Bush's Iraq lies [Archive]

Mark

26th October 2005, 07:09 PM

It has repeatedly been claimed that the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq was based on lies by Bush.

It appears that this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) is the resolution in question. Given that the resolution has an extensive list of reasons, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that any significant reason on which the invasion was based should be included in that list. So, of those reasons, which are Bush lies?

For starters:

If Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq.

* Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. The Ambassador Joseph Wilson who investigated this and contradicted Bush was punished by having his wife, Valerie Plame, outed as a CIA operative by someone in the White House staff. [USA Today] [CNN]
* Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
* Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused.
* Iraqi military - The Iraqi military had no air force before the invasion and could not launch a military attack on the United States. The speed at which the US forces were able to sweep over Iraq is proof that their military was not very strong despite having a "home field" advantage.
* Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
* Secret Propaganda Team - Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]
* Aluminum Tubes - Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes]

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

Euromutt

26th October 2005, 08:10 PM

* Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. The Ambassador Joseph Wilson who investigated this and contradicted Bush [...]However, in his book The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, published in April 2004, Wilson stated he had talked to a former Nigerien official who had been agreed to meet an Iraqi trade delegation. According to Wilson, "[the former official] hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium." This is hardly a stretch of the imagination, given that Niger's main exports are, in order of importance, uranium ore, livestock, cowpeas and onions.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's "Report on the U.S. intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf) reflected a CIA report based on the debriefing of Wilson upon his return from Niger. From page 43:The intelligence report [based on Wilson's debriefing] indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.So apparently Wilson had actually reported back that Iraq did indeed appear to have "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (even though it had not succeeded in acquiring them). In other words, Wilson himself lied in his op-ed which appeared in the New York Times of 06-Jul-2003.
* Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.Apart from the last sentence, there's so much wrong with this claim that it's hard to know where to start.
Unmovic established that Iraq continued to possess WMD delivery systems--the al-Samoud II missile--which were in violation of UN Security Council resolutions 687 and 1441. It also reported that the Iraqis continued to drag their feet on disclosing the extent of their WMD programmes as they had repeatedly agreed to do, and that large amounts of VX and anthrax remained unaccounted for.
The "plagiarised student papers" consisted of material gleaned from an article which had appeared in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs; it comprised a small part of a British intelligence report and pertained to Iraqi government organizational structures. The author, Ibrahim al-Marashi told BBC's Newsnight that, apart from "a few minor cosmetic changes," the material was still accurate.
I have no idea to what the author of that piece is referring with the term "forged documents," and the description of the satellite photos as "vague" is a subjective one at best.
* Iraqi military - The Iraqi military had no air force before the invasion and could not launch a military attack on the United States.Irrelevant; the Bush administration never claimed that any threat posed by Iraq could be delivered by conventional means.
* Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11.This says more about the critical thinking skills (or rather, lack thereof) of the persons polled than anything else. Bush certainly exploited the horror concerning 9/11, arguing that Iraq had to be stopped lest it inflict a similar event on the US, but implications that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 were nowhere near as common as the author makes out.

Certainly, the case for war was riddled with flaws--members of the administration made claims which were not outright lies, but did appear to have been intended to be misinterpreted; unconfirmed intelligence was presented as certain, half-truths presented as facts, objections downplayed, and arguments which might have done more to sway international opinion were left unspoken because they conflicted with neocon doctrine. But given that that "Impeach Bush" list is riddled with flaws of a similar nature, it's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Do the authors think the truth isn't bad enough?

a_unique_person

26th October 2005, 08:26 PM

Certainly, the case for war was riddled with flaws--members of the administration made claims which were not outright lies, but did appear to have been intended to be misinterpreted; unconfirmed intelligence was presented as certain, half-truths presented as facts, objections downplayed, and arguments which might have done more to sway international opinion were left unspoken because they conflicted with neocon doctrine. But given that that "Impeach Bush" list is riddled with flaws of a similar nature, it's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Do the authors think the truth isn't bad enough?

Maybe, but is that the issue? The issue is starting a war with a case "riddled with flaws".

a_unique_person

26th October 2005, 08:48 PM

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Indeed. What about considerations of incompetence at achieving the stated aim? The "Mission Accomplished" speech clearly indicates a poor undestanding of what the post military phase of the task involved.

bagtaggar

26th October 2005, 09:11 PM

The issue is the naivety of believing this to be a war about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The stated reasons are very flimsy.

The hidden agenda is deviously brilliant.

a_unique_person

26th October 2005, 09:53 PM

The hidden agenda is deviously brilliant.

Which was?

Art Vandelay

26th October 2005, 09:59 PM

For starters:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
What part of "what part of the resolution is a Bush lie?" do you not understand?

Maybe, but is that the issue? The issue is starting a war with a case "riddled with flaws".And what are those flaws? Keeping in mind that the "case" is the resolution.

varwoche

27th October 2005, 12:31 AM

Ziggurat

27th October 2005, 01:05 AM

For starters:
* Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches.

In other words, people are too stupid to parse simple sentences, and cannot distinguish different ideas if they're said by the same person. Yeah, that's a convincing argument, and quite the political strategy too. I'm sure that the US electorate is just dying to back people who call them complete morons.

Batman Jr.

27th October 2005, 01:19 AM

In other words, people are too stupid to parse simple sentences, and cannot distinguish different ideas if they're said by the same person. Yeah, that's a convincing argument, and quite the political strategy too. I'm sure that the US electorate is just dying to back people who call them complete morons.
No, it means that Bush continually insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. It's clearly his fault that the perception exists.

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

varwoche

27th October 2005, 01:30 AM

In other words, people are too stupid to parse simple sentences Yup.

and cannot distinguish different ideas if they're said by the same person. "Different ideas" like...?

Cheney, Jan 2004: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

Dr Adequate

27th October 2005, 01:39 AM

In other words, people are too stupid to parse simple sentences, and cannot distinguish different ideas if they're said by the same person.[/B] What a lovely way of putting things into "other words" you have. It does help to duck the issues.

Listen carefully. Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

That's lied.

Obviously, no-one has said that "people are too stupid to parse simple sentences, and cannot distinguish different ideas if they're said by the same person". That is a stupid straw man of your own devising.

They say Bush lied.

I take it the reason you are battling against this stupid straw man is that you can't deny that Bush lied.Yeah, that's a convincing argument, and quite the political strategy too. I'm sure that the US electorate is just dying to back people who call them complete morons. Again, it is only in your magical fantasy world that saying that Bush deceived the public is the same as saying that the public are complete morons. I'm guessing that the US electorate live in the real world and not in your imagination.

Ziggurat

27th October 2005, 01:55 AM

No, it means that Bush continually insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. It's clearly his fault that the perception exists.

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

So which quote insinuates that? Sorry if I'm not stupid enough to get confused, maybe you're at an advantage there, but where exactly is the deception?

Ziggurat

27th October 2005, 02:02 AM

Listen carefully. Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

If you think he lied, then show the quote. But there's been no quote in this thread on that claim which qualifies as a lie. In fact, the BBC article linked above, in which it's quite clear the author would LOVE to point out an actual lie, contains NO such quote.

I take it the reason you are battling against this stupid straw man is that you can't deny that Bush lied.

The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11. That would prove me wrong. Can you do it? I doubt it.

Dr Adequate

27th October 2005, 02:55 AM

Euromutt

27th October 2005, 04:03 AM

Er, no. Since I said that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and Al-Qaida, what I'd have to do to show you wrong is prove that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Rather than showing that Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11, which is a completely different proposition.Ah, but that's rather a crucial distinction with regards to the statement that "at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11." If it cannot be shown that any member of the administration came right out and stated that Saddam was somehow involved in the planning, support or execution of the 9/11 attacks--as it evidently cannot, or you would have done so--then we cannot attribute that misapprehension on the part of the American public to an actual lie by the administration.

That said, your list of quotes brings me back to my earlier statement that "members of the administration made claims which were not outright lies, but did appear to have been intended to be misinterpreted." Examples of members of the administration stating that there were "links," "contacts" and "connections" between the Ba'athi regime and al-Qaida are indeed legion. I recall that at the time my reaction was skeptical; "high-level contacts going back a decade" (I think Rumsfeld said that one), as far as I was concerned, could be interpreted to mean "an Iraqi agent met a guy from al-Qaida on top of the Eiffel tower in 1992, but they couldn't agree on anything." And I recall getting increasingly annoyed at the time that not a single journalist ever saw fit to challenge these claims, simply by asking "what does that mean, exactly?" Instead, the American media displayed a shocking lack of critical thinking ability not only by unquestioningly parrotting the administration's claims, but by performing exactly as desired and reading into these statements that the administration meant that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite the fact that that was never explicitly claimed.

What I'm getting at is that I saw through that crap from the word "go," and as a result I have very little sympathy with people who now claim they were lied to, when in fact they were fed an obvious half-truth and failed to see it for what it was. That includes the American public, media and Congress.

Maybe, but is that the issue? The issue is starting a war with a case "riddled with flaws".Let me qualify that to "a case riddled with flaws as presented." As a matter of full disclosure, I supported this war, but not because of the case the Bush administration made. I supported it because I thought--and continue to think--that the Middle East is a damn sight better off without Saddam Hussein in power. That said, I will be the first to acknowledge that the Bush administration's handling of the war has been spectacularly incompetent, beyond my wildest expectations.
I will maintain, however, that there was a valid case for military action against Iraq, on the basis of which I supported the war. However, this was not the case the Bush administration chose to make, which annoyed me as far back as 2002. What has annoyed me even more is that the case the administration did choose to make, incoherent as it was, was full of holes, which made it infinitely harder for me to engage in any constructive debate at the time, and does to this day, regarding the merits of military action, because the case I would present would be dismissed as irrelevant because it wasn't the one the administration was using.

Ziggurat

27th October 2005, 08:53 AM

Mark

27th October 2005, 09:09 AM

But you're trying to prove something that I wasn't arguing. Let me refresh your memory, since you seem to not be able to actually read my post. The claim I was addressing, once again, was this:

"* Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches."

None of your quotes establish any connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Hey, you're the one arguing propositions I didn't make. Either you can support the statement above regarding Bush tying Saddam to 9/11, or you can't. All this other stuff is really a side show, you choosing an argument you think you can win because you don't want to try to address the argument I actually made.

I guess you were out of town for all those months?

George Bush last night rallied Americans to the cause of the Iraq war, urging them not to forget the lessons of September 11" and arguing the fight was vital to future US security.

Addressing the nation from Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina, President Bush confronted head on America's growing pessimism and uncertainty over the war.

Again and again in his primetime speech, the president attempted to bind the Iraq counter-insurgency to the broader "war on terror" started by the September 11 attacks, trying to rebuild a connection in the public mind that has given way to scepticism about the justification for the invasion.

"This war reached our shores on September 11 2001," Mr Bush said, pointing to links between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian extremist thought be behind many of the suicide attacks in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden," the president said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1517011,00.html

Blix: US is Misquoting My Iraq Report Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discover. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.................Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed....... ....Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad. -----------more
http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm

"In public statements, senior officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence about al Qaeda-Iraq links that remains largely unverified...," going on to point out that, far from having a co-operative relationship, "Mr. Hussein, in fact, appears to be the type of secular Arab leader -- like the Saudi royal family and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak -- whom Mr. bin Laden and his Islamic followers would most like to see overthrown, with strict Islamic law imposed on Iraq's relatively nonobserving population."
http://www.thedubyareport.com/malleablefacts.html

To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm

"if we don’t fight them in Iraq we'll have to fight them here."---President Bush
http://www.stopdubya.com/

Jocko

27th October 2005, 11:49 AM

I guess you were out of town for all those months?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1517011,00.html

http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm

http://www.thedubyareport.com/malleablefacts.html

http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm

---President Bush
http://www.stopdubya.com/

Mark, none of these include mention of Saddam being responsible for 9/11. Considering your exhaustive bookmark collection of propaganda sites, I'm a little surprised you haven't located the crucial statement.

