Odd argument. Neither Iraq nor the DGF have weapons of mass destruction. However, as Tim McVeigh showed, you don’t need that. So Iraq is a threat to attack in a similar manner, assuming that they have the motive. But so, surely, is the Duchy of Grand Fenwick (again, assuming that they have the motive). So the statement seems to be true. Saddam’s Iraq did have as much ability to effectively attack the US as the DGF. Or are you suggesting that the DGF contains no one with access to fertilizer or box cutters?
Well, on the plus side, not only does America prosecute its terrorists… it executes them rather publicly, as well.
Fixed title typo.
So, just for the record, ** Bricker**, regarding the OP; can we put you on record as stating that it is wrong for an elected official to lie?
Other good reasons? I don’t think so. The “other reasons” (which are dwarfed by the references to WMDs:
-
Some stuff Iraq did a couple decades ago - irrelevant.
-
Saddam’s treatment of his citizenry - valid, but not a legal justification for unilateral war.
-
Threat of Iraq attacking the U.S. - false.
-
Support of terrorism - false.
None of those “other reasons” would have successfully made the case for war.
Unfortunately that wasn’t really the problem.
Good, I’ve been dying for a bottle of Pinot Grand Fenwick.
Prove that these are lies, and not spectacular fuckups made in perfectly good faith!!
Good faith in what?
Are you really, really sure you want to know?
Isn’t the OP just a minor variation of the whole “Bush never used the phrase ‘imminent threat’” bullstuff from the right-wing talking heads? They don’t care about accuracy in reporting; all that matters is tearing down Senator Boxer for having the audacity of challenging one of Bush’s favorites…
Why?
This is the one that really gets me. For decades, people had been screaming for the US to intervene in cases of mass human rights abuse: or at least, maybe, raise some more of a protest. And what happened? The Republicans scoffed at such silly uses of serious American foriegn policy might, belittled and insulted such liberal bleeding heart hang-wringing. In other words, human rights were bullshit.
Then, suddenly, a 180: they’re lecturing us for supposedly not caring about human rights, and citing human rights abuses that their OWN LEADERS turned a blind eye to when they were actually going on. All to justify a war that was the wrong time, wrong place for such things, and had already been sold to the world on completely different principles making our shifting array of later excuses look ridiculous.
You tell me Bricker: after a history of this, why should we take seriously any protestations from the right about human rights? Right NOW, for all Bush’s rhetoric we are coddling dictators and funding people that torture and abuse their own populaces. It’s just that they are also willing to sign on to our foriegn policy and financial needs. So how can we possibly take such supposedly moralistic rhetoric seriously?
There was a key word in blowero’s post: unilateral. Those of us who have been calling for intervention for human rights violations in places like Sudan and Rwanda and Somolia and Iraq (when it was actually happening and we were giving them more weapons, not 15 years later) are thinking more of an international intervention via the UN to correct the human rights abuses, not the US to come in and dismantle the entire government.
Sheesh.
OK. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick was so small that their pool of potential suicide attackers was small. They were also fictional, which sharply limited their ability to attack a real country.
To show contrast. People on the left don’t consider Ms. Boxer’s statements a lie, but fail to apply the same standard to Mr. Bush. His statements are parsed precisely, and any technical variance from the facts is seized upon as a lie, but Ms. Boxer’s statements are accorded a more reasonable standard.
Not a lie.
They did find two. And at the time Bush made the statement, he had been told they were bio labs. That turned out not to be true… but he was accurately reporting the best information he had at the time.
No, he was lying. He said he had found labratories when he had only found trailers. He knew they had not been confirmed as laboratories and he certainly knew he had not found any banned weapons. The stretch from trailers to “banned weapons manufacturers” was too great of one for him to make with any honesty.
How about that IAEA report he fabricated out of thin air? Remember that one? he cited a report (before the invasion) which claimed that Iraq was developing nukes. The White House was later forced to admit that the IAEA report “technically” did not exist. He was not exaggerating or interpreting or even misquoting an actual report, he just made one up out of his asshole. Is that a lie?
And how many times are you willing to let him blame others for all his false information. Nothing is ever his fault. Somebody else always gave him bullshit facts. Either he’s a chronically lying sack who never takes responsibility for his own words and deeds (my theory) or he’s got the most incompetent bunch of advisors in US history working for him.
Rot, utter rot. Those rusting piles of corroded tubing couldn’t have been used to produce the crudest moonshine, much less been applied as sophisticated bio-weapons laboratories. Before GeeDubya made his statement in Poland, this conclusion was splashed across the front pages of any number of major newspapers. He was spreading falsehoods. Whether from ignorance or mendacity, I neither know nor care.
Ieae.
He knew this? Well, if that’s true, then I must retract my defense and admit he lied.
Er…
How do you know that he knew this?
If he knew there was no such report, then it was a lie. If he was given a summary of the report, and relied on that to make his statements, then it wasn’t a lie.
So - cite?
That’s a relevant distinction. There is no question the analyses he relied upon were wrong. That certainly suggests incompetence, but doesn’t prove it. To prove incompetence, you have to show that a reasonably-skilled analyst would have reached a different conclusion.
I’d think this is the crux of the matter. The key word in your statement being technical. Reduced to Aristotelian logic, as I said before, I think you’re correct; both lied (I know others disagree). However, the phrase reasonable standard indicates that you allow some grey areas. Furthermore, the way I read your post, since Boxer’s statements are accorded these standards more fairly than Bush, you allow some judgment of intent and/or result. Provide a suitable measure of that judgment, and perhaps you’ll find that more people agree with you.
Of course, he has since come back and admitted his mistake, right?
Seriously, Bricker, are you ever going to respond to my post (64) above?