Just any second now. Go ahead and hold your breath until then.
This is a very slight nitpick, but I assume you’re referring to Zacharias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker)?
My understanding is that the FBI had been told (pre-9/11) by a flight school that Moussaoui had actually wanted to learn only to take off and land jetliners, but news reports got it backwards. I wish I could find a cite – will try to dig one up.
Otherwise, I agree with your post.
Apologies for the… hijack.
Oh come on, people! Not this again!
After all, this whole “lies to go to war” issue was put to bed long ago quite clearly by the highly steemed and respected, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld.
To wit:
If such a model of transparent speech doesn’t end this debate, I honestly don’t know what will.
You can thank me later. Cash is also welcomed.
I don’t like the man, but I have no problem understanding what he is saying. To paraphrase “there are things that we know we know, things that we know we don’t know, but the danger are those things we don’t know that we don’t know”.
Of course Bush lied to the public. Name a modern president (or person) that hasn’t lied.
DanBlather,
Yet the way it should be written is “there are things we know, things we don’t know, and the danger is the things we don’t know.” All the extra “knows” and so forth are not needed in the slightest.
Want to get a good idea how often Bush lies - aside from just the WMD stuff?
Subcribe to Bush Headline News at
http://www.bushwatch.net/mailman/listinfo/bushheadlinenews
But I must warn you that it can be depressing as hell.
Or, you can subscribe to the Daily Mislead here. Admittedly, the things they report don’t always rise to the level of what I would call “lies”, but, hey, when you have to come up with a new “mislead” 5 days a week, that’s a lot!
As for on Iraq, I would say at the very least that Bush seriously misled us on what they knew. I think they figured that they could get away with it because they expected that they would be right in the sense that at least some WMD would be found.
I also think that he misled us on the seriousness of the threat. I.e., even if they believed Saddam had WMD, I can’t imagine that they really believed there was that much or that these weapons were that much of a threat to us. Otherwise, it is hard to explain the apparently lackadaisical approach toward securing sites suspected of containing WMDs. (Actually, I find that kind of hard to explain even if they just believed there was a little bit of WMDs. It’s just bizarre.)
I know I’ve said, “hmmm…” more than once over this. The oil fields were secured even if the potential locations of the banned weapons were not.
I don’t buy the war for oil profit angle, but this sort of thing does fiercely fuel speculation along those lines for some.
Well, yes, repeat, no, Simon…
Like you, I find the “oil jackal” theory simplistic and crude, the notion that America invaded Iraq for no more complex motive than seizing control of Iraq’s oil. On the other hand, as Werewolf of London points out, the very fact of oil’s strategic value means that it cannot sensibly be ignored as a motivation. To one degree or another, oil is a fundamental factor.
But therein lies the problem with a position that cannot be proven entirely false because, at bottom, it isn’t entirely false. It can be mostly false and still retain enough truth to make for a worthy, if not compelling, argument.
Case in point: the rush to protect Iraqi oil fields and the Iraq Oil Ministry. If America’s motivation were strictly the “oil jackal”, we would have rushed to protect both. If America’s motivation were to protect the oil and information in trust for the Iraqi people, our actions would have been pretty much the same.
Of course, such persons who are kindly inclined towards the USA view such evidence in a generous light, while those who are not will not. I remain fairly convinced that American policy is aimed towards the stability of the oil market, rather than direct control of that market.
Trouble is, how does someone who is undecided as to whether to regard the US as an enemy tell the difference? What clear and obvious action have we taken, or can take, to prove our bona fides without risking that precious stability?
The information about WMDs (or should that be WsMD?) came from British Intelligence, and was possibly (wait for Hutton…) given more weight by the British Government than it deserved.
Bush maybe guilty of believing the evidence that fitted with his own opinions, but that’s human nature.
IMHO, it seems that at each stage, the information that fitted the preconceptions of the next level was given more prominence.
SimonX I’m not holding my breath… I bought the T-Shirt
Heh, this thread was right next to ** Cocaine addiction question **.
Bush said he knew for a fact that their were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that they posed a threat to the U.S.
As it turns out, he did not know this for a fact.
Therefore he lied.
I hypothesize he lied and stated his strong suspicions as fact because he needed to have England accompany us into Iraq, and England would not do so unless the war was legal according to International law.
Bush I feel, would have felt comfortable violating international law in this regard.
Since England did not, the case had to be made that the war was self-defense, and that Iraq posed a present danger from which we were defending ourselves.
Weapons of mass destruction comprise just such a legitimate threat, both Bush and Blair felt pretty strongly that it was a good bet that he had them, so they took the chance and asserted it as fact, hoping they’d be vindicated afterwards.
It didn’t work out that way.
Remember that in terms of the reasons why the war happened we don’t need to consider the motivations of people like Powell and Blair, we just need to concentrate of Bush, Cheney and that influential neo con group. And their ideology, their evangelical belief in the correctness of the free market and how the dominant market player is entitled to behave, is at its heart, very simple.
You may not have had your head turned by this when I posted it in another thread as it’s not a chesty blonde. It’s a timely reminder of just what the empire is capable of doing if its supremacy is threatened. The oil really was important 30 years ago; I think I can say it’s even more important now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm
*"The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.
The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.
It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi. "*
- Now we only have the briefest of insights into what the non-oil man Nixon-Kissinger were considering. But if Nixon was thinking along those lines then, what are the evangelical oilmen thinking now, even without opening the Cheney Bible/ Policy/Plan ?
Control of the supply, and influence over the price, is the lifeblood of worldwide capitalism and, of course, the Queen Bee at its heart. As the link says:
"The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments’ planning. "
Hell, name any president that didn’t lie to the public.
Hopefully, not all presidential lies led to thousands of deaths.
Well, but not any lies that often, I’d assume.
Well, Mr. Rumsfeld might be quite right with his know-don’t-know-thing, but wouldn’t it be more wise to investigate instead turning the whole country into ashes?
Because knowledge needs to be aquired, not the reason destroyed why knowledge has to be aquired. That way, we will never know and have to assume that they lied.
And if they really want to find WMD, they just carry one over the atlantic, scratch off the lable, bury it in the sand and voilá, you’ve got the Iraq possessing WMD. Who cares noone knew of it?
I think, Bush did want to believe that there were weapons. He obviously is not the kind wanting to dive into the matter or even change his opinion. Just get through it, begin the war and fight it to the end. That’s what I’ve heared. And I’ve heared that it’s proved that he wanted to go to war in Iraq all the time, thinking 9/11 were best starting point by claiming there were terrorists. (No cite at hand)
It’s somewhat optimistic view of the world to say he did it for people or safety or whatsoever. He did it for oil. The oil corporations did pay his campaign. His advisors worked for oil companies or alike.
BTW, elucidator, control of the oil market is the most effective way to make it stable.
Yes. Lying about a blowjob seems to pale in comparison.