In doing so, you're perpetuating a lie every bit as devious as the one you're supposedly railing against. That's not particularly honest, is it?

Mark

27th October 2005, 12:11 PM

Mark, none of these include mention of Saddam being responsible for 9/11. Considering your exhaustive bookmark collection of propaganda sites, I'm a little surprised you haven't located the crucial statement.

In doing so, you're perpetuating a lie every bit as devious as the one you're supposedly railing against. That's not particularly honest, is it?

What is not honest is knowing that Bush linked Iraq with 9/11 over and over and over again, then claiming he didn't because he didn't make it about Hussein directly. Are you suggesting that someone else was in charge of Iraq when Bush said all those things?

I hope you have a good chiropractor.

Jocko

27th October 2005, 12:15 PM

What is not honest is knowing that Bush linked Iraq with 9/11 over and over and over again, then claiming he didn't because he didn't make it about Hussein directly. Are you suggesting that someone else was in charge of Iraq when Bush said all those things?

I hope you have a good chiropractor.

I'm simply asking for a quote that directly connects Iraq or Saddam with the planning or execution of 9/11. Considering how oft-repeated this fable is, surely there must be some record of it? So let's have it already!

Mark

27th October 2005, 12:21 PM

I'm simply asking for a quote that directly connects Iraq or Saddam with the planning or execution of 9/11. Considering how oft-repeated this fable is, surely there must be some record of it? So let's have it already!

Read the above post.

This attempt on the part of Party Faithful to re-write history surprises even me. I mean, I don't expect such people to be honest, but this...

How do you people think we ended up in the war in Iraq? We were just passing through on our way to Syria?!?!?!

(Edited to add more examples that Jocko will ignore):
In order to garner support for the war in Iraq, President Bush linked September 11th as a logical reason to invade Iraq. During the 2003 State of the Union Address President Bush said, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protect terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." [CNN, 1/29/2003, Transcript of President Bush's second State of the Union Address]
http://coloradodems.org/content/view/203/40/

*During Bush's June 28th Speech He Continues to Exploit the Tragedy of 9/11 to Justify the War in Iraq.

Bush referenced September 11th five times during his speech, which was intended to update America on a timeline and status of the war in Iraq. Instead of giving Americans a clearer picture of where we are, Bush continued to mislead Americans about a connection between 9/11 and the war. [CNN, 6/29/2005]
http://coloradodems.org/content/view/203/40/

After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania.---George W. Bush
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434206

The CNN analysis team, after President Bush' national address Tuesday night from Ft. Bragg, seemed obsessed about Bush tying September 11th to the war in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer fretted: "We heard a lot of explanations of the connections to 9/11, the new world after 9/11. We heard no reference to the major argument that he made going into the war: weapons of mass destruction." David Gergen falsely asserted that Bush "never once called them 'Iraqi insurgents,' as the media does. He called them terrorists, you know, as if they're all associated and linked to the attacks here on 9/11." When Zahn asked if Bush "overreached with these multiple references to 9/11 when there has been absolutely no linkage established between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on that horrible day?", Gergen said he was "offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11" because "none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam, and, you know, there's been this myth for a long time that's just untrue that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11." But that wasn't Bush's point. He was just putting Iraq into the context of world threats post 9/11. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos also questioned Bush's linking of 9/11.
http://www.mrc.org/printer/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050629pf.asp

Jocko

27th October 2005, 01:24 PM

Read the above post.

This attempt on the part of Party Faithful to re-write history surprises even me. I mean, I don't expect such people to be honest, but this...

How do you people think we ended up in the war in Iraq? We were just passing through on our way to Syria?!?!?!

(Edited to add more examples that Jocko will ignore):

Good heavens, Mark, can't you find a single sentence somewhere that says what you're insisting Bushco has been jamming down our collective throats for three years?

I'm not ignoring your citation, merely pointing out the obvious, which is that you still haven't provided one shred of evidence apart from your opinions and the opinions of others.

So you can't distinguish between a reference to al quaeda and a reference to the 9/11 attacks? That's what most of your sources imply. I'm not ignoring the substance of your sources, but I suspect you are.

Again, I ask. Show me a quote that backs up your assertion that Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Mark

27th October 2005, 01:32 PM

Good heavens, Mark, can't you find a single sentence somewhere that says what you're insisting Bushco has been jamming down our collective throats for three years?

I'm not ignoring your citation, merely pointing out the obvious, which is that you still haven't provided one shred of evidence apart from your opinions and the opinions of others.

So you can't distinguish between a reference to al quaeda and a reference to the 9/11 attacks? That's what most of your sources imply. I'm not ignoring the substance of your sources, but I suspect you are.

Again, I ask. Show me a quote that backs up your assertion that Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Since you are unable--more likely unwilling---to understand the links I posted, I ask you again: how do you think Bush and co. justified the war?

I am simply flabbergasted that anyone would even try to make the claim you are making. Rumsfeld, after 9/11 started calling Iraq an "imminent threat." He later denied those words, even though they were recorded on video tape. Maybe you are trying the same tactic? Bush has mentioned 9/11 and Iraq together in speeches over and over and over again. Are you claiming those were all coincidences?

I expect deception from Party loyalists (on both sides) but this simply defies belief.

Jocko

27th October 2005, 01:33 PM

To further clarfy:

http://coloradodems.org/content/view/203/40/

Editorial.

http://coloradodems.org/content/view/203/40/

Editorial.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434206

Badly-written, rabid editorial.

http://www.mrc.org/printer/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050629pf.asp

Journalists squabbling over whether or not they can make it sound like they can connect the two after the Ft. Bragg speech. The conclusion: even Joe friggin' Biden says the American people shouldn't be fooled by the implication.

So the question remains: when did Bush say Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Have you any proof this was said, or are you simply going to regurgitate op-ed columns all day?

Jocko

27th October 2005, 01:36 PM

Since you are unable--more likely unwilling---to understand the links I posted, I ask you again: how do you think Bush and co. justified the war?

Mark, you are a poor builder of straw men and a poor defender of your positions.

You made the claim. You back it up. My opinions are moot, as are yours - and that's the problem you keep smacking your head against... your opinion is immaterial when you are asked for evidence.

I expect deception from Party loyalists (on both sides) but this simply defies belief.

A lazy, intellectually dishonest (and not just a little bigoted) dodge. Prove your claim or retract it. You have been asked often enough.

Mark

27th October 2005, 03:13 PM

Mark, you are a poor builder of straw men and a poor defender of your positions.

You made the claim. You back it up. My opinions are moot, as are yours - and that's the problem you keep smacking your head against... your opinion is immaterial when you are asked for evidence.

A lazy, intellectually dishonest (and not just a little bigoted) dodge. Prove your claim or retract it. You have been asked often enough.

I am trying very hard not to stoop to your name calling level here.

You asked for evidence, I provided it. Overwhelmingly. Ignoring it is not the same as refuting it.

I then gave you the opportunity to explain what the justification for the war in Iraq was since YOU are making the claim that Bush never linked Iraq with 9/11. That is YOUR claim, not mine, and it flies in the face of all logic and sense. You didn't answer that question because you can't.

You are making the claim that Bush linking Iraq to 9/11 and Al Qaeda is a myth. Back it up! How do you explain the war in Iraq? How do you explain your position when Bush himself (not to mention the rest of his cronies) has put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence over and over and over again?

You are making this bizarre claim. Back it up, Jocko.

Oh, and calling me bigoted because I dislike partisanship is idiotic.

punchdrunk

27th October 2005, 03:42 PM

It has repeatedly been claimed that the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq was based on lies by Bush.
I have repeatedly claimed that BushCo sold the war to the American people based on lies. I don't remember ever stating the resolution itself was based on lies. Is there a specific forum member to whom you are referring?

Having said that, I do find some of the statements in the resolution perplexing:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

The inspectors were back in Iraq and Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was in more accordance with its obligations in 2003 than in 1998. Not good enough, though, huh?

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Guess what? They're also known to be in the United States.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

No, the attacks of 9/11 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of an airplane.

Jocko

27th October 2005, 04:15 PM

I am trying very hard not to stoop to your name calling level here.

Please, Mark, you're well-known to pour venom over anyone and everyone to the right of Lenin. I called your agrument lazy and dishonest for the simple fact that it is both.

You asked for evidence, I provided it. Overwhelmingly. Ignoring it is not the same as refuting it.

You did not. You offered opinions. I have clearly stated what constitutes evidence, and you are unable or unwilling to provide it.

I then gave you the opportunity to explain what the justification for the war in Iraq was since YOU are making the claim that Bush never linked Iraq with 9/11.

I never said that. Ziggurat did. I questioned your claim to the contrary, as presented in your quotes.

That is YOUR claim, not mine, and it flies in the face of all logic and sense. You didn't answer that question because you can't.

Afraid not, mark. I am not arguing about Bush's inner mental processes because it's impossible for me to know them. What I am arguing is your certainty that Bush "lied" by casting Saddam in a role of responsibility for 9/11.

My only claim is that you are unable to back up your assertions with fact.

You are making the claim that Bush linking Iraq to 9/11 and Al Qaeda is a myth. Back it up! How do you explain the war in Iraq? How do you explain your position when Bush himself (not to mention the rest of his cronies) has put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence over and over and over again?

I'm sure people have put your name and a rude word in the same sentence a number of times as well; what does that prove?

Nothing at all. That's because opinions cannot prove anything.

You are making this bizarre claim. Back it up, Jocko.

Please quote my "claim." I must have missed it. While you're at it, please quote any kind of actual evidence to back up your assertion that Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11. All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking and willful ignorance of a perfectly simple idea:

Every mention of 9/11 != every mention of al Quaeda.

Oh, and calling me bigoted because I dislike partisanship is idiotic.

Sorry, I thought snide blanket statements regarding the moral/intellectual/political inferiority of other identifiable groups qualified as bigoted. I'd be glad to use another term, if you suggest one.

Nyarlathotep

27th October 2005, 04:22 PM

The issue is the naivety of believing this to be a war about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The stated reasons are very flimsy.

The hidden agenda is deviously brilliant.

The president lying about his reasons for going to war are a good thing?:jaw-dropp

epepke

27th October 2005, 04:46 PM

]What I'm getting at is that I saw through that crap from the word "go," and as a result I have very little sympathy with people who now claim they were lied to, when in fact they were fed an obvious half-truth and failed to see it for what it was. That includes the American public, media and Congress.

I quite agree with this. Skepticism, while rare, is not explicitly prohibited on this subforum, so it's not entirely evil to point out that there should have been more skepticism.

I will maintain, however, that there was a valid case for military action against Iraq, on the basis of which I supported the war.

I was opposed to the invasion (technically, the war never ended) for a number of reasons, not limited but including the fact that it was obvious to me even then that there was nothing even remotely resembling a plan for occupation and reconstruction.

Dr Adequate

27th October 2005, 05:30 PM

Ian Osborne

27th October 2005, 06:09 PM

I find it incredible that people on a skeptical forum can read reams of direct quotes where Bush hints at links between 9/11 and Iraq, and yet deny them all because he never said "Saddam did it" in so many words.

Batman Jr.

