# SDMB - Fair and Balanced ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353 "2005-06-29T13:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/201 "2005-06-30T16:29:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > (emphasis added in awe and admiration…) > > It’s a _beaut_, **Shodan**! You’re really getting the knack of this Bushpeak thingy! Nuance city! What a lovely bit of misleading! “No significant amounts”! A regular humdinger! At the same instance, you admit what everyone already knows and yet manage to imply some qualification, that no “significant” amounts were found, but maybe _some_ were found, but they weren’t “significant”. > > So what we told was not complete and utter horseshit, but somewhat mistaken? A bit off the mark? First of all, when the opponent concedes a point, you’re supposed to smile and nod, not be a jerk about it. There have, in fact, been some WMDs found in Iraq: [Sarin](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm), for example. [(another link)](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120401,00.html) > [@preceding link](#): > > An artillery shell recently found in Iraq that contained **three to four liters** of the deadly nerve agent sarin (emphasis mine) [Here](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/06/980623-iraq2.htm) is another, from before the war: > [@preceding link](#): > > THE FINDING CONTRADICTS IRAQI CLAIMS THAT THEY NEVER > TURNED DEADLY V-X GAS INTO A USABLE WEAPON. And [here](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/28/iraq.vx/) it is from a non-government source. So don’t split semantic hairs when you don’t have your own facts straight. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/202 "2005-06-30T16:31:16Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > So don’t split semantic hairs when you don’t have your own facts straight. I would submit that \*no one \* ever has their “facts” completely straight. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/203 "2005-06-30T16:32:14Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Again with the semantic cop-out. “Bush didn’t use _those **exact** words_ so liberals are a bunch of liars!” Yes, that’s exactly what I think. Liberals are a bunch of liars. It was right there in my post, plain as day. :rolleyes: Unless you can show me where I even hinted that “liberals are liars” I expect you to take that back and apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/204 "2005-06-30T16:37:21Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > Excellent point, **Shodan**. But don’t expect a reasoned response, unfortunately. The “WMD is the only reason we went to war” meme has grown quite strong here. Anyone crying foul over this example of conservative debate tactics? Nobody? Beuler? I suggest that within the very thread that conservatives are expressing the greatest level of consternation about scurrilous debate tactics and piling on with useless commentary, there are plenty of examples already regarding the common practices of conservatives. **Shodan** , showing another common strategy: I don’t like this debate. Let’s have a different one altogether. I assume that your _tu quoque_ is an acknowledgement that it was unfair to characterize Kerry’s position as **Sam** did. Why don’t you be a bit more straightforward? I wholeheartedly acknowledge that the speech you cite mentions many reasons for going to war with Iraq. I for one have never said that Bush **never** gave any other reasons. It seems to me that your cite is the one in which Bush gives the most attention he ever did to any other reasons. I have long contended that Bush argued most frequently, and in the course of all his statements on the matter, _almost_ exclusively, that the reason we needed to act now was the threat of WMD. I cannot believe that the will of the American people for war would have been roused by any other justification. Perhaps you could find some additional examples that human rights are given as much attention in a speech by Bush as they are in that speech _to the UN_. Perhaps you can explain the lack of proportional attention given to human rights in these other key discussions of the matter: [Bush calling Saddam out on the eve of the invasion](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html) [The House Resolution](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm) [The Senate Resolution](http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/sjres46.pdf) (see also Colin Powell’s UN presentation and the belief expressed in the Downing Street Memos that a war would not have been justified without tripping Hussein into a provocative act). But let’s return to the matter at hand. I contend that Kerry’s position was that the war on terror required us to use many types of resources, including military action, human intelligence, surveillance and policing, and legal strategies. These intervention strategies would be applied as appropriate to a given situation. Do you contend that his position was anything other than this, or are we in agreement? If you contend that his position differed from this, can you provide any evidence of that? