So taking unverified estimates of estimates and presenting them as fact isn’t “conveying a false image or impression”?
Ok great. So tell me what image or impression do you get from
Would it be the image of 5000 corpses?
What gets tiring to me is the “dead baby” argument. Worse than Godwinizing, IMO.
Remember the Bush I fabrication about Iraqis throwing poor, defenseless Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators and onto the cold stone floor?
Calling Viet Nam vets baby killers?
Accusing gays of raping children?
How long will we stand for this button-pushing nonsense? Please, won’t someone think of the children? :eek:
Well, no, but as I said already, that impression came from the testimony of Iraqis, at least according to RT’s article. So, like I said then, doesn’t the lie belong to them?
“There are mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies” could be a mistake.
“We have found mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies” is an outright lie IMO.
Please.
The locals said they saw the people buried. Ok fair enough they may have being lying as well for their own reasons. But Blair said "‘We’ve already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.’ He didn’t say we’ve been told about … or anything like that. he said that his people had found 400,000 bodies. They hadn’t.
Stop being foolish about this. How is what he said not giving a false image or impression? He said it to justify the war after the fact. He lied pure and simple.
I agree with that. What Blair should have said is, “We have received reports that blah blah blah…”
So you now agree that it was a lie then?
A tool in statistics to show the uncertainty of data. For example, if you take measurements with a ruler that only goes down to inches, you have approximately a half inch or so of uncertainty in your measurements.
Sure, but it’s a medal pinned on lots of people. Let us all be very, very careful with our words.
Wow you mean lots of people lie? I never knew 
And by the way Blair knew exactly what he was saying and exactly what effect it would have. He is very careful with his words.
Lib has a point; I really have a hard time believing that these leaders have gone out and lied on such provable and researchable topics time after time after time. What I do believe is that the administrations and support staffs are filled with folks with questionable ethics advancing their own agendas. The perspective leaders are guilty of allowing an atmosphere of half truths and logical fallacies to persevere. That is where leadership comes in. That’s where I have the problem.
People painting W as a big fat liar think he has more time on his hands then he does. He doesn’t come up with these doozies. BUT. He’s done nothing to nip the culture in the bud, and has allowed his branch to become sloppy. I have no qualms about placing the blame for that at his feet.
If the margin of error is +/- 2000%, then yes.
Correct. What appalls me most, I think, is that no one has been booted out on his ass, yet. If one of my minions fed me a load of bullshit, which I then repeated, and which caused me to look like a moron in front of the entire world, that minion would be lucky to find future employment involving the wearing of a paper hat. If the manager won’t sack the bad employees, the only recourse is to sack the manager.
I think “sloppy” may be too forgiving a word to use in this context. These folks aren’t sloppy. They’re intentionally telling the boss what he wants to hear, knowing full well that it’s a load of crap.
“The British have learned that 400,000 bodies, including children clutching thier little toys…”
Hey, dare to dream Diogenes, dare to dream.
I think it would’ve been roughly +/- 80% given the large uncertainty in the dead/site number. So 500,000 +/- 400,000.
That’s the predicted number. For all I know they took the results of a particularly large site and extrapolated out to all sites. All it shows is that government’s grasp of mathematics is about as firm as the general public’s.
That or the numbers they presented as fact were actually predictions and were unable to tell the difference,or thought we wouldn’t know the difference.
Whee. 
The difference between 5000 and 400,000 is 800%, not 80%. Even if we raise the 5000 to 10,000 then we have a margin of +/- 400%.
I was taking the two extremes of 5000 vs “over a million” to derive the margin of +/- 2000%.
Fair enough, but that’s the error between the predicted (well my made up prediction) and the actual number of victims.
Either way, both governments misrepresented the numbers they had. They should’ve presented them as a predicted instead of actual number of victims. Like I said, being politicians I doubt they grasp the difference, or they expected us not to.
So, just another tick in the “sorry, this pivotal fact turned out to be utter shite” box then.
Good job this will be history when Britain votes him in for another 4 years…
I feel sick.
sin
I agree, they should have just said they had found mass graves that the victims probably numbered “in the thousands,” but that they hadn’t been counted yet, and left it at that. Instead they had to go and put the most high end, worst-case-scenario spin on the evidence so as to wring the most political advantage out of it. It’s pretty much exactly what they did with the WMD “evidence.”