The Memo Redux

[Trollbait]

He flatly lied to us several times that have been pointed out again and again and again. Why did he lie? I

I never understood this claim about lying. It does not make any sense. I think it is a teddy bear the political left likes to cling to.

[Partha]

I've pointed some out here. You never refute them either, you just slide on by.

[Trollbait]

I've pointed some out here. You never refute them either, you just slide on by.

Becuase the very premise is illogical and foolish.

[Ddrak]

After discussing this over and over, and reading some of the stuff on the run up to war, I'm no longer convinced that Bush overtly lied. I don't think he is that sort of person. I am convinced that what he said wasn't the truth, but I'm not convinced he believed that at the time.

I *do* think the knowledge the US had on Iraq was significantly misrepresented, as were the risks Iraq presented to the US (and the rest of the world). I believe that the worst case scenarios were continually presented as the likely scenarios over and over until the final results were the public being presented with a hopelessly improbably scenario to justify the desired actions. In short, the facts were "sexed up".

The most critical points - Rummy's "we know where they are" and Powell's UN speech seem more to be cases of self-delusion that flat out lying. I think Rummy honestly believed that he knew where the WMD were, and was genuinely shocked when nothing was found.

I think the whole thing in general was a case of starting with a predetermined course of action then viewing the known facts subjectively within that course of action. Much as Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted it, this was never a "slam dunk" case and never should have been presented as one.

Dd

[Partha]

I've pointed some out here. You never refute them either, you just slide on by.

Becuase the very premise is illogical and foolish.

Just admit you can't. Don't worry, I won't impugn your manhood.

[Trollbait]

After discussing this over and over, and reading some of the stuff on the run up to war, I'm no longer convinced that Bush overtly lied. I don't think he is that sort of person. I am convinced that what he said wasn't the truth, but I'm not convinced he believed that at the time.

I *do* think the knowledge the US had on Iraq was significantly misrepresented, as were the risks Iraq presented to the US (and the rest of the world). I believe that the worst case scenarios were continually presented as the likely scenarios over and over until the final results were the public being presented with a hopelessly improbably scenario to justify the desired actions. In short, the facts were "sexed up".

The most critical points - Rummy's "we know where they are" and Powell's UN speech seem more to be cases of self-delusion that flat out lying. I think Rummy honestly believed that he knew where the WMD were, and was genuinely shocked when nothing was found.

I think the whole thing in general was a case of starting with a predetermined course of action then viewing the known facts subjectively within that course of action. Much as Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted it, this was never a "slam dunk" case and never should have been presented as one.

I concur with Ddrak. The absolute absurdity in the notion that Bush's advisors like Karl Rove would allow the President to commit political suicide by lying blatantly about such a divisive and important issue boggles me.

The more likely scenario is what I like to call the Reagan syndrome.

I think Bush created a culture where his subordinates knew the direction he wanted to go and so ignored anything that would interfere with that direction while hyping the information that supported it.

[Kulaf]

I've pointed some out here. You never refute them either, you just slide on by.

Becuase the very premise is illogical and foolish.

Just admit you can't. Don't worry, I won't impugn your manhood.

We just don't follow your flawed logic which reads as:

1 - Make a statement

2 - Test

3 - Statement proved false

Conclusion - Statement was a lie.

That is some great logic there Partha.

[Relbeek Einre]

I disagree. I believe they knew they were lying - even Bush. (I don't think Bush is the patsy many on the Left believe him to be.)

I do think that Bush genuinely believes invading and occupying Iraq is, long-term, the right thing. I believe he sees the democratization of the world as part of the ultimate goal of freedom for all Mankind, and this Iraqi invasion as a necessary, if painful step towards that goal. And I believe that he justifies to himself lying to the American people about why we're going there as necessary to that goal.

This doesn't mean I don't think he's busy enriching himself and his cronies at the expense of everyone else. We all can be a bit schizophrenic in the pursuit of our ideals and our interests, and one of the Bush family's hallmarks for four generations at least is selfish profit and the increase of power regardless of the consequences. But I believe Bush genuinely feels that he's doing the right thing.

I don't believe Rummy feels he's doing the right thing. And I am not sure about Cheney. They both give off the vibe of being soley concerned with the acquisition and consolidation of power.

[Dlaet]

The absolute absurdity in the notion that Bush's advisors like Karl Rove would allow the President to commit political suicide by lying blatantly about such a divisive and important issue boggles me.

I think your phrasology is a little, umm, bad. Political suicide should never be a consequence factored into a decision making process if the decision is whether to go to war or not.

I do think you and Ddrak are right to significant degree. The administration could convince itself, as an entity, that there were WMDs and they saw no evidence contradicting this conclusion. This theory begs the question as to whether there are other issues that the administration is self-delusional over.