27th October 2005, 06:12 PM

So which quote insinuates that? Sorry if I'm not stupid enough to get confused, maybe you're at an advantage there, but where exactly is the deception?
Insult me all you want; it doesn't change the facts. Most people can see the deception from these remarks, and it is of little consequence to me that some obscure Bush apologist nutjob such as you is so deluded as not to be able to see it. You're obviously already fooled by so many of the man's deceptions, so it is not in the least surprising that you would further demonstrate that you lack the necessary aptitudes to recognize duplicity.

Elind

27th October 2005, 06:24 PM

No, it means that Bush continually insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. It's clearly his fault that the perception exists.

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

I watched the news probably as diligently as anyone in those days. I recall that Iraq was accused of harboring terrorists and that there were some possible meetings between some Iraqis and the 9/11 killers. No more, no less. The former is certainly true, the latter would hardly have been surprising but was not proven. I don't mean this as defense of Bush, but my perception was that this was a side issue and any other perception by some is no more the fault of Bush than that of the Pope for giving the impression that god exists.

Batman Jr.

27th October 2005, 08:59 PM

I watched the news probably as diligently as anyone in those days. I recall that Iraq was accused of harboring terrorists and that there were some possible meetings between some Iraqis and the 9/11 killers. No more, no less. The former is certainly true, the latter would hardly have been surprising but was not proven. I don't mean this as defense of Bush, but my perception was that this was a side issue and any other perception by some is no more the fault of Bush than that of the Pope for giving the impression that god exists.
You guys get so pissed off when Michael Moore pulls this sort of stuff. Be consistent.

Elind

27th October 2005, 09:12 PM

You guys get so pissed off when Michael Moore pulls this sort of stuff. Be consistent.

Ahhh. My memory, or is it perception, is failing in your opinion? Could it be that I didn't fall for Bush's BS, but thought knocking off Saddam was a good idea anyway? I still think it was a good idea, except I hadn't counted on Rumsfeld's incompetence. Silly me.

However, you do have a good point. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems and M.M. (aka "The Slob") is a master at making sure of that (or so I read; I've never watched anything he produced).

(PS. Is that A. Clarke? Bad picture)

Batman Jr.

27th October 2005, 09:50 PM

Ahhh. My memory, or is it perception, is failing in your opinion? Could it be that I didn't fall for Bush's BS, but thought knocking off Saddam was a good idea anyway? I still think it was a good idea, except I hadn't counted on Rumsfeld's incompetence. Silly me.
Nation building with the army like this has a bad track record; I'd seriously doubt that the problem lies wholly in Rumsfeld's management.
(PS. Is that A. Clarke? Bad picture)
What, do you mean the author Arthur Clarke? No, it's Paul Hindemith, one of the greatest and most prolific modernist composers who completely redefined harmonic conventions in the first half of the 20th century. He is sometimes identified as a "neo-baroque" composer because of his exceedingly complex counterpoint.

Elind

27th October 2005, 10:28 PM

Nation building with the army like this has a bad track record; I'd seriously doubt that the problem lies wholly in Rumsfeld's management.

What, do you mean the author Arthur Clarke? No, it's Paul Hindemith, one of the greatest and most prolific modernist composers who completely redefined harmonic conventions in the first half of the 20th century. He is sometimes identified as a "neo-baroque" composer because of his exceedingly complex counterpoint.

With an army like this; Or any army? Care to suggest any successes? WWII perhaps?

My mistake on the picture, obviously. But there is a resemblance. Sorry I don't have the talent to appreciate the complexities, but I don't recall the name from my normal infusion of the classics on PBS. Is he not commonly played?

Regnad Kcin

27th October 2005, 11:33 PM

davefoc

27th October 2005, 11:48 PM

I was opposed to the invasion (technically, the war never ended) for a number of reasons, not limited but including the fact that it was obvious to me even then that there was nothing even remotely resembling a plan for occupation and reconstruction.

I don't have any idea how you were so prescient, but it does appear you were right. I suspect many people who supported the war wouldn't have done so if they had any idea how poorly the Bush administration would do with handling post war Iraq. The fact does appear to be that the Bush administration was staffed with people almost uniquely unqualified to anticipate the difficulties of post war Iraq.

Batman Jr.

27th October 2005, 11:58 PM

With an army like this; Or any army? Care to suggest any successes? WWII perhaps?
We had to stop Hitler if that's what you're asking. This situation is very different and the social perceptions are consequently also very different. You can't compare a preemptive war and a guerilla insurgency to WWII. Vietnam resembles the situation a great deal more.
My mistake on the picture, obviously. But there is a resemblance. Sorry I don't have the talent to appreciate the complexities, but I don't recall the name from my normal infusion of the classics on PBS. Is he not commonly played?
I didn't mean to be condescending; I'm sorry if I came off that way. Hindemith is played pretty frequently and is regarded by some as the greatest composer of the 20th century, although he hasn't yet garnered much recognition in popular spheres as did, for example, Mozart or Tchaikovsky. He did, however, become the subject of an episode of Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts entitled "The Genius of Hindemith." Here's an excerpt from the Symphony in E-flat to give you an idea of what he sounds like:

Symphony in E-flat: IV (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/clipserve/B0000027MK001004/1/104-9878160-2213543)

Art Vandelay

28th October 2005, 12:59 AM

The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Er, no. Since I said that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and Al-Qaida, what I'd have to do to show you wrong is prove that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida. How is what you said relevant to disproving what Ziggurat said? I would think that if you want to prove Ziggurat wrong, you should, you know, actually prove Ziggurat wrong, rather than proving that you are right. That's how it works in Not-A-Complete-Wacko-Land, at least. No idea how it works in your world.

Did you understand that, or do I have to explain in more detail why in order to support some proposition, it is necessary for me to produce evidence for that proposition, and not for a completely different proposition of your choosing?
Do you understand why is it that to refute a proposition, it is necessary against that proposition, rather than for a completely different proposition of your choosing? The issue in question is whether Ziggurat is wrong, not whether you are right.

Well, you whining crawling little hypocrite. I wrote: "Listen carefully. Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida."

You wrote: "If you think he lied, then show the quote."Yes, he did say that. Yet that is not the portion that you decided to quote. Instead you quoted “The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11.” Silly Ziggurat, thinking that your post was responding to the part you quoted, rather a completely different part. Obviously he doesn’t know you very well.

Ah, but that's rather a crucial distinction with regards to the statement that "at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11." Which is itself a lie (the part in quotes, that is, not your statement).

What I'm getting at is that I saw through that crap from the word "go," and as a result I have very little sympathy with people who now claim they were lied to, when in fact they were fed an obvious half-truth and failed to see it for what it was. That includes the American public, media and Congress.Except that I don't think the claim was "I supported the war based on a lie". How many people have said that? Instead, I think the implied statement is "I never supported the war, because I was too smart to fall for the lies. It's all those other people that supported the war that fell for the lies. After all, there's no way anyone could support it otherwise."

Does anyone disagree? Is there anyone reading this thread who is willing to stand up and say "I supported the war, but only because of lies by Bush"?

I can't but feel that much of the lack of attention paid to the ambiguity of Bush's statements was that if the media had called him on it, that would have weakened their later claims that Americans supported the war only because they were lied to. And by not calling him on it, Congress avoided taking a solid stand on the war; yes, they voted for it, but they can now pretend that it was because they were "lied" to. In other words, they can pretend that they voted for the "fictitious" version of the war, and avoid taking a clear stand on the "real" war.

Let me qualify that to "a case riddled with flaws as presented." As a matter of full disclosure, I supported this war, but not because of the case the Bush administration made. I supported it because I thought--and continue to think--that the Middle East is a damn sight better off without Saddam Hussein in power. That said, I will be the first to acknowledge that the Bush administration's handling of the war has been spectacularly incompetent, beyond my wildest expectations.My position is similar, except with the added point that Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire agreement, (and therefore it's a bit inaccurate to say that Bush started rather than resumed the war with Iraq), and ignoring it would make future such agreements meaningless. Once we lose the ability to issue credible threats, we have things like the Rwanda massacre.

[FONT=Verdana]
I have repeatedly claimed that BushCo sold the war to the American people based on lies. I don't remember ever stating the resolution itself was based on lies. Is there a specific forum member to whom you are referring?I don't remember who, and I think that singling out specifc posters would be counterproductive anyway, but yes. Now, what does it mean that Bush sold the American people based on lies? For a particular person, I guess it would mean "I supported the war, but only because of Bush lies". In other words, it wouldn't include anyone who opposed the war, nor would it include anyone who would have supported it without the alleged lies. So do you fall in this category? Did you support the war, but only because of lies? For America in general, I guess it would mean that over half of Americans fall into this category, a claim for which I have seen no evidence. Regardless, there was no referendum on the war, so opinion of American voters was not the determative factor. Iraq was invaded because Congress authorized it, therefore what's relevant is why Congress authorized it.

I find it incredible that people on a skeptical forum can read reams of direct quotes where Bush hints at links between 9/11 and Iraq, and yet deny them all because he never said "Saddam did it" in so many words.Is there something unskeptical about asking people to support the claims that they actually made, rather than claims similar to the ones they made?

You guys get so pissed off when Michael Moore pulls this sort of stuff. Be consistent.Except that MM actually lied.

Batman Jr.

28th October 2005, 02:07 AM

Except that MM actually lied.
I've come to believe that arguing with a conservative about Bush is like arguing with a Christian about the Bible. No matter what evidence you present, they both remain oblivious. The former has become indoctrinated with the tenets of "Bushtianity":

1. Bush is my master. He stands against tyranny everywhere. Contentions that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both headed by authoritarian regimes must not be true because Bush stands against tyranny.

2. Tax cuts help the economy, even if they don't really expand it and mean blowing up the deficit to monstrous proportions and screwing up the value of the dollar. This is because the "free-market" solves everything. Merlin put a magic spell on the "free-market" so that it will do this. This is a perfectly rational belief.

3. Bush is not a flip-flopper. In the debates, what He really meant by "nation building" was that He didn't like to put together Legos so that they resemble the shapes of countries.

4. Bush did not lie about Iraq. Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, the people at the CIA, Joseph Wilson, the IAEA, Scott Ritter, and others were just trying to discredit our Divine Master's agenda because they are jealous of His supernatural beauty.

5. In the statement in the State of the Union about Iraq procuring uranium from Africa, He obviously wasn't referring to the Niger memo or the junkie British intelligence the CIA had previously deconstructed and destroyed. He was clearly talking about how Joseph Wilson talked about someone's fuzzy memory that Iraq might have asked for uranium! With this nebulous hearsay, our Savior was able to conclude with certainty that Iraq was an imminent threat and that He had to scare everyone into going after Saddam Hussein as soon as He could.

6. Bush never linked 9/11 with Saddam Hussein even though He once said that we have to "engage the enemy where he lives and plans" in the context of the 9/11 attacks while defending the war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that He wasn't talking about Iraq per se but was just talking about places in the Middle East in Iraq's general vicinity. If you say otherwise, then you are inferior and stupid and don't know the Truth.

7. We must be speakin' real dumb so da Masta ain't not feel too dumb about his speakin'. He real smart, though. It's just that people be misunderestimating his mind thoughts because he speak so good that people be too stupid to be knowin' he speak good.

8. There shall be no more official rules as our Venerable Awesomeness is superstitious and wants seven rules. This rule, however, is okay since He's not really that skilled at counting or reading.

Elind

28th October 2005, 07:23 AM

We had to stop Hitler if that's what you're asking. This situation is very different and the social perceptions are consequently also very different. You can't compare a preemptive war and a guerilla insurgency to WWII. Vietnam resembles the situation a great deal more.