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/205 "2005-06-30T16:54:13Z")
You know, after spelling out my understanding of Kerry’s position and thinking it through, it would only be logical, since you would constantly be engaging in surveillance (policing) and less frequently engagining in interdiction, arrest and prosecution, and then even less frequently engaging in military action, that this strategy could be seen as primarily doing things other than using the military, in the same way that a medical war on cancer would involve surgery less frequently than self-palpating, regular checkups with a physician, and interventions to reduce risk factors. I may have been arguing a point left over from the elections; that Kerry would be weak on national defense. So, if **Shodan** and **Sam Stone** were really saying that Kerry’s position is as I described it above, than I am erroneously arguing against them, and I withdraw my opposition and express my apology. If they are, however, arguing otherwise, then matters remain to be debated. Why, for example, would you plan on using military intervention more frequently than surveillance, human intelligence, or arrest and prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/206 "2005-06-30T16:54:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Unless you can show me where I even hinted that “liberals are liars” I expect you to take that back and apologize. Aw, fercrissake, John, if you never said it then I should not have read into it that implication. However you would then be an exception because for two years liberals have had to put up with you conservatives (and I don’t buy your “I am not a conservative” claim) concluding that, since Bush didn’t use the \*specific \* word, then any liberals who took what he said to _mean_ “imminent” are liars. An attempt to derail the discussion into semantic nitpicking that is usually successful, like in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/207 "2005-06-30T16:55:38Z")
> [@boofuu](#): > > I never said both sides were equivilant (I think); if I implied that I apologize. What I said is the speakers for both sides are shrill and whiny and are doing nothing to “change” or “sway” my views. It think the way you phrased your question to me is a very indicative of what I am saying. That question is biased and argumentative. I am assuming that is not indicative of your overall posting style and that somehow I rubbed you wrong. If so, I again apologize. Eh, I got a bit snippier than I should have. But imagine it from my perspective… right or wrong, I have come to the conclusion that Bush is an absolutely terrible president who is doing many horrible things, which I don’t need to repeat here. I firmly believe this. I am very concerned about the future of our country. I also think many of these things are rather self-evident. And, given how closely divided the country is right now, we need every ally we can get. To hear someone, who is presumably a voting American citizen, say “well, I just don’t know yet” is very frustrating, particularly as it smacks of some combination of “come back when there’s some difference between your parties” (what, the fact that the Republicans currently support BUSH isn’t a difference?) or “eh, I’m too lazy to have formed an opinion” (in THESE of all times?). Anyhow, I hope you can sympathize with how easy it is for someone in my position to get worked up… > [@](#): > > If I were to say Pres. Bush lied, I would be lumped as a liberal. If I said, well, anything else, I would be labled conservative. How about I stay out of Gangland and choose neither the Bloods nor the Crips? Well, risking descending into snippiness again, at some point you presumably chose either the Bloods or the Crips, presumably a day early in November of 2004? Also, you don’t have to believe that Bush lied in order to think that he’s done a bad job. For that matter, you could well think that he did lie and still want to vote for him. I think you’re slightly overstating the level of division on this board. > [@](#): > > But that is neither here nor there. I came into this thread specifically because it was not “about” Bush Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You thought the thread wasn’t about Bush? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ahh, I haven’t had a laugh like that in ages. > [@](#): > > -boofuu = she 😃 Noted, ma’am. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/208 "2005-06-30T17:04:01Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Aw, fercrissake, John, if you never said it then I should not have read into it that implication. However you would then be an exception because for two years liberals have had to put up with you conservatives (and I don’t buy your “I am not a conservative” claim) concluding that, since Bush didn’t use the \*specific \* word, then any liberals who took what he said to _mean_ “imminent” are liars. An attempt to derail the discussion into semantic nitpicking that is usually successful, like in this thread. It’s hardly a semantic nitpick to be pretty damn upset when someone grossly misrepresents my post and puts that misrepresentation in quotes. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/209 "2005-06-30T17:16:47Z")
First of all, I have a beautiful, idealistic, dream, that someday I will write a long post into which I put a lot of effort, and someone will respond to ALL of it, not just little cherrypicked sections. Sigh. What a happy day that will be. Anyhow… > [@Shodan](#): > > That the election was only lost because of dirty tricks by the Republicans. I was about to angrily deny this, but… by “dirty tricks” do you mean “underhanded and unethical but legal political maneuvers” or “election fraud”? If the former, then yes, I believe there’s a consensus that such dirty tricks (particularly the Swift Boaters) played a large part. (Nor do I believe there is significant evidence to the contrary which we’re wilfully ignoring. It’s not a cut and dried issue. Heck, in an election that close, it would be hard to think that the Swift Boats did NOT matter.) If the latter, I think there might be a fringe who believe there was election fraud, and a larger group who entertained the idea at least for a while, but not a significant crowd who continues to believe that on an ongoing basis. > [@](#): > > [About a day and a half ago.