Oh, I was just being dismissive of you and this entire hijack. Sorry, I’m in a weirdly aggressive mood this morning. Maybe pent-up sexual desire. :dubious:
D’oh! I miscounted one paragraph (talking about Iraq’s willingness to attack the US) as a paragraph about WMDs. Technically WMDs weren’t mentioned in it; however, the immediate previous paragraph was talking about Iraq’s willingness to use WMDs against other nations, so I think it counts in the same way that the terrorist paragraphs count: while it doesn’t specifically mention WMDs, it’s there to bolster the WMD argument.
Daniel
Well, Bricker, I gotta agree with Left Hand of Dorkness’ analysis. Unless you are making the argument that the U.S. Congress voted for war because of, or indeed even considered particularly relevant to their determination, this paragraph:
then Senator Boxer’s analysis is correct.
The question is: if this paragraph had been deleted from the text of the authorization, would the Congress have still voted for war? Given established U.S. diplomatic history, none of the above issues have been previously considered causi belli,* whether alone or taken in combination.[sup]1[/sup] Therefore, the paragraph could have been deleted, with the same result to the vote. Ergo, the paragraph was irrelevant to the determination of the U.S. Congress. IOW, “It was WMD, period.”
Sua
- is this the correct pluralization?
[sup]1[/sup] examples of countries engaging in some or all (except, of course, for owing money or property to Kuwait) of the above conduct without resulting in war with the United States include Cuba, Iran and N. Korea.
LHD’s analysis was wrong in one respect - there was another paragraph unrelated to WMD in the authorization:
but I don’t think this changes the result. Given that the US had tolerated this conduct for 12 years without going to war, again, this paragraph could have been deleted without changing the vote.
Personally, my reasons for supporting the war were only tangentially related to WMD. But I cannot in any honesty argue that Congress shared my POV - their determining concern was WMD.
Sua
Side note - the paragraph is factually incorrect, or at least misleading. It references Iraqi attacks on planes patrolling the “no-fly zones.” Those zones were not established by any resolution of the Security Council. The US, UK and France claimed authorization for the zones under Resolution 668, but the Resolution itself provides no authorization for the use of military force.
It’s causae belli. (-ae is the femine plural ending, -i is masculine).
Close enough, though and it doesn’t invalidate anything in your post.
Heh–see my correction just above your post. I should’ve elaborated on this paragraph in my initial analysis, but I still think it’s part of the WMD argument, given its context.
Daniel
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, ¶ 15.13, the proper practice is to refer to a U.S. senator as “Senator,” on first reference, and by “Mr.” or “Ms.” on subsequent references in the same work.
And to answer other speculation – yes, “Bozer” is a typo. Note the proximity of the “Z” and “X” keys.
Of course, the many responses above that correctly note the WMD allegations were the main cause of the resolution are precisely correct. Those WMD allegations were what tipped the scales, and that’s exactly what Ms. Boxer meant.
It’s not exactly what she said. But I recognize that this does not constitute a lie, which is why my OP concludes as it does.
The purpose of the OP was not to accuse Ms. Boxer of lying. It was to highlight the differing standards applied to her and to statements made by Mr. Bush.
While I understand and agree with your logical point, I also think it’s disingenuous to cite the Resolution in this way. I hadn’t read it before, but I just did and tallied up the items. The breakdown is:
[ol]
[li]Regime change: 3[/li][li]Terrorism / 9/11: 8[/li][li]WMD: 13[/li][/ol]
Note on my reading of it: out of 23 items, I left out number 1; it mentioned Kuwait, but contained no actual reasons. There were three items that included both WMD and repression; I included those as WMD. There were two items that touched on both WMD and terrorism, which I included as both.
Since there were no WMDs, no direct involvement with 9/11, and the support of terrorism (at least insofar as it concerned the US) was tenuous, we have 3 out of 23 reasons that are incorrect. Naturally, one can argue about supporting terrorists, just as one can argue about repression being a valid reason to go to war. However, I wasn’t clear on just how much, overwhelmingly so, that the reasons for the war weren’t true.