[/url]

Of course the situations are different. They always are. Germany was about as different from Japan as Korea was from Iraq, but you used the term Nation Building, and that is what it was then, successfully. The difference seems to be that we had smarter people in charge then, a more unified nation (and probably more naiive), and more homogeneous cultures to rebuild.

I don't agree about Vietnam either. It never came to nation building. The war was lost against the north and its cold war friends because the will to what it took to win was never there.

It may be that states dominated by (different) religious fundamentalists are impossible to maintain without dictatorship, given that religious principles are by definition dictates. Iran is a good example, and so is the religious right in the US.

Thanks for the music. I'll check it out.

Mark

28th October 2005, 08:06 AM

I've come to believe that arguing with a conservative about Bush is like arguing with a Christian about the Bible. No matter what evidence you present, they both remain oblivious. The former has become indoctrinated with the tenets of "Bushtianity":

1. Bush is my master. He stands against tyranny everywhere. Contentions that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both headed by authoritarian regimes must not be true because Bush stands against tyranny.

2. Tax cuts help the economy, even if they don't really expand it and mean blowing up the deficit to monstrous proportions and screwing up the value of the dollar. This is because the "free-market" solves everything. Merlin put a magic spell on the "free-market" so that it will do this. This is a perfectly rational belief.

3. Bush is not a flip-flopper. In the debates, what He really meant by "nation building" was that He didn't like to put together Legos so that they resemble the shapes of countries.

4. Bush did not lie about Iraq. Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, the people at the CIA, Joseph Wilson, the IAEA, Scott Ritter, and others were just trying to discredit our Divine Master's agenda because they are jealous of His supernatural beauty.

5. In the statement in the State of the Union about Iraq procuring uranium from Africa, He obviously wasn't referring to the Niger memo or the junkie British intelligence the CIA had previously deconstructed and destroyed. He was clearly talking about how Joseph Wilson talked about someone's fuzzy memory that Iraq might have asked for uranium! With this nebulous hearsay, our Savior was able to conclude with certainty that Iraq was an imminent threat and that He had to scare everyone into going after Saddam Hussein as soon as He could.

6. Bush never linked 9/11 with Saddam Hussein even though He once said that we have to "engage the enemy where he lives and plans" in the context of the 9/11 attacks while defending the war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that He wasn't talking about Iraq per se but was just talking about places in the Middle East in Iraq's general vicinity. If you say otherwise, then you are inferior and stupid and don't know the Truth.

7. We must be speakin' real dumb so da Masta ain't not feel too dumb about his speakin'. He real smart, though. It's just that people be misunderestimating his mind thoughts because he speak so good that people be too stupid to be knowin' he speak good.

8. There shall be no more official rules as our Venerable Awesomeness is superstitious and wants seven rules. This rule, however, is okay since He's not really that skilled at counting or reading.

LOL!!!!!

But somehow a little scary, too...

Jocko

28th October 2005, 08:43 AM

Jocko, being in advertising, you are well aware that one can say something without saying something so that the something one wants to say doesn't need to be said to be said.

You know what I'm sayin'?

I do indeed. I'm not disputing that this, in fact, has happened, happens now and will continue to happen, no matter who's in the White House.

What I am disputing is the repitition of the word "lie," when the "lie" in question relies entirely on the mindset of the listener to make it a "lie." If it were otherwise, Mark would have provided some kind of proof instead of a mountain of similarly confused people. It's unfair to hold a speaker accountable for every paranoiac's personal insecurities and the resulting outrage.

I know how this works better than most people do. However, I'm also privvy to how resistnant Americans have become... unless they WANT to believe it. This is every bit as true for the people who support the war as it is for those who oppose it, but the evidence in this case is clearly against those who claim there was a "lie."

Strip away both sides' spin, and that's what you wind up with.

Ian Osborne

28th October 2005, 09:10 AM

What I am disputing is the repitition of the word "lie," when the "lie" in question relies entirely on the mindset of the listener to make it a "lie."

No, it depends on the intention of the speaker. Bush might not have come right out and said 'Saddam did it', but in constantly referencing 9/11 when justifying the Iraq war, he planted the seed in people's mind, watered it and watched it grow into a situation where 70% of Americans believe Saddam was involved. If you deny this, you're either incredibly naive or wilfully deluded.

punchdrunk

28th October 2005, 10:12 AM

I don't remember who, and I think that singling out specifc posters would be counterproductive anyway, but yes. Now, what does it mean that Bush sold the American people based on lies? For a particular person, I guess it would mean "I supported the war, but only because of Bush lies". In other words, it wouldn't include anyone who opposed the war, nor would it include anyone who would have supported it without the alleged lies. So do you fall in this category? Did you support the war, but only because of lies?
I didn't know what to think at first. The "imminent threat" of Hussein's WMDs as a reason to go to war was a sudden happening in my mind (and I suspect most others), and all we had to go on was what the administration was presenting to the UN and the American public. I was somewhat skeptical, but when Congress authorized it, I reluctantly supported it, assuming I was ignorant of all the facts. Later, as I began to realize it was the Bush administration that was playing fast and loose with the facts, I grew angrier and more disgusted. It's still something that angers me; I now believe Bush knew the war would not gain support without tying it to 9/11 and an imminent threat of attack by Iraq. The real reasons (or at least the reasons he gives now) are worthy of debate, but he never gave us that chance.

Regardless, there was no referendum on the war, so opinion of American voters was not the determative factor. Iraq was invaded because Congress authorized it, therefore what's relevant is why Congress authorized it.
Democrats in Congress authorized it based upon the misinformation Powell presented to the UN, if you were to believe Kerry et al. He also said that the authorization process was so rushed that they didn't have time to read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq ( http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=4840 ) and instead relied on a summary. Granted, that's nothing more than a cop-out, and as such Congress (or at least Kerry) is to blame for not doing their Constitutional duty.

But I think you are wrong if you think the support of the American people is not relevant. Politicians don't sneeze without first forming a focus group and making sure it doesn't hurt their polls. You can't take the United States to war without presenting a good reason to the public, or you will suffer in the next election. No party, Republican or Democrat, would be foolish enough to sacrifice votes in such a way.

Jocko

28th October 2005, 11:15 AM

No, it depends on the intention of the speaker. Bush might not have come right out and said 'Saddam did it',

Okay, freeze right there. You're correct in a factual, defensible way up till this point. Where you, Mark, and a lot people get lost is here:

but in constantly referencing 9/11 when justifying the Iraq war, he planted the seed in people's mind, watered it and watched it grow into a situation where 70% of Americans believe Saddam was involved. If you deny this, you're either incredibly naive or wilfully deluded.

So, by your own description of what happened, it was a problem of perception as opposed to what words were said. You've said exactly what I did, yet still believe it qualifies as a lie. I believe you're the naive and/or deluded one, here if that's the case... and the sort of person advertisers love, the ones who choose to ignore the asterisks on product claims.

Sorry, but if you can't point to a statement and say that's where a lie occurred, then the problem is probably with you. If you want to believe it's a lie, then you seem happy to twist the definition till you're vindicated. That's dishonest.

If you want to call it deceptive, fine.
If you want to call it spin, fine.
If you want to call it deliberate manipulation, fine.
But it is not a lie. The fact that so many have provided so many quotes that DON'T LIE only shows that.

Mark

28th October 2005, 11:53 AM

If it were otherwise, Mark would have provided some kind of proof instead of a mountain of similarly confused people. It's unfair to hold a speaker accountable for every paranoiac's personal insecurities and the resulting outrage.

I did. That you keep ignoring it, is a perfect example of what a lie is.

I just read your post above...you are actually trying to make a distinction between lying and deception! What else can I possibly say? There, folks, is a true partisan supporter.

Webster's definition of "Lie"(emphasis mine): 1. "To make a statement one knows is false, especially with intent to deceive."

2. "To give a false impression. Anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression." Got that, Jocko?!?!?! To give a false impression...straight out of the bloody dictionary.

What else is there to say? You are being ridiculous.

Dr Adequate

28th October 2005, 12:03 PM

How is what you said relevant to disproving what Ziggurat said?[/i] Still flailing away?

I answered the question which Ziggurat actually asked me. To quote a mindless, humorless jerk: "This is how it works in Not-A-Complete-Whacko Land". It is no good whining away about how instead of answering the question I was asked, I should have answered a completely different question.Do you understand why is it that to refute a proposition, it is necessary against that proposition, rather than for a completely different proposition of your choosing? Yes. Do you understand why in order to answer a question, it is necessary to answer that question and not a different one? The issue in question is whether Ziggurat is wrong, not whether you are right. You are a halfwitted liar. Ziggurat asked me to produce evidence that I was right.

I did so.

Hence, I presume, all this whining.Yes, he did say that. Yet that is not the portion that you decided to quote. Instead you quoted “The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11.” Silly Ziggurat, thinking that your post was responding to the part you quoted, rather a completely different part. Obviously he doesn’t know you very well. You may be too halfwitted to understand my posts, but why do you attribute the same mental deficiency to Ziggurat? I am sure that he was perfectly capable of understanding my post, and if I were he, I should resent the implication of a mental handicap.

Dr Adequate

28th October 2005, 12:29 PM

Let's watch this again in slow motion.

I make a claim. I precede it by listen carefully. That was good advice.What a lovely way of putting things into "other words" you have. It does help to duck the issues.

Listen carefully. Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida.Ziggurat challenges me to substantiate this:If you think he lied, then show the quote. But there's been no quote in this thread on that claim which qualifies as a lie. Ziggurat then shifts the goalposts and decides that instead he'd like me to substantiate a claim that I never made: The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11. That would prove me wrong. I explain that I am not in the habit of substantiating statements I haven't made and don't believe to be trueDid you understand that, or do I have to explain in more detail why in order to support some proposition, it is necessary for me to produce evidence for that proposition, and not for a completely different proposition of your choosing?

In support of what I actually said, rather than your fatuous straw man, here are some quotes...Ziggurat and Art Vandelay then join in a chorus of petulant whining about how I've substantiated what I actually said, rather that arguing for a proposition which I've explicitly said I don't believe.

What can I say? It upsets the whimpering little crybabies to be faced with real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

Have this tantrum on me, boys.

E-Z

28th October 2005, 12:29 PM

If you want to call it deceptive, fine.
If you want to call it spin, fine.
If you want to call it deliberate manipulation, fine.
But it is not a lie. The fact that so many have provided so many quotes that DON'T LIE only shows that.

Hey, Bush is an *******. So is Cheney. Face it and deal with it.

They lied to the UN, they lied to the UK they lied to their own people.

Jocko

28th October 2005, 12:45 PM

Hey, Bush is an *******. So is Cheney. Face it and deal with it.

Faced and dealt. Feel better now, Skippy?

They lied to the UN, they lied to the UK they lied to their own people.

Thank heavens, just what we needed... another unsubstantiated opinion. You'll get along just fine.

Jocko

28th October 2005, 12:51 PM

I did. That you keep ignoring it, is a perfect example of what a lie is.

I just read your post above...you are actually trying to make a distinction between lying and deception! What else can I possibly say? There, folks, is a true partisan supporter.

Mark, this is the last time I'll ask you to stop making such crass assumptions. I realize it makes you feel better, since you've been caught manipulting the facts in precisely the same way you accuse Bush of doing, but I really think it's time you learned to move past the childish psychological defense mechanisms.

Webster's definition of "Lie"(emphasis mine): 1. "To make a statement one knows is false, especially with intent to deceive."

2. "To give a false impression. Anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression." Got that, Jocko?!?!?! To give a false impression...straight out of the bloody dictionary.

