa-Q!
16-03-2005, 10:10
hands up all those who feel alot safer now.
====================================
Amen, brotha. We've secured a few new military bases in the Middle East, but these fools (GWB admin.) have started a wave of anti-Americanism throughout the world that will damage our ability to hold our positions in our dealings with nations for generations to come, if not ultimately lead to the downfall of our great nation.

Ned Kelly
16-03-2005, 10:15
koba, i remember reading the new york times in late 2002/early 2003 when there were reams of stories quoting "senior administration sources" on all sorts of evil things/programs/weapons in iraq. the failure of anyone to go on the record then was amazing, and remember i did support the invasion. all of the stories turned out to be ********. all of them.

when i read hersch reporting how the intelligence deliverance process had been manipulated it rang very true. like most people i run on instincts. the new york times stories looked stupid because if you had solid evidence against iraq you'd have your face in front of a tv camera or be shoving it down the french and german's throats, not floating it anonymously in newspapers.

just returning to t-bill for the third time. the other great lie was the absolute certainty in the bush administration about the weapons and the conveying that the government new something about iraq the public didn't. it was very skillfully conveyed and played on everyone's (at least my own) belief that the us government does not bullshit on big things. it did bullshit, it had nothing of substance.

that is not an attack on the womd hypothesis, just about everyone thought iraq did possess them, it was this pretence that the smart-***** in the bush administration new something the rest of the world didn't. that was the worst lie of them all, in my view.

i don't want to pull a spara here. i supported the war. but on an objective basis it's very difficult to defend the bush administration vis-a-vis iraq. it has engaged in repeated deceit or diversion.

defend this as realpolitik, responses to war, whatever. just do not try to pretend there was not widespread *********** in the whole process. t-bill, you need to start thinking and stop parroting (i find a lot of what you write interesting and intelligent otherwise).

<<Please to be not using the bad words -- Mods>>

tbill
16-03-2005, 11:52
Ned,

I appreciate your honesty when you said that just about everyone believed he had them before the war. To be specific, there are several Nigerian stories floating around. I am not sure which one you mean. I was just saying that the Brits still stand behind the intel that Bush used in his 2003 SotU speech. If you are speaking about the document that went through Italian intel, that was shown to be a forgery.

If you want to believe Hersch when he said that intel did not go through the usual channels I have no problem with that. This does not contradict the idea that there was a lot of bad intel floating around and that the US and our allies were saying the same thing, Saddam had WMDs.

Even if we haven't found the WMDs there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that Saddam could have destroyed/hidden them in the run up to the war. This past Sunday there was an article in the NYTs concerning looting at a weapons plant. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?oref=login) Hitchens writes about this in Slate:


My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."

Ned,

Bush got bad intel on Iraq. Did he have any reason to not believe it? There was a concensus in the international community that Saddam had something to hide. Saddam acted like he had something to hide. Even Hans Blix said Saddam was not in complete compliance with weapons inspections when US forces were massing on his border. I propose a different hypothesis. Saddam had WMDs and/or a WMDs program(s) but he was smart enough to destroy and hide it in the run up to war. Perhaps with a little help from the Russians. (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10111) This makes more sense to me than Saddam got rid of his WMDs but still tried bribing inspectors (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html) and was willing to live with sanctions even though he had nothing to hide.

Ned Kelly
16-03-2005, 12:04
i love hitchens but i'm afraid two years of his having to suspend reason to argue bush's case leaves him with arguments that would make william safire blush. i still read his book reviews though.

i didn't ever say that there was not a lot of suspicion about womd. there was from russia, too. i'm just saying there was never an open and shut case and bush was never going to allow that to stop him.

tbill
16-03-2005, 12:04
Originally posted by llednomis
the arguments from the pro war side re the reasons for this war have changed alarmingly, from WMD then to Giving The World Democracy and Ridding The World of Terrorism.

perfectly noble aims all of them i reckon but i wish the story had been the same from the bginning so as i wasn't left with that revolting taste in my mouth that maybe, just maybe, George W., the leader of the free world, wherever that is, LIED through his teeth the last 2 years.

just imagine, for a brief moment, what if George W. actually did lie to us?

that's what bothers me. i'm all for spreading democracy, love and happiness around the world even if it means it has an american accent and can't spell words like "honour" properly but i don't need these morons treating ME like i'm as conniving, conceited and self-centered as them.

Josep de Maistre: "every country has the government it deserves"

hands up all those who feel alot safer now.

Actually the argument has not changed. Building democracy in the ME was always part of the plan and Bush did mention this before the war. I will grant you that WMDs were the primary reason and that Bush did not emphasize democratization but I think this was done for a good reason. We had nominal allies that would not benefit from democratization. I think we would have further antagonized countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan by talking about our desire to see people electing their governments. Now that the invasion is over Bush is free to say that is what we want to see. And that is what we are seeing.

I know it is difficult to support the democratization that is going on if you did not support the war in the first place. it seems like an ends justifying the means argument but it is not. Not supporting the war does not mean you should not be happy that the Lebanese have the courage to ask Syria to leave there country. I know a lot of people on the left have kept silent about the freeing of Afghani women from the Taliban for the same reason, you don't want to give the evil chimp Bushitler the credit. I say chuck that attitude and jump on the bandwagon. It is 1989 and 1848 all rolled into one and there is no one, besides the few remaining despots in the world, who are not happy that people are seeking their freedom.

tbill
16-03-2005, 12:07
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i love hitchens but i'm afraid two years of his having to suspend reason to argue bush's case leaves him with arguments that would make william safire blush. i still read his book reviews though.

i didn't ever say that there was not a lot of suspicion about womd. there was from russia, too. i'm just saying there was never an open and shut case and bush was never going to allow that to stop him.

Well I can respect that. I cannot deny that Bush and Co. pushed the WMD story. I just have a different take on whether this was deceitful. To tell you the truth and you have no reason to believe me, but I have always though WMDs were secondary to democracy in Iraq.

Sorry I have to go, the O'Reilly factor just started.

yankee@moscow
16-03-2005, 18:56
This poll is straight out of the CNN 101 class of how to conduct a biased poll to get the results you want. Smells like the left pole to me!

trebor
16-03-2005, 19:05
You ( the electorate) are too stupid to be trusted with the truth?