He didn’t technically lie. He was merely dishonest in a matter of lives and deaths?
Well, no, he was merely mistaken in a matter of lives and deaths.
Anyone else experience actual physical pain at this line?
-Joe
Excellent point. Frankly, I’m going to start ignoring the “Cite!” bait from now on, too, unless I think it’s absolutely warranted. Life’s too short for this bullshit; we all really need to feel we have the right to tell the “Cite!”-nik piss off and look it up his/her pestering self, without thinking we’ve copped out on making a reasonable argument. Calling a spade a spade (substituting for another word) means sometimes you have to recognize a nuisance for who he or she is and shrug them off. I see far too many people here succumbing to their own good principles and throwing their pearls before the swine, when those pearls just wind up floating in a festering mess with the rest of the garbage some try to pass off as debate. It’s nearly always a wasted effort, and those who that effort is bestowed upon don’t deserve it.
Are you saying that the ‘overplaying’ of the intelligence was not intentional?
Ooopsy! Soldiers go die-die! Ooooh, darn! Well, time to clear some brush!
Sure, why would anyone actually want to know about the evidence behind claims that a country is behaving illegally before deciding to bomb the hell out of them? It’s so much easier to ignore inconvenient facts, and blunder on with bullshit. That’s what got us into the last war, and here you stand, ready to do it again. Score one for the liars.
No, but it was not dishonest.
SimonX I am sort of replying with one liners to you because that is how you are replying to me. If you would really like to go into detail about whether or not the administration lied as opposed to was wrong we can. I don’t want to reopen that can of worms unless you are sure.
vibrotronicaThe same goes for you. You stepped in here claiming that I was imorally ignoring evidence or something without examining or pointing to any of the evidence I was presenting. I chose to respond in kind. In that last post where I listed objections I was not trying to say that those items were truth beyond debate. If I recall correctly, you are the one who has claimed that debate is not warranted. All I was trying to do was show you how ignorant it is to make unsupported asserions of a volitile character.
For the rest of you, I did not bring Clinton into this debate. I have taken exception to those who have done this in the past. I would appreciate if you did not lump me in with them.
Usually I get your jokes. I cannot understand this one. Unless you are making fun of someone for thinking that dead soldiers are not an important consideration. I know it spoils the joke to explain it, but was that it?
I’ve been replying to you with one-liners because you have nothing of any substance to contribute. The “evidence you’ve been presenting” is crap. Your tactic is delay, hem and haw, wave your hands and pretend George W. Bush didn’t lie to start a war and then proceed to fuck the war up. You aren’t fighting ignorance, you’re perpetuating it. And the reason you’re perpetutating lies and ignorance is in order to try and prop up an immoral and failed leader because you think politics is like a football game. As long as your side wins, everything’s great. There are real lives at stake, pervert. Real people are dying for these lies that you refuse to recognize and continue to defend. Take a step back. Look at yourself. You read what you’ve been posting. You ask yourself whether a country which could not launch a single airplane in its own defense was a threat to the United States. Seriously, do you believe what you’ve been saying? At what point does your rhetoric and equivocation end, pervert? How many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it’s a lie? How much longer do you have to go on defending these lies? When does shame kick in?
I hate to break it to you, but this is not a refutation of my evidence. I’ll cop to the plea that I have been teasing you. But before that, I was having a pretty good conversation with MMI, and Abe. Can you please point me to the post of yours where you presented a rational refutation or even examination of evidence? Third request and all.
I have no idea what a tactic of delay would accomplish on a message board. I’m not even sure what that means. And for the record, I am not really interested in proving the George Bush did not lie. I am primarily only interested in proving that the point is debatable.
I feel differently.
Not at all. I hate football. I do enjoy debating, however. Primarily becaust it allow me to learn things. For instance I have learned that you refuse to point to a single instance of anything even resembling an examination of evidence. Also, and on a more serious note, I learned in this very thread that quite a few intelligence organizations are not hopeful for the future of Iraq. What have you learned?
I’m not even sure who you are arguing with here. I really don’t think I have ever posted anyting resempling this. Is is possibly a strawman?
Yes, they are. Thousands on 9-11 and hundreds more since then. The issue of what to do about it is so important the we should discuss it rather than yell at each other. It makes it easier to discuss if we respect each others right to an opinion.
No of course not. No country without a significant military industrial complex could have possible launced a large attack agains the United States. It is unthinkable. :rolleyes:
Honestly, only some of it. Some of it has been simply rhetoric intended to get you and a few others to pony up with some good information. But yes I have made a good faith effort to debate some of the issues which have come up in this thread. If you really don’t think I have, perhaps you could pit me. I have only been pitted once and could use another.