What else is there to say? You are being ridiculous.

Pardon me, but when applying a defintion a politician, I would think a "lie" would be better described by the primary definition more than the second, unless you would lump in advertising, romance, commerce and international relations in with the "lies" you abhor... because they all violate the secondary definition as well. Still and all, you make a good point... even if it is a secondary definition.

Like I said before, you are patholiogically predisposed to hate anything and everything coming from the right. That's your right. I just prefer that you use the right terms.

Renfield

28th October 2005, 12:52 PM

No, it means that Bush continually insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. It's clearly his fault that the perception exists.

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm)

Really. They couldn't mention 9-11 without mentioning Iraq in the next breath. Even if they didn't say it in so many words, they definately implied it.

Ian Osborne

28th October 2005, 12:57 PM

Really. They couldn't mention 9-11 without mentioning Iraq in the next breath. Even if they didn't say it in so many words, they definately implied it.

And deliberately implied it too. They went out of their way to lead people to a false conclusion that went against all the evidence. It's the act of a very desperate man to draw a distinction between this and lying...

Mark

28th October 2005, 01:33 PM

Pardon me, but when applying a defintion a politician, I would think a "lie" would be better described by the primary definition more than the second, unless you would lump in advertising, romance, commerce and international relations in with the "lies" you abhor... because they all violate the secondary definition as well. Still and all, you make a good point... even if it is a secondary definition.

Like I said before, you are patholiogically predisposed to hate anything and everything coming from the right. That's your right. I just prefer that you use the right terms.

Actually, you don't understand me at all. I dislike (it isn't pathological) anything that helps maintain One Party Rule in this country. I concede that in many things I am indeed pretty far to the Left. But in others (support for law enforcement officers, for example) I tend pretty far to the Right. You might want to reconsider your attempts to stereotype me.

That said, I am glad we have come close to finding a middle ground on the subject of politicians lying.

Ian Osborne

28th October 2005, 02:03 PM

Double post...

Jocko

28th October 2005, 02:45 PM

It's the act of a very desperate man to draw a distinction between this and lying...

Please, we're talking about Bush, not Clinton. Quit changing the subject. ;)

All the same, dealing with politicians requires a little more precision in terms. It's like the same word being racist when uttered at a Klan rally, and funny when used by Chris Rock. Context matters.

Mark

28th October 2005, 04:44 PM

Please, we're talking about Bush, not Clinton. Quit changing the subject. ;)

All the same, dealing with politicians requires a little more precision in terms. It's like the same word being racist when uttered at a Klan rally, and funny when used by Chris Rock. Context matters.

Actually, I agree that context matters. However, since Bush put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence over and over and over again, I can think of no context where that does not equal deception (especially when you consider how outraged Colin Powell and his aides apparently were).

And, yes, I do think deception equals lying.

Regnad Kcin

28th October 2005, 04:49 PM

A distinction without a difference.

For all practical purposes, the Bush administration used 9/11 -- that is to say its emotional value -- to further goals in the mideast.*

To suggest that just because Bush did not utter the words "Saddam = 9/11" (or some variation) indicates he did not therefore lie is to split a hair finer than the one occupied by the word "is," if you get my meaning.

*Al Franken, in his book "Truth (with jokes)", suggests that the 9/11 issue quickly became Bush's Little Black Dress -- something he could slip on for most any occasion.

Dr Adequate

28th October 2005, 05:49 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." --- GWB

E-Z

29th October 2005, 02:24 AM

Faced and dealt. Feel better now, Skippy?

Whoah there, chuckles! that's your propblem, not mine.

Thank heavens, just what we needed... another unsubstantiated opinion. You'll get along just fine.

Opinion? Baby, those guys are going down!

Cain

29th October 2005, 02:48 AM

Well, I can't believe this is still being discussed (not just this thread, but in general). It's comically sad the extent to which apologists for this administration will go. A large segment of the war's supporters feel genuinely betrayed and the resident true-believer ideologues have nothing better to do then sneer, "Well, you didn't look at the fine print!"

The administration, and by extension the media -- especially the broadcast media, Fox in particular -- is responsible for conflating Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. Is it really so difficult to admit that the White House sold the war in a very dishonest way?

Forget framing the issue as a matter of lying. Lying requires a certain degree of sophistication and knowledge: one must know the truth and state otherwise. The administration let the bullsh!t fly. They're bullsh!tters. They probably have even less respect for the truth than liars.

Rumsfeld said they knew Saddam had WMDs around Tikrit, right? Riiiiiiight. They dismissed key evidence that contradicted their preconceived conclusions while inflating evidence that corraborated them. They engineered public consent through fear-based emotional appeals. Now I hate to invoke the banner of "skepticism", but the White House's cynical, irrational conduct runs contrary to the Enlightenment values espoused -- and supposedly cherished -- by the vast majority of members on this forum. You ask if they lied? If only.

Regnad Kcin

29th October 2005, 09:04 AM

Well put, Cain.

Ian Osborne

29th October 2005, 10:15 AM

So, by your own description of what happened, it was a problem of perception as opposed to what words were said.

But the words that were said were designed to create that perception.

You've said exactly what I did, yet still believe it qualifies as a lie. I believe you're the naive and/or deluded one, here if that's the case... and the sort of person advertisers love, the ones who choose to ignore the asterisks on product claims.

If you tried to sell a product using the same tactics that Bush used to sell the war, you'd be prosecuted for false advertising.

Art Vandelay

29th October 2005, 03:39 PM

Here’s another Bush quote to consider:
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. Doesn’t this imply that Saddam didn’t arm the hijackers?

I've come to believe that arguing with a conservative about Bush is like arguing with a Christian about the Bible. No matter what evidence you present, they both remain oblivious. The former has become indoctrinated with the tenets of "Bushtianity"It seems to me that for some liberals, refusing to declare Bush to be the spawn of Satan means that you’re a Bush loving conservative. I’ve already said that I don’t think that Bush handled it well, and I don’t consider myself a conservative. I do think that your childish attacks on anyone who disagrees with you go more to showing that your mind is closed than your opponents’.

No, it depends on the intention of the speaker. Bush might not have come right out and said 'Saddam did it', but in constantly referencing 9/11 when justifying the Iraq war, he planted the seed in people's mind, watered it and watched it grow into a situation where 70% of Americans believe Saddam was involved. If you deny this, you're either incredibly naive or wilfully deluded.Got a cite for that 70% figure? Or are you just going to try to intimidate people from questioning you?

I answered the question which Ziggurat actually asked me. To quote a mindless, humorless jerk: "This is how it works in Not-A-Complete-Whacko Land". It is no good whining away about how instead of answering the question I was asked, I should have answered a completely different question.Ziggurat didn't ask any questions. He said made two statements. The first, you did not quote, yet you are now pretending that was the one you were responding to. The second, you did quote, and now you are pretending that it is dishonest of us to expect your response to actually have something to do with the second statement, rather than the first. The proper statment would "I responded to a statement which Ziggurat made, after quoting a completely different statement."

Do you understand why in order to answer a question, it is necessary to answer that question and not a different one? So why are you answering the question of what evidence you have on the al Qaeda issue, when you quoted a completely different statement?

Ziggurat asked me to produce evidence that I was right.As I already pointed out, that's not the part that you quoted. Pretending otherwise strikes me as dishonest as anything Bush has done.

Ziggurat then shifts the goalposts and decides that instead he'd like me to substantiate a claim that I never made: Shifts the goalposts? His first post (which was before yours) was regarding 9/11. You then tried to change the subject to al Qaeda. Ziggurat continued to discuss 9/11. I find it rather dishonest to call it “shifting the goalposts” when that was the original issue. And considering that you don’t have a problem implying that people should substantiate claims they’ve never made, you don’t have much grounds for complaint.

Ziggurat and Art Vandelay then join in a chorus of petulant whining about how I've substantiated what I actually said, rather that arguing for a proposition which I've explicitly said I don't believe.When did I ever “whine” about you substantiating what you actually said?

A distinction without a difference.Really? Then why are you so desperate to hang on to the word “lie”? If there is no difference between “lie” and “deception”, why not use the latter?

For all practical purposes, the Bush administration used 9/11 -- that is to say its emotional value -- to further goals in the mideast.*And you are using the emotional value of the word “lie” to further your goals. “Lie” has an emotional impact, an impact much stronger than simply saying “deception”. You are invoking the full meaning of “lie” based merely on the claim that it is almost a lie. That’s like someone in Tacna, Peru, complaining about the harsh Chilean winters. After all, he’s almost in Chile. When people hear “lie”, they don’t think “Made some misleading statements”. You are intentionally creating a false impression, so by your own definition you are lying.

It’s odd how so many people who complain about Bush “lying” have little concern for the truth. Both Dr A and Mark, for instance, have no problem lying. The “70% of Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11” claim is spread without any support. Michael Moore’s outright lies are compared with Bush’s linking Saddam and 9/11. It seems like the most vociferous opponents of Bush are also the most dishonest.

Ian Osborne

29th October 2005, 04:33 PM

Got a cite for that 70% figure? Or are you just going to try to intimidate people from questioning you?[quote]

It was a poll conducted by the Washington Post. It's referenced here. (http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20031014) And here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

[quote]It’s odd how so many people who complain about Bush “lying” have little concern for the truth. Both Dr A and Mark, for instance, have no problem lying. The “70% of Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11” claim is spread without any support.

So where's your support for claiming Dr A and Mark are lying?

CapelDodger

29th October 2005, 07:21 PM

But the words that were said were designed to create that perception.Why does that have to be said? Because sophistry is all that some people have left in the locker. There's a lovely stage in a competition when you know you've got it won ... Enjoy.

Art Vandelay

29th October 2005, 07:25 PM

It was a poll conducted by the Washington Post. It's referenced here. (http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20031014) And here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)Okay, but do you have a cite? Or do you just have links to other people claiming it exists?

Where's your support for claiming Dr A and Mark are lying?
You seriously can look at this thread and not conclude that Dr A has no respect for the truth? I suppose you could say that he hasn't technically lied in this thread, only engaged in intentional deception. But that is exactly what you're calling a "lie" when Bush does it. And in other threads, he has made statements that fulfill even the most stringent definition of lie. As for Mark, he claimed in another thread to have showed that unions cannot contribute to political campaigns without their members' consent, yet he did no such thing.

ETA: your first link actually claims that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam is responsible instead of Osama bin Laden. Do you seriously believe that 70% of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden was not behind 9/11? Or do you not care when people lie, as long as they support your side?

varwoche

29th October 2005, 11:22 PM

July 2003 PIPA polling data (pdf) (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqWMD_Jul03/IraqWMD%20Jul03%20rpt.pdf):
Is it your impression the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Believe evidence of close links to al-Qaeda found:

Full sample: 52%
Firm supporters of the war: 72%
Republicans: 68%
Republicans following Iraq news closely: 78%
-------------------
Do you think the Bush administration did or did not imply that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks?

Did imply: 71%
Did not imply: 25%

Regnad Kcin

29th October 2005, 11:23 PM

...Really? Then why are you so desperate to hang on to the word “lie”? If there is no difference between “lie” and “deception”, why not use the latter?"Desperate?" Please show how I'm desperate. "[H]ang on to the word 'lie'?" Please show where I'm doing so.And you are using the emotional value of the word “lie” to further your goals. “Lie” has an emotional impact, an impact much stronger than simply saying “deception”. You are invoking the full meaning of “lie” based merely on the claim that it is almost a lie. That’s like someone in Tacna, Peru, complaining about the harsh Chilean winters. After all, he’s almost in Chile. When people hear “lie”, they don’t think “Made some misleading statements”. You are intentionally creating a false impression, so by your own definition you are lying...The above is curious, considering it seems to be directed to me, yet I've barely made a contribution to this thread. And what I have has been more commentary than argument/debate.