Pete...tired of Cessnas

[Aabe]

I do know, that some of you are Monday morning quarterbacking something through hindsight and are not always fair in your assessments.

Fuck you, Aabe. I was Sunday afternoon holding the goddamned clipboard while you were fucking snoozing in bed.

You think you're bringing a fount of wisdom to any of this? You weren't here in 2003 when we WERE hashing all this out. Talk about speaking from ignorance.

And yes, you ARE justifying. He flatly lied to us several times that have been pointed out again and again and again. Why did he lie? I don't know either. But he DID, and that's where you SHOULD be drawing the line. If you had any principles, that is. I'm flatly unsure that you do.

But this whole thing long before invasion was screwed up and very complicated. People that pick a simplistic point of view because it supports their personal bias on the issue, do no one a service other than let us know who is speaking from ignorance.

Then call your Maximum Leader on it, because he sure as hell picked a simplistic point of view to support his personal bias. Go check out the March 31, 2002 Time magazine article on the run up to war. Or read how Rummy was looking to justify an Iraq invasion on 9/11. [urlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/sept ... 0830.shtml]Things related and not.[/url]

Or you can go back and check the audio transcript from Powell's UN speech, compare it to what came out of his lying mouth and wonder at the difference.

Or you can go back and reread Rumsfeld saying on Meet The Press, "We know where they are".

They lied to you, Chuckles. And you continue justifying it.

<snickers> Ooops. <chuckles> Sorry to expose you.

I dont particularly care one way or the other for Rummy. Don't know the man, just know I wouldnt want his job.

Bush, on the surface appears sincere. But I have yet to meet any government figure that was only what he projected.

You like the word "lie", I don't think the work means what you think it means. Often its hard to tell which are intentional and which are just bad facts. You seem to not care and ascribe the same judement to both cases. How much of the world really believed the "lie" that there were WMD's for example, before the admin ever started its sales job? I seem to recall Engand, France and few others did at the time.You can't say, but imply it was ALL a conspiracy just to get us to war. There may be some truth to that but to say "it was all a lie".. could possibly be a lie by your difinition.

There was no question our on the ground intel had been going down hill for a long time. Sadly lots of bad data floating around.

I do know that ALL politiians lie (exadurate, intentionally and unintentionally use bad data) often to get things done. Sadly. Maybe its the nature of getting anything done in a political opinion run country. Doesn't justify them, but some things in this life are a sad reality. You can accept it or lie to yourself about it.

You say Bush is my Maximum leader? Eh? Well, if you mean he can make a decision and sell it, yeah I suppose. If you mean is he my favorite president. Nope. But he only had to be better than the alternative at the time I voted. That wasn't a hard standard to beat IMO.

I can't justify why this admin sent us to war.I won't even try to. If the admin "believed there were WMD's" it can explain why they did what they did. But only they can know what they really believed about the WMD data.

Perhaps Bush wanted to be the president to tame the middle east. (and lied) Perhaps Bush had money or owed favors in the deal. (and lied) Maybe he BELIEVED there were WMD's and he was protecting the country. (and DIDNT lie) Any of the above could be true. You can't prove it either way. You can only look backward and see bad data that MIGHT have been knowingly put out as wrong data. But you nor I can make that determination until someone admits they KENW it was bad data when they used it.

Unless of course you have a minor in mind reading.

But I am happy something was done about Iraq. I think its sad it takes a 9/11 to get action to happen. You and I MAY yet live to see the middle east become peaceful in our lifetime. I never dreamed that was even a posibility. No one seriously did anything to fix it. As long as the oil kept flowing, no one including th US seemed to care that much.

Can I stand here and tell you Rummy and Bush are great stand up guys? Nope.
Can I tell you they are successful at their craft. Well at least enough to get elected.
Can I tell you they havent' screwed up a lot? Nope. (but most wars have that reputation)
Can I tell you I like Bushs spending policies. NO!
Do I believe every politician "lies" (your useage of the term) to get stuff done. Yep.

Knowing what I know now, I certainly would have done a lot of things differently if I were invading Iraq. Like conscrpiting all the captured solders instead of sending them home to unemployment and turning into terroists. Putting a tight barrier on the Syrian border, reducing the flow of insurgents. Not allow the looting that occured post conflict and losing evidence. But its easy for me to say that after the fact.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I disagree. I believe they knew they were lying - even Bush. (I don't think Bush is the patsy many on the Left believe him to be.)

