Actually I think GW and Rummy cherry picked the intelligence reports, omitting the cons and inflating the pros. Of course that can’t really be called dishonest.
Intelligence output resembles a horoscope or the output of a fortune teller in some ways. You can read almost anything you want to into it. Everything that is reported to the intelligence gatherers is stated with an assessment of its reliability. The use that is made of the report is quite dependent upon the biases of the user.
Fair enough.
Sort of. I’m not sure "over"played is the right word, but its close. What I was refering to was the fact that they clearly did not include the intelligence caveats in thier political rhetoric. If I am not mistaken, several of the intelligence reports that went to Congress did contain those caveats. Some of them were even made public at the time. Am I misremembering this part?
The point I’m trying to make is that when the intelligence says “We cannot be sure, but the most likely scenario is that Saddam has WMD.” The Bush administration would make public statements like “We are confident that Saddam has WMD.” And even more forceful statements to that effect. I agree this can be characterized as over emphasizing the negative while underemphasizing the positive. Clearly it was done for political reasons. But is this really the same as a dishonest coverup? Or the creation of facts from nowhere?
No. I’m not.
It differs in degrees. To exaggerate is to “to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth” to overplay is to “exaggerate one’s acting”. One can overplay a part without going beyond the bounds of truth.
Let me see if an example would make this clearer. If the administration had said “Saddam has ICBMs poised and ready to strike the continental United States.” That would have been a lie. Instead they said things like “Saddam has or will have WMD and may give them to terrorist organizations willing to use them to attack Americans.” The first is beyond all bounds. The second may be an exaggeration, perhaps IYO a dishonest exaggeration. However, there is a point to be made that the two are qualitatively different. A point which gets lost with rhetoric like “Bush led us to war with lies.”
No. I think thier position was pretty forthright. It was, however, incorrect. My dictionary show forthright as “*characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion *” I never found the administration to be very evasive and certainly not indirect. They tried to make the case that Saddam was a danger pretty forcefully. Wasn’t one of the earlier complaints that their rhetoric lacked sublety?
Perhaps this “The Bush administration intentionally presented a case that turned out to be inaccurate in a matter of lives and deaths. They did so in a way which was intended to portray more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence.” How’s that?
The question “do you have no shame, pervert?” was just answered by your last post. The answer is no. You have thrown your lot in with the liars.
I meant about the vitriol. Not about the other issues. I am not vain enought to think I have proved any of them beyond all doubt.
I have to appologize to you. Could you please point out to me where I did this? Also the post in which you gave evidence? Are you talking about another thread? We have been discussing similar issues accross a couple threads now, and I may have missed something. I’m sorry for the inconvenience, I did go back and read this thread, and I can’t see what you are refering to. I probably just missed it.
Assuming you are talking about the other thread, (please correct me if I’m wrong) you are both correct and incorrect. It seems I did miss several large posts by yourself with evidence relevant to the question I asked. However, the question had to do with popular vs governmental support in MENA for America. I appologize for missing your earlier posts. I stayed out of that thread for some time. I only posted to ask that question because you and SimonX seemd to have quite a bit of info about it. I should have read your earlier posts more carefully. The discussion that errupted between me and SimonX included a question about troop levels, but it was mostly about other things.
More than just did not include, they made statements directly contradictory to the existence of such caveats (‘without a doubt’ etc).
What went to Congress and what was made public are not necessarily the same things as what Team Bush presented (esp what they presented to the electorate).
The real question is, “Is it being honest?” Is it honest to deny the existence of caveats?
The NIE had caveats and Team Bush presented ‘without a doubt’ but that’s not an exaggeration?
Let’s try these in the original sentence.
George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.
George Bush may have enlarged the intel beyond the bounds of the truth for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.
George Bush may have exaggerated his acting {of(?)/in(?)/for(?)} the intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.
I’m not sure how to fit the meaning of overplay that applies to c-grade actors and stage plays into the sentence. Obviously, you’ve chosen the meaning of overplay that refers to roles, but instead of a role, we’re discussing intel.
As you chose the meaning of overplay that you were using, allow me to specify the meaning of forthright that I was using. I was using it as a synonym of candid and honest.
As in, “Team Bush intentionally presented a case that was something other than candid and honest in a matter of lives and deaths?”
Clearly they intentionally and blatantly denied the validity of caveats.
How 'bout
“They did so in a way which was intended to engender more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence.”
I mean, in this instance what else does ‘for political purposes’ mean other than ‘in an attempt to persuade’?
SimonX I’m sorry, but I don’t want to defend the details of that post I made listing various perversions of vibrotronica’s assertiions. They were intended more as an example of the opposite to her assertions rather than a rigorous statement of my positions. As such, I used the word overplayed when another would have been better. I really meant it as the opposite of downplay rather than anything else.
In that vein, let me concentrate one part of your last post. If you would like to go over any of the other issues, we can but I would like the chance to reword some of them.
Allow me to cite the statements. I know you’ve seen them. But I wanted to refresh my memory.
Bush on the eve of war March 17 2003. “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”
Rumsfeld the previous August.“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors – confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.”