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6310260&postcount=62) OK, fair enough, I withdraw my remark. (I hadn’t been reading that thread at all.) > [@](#): > > Sorry, this comes under the heading of “it should be too common to require a cite”. Check out a few posts in the Pit addressed to **Airman Doors** or **Weirddave**. Or **Hentor** ’s recent characterization of a **Sam Stone** cite saying exactly what **Sam** said it did as “dishonest”. Or **Evil Captor** and his “Republicans are racist” crap. > > _:shrugs:_ > > Good luck with your denial-fest. Hang on, first of all, I never said such posts never happened, I said it was a bad thing when they did. However, what is bad is not saying mean things to Bush-supporters. What is bad is saying mean things whose sole justification is that the person is a Bush-supporter. It’s perfectly all right (well, not really perfectly all right, but not a prima facie ridiculous and insulting and discourse-level-lowering thing) to violently and insultingly respond to something a Bush supporter actually said. That’s different than claiming that all Bush supporters are, by definition, X, Y or Z. (Which, of course, is just as bad as claiming that all liberals or Bush-bashers are X, Y or Z.) For a concrete example, I haven’t really been following this discussion between **Hentor** and **Sam Stone** , but Hentor does not seem to be saying “All Bush supporters are dishonest”, he’s just saying “Sam Stone is dishonest”, and in fact is most likely saying “Sam Stone was being dishonest in this specific instance in this specific way”. Now, he might still be wrong. He might be wrong and an asshole. But he’s not doing the Bad Thing under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/210 "2005-06-30T17:20:54Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > He might be wrong and an asshole. Hey! I am not wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/211 "2005-06-30T17:29:08Z")
Here’s what I see is a big part of the “the problem”, and I think I can speak for many of the posters here, like \*\*Xtisme \*\*or **Airman Doors** and others, who didn’t vote for Bush in this last election, or did so reluctantly: It seems that disavowing Bush is not enough for many of the anti-Bush crowd here. Unless you are willing to swear on the [MoveOn.Org](http://MoveOn.Org) charter to hate Bush with every fiber of your being, you ending being called a partisan hack, or mindless Bush supporter. Now, I’ll admit that that’s an exageration (don’t ask me for a cite), but that’s exactly how frustrating it can feel around here sometimes. I don’t know enough about \*\*Hentor \*\*to put him the group I described in the first paragraph, but the "disagreement’ he and \*\*Sam \*\*had over the Kerry quote is very much along those lines. Sam’s paraphrase was so close to what Kerry said as to be indistinguishable, and yet he’s called dishonest for putting it that way. That, to me, is mind blowing. And I can understand why \*\*Sam \*\*would choose to just stay away. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/212 "2005-06-30T17:30:57Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > For a concrete example, I haven’t really been following this discussion between **Hentor** and **Sam Stone** , but Hentor does not seem to be saying “All Bush supporters are dishonest”, he’s just saying “Sam Stone is dishonest”, and in fact is most likely saying “Sam Stone was being dishonest in this specific instance in this specific way”. Now, he might still be wrong. He might be wrong and an asshole. But he’s not doing the Bad Thing under discussion. Yes … absolutely conceded that **Hentor** is only talking about **Sam**. But what about my alternate interpretation of **Sam’s** comments (slack given to **Sam** based on his use of “primarily”)? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/213 "2005-06-30T17:33:24Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > > > So you acknowledge that the extemporaneous remark does not reflect the entirety of Kerry’s position (which was explicitly stated in many other readily accessible resources), but it is still fair for Sam Stone to pretend that it did reflect the entirety of Kerry’s position? How is this legitimate? > > To me, Sam Stone’s use of the word “primarily” gets him off the hook here. Use of “primarily” suggests to me that Sam understands that there Kerry never categorically ruled out military action to combat terrorism. I see Sam and Kerry disagreeing about the focuses of approach, but not necessarily on the identities of the specific tools available to implement a given approach. > > IOW, I don’t see that Sam Stone has painted Kerry into quite so small a corner. > > > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > > > It seems more like to me the selection of one bit of data and the rejection of better bits of data to serve a pre-determined goal. > > Well … again … what is “better”? I don’t think there’s an absolute definition of “better information” that everyone can agree to. Filters again. ☹ Once more, with feeling. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/214 "2005-06-30T18:17:28Z")
**John** : > [@](#): > > - Did he say “with 100% certainty”? That’s the problem with exagerations\*-- they can undermine your basic argument. Here’s the thing: we can never know something with 100% certainty, so if that’s the requirement, no one can ever say “I know that …” about anything. Clearly Bush exagerated his level of certainty. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that he really did believe WMDs existed in Iraq.