I do think that Bush genuinely believes invading and occupying Iraq is, long-term, the right thing. I believe he sees the democratization of the world as part of the ultimate goal of freedom for all Mankind, and this Iraqi invasion as a necessary, if painful step towards that goal. And I believe that he justifies to himself lying to the American people about why we're going there as necessary to that goal.

This doesn't mean I don't think he's busy enriching himself and his cronies at the expense of everyone else. We all can be a bit schizophrenic in the pursuit of our ideals and our interests, and one of the Bush family's hallmarks for four generations at least is selfish profit and the increase of power regardless of the consequences. But I believe Bush genuinely feels that he's doing the right thing.

I don't believe Rummy feels he's doing the right thing. And I am not sure about Cheney. They both give off the vibe of being soley concerned with the acquisition and consolidation of power.

Did members of the Clinton Administration, members of the Bush Administration, the British PM, and other leaders all conspire to tell us the same lie?

Seems far fetched, doens't it. What does seem more likely is what Ddrak said, and what many of us have been saying all along. The Bush acted on bad intel. That's doesn't meet the standard of willful deception, and if, in your mind, it does, then you have to hold the Clinton administration to account for lying to you as well, and throw in the heads of state of several governments.

[Partha]

Except, of course, none of those mentioned above attempted to put our military in harm's way in Iraq with their statements. As we read all that old intelligence, they used all the classic intelligence buzzwords - we suspect, it is possible, has the capability, is unaccounted for - not, "We know exactly where they are, we know he has this, he is lying if he doesn't admit he has this' when we knew NOTHING of the sort.

In the end, members of the party of 'personal responsibility' believe in no such thing, it seems, because they refuse to hold the Administration responsible for turning possibilites into certainties, from turning a minor annoyance to a imminent threat, and from omitting any exculpatory data that the intelligence services found to make their case. No one forced Bush and company to do that - they did it willingly.

[Partha]

Oh, and one more thing....

You say it's not lying if you truly believe what you say, right? Well, if that's the case, why was Clinton impeached for lying to Congress if he TRULY believes that oral sex isn't sex? Hmmm?

[Relbeek Einre]

Embar - the collusion between the british government and the Bush administraiton to sell this war and create a pretext is already proven.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh, and one more thing....

You say it's not lying if you truly believe what you say, right? Well, if that's the case, why was Clinton impeached for lying to Congress if he TRULY believes that oral sex isn't sex? Hmmm?

Keep thinking that way moron.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar - the collusion between the british government and the Bush administraiton to sell this war and create a pretext is already proven.

Beek.. every war... and I mean every war... has to be sold to the people. That's just simple truth, and every President who put troops in harm's way has done it. What you call collusion, I call coordination. And again, that type of activity is nothing out of the ordinary when two countries stand together before military hostilities.

[Kulaf]

You're asking why oral sex.....isn't sex?

[Ddrak]

Kinda like asking why not telling the truth isn't lying, isn't it?

[Klast Brell]

I believe it worked something like this.

WhiteHouse: Bring me evidence of WMD.

CIA: Here is an analysis if his WMD capability. He ain’t holding.

WH: That’s not what I asked for. I said bring me evidence of WMD.

CIA: Well here is just the data that supports that conclusion. But it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

WH: That’s not what I asked for. I said bring me evidence of WMD.

Office of Special Plans: Fixed it for you.

WH: My fellow Americans. We have evidence of WMD.

[Trollbait]

I believe it worked something like this.

WhiteHouse: Bring me evidence of WMD.

CIA: Here is an analysis if his WMD capability. He ain’t holding.

WH: That’s not what I asked for. I said bring me evidence of WMD.

CIA: Well here is just the data that supports that conclusion. But it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

WH: That’s not what I asked for. I said bring me evidence of WMD.

Office of Special Plans: Fixed it for you.

WH: My fellow Americans. We have evidence of WMD.

It is more like

WH: Bring me evidence of WMD in Iraq

CIA: Ok we will get it for you.

CIA Director to crew: We need evidence of WMD in Iraq

CIA Op 1: Well....I have some info....but it is sketchy

CIA Op 2: Well I have some info....but it is sketchy as well

CIA Op 3: I have some infoz from France that say Saddam has WMD

CIA Op 4: Well I have some infoz from Germany, Israel, and the UK that say Saddam has WMD....but it is REALLY sketchy.

CIA Op 5: Well I have analyzed some data that says Saddam has given up WMD

CIA crew to CIA Op 5: STFU Dude......that is not what they are asking for. We will give your info an honorable mention in our report.

CIA crew to CIA Director: Here is the infoz.....Look at that stack of infoz......It all points to Saddam having assloads of WMD! Hey....by the way.....some minor infoz says Saddam does not have WMD.

CIA Director to WH: It's a slam dunk case Mr. President.