To repeat, I agree with you logical conclusion that there were other reasons cited and that logically speaking, Boxer has lied. Just that it ends up being a half-truth (or should I say a 3/23-truth?)
Do’h! While I writing that up, there was a flurry of posts doing the same thing. Sorry about that.
I don’t think this works well without a specific allegation levelled at Bush. All it comes down to is, “Here’s a place where you can make a very weak allegation of lying against someone else, an allegation that I don’t accept; therefore your allegations against Bush are also weak.”
If you’d like to compare this to a specific instance in which the Bush Administration is accused of lying (e.g., the aluminum tubes debacle, the yellowcake debacle, the WMD trailer debacles), let us know which one you think is comparable, and we can discuss that substantively.
Daniel
What differing standards, if you aren’t saying she is lying?
Yes, lets! In the one instance, thousands of people are dead, tens of thousands certainly, hundreds of thousands? We don’t know. In the other instance, the dignity of a central figure in this monstrous charade is impugned. You cannot slur Hannibal Lecter, Bricker, you cannot demean the dignity of a public liar and scoundrel. They have none. They deserve none. The corpses that litter the landscape are mute testimony, testifying, one hopes, to a Higher Court. To paraphrase The Boss, what does it profit to gain formal dignities at the cost of one’s soul? And if to participate and sanction needless slaughter does not forfeit one’s soul, what, pray, do you imagine might?
Again I’m in agreement with LHD,* Bricker, your point is lost without a “compare and contrast.” Are there instances where Bush has been accused of lying, where the accusation depended upon irrelevancies or hypertechnicalities? I’m sure there are. But without a particular example of “Bush said thus, it was analogous to Boxer’s statement in this regard, and if you think Boxer spoke truth, you must therefore admit that Bush did as well,” it doesn’t lead to a Great Debate.
Sua
*LHD, how 'bout we split the work - you take Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I’ll take the other days. 
Nitpick: according to the dictionary, it’s actually casus belli, and in English the plural is the same as the singular.
Sua, that arrangement sounds fine, as long as we can split holidays :).
Daniel
Odd, then, the title of your thread.
I realize that I should simply let such a specious argument die, rather than give it any semblence of validity by engaging it, but… well, sometimes I just can’t help myself.
In Poland, on May 30, 2003, Bush said “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.” Is this a truth or a falsehood?
Typo in the first instance.
Crap. I confused causa (“cause”) with casus (“fall”).
Casus is masculine so the plural nominative form would be casi belli (and I don’t give a crap about the English. I’m pontificating on the Latin).
Of course there is a different standard applied, because the stakes of the different misstatements are enormously different.
For example, if I stated that I ate a roast beef sandwich for lunch, when I really had a turkey sandwich, anyone who gets worked up about that is a pedant.
However, if I say that I wasn’t at the center of the coverup of the JFK assassination when I really was, anyone who WOULDN’T get worked up over that is an idiot.
Bricker, surely you’re not saying that all lies/misstatements are equally outragous, are you? Surely you can acceept that there are some errors (whether intentional or not) that are inconsequential, some that are consequential, and a few that are EXTREMELY consequential?
(BTW, I’ve never changed my mind about disagreeing with the “Bush lied” hype. I still maintain he and others were wrong, not liars (which has been fully discussed in other threads), but for the purposes of this thread, I’m treating the term “lie” as meaning “wrong” or “misstatement,” not intentional deception.)
Fair enough–I was pretty surprised to see that it was “casus” and not “causa” myself. I said “in English” because I wasn’t sure whether “casus” was second or fourth declension, and besides, it’s been awhile since eighth grade Latin :).
Daniel
It’s one of those things where you always just read it a certain way without ever actually noticing it. “Cause for war” makes more sense than “fall for war” but the latter construction is the correct one. Go figure.
It SHOULD be causus if you ask me.