Regnad Kcin

29th October 2005, 11:27 PM

P.S. Bush lied.

:p

Ian Osborne

30th October 2005, 04:08 AM

Okay, but do you have a cite? Or do you just have links to other people claiming it exists?

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5&notFound=true), referenced by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml) and The Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1036959,00.html). I can't find the actual poll online, but with so many references by serious news organisations, I can't believe you doubt it exists.

ETA: your first link actually claims that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam is responsible instead of Osama bin Laden. Do you seriously believe that 70% of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden was not behind 9/11? Or do you not care when people lie, as long as they support your side?

No, I think he expressed himself somewhat sloppily there. I doubt he indended to imply Osama bin Laden is innocent...

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 04:27 AM

Ziggurat didn't ask any questions. He said made two statements. The first, you did not quote, yet you are now pretending that was the one you were responding to. The second, you did quote, The proper statment would "I responded to a statement which Ziggurat made, after quoting a completely different statement." I did indeed quote Ziggurat's second request. And look how I responded to it.The requirement to refute me is quite simple, and if you were right it would be easy. All you would need to do is show a quote where Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Er, no. Since I said that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and Al-Qaida, what I'd have to do to show you wrong is prove that Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Rather than showing that Bush states that Saddam was involved with 9/11, which is a completely different proposition.

Did you understand that, or do I have to explain in more detail why in order to support some proposition, it is necessary for me to produce evidence for that proposition, and not for a completely different proposition of your choosing?

In support of what I actually said, rather than your fatuous straw man, here are some quotes: Now, are you so deeply mentally handicapped that this left you believing that I was responding to his request to provide evidence for his straw man rather than his request to provide evidence for my opinions? The second, you did quote, and now you are pretending that it is dishonest of us to expect your response to actually have something to do with the second statement, rather than the first. Substitute "saying" for "pretending", and yes. Unless you are severely mentally retarded, it is gross and witless dishonesty to read me saying:In support of what I actually said, rather than your fatuous straw man, here are some quotes: and then to pretend that you don't know to which of Ziggurat's two challenges I was responding. As I already pointed out, that's not the part that you quoted. Pretending otherwise strikes me as dishonest as anything Bush has done. You are a fatuous halfwitted liar. I have not "pretended" to quote the first part of his post. I do, however, claim to have responded to the first part of his post. Are you confusing these two things because you are a moron, or because you are a liar, or is someone standing by you holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make a clown of yourself in public?

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 04:43 AM

I suppose you could say that he hasn't technically lied in this thread, only engaged in intentional deception.Whereas you could say that AV has lied again and again and again, in the most explicit terms.

His latest lie is that I have "engaged in intentional deception". Again, I submit this to the qualification that he may be grossly stupid, insane, or on drugs, but otherwise he is intentionally lying about the contents of my posts: which is in itelf grossly stupid, since everyone can read my posts and see what a repulsive whining crawling little liar he is.

So I guess stupid/liar is kind of a false dichotomy in this case: nor should proof of both rule out "slightly unhinged" as a complicating factor.

a_unique_person

30th October 2005, 06:14 AM

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 02:07 PM

And in other threads, he has made statements that fulfill even the most stringent definition of lie. You will notice that the halfwit is unable to link you to any of these posts. What a surprise.

By contrast, here is a link to a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46271) in which AV spews out similarly hysterical lies. Again, about the contents of my posts. He seems to have some sort of massive deficit that makes him unable to realize the futility of lying, on this forum, about what someone has posted on this forum.

Art Vandelay

30th October 2005, 05:08 PM

July 2003 PIPA polling data (pdf) (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqWMD_Jul03/IraqWMD%20Jul03%20rpt.pdf):Is that supposed to be response to my request for a cite?

"Desperate?" Please show how I'm desperate. "[H]ang on to the word 'lie'?" Please show where I'm doing so.You certainly don't seem disinterested. If there is so little difference between "lie" and "deception", why insist that using the latter rather than the former is splitting hairs? I suppose to some extent I am responding to the thread in general rather than your particular post, but you do seem to be espousing the view that anyone who refuses to accept the word “lie” is dishonest.

I can't find the actual poll online, but with so many references by serious news organisations, I can't believe you doubt it exists.I find it difficult to believe that you expect this to be a convincing argument. This is a skeptics board, right? Does the same logic apply to Jesus' resurrection? At least on that issue, there's a good reason why there's no proof: the alleged event happened two thousand years ago. This alleged poll, however, is quite a bit more recent. You do not find the complete lack of actual cites to be a red flag? If the poll actually exists, it should be easy to find. Why is it that liberal complain about conservatives simply repeating a claim over and over again and expecting people to believe it simply because it's been said so many times, then they do the exact same thing?

It is an excellent example of him trying to imply exactly the opposite.Huh? How so? Doesn’t the word “imagine” imply that the situation presented is a hypothetical, and something that has not actually happened?

Art Vandelay

30th October 2005, 05:45 PM

Now, are you so deeply mentally handicapped that this left you believing that I was responding to his request to provide evidence for his straw man rather than his request to provide evidence for my opinions?This is a loaded question. He made did not post a request, nor a strawman. If you are asking me whether you were addressing the issue of what would refute him, then the answer is of course "yes". That's obvious to anyone with any intelligence.

Unless you are severely mentally retarded, it is gross and witless dishonesty to read me saying: and then to pretend that you don't know to which of Ziggurat's two challenges I was responding. It is dishonesty to claim that I am responding to that portion of your post. I have made it quite clear that I am responding to other portion of your post, a portion which is quite clearly discussing the issue of what would refute Ziggurat. You must think that the readers of this thread are incredibly stupid if you think that they're going to fall for this crap.

You are a fatuous halfwitted liar. I have not "pretended" to quote the first part of his post.I never claimed that you pretended to quote it. I said that you pretended to have quoted it. Apparently the distinction is beyond your comprehension. You have repeatedly included it in your “accounts” of the exchange between you and Ziggurat. The implication is that you quoted it. You are also implying that it is the only issue, when that is not the case. You keep pretending that it is Ziggurat that was trying to change the subject, when in fact it was you. Which is another example of your dishonesty.

I do, however, claim to have [i]responded to the first part of his post. Are you confusing these two things because you are a moron, or because you are a liar, or is someone standing by you holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make a clown of yourself in public?Normal people, when they respond to something, quote that particular thing, rather than something completely different. Therefore, if one assumes that you aren’t a complete wacko, which is admittedly a completely unfounded supposition, when you claim that that was what you were responding to, the implication is that you quoted it. The fact that you think there is something moronic or dishonest about associating quoting something with responding to it shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

His latest lie is that I have "engaged in intentional deception". Which illustrates a rather common practice for you: accusing someone of lying based on nothing more than the fact that you disagree with them. My accusations of lies, on the other hand, are based on you actually lying.

You will notice that the halfwit is unable to link you to any of these posts.Is the difference between “unable” and “didn’t” too complicated for you? He seemed to talking in the present tense, as in this thread, and I didn’t want to appear to be claiming that the lies were in this thread. Should he ask for examples of lies in other threads, I will be quite capable of obliging. My only difficulty will be to choose which to quote.

By contrast, here is a link to a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46271) in which AV spews out similarly hysterical lies. And yet you fail to name any, right after making a big deal about the fact that I didn’t name any. You really like double standards, don’t you?

So, are you ever going to answer my question? Do you, or do you not, admit that your saying that desecration is illegal because it’s a crime is an utterly inane response?

davefoc

30th October 2005, 06:32 PM

I hesitate to get involved in a pissing contest. But on the off chance that I might lesson the tension a little, I would like to suggest that you both, Dr. Adequate and Art, refrain from the use of the word "lie". It is very difficult to prove that its use is valid since the validity depends on a determination of the intent of the individual accused of making the lie and it clearly is a very inflamatory word.

As to the specifics of one of the particular issues:

Art wrote:So, are you ever going to answer my question? Do you, or do you not, admit that your saying that desecration is illegal because it’s a crime is an utterly inane response?
I actually took your question as to why descrating dead bodies was a crime in the same way that Dr. Adequate seemed to understand it. That is, what is the law that would make desecrating a human body a crime?

So for me Dr. Adequate's response that it was against the Geneva convention made sense. From the Geneva Convention:The detaining authorities shall ensure that prisoners of war who have died in captivity are honourably buried, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, and that their graves are respected, suitably maintained and marked so as to be found at any time. Wherever possible, deceased prisoners of war who depended on the same Power shall be interred in the same place.
However, I now believe that what you meant was "Why should desecrating the body of an enemy be a crime?" or perhaps you meant "Why should the Geneva convention apply in this situation. Either one of those interpretations of your question seems reasonable and I suspect that Dr. Adequate would have made a different answer had he interpretted your question in one of those ways.

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 06:44 PM

This is a loaded question. He made did not post a request, nor a strawman. That is a lie and a lie.
It is dishonesty to claim that I am responding to that portion of your post. I have made it quite clear that I am responding to other portion of your post, a portion which is quite clearly discussing the issue of what would refute Ziggurat. This is too incoherent to be a proper lie.You must think that the readers of this thread are incredibly stupid if you think that they're going to fall for this crap. I would indeed think the readers of this thread incredibly stupid if they fell for this crap. Fortunately, they are not.I never claimed that you pretended to quote it. I said that you pretended to have quoted it. Apparently the distinction is beyond your comprehension. All your whacky fantasies are beyond my comprehension. You have repeatedly included it in your “accounts” of the exchange between you and Ziggurat. The implication is that you quoted it. This is a halfwitted lie. To quote something in one post in no way implies that I have quoted it in another. You are also implying that it is the only issue, when that is not the case. I expect that this is meant to be a halfwitted lie, but you do not say what "it" is. You keep pretending that it is Ziggurat that was trying to change the subject, when in fact it was you. This is a witless lie. I made a statement for which Ziggurat tried to substitute a flimsy straw man.Normal people, when they respond to something, quote that particular thing, rather than something completely different. Therefore, if one assumes that you aren’t a complete wacko, which is admittedly a completely unfounded supposition, when you claim that that was what you were responding to, the implication is that you quoted it. The fact that you think there is something moronic or dishonest about associating quoting something with responding to it shows just how disconnected from reality you are. Normal people, when they quote something, explain that it is a fatuous straw man, and say, "Did you understand that, or do I have to explain in more detail why in order to support some proposition, it is necessary for me to produce evidence for that proposition, and not for a completely different proposition of your choosing? In support of what I actually said, rather than your fatuous straw man, here are some quotes:" are offering evidence for what they actually said, rather than for the fatuous straw man.

Are you genuinely mentally handicapped?Which illustrates a rather common practice for you: accusing someone of lying based on nothing more than the fact that you disagree with them. This is a halfwitted lie. I identify you as a liar because you lie repeatedly.Is the difference between “unable” and “didn’t” too complicated for you? He seemed to talking in the present tense, as in this thread, and I didn’t want to appear to be claiming that the lies were in this thread. Should he ask for examples of lies in other threads, I will be quite capable of obliging. My only difficulty will be to choose which to quote. I see that you are still unable to produce any of these supposed "lies".And yet you fail to name any, right after making a big deal about the fact that I didn’t name any. You really like double standards, don’t you? The thread I linked to pinpoints your lies precisely, as anyone can see by reading it.So, are you ever going to answer my question? Do you, or do you not, admit that your saying that desecration is illegal because it’s a crime is an utterly inane response? No, principally because ... listen carefully ... that is not what I said, you halfwitted liar.

