Barbara Boxer Lied!

[Zakalwe]

@Bricker

1. The CIA said the tubes were for centrifuges. The DOE said they were not. There were conflicting expert analyses of the issue. Choosing to believe one over the other does not make a lie. Indeed, as your own cite points out, Powell’s speech acknowledged that there were diverging expert opinions, although clearly giving more credit to the CIA version.

@Colin Powell

**Most U.S. experts ** think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

From here (emphasis added)
This was known to be factually wrong at the time it was said. CIA /= most experts. In fact, only the CIA (and if this article is to be believed, one analyst at CIA in particular) thought that. Everyone else (State, DOE, and the national labs - as well as the IAEA) said they were not suitable for that purpose. Is the lie minor? Arguably. Is it a lie? Yes.

@Bricker

2. I agree that the administration has not been top-notch about admitting they were wrong. THAT DOES NOT MAKE A LIE. A statement is a lie at the moment it’s made. You’re saying that this statement only became a lie retroactively when they failed to come back and correct it after the truth became apparent. That’s an odd definition of “lie.”

No, it becomes a lie after it has been debunked and is repeated as fact again. For example:

1. Bush Admin - Iraq bought tubes for nuclear centrifuges. <-Not lie
2. Preponderance of evidence - The tubes they bought aren’t usable for that.
3. Bush - “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” <- Lie

Note on number 3 the lack of any qualifier regarding expert opinion. He stated it as fact and did so in January 2003 long after expert opinion had ruled otherwise. That makes it a lie.

[elucidator]

@Shodan

That’s circular logic. You are assuming intent to deceive, and then interpreting Bush’s statements under that assumption. You don’t do that with Boxer (or Albright or Kerry or Clinton or Hilary or etc.)…

Except that deception has been demonstrated on the part of the Admin. And except that Ms Boxer didn’t “pull the trigger”.

…It’s a differing standard, just as Bricker demonstrates in the OP…

Yes, it is. For above reasons: the signature at the bottom of the deployment orders are GeeDubya’s. Not Sen Boxers, and most certainly not Hillary. You do grasp this, right?

…And “Iraq needs to be bombed because they have WMD” is not a lie because Clinton said it - not because it was true.

Besides, it wasn’t true. Clinton didn’t lob missiles at Iraq because he gave a damn about WMD - he wanted to postpone or avoid impeachment.

This is a beaut! Classic Shodan! Immediatly after accusing your political opponents of asserting certainty where none exists, you assert certainty where none exists. You claim to read Bill Clinton’s mind and, with a straight face, demand to be taken seriously. You’ve got to be kidding. No, come to think of it, you’re probably not. That this is ridiciulous on the face of it may not even have occured to you.

[Shodan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Wrong. I’m assuming intent because of what he said: when there’s a huge amount of propaganda coming out from the Administration insinuating (as one example) a link between Saddam and 9/11, and it’s obvious that no such link exists, I gotta conclude that the Administration is either disingenuous or cretinous.

Well, false dilemma, obviously.

Another alternative is that you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is coming out of the Administration. It might be the case that they are not intending to insinuate any such link between Saddam and 9/11. They might, in fact, be talking about international terrorism in general and your predisposition towards assuming that everything they say is a lie causes you to interpret it as such.

I have seen it happen here on the SDMB, although not with you (IIRC). I post something like “9/11 triggered a heightened awareness of the thread posed by international terror in general, and that caused the Bush administration to step up the pressure for Saddam to come absolutely clean about the inspection regime”. Sure as you’re born, some hysterical leftist fat-head will respond that I accused Saddam of being involved in 9/11.

Some of it is accidental, some of it because lots of the more excitable Dopers don’t read anything that disagrees with their world-view very closely. Some of it is strawman argumentation.

Both sides are eager to put whatever the other says in the worst possible light. In many cases, that shades over into outright misrepresentation.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Zakalwe

No, it becomes a lie after it has been debunked and is repeated as fact again. For example:

1. Bush Admin - Iraq bought tubes for nuclear centrifuges. <-Not lie
2. Preponderance of evidence - The tubes they bought aren’t usable for that.
3. Bush - “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” <- Lie

Note on number 3 the lack of any qualifier regarding expert opinion. He stated it as fact and did so in January 2003 long after expert opinion had ruled otherwise. That makes it a lie.