So, “leaves no doubt” and “there is no doubt” made in public speeches to you means that there are no caveats or provisos in the intelligence reports used to make this assesment. Correct? Your sure they are not merely rhetorical devices intended to emphasise the point the speaker is making? Or are you saying that without the inclusion of “nods” to the caveats something less than honest is being done?
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not trying to convince you that Bush spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am only interested in dispelling the idea that those who believe the president acted in good faith, and perhaps more importantly, those who are not sure are not necessarily dishonest themselves simply because of thier doubts.
I meant to add this.
I can agree with that. I think portray is a better word because it conotates the communication of thier own beliefs. Engender implies an attempt to create the belief in others, but it might also imply that the belief did not exist inside the administration. Your not ready to defend that part are you?
After I reread it once or twice I think I got it. You’re saying that in good faith, someone could conclude that Team Bush was acting in good faith? And that in good faith someone could have doubts about the idea that TB didn’t act act in good faith?
If this is so, then I have to say that I agree with you. I’ve yet to see any reason to doubt whether any American I come into contact with wants anything but the best for our country. That desire’s pretty much just a given, IMHO.
That people’ve been so moved as to’ve acted out of character (this may exclude Ms Coulter) is merely a sign of a passion for American Liberty. Though, such outbursts are still unfortunate. Sometimes, in some people, passion may crowd out the imagination necessary to see how some one else could actually, really and truly see things differently than they do. I can see how one could be tempted to assume that these other people ‘know better’ and were just pretending and acting otherwise for ulterior motives.
Anyway, I’m not convinced you’re any more dishonest than myself (whatever that means).
It just begs for the question, “Why’d they choose to portray it that way?”
I’m not sure that engender really has any bearing or has anything to say about the beliefs of the engenderer.
Plain and simple they oversold the threat to the US from Iraq.
As far as we could tell Iraq was drawing a line short of attacking the US. And, Iraq was unlikely to iniate an attack on the US with banned weapons (directly or by proxy). These very salient points are not only conspicuously absent from the case made by TB, but are also variously contradicted.
Team Bush repeatedly used ‘pre-emption’. Pre-emption means an attack in th eface of an imminent threat. Preventive war is the kind of war against a threat that has yet to become imminent. This was intentional. GWB himself said of Hussein, “He’s a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.” When asked point blank, our SECDEF maintained that although he knew the terms were distinct, he didn’t know the difference between 'em.
Justifying these direct and implied claims of urgency, they ‘adapted’ the concept of ‘imminent threat’. {GOP lackeys even asked me to write letters encouraging Congress to back Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption. I wrote back suggesting that as preemption has been widely accepted as a legit casus belli for centuries there’s no need for a special letter writing campaign.}
All of the various inaccuracies, mis-statements and (as Mr McClellan said) “imprecise” statements etc. demonstrate an intentional, concerted effort to create a stronger case than what was warranted. Regardless of what they believed, whether or not these people believed they were justified in making such a case is pert near only relevant to distinguishing between perfidy and mendacity. If they didn’t realize that the case they were making was stronger than what was justified by the evidence, then they are incompetent.
Good point… very true.
Still the “people” are cutting Bush a lot of slack. After all there were no WMD, no flowers and no easy liberation. Even if he did an “honest” good faith mistake… his judgement should be challenged. His ability to actually take in opposing views is certainly questionable. The costs in military and financial terms of Iraq were badly underestimated too. Finally the fact that he keeps saying its good despite everything.
At some moment it should dawn that politics and money are being given more importance than security and military issues. That the focus isn't given into efforts that really matter. I'm not talking about the population as a whole... but a few percentage points would be neat.It has been said before and bears repeating, there is a fair argument that a significant portion of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, health policy, faith-based policy and nearly every other policy you can think of has been based on wishful thinking, posturing and disregard of inconvenient facts. I just don’t understand how people can have so much emotional investment in this administration that they continue, like the indulgent parent of an irresponsible child, to cut him so much slack.
That is why I admire the american economic and political systems… they work despite Bush ! Now how much more they can take is another problem.
Any in other news, Colin Powell doesn’t subscribe to the administration’s rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq. He also peed in Rumsfeld’s Cheerios:
When asked about the intelligence report (remember the OP?), he suggested that he probably would have written it the same way:
The Iraqi census, which was supposed to pave the way for free and democratic elections this January, has been scrapped:
No Iraqi Census- Fate of Elections and Kirkuk Unknown
(For those who don’t believe the Turkish press, the same information is buried in this Reuters article: Rumsfeld Arrives in Iraq)
The UN said we needed this census before there could be elections. The lack of new census data was the excuse we used to blow off last year’s French insistance on early elections. Now we’re stuck with the worst of both worlds; no census, late elections.
It’ll take a miracle to convince anyone in Iraq that the coming elections are anything but a sham. That makes the CIA’s grim projections of a failed state and civil war more likely than ever.
Damn!
I was really hoping that the elections could somehow be pulled off. IIRC, al Sistani is pretty adamant about the elections. Also IIRC, there was a oush for a census and local elections earlier this year that was stifled by the CPA.
If al Sistani decides to openly oppose the Interim Gov/US then things could get even more ugly.
Not good. Not good.