I'll explain this one more time.

I explained this to Peter Morris, I explained it to turtle, I explained it to Interesting Ian, and eventually they figured it out, or stomped off the boards in a fit of hysterics, I don't care which.

Listen carefully.

You are lying about what I posted on the forum on which I posted it. Everyone can read what I have written. Everyone can see that you are a stupid malevolent liar.

Do you understand why this is an incredibly stupid thing to do?

thaiboxerken

30th October 2005, 06:51 PM

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 06:59 PM

It is very difficult to prove that its use is valid since the validity depends on a determination of the intent of the individual accused of making the lie... This is why I occasionally stress that in principle he could be retarded or insane.

Apart from that... he's lying to me about what I said and what I meant and what I "implied" --- and he's doing this in front of a bunch of people who can read my posts.

He is a halfwitted liar.

When hysterics do this in RL, it's actually quite hard to combat unless you carry some sort of recording device with you. But on these forums, when every word is filed on public view, this sort of temper tantrum brings its own punishment.

That's one of the reasons I like the Internet.

Art Vandelay

30th October 2005, 08:43 PM

I actually took your question as to why descrating dead bodies was a crime in the same way that Dr. Adequate seemed to understand it. That is, what is the law that would make desecrating a human body a crime?That's exactly what I meant. What makes you say that that is how Dr A interpreted it? Note that according to Dr A, one of my "lies" in that thread was asking (once again he shows his inability to recognize that lies are declarative statements, not questions) whether he has a real answer to that question, as he "was not replying to any question". The guy is either an idiot, insane, or a troll. How can he possibly think that I was lying? Did he forget about a question I had asked only three days ago (and which he pretended to answer)? It's not like there's a legitimate reason for thinking I was lying. After several dozens posts like this, it's hard to think that he is anything but a troll. I mean, it's one thing if this is an occasional occurrence, and he admits his mistake, but neither is the case. He shows no sign of having any intention of listening to reason.

It's Dr Adequate, not Dr. Adequate. Silly limeys :)

So for me Dr. Adequate's response that it was against the Geneva convention made sense.Huh? When did he mention the Geneva convention?

The detaining authorities shall ensure that prisoners of war who have died in captivity are honourably buried, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, and that their graves are respected, suitably maintained and marked so as to be found at any time. Wherever possible, deceased prisoners of war who depended on the same Power shall be interred in the same place. That's exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for (except that you don't provide any information on where to find that in the Geneva Conventions).

See, now we can discuss whether that applies in this case, whether the Taliban qualify as "prisoners of war", whether they died in captivity, etc. As opposed to "it's a war crime", which is just a restatement of the claim that's it's illegal, and doesn't give us any information as to whether it's true.

Regnad Kcin

30th October 2005, 09:08 PM

You certainly don't seem disinterested. If there is so little difference between "lie" and "deception", why insist that using the latter rather than the former is splitting hairs?Back atcha.

As I mentioned, we're dealing with a distinction without a difference.I suppose to some extent I am responding to the thread in general rather than your particular post, but you do seem to be espousing the view that anyone who refuses to accept the word “lie” is dishonest.I "seem" to be espousing that view? I'm afraid you don't "seem" to be a very good mind reader.

Dr Adequate

30th October 2005, 11:10 PM

As I already pointed out, that's not the part that you quoted. Pretending otherwise strikes me as dishonest as anything Bush has done.I never claimed that you pretended to quote it. I said that you pretended to have quoted it. Apparently the distinction is beyond your comprehension. :dl:
I can't wait until the Super Self-Important Sage Of Stupid starts explaining what the meaning of "is" is. But perhaps his new sooper sekrit definition will be "beyond our comprehension". Let's hope, eh?

Ian Osborne

31st October 2005, 01:35 AM

I find it difficult to believe that you expect this to be a convincing argument. This is a skeptics board, right? Does the same logic apply to Jesus' resurrection? At least on that issue, there's a good reason why there's no proof: the alleged event happened two thousand years ago. This alleged poll, however, is quite a bit more recent. You do not find the complete lack of actual cites to be a red flag? If the poll actually exists, it should be easy to find. Why is it that liberal complain about conservatives simply repeating a claim over and over again and expecting people to believe it simply because it's been said so many times, then they do the exact same thing?

You compare a the evidence for the existance of a poll which has been quoted by several respected news sources with the evidence for a supernatural event which is aledged to have happened 2000 years ago? :jaw-dropp

How about this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm) for a cite? Or will you claim it's forged, hacked or invalid without a signed statement from every one of the 1,003 people questioned?

varwoche

31st October 2005, 01:48 AM

Is that supposed to be response to my request for a cite? Not specifically.

Cain

31st October 2005, 02:29 AM

As I mentioned, we're dealing with a distinction without a difference.

This nicely encapsulates "Art Vandelay's" posting style in general. If someone additionaly not-so-nicely characterized him as "aggressively obtuse", then I would have to agree with that as well.

I have not followed this most recent page very closely, and I see an authortitative link has been produced, but the _Washington Post_ poll saying 69% of the American public bought the 9/11-Saddam connection is known to virtually all reasonably well-informed citizens. However, most polls before (and I think after) this oft-cited WP poll consistently had ~50% of people making the false connection -- an astonishingly high figure.

The Vice President has made similarly stupid claims. So stupid, in fact, that I think it was that socialist publication _The Economist_ who asked Bush to have Cheney removed.

Dr Adequate

31st October 2005, 04:11 AM

This nicely encapsulates "Art Vandelay's" posting style in general. If someone additionaly not-so-nicely characterized him as "aggressively obtuse", then I would have to agree with that as well. No, no, don't be silly. "Obtuse"? No. He's simply "beyond your comprehension". Y'know, kind of like God, apart from being a raving frothing halfwit flailing away at nothing while screaming hysterical nonsense at his imaginary enemies.

Art Vandelay

31st October 2005, 01:58 PM

I can't wait until the Super Self-Important Sage Of Stupid starts explaining what the meaning of "is" is. But perhaps his new sooper sekrit definition will be "beyond our comprehension". Let's hope, eh?
Yeah, of course you would pretend that I was the one being deceptive. But if I had responded to your request without mentioning the distinction, I'm willing to bet you would have jumped on it as not being an example of you pretending to quote because of this distinction. I've got to admit, you are rather skilled at this. It takes talent to come up posts that impede constructive discussion so well. Like when you said "You are an incredibly stupid liar. I was not replying to any question, but to your halfwitted remark". You imply that I was claiming that what I was responding to was a response to a question, but you don't actually say that. And if I point that out, you would probably deny that you implied it, like you usually do. Like when you said that I had failed to provide any argument against the proposition that war crimes are illegal, thereby implying that I had said that war crimes aren't illegal, then denied that you were attributing any claim to me. Your posting style is to engage in strawmen and innuendo, and when your implications are challenged, deny that you ever made them.

You compare a the evidence for the existance of a poll which has been quoted by several respected news sources with the evidence for a supernatural event which is aledged to have happened 2000 years ago?No, I compare the argument "Lots of people have referenced it, therefore it's true" to the argument "lots of people have referenced it, therefore it's true".

How about this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm) for a cite? Does that show that 70% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? No, it shows that about 70% of Americans think it was somewhat or very likely.

I have not followed this most recent page very closely, and I see an authortitative link has been produced, but the _Washington Post_ poll saying 69% of the American public bought the 9/11-Saddam connection is known to virtually all reasonably well-informed citizens. Ah, kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes. "Everyone except for idiots knows it exists. You're not a idiot, are you?" The claim that this poll exists might be well known to the American public, but if Ian is at all representative, the American people are quite unfamiliar with the poll itself, and are just taking someone else's word for. I am quite aware that a poll exists. What I am challenging is the claim that it shows that 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9/11. Let me guess: this is yet another case where you guys are going to claim "distinction without a difference".

Do you people really think that Dr A isn't a dishonest *******? This whole discussion started with Ziggurat making a post, Dr A quoting that post, Ziggurat saying that Dr A's response didn't refute his post, and Dr A pretending that it was dishonest of Ziggurat to point that out. This has been followed by pages of obfuscation and deception.

Melendwyr

31st October 2005, 03:40 PM

When questioned about why we should invade Iraq, members of this administration spoke about its supposed ties to al Qaida.

Ties to al Qaida are why we invaded Afganistan, a military action that was widely acknowledged as appropriate across the world (although our behavior after the invasion is less championed).

If asked why I did something, I begin speaking on a completely different matter in a way that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that new matter is the answer to the question, I've lied. What's so hard to understand about that?

Ian Osborne

31st October 2005, 03:56 PM

If asked why I did something, I begin speaking on a completely different matter in a way that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that new matter is the answer to the question, I've lied. What's so hard to understand about that?

I think you'll find the answer in your own sig...

Elind

31st October 2005, 07:16 PM

What an incredibly juvenile pretence at debate this is. Some are worse than others, but all seem unable to know when to stop and let it lie.

joe1347

31st October 2005, 07:41 PM

How about some decent humor instead of bashing You Know Who for one brief moment?

************************************************** ****
************************************************** ****

CREATIVE WRITING EXERCISE Read till the end !

Here's a prime example of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" offered by an English professor from the University of Phoenix.The professor told his class one day: "Today we will experiment with a new
form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. As homework tonight, one of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. You will e-mail
your partner that paragraph and send another copy to me. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story and send
it back, also sending another copy to me. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back-and-forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent.

There is to be absolutely NO talking outside of the e-mails and anything you wish to say must be written in the e-mail. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached."

The following was actually turned in by two of his English students:

Rebecca and Gary.

THE STORY:

(first paragraph by Rebecca)

At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile.
But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So, chamomile was out of the question.

(second paragraph by Gary)

Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A.S. Harris to Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of
resistance so far..." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.

(Rebecca)

He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities
towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window,
dreaming of her youth, when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspaper to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.

(Gary)

Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace disarmament Treaty through the congress had left Earth a
defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the
entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion, which vaporized poor, stupid Laurie.

(Rebecca)

This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent.

(Gary)

Yeah? Well, my writing partner is a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. "Oh, shall I have chamomile tea? Or shall I have some other sort of F--KING TEA??? Oh no, what am I to do? I'm such an air headed bimbo who reads too many Danielle Steele novels!"

(Rebecca)

@#%$.

(Gary)

Bitch

(Rebecca)

F__K YOU - YOU NEANDERTHAL!

(Gary)

Go drink some tea - whore.

(TEACHER)

A+ - I really liked this one.

Elind

31st October 2005, 08:06 PM

How about some decent humor instead of bashing You Know Who for one brief moment?

Perhaps a forum for "creative expressionism" wannabees might be appropriate, if that's your thingy?

Why should I be expected to be humorous (decently)?

Why is identifying juvenile behavious synonymous with bashing?

As to the self defined literature you submitted, I did find one statement suitably improv for the situation.

"This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature."

Have a NICE day kiddo.

Art Vandelay

31st October 2005, 08:15 PM

I’ve been thinking about the article that Ian linked to earlier (http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20031014).
I think this link is actually rather informative of the liberal mindset. Now, I realize that not all liberal think the same, so I want to make it clear that the comments that follow don't apply to all liberals. But obviously there are some liberals that think this way.

Now, what kind of lies does Ted Rall (the author of the linked article) accuse Republicans of making? Here's one: "We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends or allies." Let's look at the "dishonesty" of this quote.