Where is the debunking? From your own cited article:

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq’s past nuclear efforts.
.
…
.
Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes – with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq’s artillery rockets.

That’s not a debunking. That’s a group of experts suggesting a different conclusion, not a refutation of the original conclusion.

To this day, I can truthfully say: “Our intelligence sources told us that Iraq tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” THEY DID. Now, some OTHER of our intelligence sources dispute that claim. But just because I don’t also make that statement to you doesn’t make me a liar, since WHAT I SAID IS TRUE.

[elucidator]

Utterly impervious. They demand you prove a lie, you bring such proof, they nod thier heads and say, “OK, so when are you going to prove another lie. That’s the standard for “liar”, two or more lies.”

And so you do. “Well, ten lies, thats the standard. Did I say two? Well, thats your fault, your hysterical shouting about lies confused me. Ten. At least ten. Told on the 4th of July, in a snowstorm, as a result of an elephant stampede…”

I swear, if we found a document written in his own blood: “I, GeeDubya, lied my ass off about Iraq. Fuck you, whaddaya gonna do about it! PS: MARS! my little bitches!”…

They’d say “Prove that’s his blood. You need DNA sampling! Can’t prove it, it aint true!”

So we get the samples. “DNA testing isn’t foolproof, you know. Stem cells are contaminated by mouse DNA, so DNA testing is unreliable. And besides, how do you know he doesn’t have an evil identical twin! He would have exactly the same DNA, wouldn’t he? So prove he doesn’t have an evil identical twin, and then we’ll talk…”

So you supply the birth records, child born, Midland Texas, “666” birthmark on head… They say “You got these from CBS, right?”

I swear, sometimes don’t know whether to shit or go bowling…

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Utterly impervious. They demand you prove a lie, you bring such proof, they nod thier heads and say, “OK, so when are you going to prove another lie. That’s the standard for “liar”, two or more lies.”

Please point to the post in which I said that.

I’m still waiting for ONE lie. Where is it?

[elucidator]

No, you and I are cool, Bricker, we’ve worked out our differences in that other thread. We agree, Bush is a “warmonger”. Egotist te absolvo, go, and sin no more.

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’m not assuming an intent to deceive; I’m concluding intent to deceive.

And I grant you that there’s been an intent to deceive. If there were not, then the President would have disclosed the differing expert opinions. By not doing so, he left the listener with the mistaken impression that there were no credible dissenting views.

He was an advocate for a particular point of view, however, and not a neutral, detached broker. As an advocate, I contend there are things you can do and things you can’t do. You are permitted, in my view, to bring to the table only the evidence which supports your case. That’s within the bounds of acceptable behavior. You’re not permitted to make outright false statements of fact.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

No, you and I are cool, Bricker, we’ve worked out our differences in that other thread. We agree, Bush is a “warmonger”. Egotist te absolvo, go, and sin no more.

If I’d known it was that easy…

Seriously, the guy started a war. How can I possibly object to “warmonger?” I agree completely.

[elucidator]

And by that reasoning, if a prosecutor has evidence at hand that friend Bricker is not responsible for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, but does not bring it forth, because, after all, he’s an advocate…

Then Bricker goes off to the Big Needle with an understanding nod of his head and “It’s a fair cop, but society is to blame…”

[Bricker]

@elucidator

The President is not simply another civil servant, his position is invested with extraordinary responsibility. He isn’t drafted for his position, he must run for it, he must put himself forward as a candidate and say “I can do this, I can shoulder this nearly superhuman burden. I can be trusted not to mislead, not to lie.”

Just out of idle curiousity: going backwards from the most recent, which Presidents do you feel meet the burden you describe above?

[Demorian]

@Bricker

Just out of idle curiousity: going backwards from the most recent, which Presidents do you feel meet the burden you describe above?

[liberal]FDR[/liberal]

[Bricker]

That’s a hijack. The thread’s not about that. I apologize, and I recommend we continue that discussion here. I’m genuinely curious.