At the point where yours does. Again, point me to a post of yours in which you examine the evidence in this thread and I will appologize.
This is the crux of the problem, vibrotronica. You expect me to feel shame for expressing my opinion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion when that is your attitude? And if you no longer want a rational discussion, why are you here?
I tell you what. I’ll agree to stop responding to you if you agree to stop sniping at me after your response to this post. Fair enough?
Have I made my point to you yet Abe?
I don’t believe so. Like a number of other posters have already indicated, I too am wondering whether it is worth the time to reply in good faith to this endless equivocation and apology, on top of which you added the argumentum ad hominem that I am biased for holding a point of view I have supported with abundant evidence when you have not shown my arguments or (respected) citations to be flawed in a concrete way.
I could appreciate your points far more if you weren’t so highly selective in your responses, and if you didn’t focus on a few select issues in an attempt to invalidate the much larger argument – which you claim you are not necessarily contesting, then you say that you are. For example, the first time you directly addressed me, you merely asked whether I thought more manpower would have made a difference in the war and occupation, after I had just provided a couple of mega-posts citing respected analyses suggesting that it almost certainly would have (on top of which it is rather counter-intuitive to think otherwise). You then continued to equivocate from there, in essence starting a new debate on the same topic, apparently ignoring most of the materials provided and points argued up to that point, and dismissing several points with what appears to be obfuscation or spinning of the available materials.
However, I will reply if I have time, here and in the other thread where I think we are having a discussion, because you do have some good points – I simply disagree with your apologetic and often shifting take on the matter, and what appears to be your willingness to excuse any and all displays of ineptitude and dishonesty on the part of the most suspect administration in decades. As I am preparing a rather important response for the Hong Kong government I am a bit tied down with some deadlines over the next few days, but given the chance I’ll be back.
I’m with Abe & vibotronica on this.
pervert, time to change your mission statement.
Moderator’s Note: Loopydude, QUIT TALKING ABOUT YOUR IGNORE LIST!
Got it. This post was made prior to reading your warning. It won’t happen again, and I’m very sorry. I didn’t realise until your warning that this was a prohibited activity.
Doesn’t this response get the point across that you guys are shoveling sand upstream?
It seems to me that honesty would have compelled GE, Rummy et al to say something to the effect that they preferred to err on the side of what they considered the safe course of action even though the intelligence information contained a lot of caveats allowing interpretations that didn’t require war.
Omitting the caveats, in my view, is lying by omission. There is even an expression for it - half truth - and in so vital a matter as going to war I think it is indefensible. I think that ttere was no imminent threat requiring immediate war. The UN weapons inspectors were in the country and looking hard and not finding anything. There negative results have been amply proven. Saddam had no ties with 9/11 as the Commission said and all the other justifications used by GW have been shown to have as much substance as one of his oil ventures.
When you couple the highly suspicious and evidentially discredited pretense for the war with the fact that regime change in Iraq has been an explicit goal of the neoconservative movement, how is it still that the burden should be on Bush’s adversaries to further prove he was lying? Aren’t we far past the point where mendacity is the most plausible explanation, and the onus should now on BushCo to provide compelling evidence to the contrary? And yet they staunchly refuse! Every time the point is made, they lamely excuse themselves with little more than “Saddam was bad, so it’s OK anyway.” This is not sufficient justification for starting a full-blown war and killing tens of thousands of people (many of them American soldiers).
How about the colossal flip-flop from GW’s campaign statements that he wasn’t into “nation building” followed by his Iraq war justification-du-jour of getting rid of Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq and by extension the middle east?
The intelligence report has sort of disappeared from the news and this thread. I can’t see how any war supporter can consider the report as anything but an indictment of the conduct of the war. As with GW’s projects in general throughout his life, the war today is characterised by spur of the moment spasms showing little advance examination of their possible side effects and rosy assessments followed by Pollyanaesque projections of future events.
I’m not at all offended. This is a very, very specific point. I’m not sure it needs pages of dialogue at a time to be discussed.
You’re saying that Team Bush intentionally ‘overplayed’ the intel in an honest way?
AFAICT, overplay is a synonym for stretching the truth. You seem to be making the case that Team Bush stretched the truth honestly (whatever that means).
I am curious about how ‘overplay’ differs from ‘exaggerate’.
Would you agree with this formulation?
Team Bush intentionally presented a case that was something other than forthright in a matter of lives and deaths?
This NIE (like the one that was used to justify the invasion) was just a guess.