When post-9/11 Americans think of "terrorists," they think of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But when Bush officials talk about Saddam's links to "terrorism," they're referring to something different: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian groups fighting the Israeli occupation.

So, when Bush officials talk of terrorists, they actually mean terrorists. Americans, however, falsely think that "terrorist" means "al Qaeda". So Bush officials are being dishonest for using the word "terrorist" when what they really mean is "terrorist". Americans are too stupid to realize that there are actually terrorists other than Osama bin Laden, so Bush officials shouldn't use that word. They should use... um... well, Teddy doesn't tell us what word they should use, but one thing is clear: calling terrorists "terrorists" just isn't acceptable. And of course, if Bush officials start trying to get Americans to think of terrorism as being more than just al Qaeda, such as by talking about Saddam's terrorist allies, that's dishonest because it will cause people to think Saddam is in al Qaeda. They shouldn't use the word terrorist, because it's only associated with al Qaeda, and they shouldn't try to get people to associate the word with anything else, because that would mean associating that something else with al Qaeda. No, the American people have decided that “terrorist” means “al Qaeda”, and Bush officials should just accept it. Doing otherwise is dishonest.

But it doesn’t stop there.
As usual, the spin is based on what they leave out: Rumsfeld wants you to think that those payments went to Al Qaeda to encourage them to blow up American men, women and children, perhaps on 9/11. In fact, the intended targets of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are Israelis.

Oh, that’s quite a relief. I was concerned that Americans might be killed, but it’s quite a relief to find out that only Israelis are being killed. Rather dishonest of Rumsfeld to imply that people that matter are being killed. Once again, we see those dishonest Bush officials using words for what the really mean, instead of what Americans think they mean. Rumsfeld said “us or our friends or allies”, when what he meant was “us or our friends or allies”. Americans, on the other hand, thought he meant “us”.

Had Cheney told the truth, it would have gone something like this: "We could not accept the possibility of Saddam Hussein's Palestinian terrorist allies financing suicide bombers against Israel." Of course, what he really means is “had Cheney said what I want him to say”. Simply because the threat involves Palestinian terrorists attacking Israel doesn’t mean that there is nothing more to the threat.

Many Americans support Israel, but very few would send U.S. troops to fight Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians.According to Mr. Rall, cutting off support for terrorists is “fighting Ariel Sharon’s war against the Palestinians”. The anti-semitism is only thinly disguised: if saving the lives of Israelis is “war against the Palestinians”, then the “oppression” can only be ended if every Israeli is killed. It’s also odd how he refers to it as “Ariel Sharon's” as if not having Israelis die is somehow a policy objective of Sharon rather than Israelis in general.

What liberals like Ted Rall don’t seem to understand is that the Bush position is that this is all the same issue. Terrorism is terrorism, and it’s not any less evil if the victims are Israeli instead of American. To Bush, Osama bin Laden and Saddam of a like nature, and 9/11 revealed what people like them can do. To Bush, Saddam and 9/11 are connected. Not because Saddam was behind 9/11, but because 9/11 and Saddam are both threats to humanity. Now, I’m not saying I agree with his position, I understand that people disagree with it, and perhaps Bush hasn’t been greatly preoccupied with correcting the misunderstandings of his position, but the fact is that Bush has a particular view, and it is the liberal media has spun it into “Saddam caused 9/11”, not Bush. How many Americans watched the State of the Union speech? I mean, honestly? Most of them got their views from the media’s summary of it, and that is where they got the “Saddam caused 9/11” idea.

epepke

31st October 2005, 11:16 PM

How many Americans watched the State of the Union speech? I mean, honestly? Most of them got their views from the media’s summary of it, and that is where they got the “Saddam caused 9/11” idea.

I didn't watch it. I did listen to it on the radio. Other people have told me that it was a lot more amusing, in a cognitive dissonance sort of way, to watch him give it. I suppose that could be fun, but I was in the car.

It still was quite amusing. The speech seemed to me very well crafted in such a way that gullible people of very little brain would come away with an impression of a connection between Saddam and 9/11, but it never explicitly stated it.

I'm well hated by people on the left and the right and doubly so by the center because, to my way of thinking, the way to deal with this is by making people less gullible. What I find distressing is that so many people on the left and the right seem to agree 100% about the idea that gullibility is to be accepted and probably even admired and promoted.

On the right, this is expressed as the idea of trust in the Administration or "maintaining the fiction," a phrase I think was first used in defense of Reagan. On the left, this is expressed by the underlying concept that one cannot expect a reasonable person to have seen through the clever speechifying, which is the underlying concept that supports the failure to distinguish between sly propaganda and a lie. This is a shame, because some proper leftist critique could serve to analyze the propaganda and immunize people against it. I can remember a time when the left wing used to do this, for the betterment of society, but they seem long since to have given this up for the most part. Oh, you'll find critiques if you look hard enough, but that's not what you'll see on the evening news. It just feels so damn good to say, "Bush lie. Lie lie lie. Bad Bush. Bad chimp. No banana." But in order to do that, you at least have to kinda pretend that you couldn't see through the propaganda.

Of course, this has costs. The right's failure to see through the propaganda has given us 2000 Americans and 25-30,000 Iraqis dead, and "Bob" knows how more crippled for life. The left's inability or unwillingness to do anything but play the "Bush chimp" game probably played as great a role in getting Bush re-elected as anything. Also, I've heard plenty of dedicated leftists cackling with glee at how the US is messing up, which necessarily means that they think the cost of the dead is well spent so long as they get to feel smug and supercilious. Some people notice this kind of ethical bankruptcy and are reluctant to go along as fellow travellers.

There's really no excuse for this. We've had politicians skilled at deceiving without overtly lying for, what, tens of thousands of years now? Longer than I've been alive, anyway. OK, so the Baby Boomers who ousted Nixon discovered cocaine and tax-free municipal bonds and have hardly been heard from since then, but what excuse the rest?

fishbob

31st October 2005, 11:55 PM

What an incredibly juvenile pretence at debate this is. Some are worse than others, but all seem unable to know when to stop and let it lie.

Let it lie ??
What a funny guy.

Dr Adequate

1st November 2005, 01:44 AM

So, when Bush officials talk of terrorists, they actually mean terrorists. Americans, however, falsely think that "terrorist" means "al Qaeda". So Bush officials are being dishonest for using the word "terrorist" when what they really mean is "terrorist". Possibly it was statements such as the following which misled the public:

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html :
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-4.html :
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-5.html :
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021101-5.html :
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021102-8.html :
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021103-2.html :
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021104-5.html :
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html :
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html :
"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." --- George W. Bush

I find this far more likely than the idea that the American people are morons.

Dr Adequate

1st November 2005, 02:06 AM

Listen carefully. Bush and his cronies lied about links between Iraq and al-Qaida.
If you think he lied, then show the quote.
Now, are you so deeply mentally handicapped that this left you believing that I was responding to his request to provide evidence for his straw man rather than his request to provide evidence for my opinions? ?
This is a loaded question. He made did not post a request.I say, this is fun, isn't it?

jimtron

3rd November 2005, 12:05 AM

Perhaps this might be slightly off topic, but here are a couple quotes:

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/17/still_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/)

Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

The second quote is from a factcheck.org article (http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html) on the topic of this thread.

billydkid

3rd November 2005, 07:34 AM

Possibly it was statements such as the following which misled the public:

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html :
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-4.html :
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-5.html :
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021101-5.html :
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021102-8.html :
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021103-2.html :
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021104-5.html :
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html :
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html :
"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." --- George W. Bush

I find this far more likely than the idea that the American people are morons.

And there is much more than this, particularly involving Cheney. The truth is, there really is no honest way to argue the position that the adminstration did not mislead the American people in regard to the threat presented by Iraq and Iraq's association with al Qaeda and the attack on NY - All with the underlying purpose of gaining popular support for an invasion and occupation of that country.

What is most sickening to me is that there were a number of honest people saying all of this at the time it was happening and these people were smeared as traitors. What's more, many of these same people predicted how badly things would go, how much it would cost and how it would be another Vietnam or worse - precisely the way things did transpire - and yet, somehow the press never acknowleges "wow, so and so said this is exactly the way things would turn out and said there were no WMD's and said there was no connection with al Qaeda and said instead of making the world safer we were making it more dangerous.....''' and on and on.

As far as I am concerned we have precisely the leadership we deserve in this country. Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney and Carl Rove are great Americans, but Scott Ritter (who actually was a soldier and risked his life for his country) who did all he could to keep us from falling into this pointless and deadly quagmire is an unpatriotric supporter of terrorists. The shameful performance of the press over the past number of years is sickening.

Mark

3rd November 2005, 07:44 AM

And there is much more than this, particularly involving Cheney. The truth is, there really is no honest way to argue the position that the adminstration did not mislead the American people in regard to the threat presented by Iraq and Iraq's association with al Qaeda and the attack on NY - All with the underlying purpose of gaining popular support for an invasion and occupation of that country.

What is most sickening to me is that there were a number of honest people saying all of this at the time it was happening and these people were smeared as traitors. What's more, many of these same people predicted how badly things would go, how much it would cost and how it would be another Vietnam or worse - precisely the way things did transpire - and yet, somehow the press never acknowleges "wow, so and so said this is exactly the way things would turn out and said there were no WMD's and said there was no connection with al Qaeda and said instead of making the world safer we were making it more dangerous.....''' and on and on.

As far as I am concerned we have precisely the leadership we deserve in this country. Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney and Carl Rove are great Americans, but Scott Ritter (who actually was a soldier and risked his life for his country) who did all he could to keep us from falling into this pointless and deadly quagmire is an unpatriotric supporter of terrorists. The shameful performance of the press over the past number of years is sickening.

We were called traitors, and cowards for daring to suggest that Iraq and 9/11 were not connected. I myself received 2 death threats. Now those same people are trying to claim that Bush never even linked the two. Such open, utter, complete disregard for the truth is worthy of Pravda under the Soviet Union.

joobie

3rd November 2005, 10:18 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IragAl-QaedaLink.gif

Art Vandelay

5th November 2005, 01:33 PM

Possibly it was statements such as the following which misled the public:My position was that Ted Rall's argument regarding the quote that he presented was silly. Posting other quotes which you think were misleading would be changing the subject, something you claim to oppose (at least when other people do it).

Oh, and look. You've decided to have some fun with quotes taken out of context. When I said that he didn't make a request, what I meant is that he hadn't made a request in the part you quoted, not that he had never made a request in the entire time that he has been posting here.

Now, let's look at what you said. "Now, are you so deeply mentally handicapped that this left you believing that I was responding to his request to provide evidence for his straw man rather than his request to provide evidence for my opinions?" (Notice that this is a strawman, as it was not this that I said gives the impression that you were responding to the other part of the quote, but the fact that you decided to quote that other part). So, apparently by "his request", you were referring not to the part that you actually quoted, but to a completely different part of his post. And what was that part? Apparently, it's "If you think he lied, then show the quote." So his request was for you to prove that Bush lied. Which, according to you, is a strawman. If this is a strawman, then you must not think that Bush lied.

But will you admit the absurdity of your post? Here's a bet I'll make: you'll weasel out of admitting error, while accusing me of weaseling. There's some easy money.

We were called traitors, and cowards for daring to suggest that Iraq and 9/11 were not connected. I myself received 2 death threats. Now those same people are trying to claim that Bush never even linked the two. Such open, utter, complete disregard for the truth is worthy of Pravda under the Soviet Union.So Bush lied because he linked 9/11 and Saddam, but it's perfectly fine for you to link me with people that sent you death threats?