The Valerie Plame affair of “let us discredit the guys who are telling us we are wrong on the yellow cake” points to a conspiracy to control that intelligence to then justify going to war.
It was worse than a lie, it was criminal IMO.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”? Well, true as that may be, and as relevantas it might be in another discussion, is does inspire a corollary: Ignorance of logic is no excuse. Please try to stay on point.
Can you truly not see a difference between saying something that you believe to be true, but is false; and something you know to be false? Please answer that one question before we move on.
Hehe
What we need here is an analogy. Got just the thing.
The patient has cancer. Renowned oncologist Dr. Nick is called in.
(“Hi. everybody!” “Hi, Dr. Nick!”)
Dr. Nick recommends the appication of leeches to the patient’s left foot.
(Them: “Bold Leadership and Innovation in the War on Cancer!” Us: “Dumber than a Barell of Hair! Dumbest Thing We’ve Ever Heard!”)
The application of leeches results in an infection. Dr. Nick recommends amputation, which operation is sucessful.
(Them: “Pro-cancer staph microbes defeated in bold operation!” Us: “OK, we were wrong! This is the dumbest thing we’ve ever heard!” Them: ‘Raptor Toenail’ problem solved!" Us:" Jesus, just shut the fuck up!")
Now, because the leeches were attached in an attempt to cure the cancer, they are part of the war on cancer. The resulting infection necessitated the amputation, hence it was also part of the war on cancer. (Them: “Stinkfoot problem cut in half by bold and innovative treatment!” Us: “Nurse! Nurse!..”)
Dr. Nick begins huffing nitrous and examing x-rays of the cancer patients genitalia, absently fingering a scalpel. (Them: “Stay the course! Curing cancer is hard!”…)
As it applies to a five year old who says something cute, like “the sky rains because angels are crying” or as it applies to the most powerful man in the free world who simply doesn’t bother to find out if one very dubious peice of intelligence that he’s basing his entire justification to war on is correct or not? Because we’re not moving anywhere if you flat out refuse to acknowledge the man not only started the war based on a lie, he’s continued it even after he found out it was an “oopsie.”
Both, in my case.
Well, I think we need to distinguish between honest ignorance and willful ignorance. For example, if your pet cat crawls up inside someone’s engine compartment and is hurt/killed when they start the car’s engine, that’s honest ignorance. They had no reason to suspect, and no reason to check.
On the other hand, if you cherry pick intelligence reports and refuse to listen to critics, that’s willful ignorance ( at best ). If you try not to learn, then ignorance is not an excuse.
In this case however I think they did know; they’re just liars.
So you highlighted my question, typed some words, but decided to not answer it. Interesting. To each their own…
Considering Bush made a big bruhaha about bringing him in, Dead or alive, and considering he was intimately invovled in a direct attack on the US(unlike some people), I would certianly hope that we’d be doing everything to get him and his buddies. You know, the whole point of the War on Terror, before Bush decided that Iraq was so frakken dangerous(as opposed to a number of other nations I could mention) that they must be stopped immediatly.
Oh, and cleaning up the country where he used to live to make sure they don’t come back. You know, the one that starts with an A.
On the bright side, AQ is hurting, but now they’ve got a giant recruiting poster, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and we still don’t have the guy we were supposed to get, and we’ve done a lot to piss off the people who were helping us get him, and there’s the whole thing about stretching the forces too thin and running up huge debts.
I did answer it. It’s hardly my fault if the concept behind my response is too difficult for you to grasp.
But you can’t have it both ways. If you do not grant that there is an effort called the broader war on terror and define it somehow, then you cannot judge of the war in Iraq is part of that entity or not.
Do you honestly think that they didn’t listen to counter arguments? That they were unaware of them? That they didn’t weigh them? Sure, they listened. But based on ALL the information they had they gave more credence to some parts of it than others. Now you might say that you don’t agree with their assessment and final decision, but that is hardly “not listening”. And please keep in mind regarding the WMDs, the vast majority of the intelligence world believed them to be there. Even the U.N., Germany, France, Great Britain, Hans Blix, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and many, many more.
If you say so.
Gosh, I wish I could remember enough to link to a thread about a year ago where I laid out a case about Bush’s lying, a case so compelling that Bricker conceded that Bush had lied in the leadup to the war. It involved Bush’s unknowingly (to be charitable) using a piece of false evidence in an effort to knowingly mislead people about the cause for war; and it centered around the Yellowcake document. It turns out to be a pretty cut-and-dried case that Bush lied about at least this one incident.
Daniel
This is a stupid statement. If there is no war on terror, of course the war in Iraq isn’t part of it. There is no “it” for the war to be part of.
The world believed that he probably had a few unusable bits of hardware stashed away; they didn’t think it was worth a war. They were right.
Me personally ? I never believed it. Bush and friends are compulsive liars; since they said Saddam had them, I considered it a safe assumption he didn’t. I was right.
This Maybe?
Why are you talking about your posting style, magellan?
Yes.
No. They were quite aware of them. Those were the nay-sayers and people who hated America. Those were the ones on the side of the terrorists.
Um, no. Not the U.N. Definitely NOT Hans Blix. Hans fuckin Blix? WTF are you smoking? And where can I get some? Dr. Blix was quite clear in his statement that there were no WMD. And the administration was so pissed at the UN, Bush threw a tantrum and said we’d go to war with our without the UN’s blessing.
So, either you’re in possession of some “faulty information”, and are therefore unaware that that statement is a lie, or you’re flat out lying. Which is it?
fuck, if all you’ve got is the equivelent of “I’m rubber and you’re glue”, it’s really better to not post at all.
really.
Yes, I honestly think they did not listen to counter arguments. Bush had decided to invade Iraq even before the 2000 election. Bush is the last person on earth to listen to others’ opinions. This is the man that screened his crowds at every campaign rally to make sure that each person in the crowd loved him. Hans Blix and Bill Clinton may have believed the WMDs to be there, but they didn’t invade. Blix would have found them not to be there if he had time to finish the inspections, but Bushie Boy couldn’t wait. He had to avenge Daddy, facts be damned.
“… There’s glory for you!”.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is”, said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all … .”