[Zakalwe]

@Bricker

To this day, I can truthfully say: “Our intelligence sources told us that Iraq tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” THEY DID. Now, some OTHER of our intelligence sources dispute that claim. But just because I don’t also make that statement to you doesn’t make me a liar, since WHAT I SAID IS TRUE.

Yes, but if you’re going to speak in the present tense after the dispute is known, you have to include the disclaimer or you’re lying (ie, “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” - emphasis added).

[Demorian]

@Bricker

To this day, I can truthfully say: “Our intelligence sources told us that Iraq tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” THEY DID. Now, some OTHER of our intelligence sources dispute that claim. But just because I don’t also make that statement to you doesn’t make me a liar, since WHAT I SAID IS TRUE.

Yes, but Bush didn’t say “intelligence sources tell me we’ve found WMDs.” He said, “we found WMDs.”

[Bricker]

@elucidator

And by that reasoning, if a prosecutor has evidence at hand that friend Bricker is not responsible for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, but does not bring it forth, because, after all, he’s an advocate…

Then Bricker goes off to the Big Needle with an understanding nod of his head and “It’s a fair cop, but society is to blame…”

This is precisely why we codify a prosecutor’s dual duties: as an advocate in a particular case, but also as a general advocate for the people, who have an overwhelming interest in catching the actual guilty party.

A better example might be the attorney representing the real kller. He knows his guy is guilty and I’m innocent, but his job is to shut up and let me get convicted. That is the way he best serves the system.

[Bricker]

@Zakalwe

Yes, but if you’re going to speak in the present tense after the dispute is known, you have to include the disclaimer or you’re lying (ie, “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” - emphasis added).

Unless you’re trying to tell me that all the intel experts had revised their opinions, and made that revision known to the President, then it’s not a lie for him to report that his intel experts told him the tubes were for centrifuges. That’s what they told him. He has no particular obligation to lay out the fact that other experts disagreed.

Indeed, where is the definitive finding that the tubes were for rockets? Why are the experts you’re touting assumed to be correct, and the experts the President was relying upon assumed to be wrong?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

And I grant you that there’s been an intent to deceive.

Okay, this is the key part for this particular debate. Do you grant that there was probably no intent to deceive on Boxer’s part?

If so, then this discrepancy explains why I parse the Administration’s statements much more closely than I parse the Senator’s. A lie requires both a misstatement and an intent to deceive. Boxer lacked the intent, so it wasn’t a lie. The Administration, through their technically-accurate-but-misleading statements, evinced the intent; all that remains is to show the misstatement.

Shodan, are you seriously suggesting that the Administration never intended to suggest that Hussein’s government was partly responsible for 9/11? It boggles my mind that anyone would suggest that.

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Okay, this is the key part for this particular debate. Do you grant that there was probably no intent to deceive on Boxer’s part?

Maybe. I think there was carelessness on her part, but probably no real intent to decieve; I think she went by her memory and she knew that the thrust of the resolution went to WMD, and got carried away by rhetoric.

If so, then this discrepancy explains why I parse the Administration’s statements much more closely than I parse the Senator’s. A lie requires both a misstatement and an intent to deceive. Boxer lacked the intent, so it wasn’t a lie. The Administration, through their technically-accurate-but-misleading statements, evinced the intent; all that remains is to show the misstatement.

Yes, but – the misstatement is a critical part of the process. You’ve made a case for parsing statements closely – you haven’t made a case for a lie yet.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Yes, but – the misstatement is a critical part of the process. You’ve made a case for parsing statements closely – you haven’t made a case for a lie yet.

Frankly, I disagree that a misstatement is a critical part of the process: the intent to rob me of my freedom of decision by deliberately leading me to false conclusions is the critical part of the process, whether or not that process contains actual misstatements of fact. But even if you’re right, we’ve got the example of the Guantanamo prisoners as an unambiguous misstatement.

True, it’s on a related issue, but similar reasoning applies there, I believe. And if it doesn’t, then the reference to a nonexistent report is a misstatement. If he was meaning to dissemble in the general, but didn’t mean to dissemble in the particular–if he inadvertantly bespoke a misstatement in a deliberate effort to deceive–I really fail to see how this doesn’t qualify as a lie.

Daniel