\* You’ve seen the quotes **Hentor** cited which plainly demonstrate that Bush and his administration did indeed insist they were 100% certain Iraq possessed “WMDs.” I just want to respond to the last sentence in the passage above. I also think it’s reasonable to assume that Bush believed Iraq possessed “WMDs.” But his _belief_ that something is true is not a justification for lying about it to bolster his argument. I might firmly believe **elucidator** to be the son of God, but does that give me the right to make up stories about all the miracles he’s accomplished? Bush might have believed that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” but did he really believe the Eastern Seaboard was threatened by antrax-spraying Iraqi robot drone planes, etc.? (This gets us into a propaganda technique I would call something like “rhetorical ladder-climbing,” by the way. Bush may have truly believed in the big picture, but he lied (IMO) about _specifics_. To counter this problem his defenders “retreat,” as it were, into generalities. Sure: maybe Bush did believe Iraq possessed “WMDs.” Of course, “WMDs” is itself an acronym for a generality, and includes weapons that threaten the existence of entire cities, on the one hand, and battlefield munitions capable of killing maybe a hundred combatants, on the other. Nevertheless Bush and other members of administration made specific claims that, in hindsight, turned out to be false, and that, by any reasonable standard, they _ought_ to have know were doubtful to begin with.) Anyway, I submit that Bush was willing to lie so egregiously (or exaggerate, if you prefer) precisely because he believed that he would find something – virtually anything – that could retroactively justify the invasion. He even made a few desperate attempts afterwards: he claimed that the helium balloon trailers were “WMDs,” for example, and that a single vial of decades-old botulinium was proof that Saddam was “a threat to the world.” Anyway, my point is simply this: had Bush made his argument on the basis of the facts at hand, I would not hold him in such low regard. > [@](#): > > - Christ, do we have to go thru this again? Bush explicitly said that we can’t wait until an enemy became an “imminent threat”. He didn’t use that term because he flat out said it wasn’t relavent. Now, we can disagree with that assessment, but why is it necessary to mischaracterize it?\* Vaguely interesting personal anecdote: after the invasion was a _fait accompli_, and the “WMDs” proved to be non-existent, I was truly stunned to hear the Bush administration turn back and assure us that they had, in fact, never claimed Iraq to be an “imminent” threat. I went back and re-read all that old material, and sure enough, turns out they were right. Yet in the entire period during the run-up to the war I was quite sure they were claiming that we must invade Iraq precisely because it was an imminent threat to US security. It was a very disorienting experience, and to this day I wonder how they managed to convey the impression that they believed the Iraqi threat to be imminent without ever once using the word. I would also submit that many conservatives on this board were of this misapprehension. What’s strange about the whole affair is that the legality of the invasion was justified on the basis of the fact that Iraq was an imminent threat. Although strictly speaking Article 51 of the UN Charter prohibits a pre-emptive strike, a long history of “case law” supports the rights of states to attack opponents who actually represent an imminent threat to their security. So the argument ran that since Iraq was an imminent threat, we had the right to defend ourselves with a pre-emptive invasion. It really wasn’t until after the war, when we failed to discover the “WMDs” that allegedly represented the imminent threat, that the pro-war side shifted gears and pointed out they had never claimed Iraq to be an imminent threat to begin with! The fact that this reconstruction undermines their arguments for the war’s legality doesn’t seem to faze them in the least. > [@](#): > > - But you guys are missing the point. Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat. He said we couldn’t wait untill they became an imminent threat. You guys are so eager to call him a liar that you let him pass on this dangerous idea. He didn’t lie about Iraq being an imminent threat. What he did was rewrite the rules of engangement, and I think that’s a far more dangerous proposition than the phantom lie you are so eager to pin on him.\* In my own defense, 1) I agree completely with you on this point, and 2) I actually had a long debate with **Scylla** on this exact topic, in which I laid out my reasons for opposing the policy. Still, the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive; I can concede that Bush didn’t characterize the Iraqi threat as imminent, and agree that his NSS is very dangerous piece of work, and still despise him as a liar. By the way, I’d like to submit the debate (well, discussion really) between **John** and myself, or the debate between **John** and **Hentor** , as an example of how people with differing political opinions _can_, actually, meet each other in a spirit of open and honest disagreement, without rancour or name-calling. And I would like to ask other members of the board what differentiates this discussion from, for example, the debate between **Hentor** and **Shodan**. Finally, I would like to encourage **Bricker** , or anyone else out there, to pick up the gauntlet and respond to my post #130, page 3. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/215 "2005-06-30T18:29:53Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Finally, I would like to encourage **Bricker** , or anyone else out there, to pick up the gauntlet and respond to my post #130, page 3. I’ll answer that post for myself. What would it take to convince (me) of what, now? That Bush lied to start the war? I am already convinced – I believe he lied about what he knew with certainty to facilitate the war effort. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/216 "2005-06-30T18:41:08Z")
RE: the sarin-filled artillery shells of Doom! Doom! It just amazes me. The story was roundly crushed when it first raised its greasy head: the shell was a relic, probably posed more of a threat as hazardous waste than as offensive weaponry, couldn’t have been fired and probably wouldn’t have worked had it _been_ fired. And then, or course, you have the problem of finding an artillery piece with a range of approximately 10,000 miles… You seize it, chop of its head, stuff its mouth full of garlic, pound a wooden stake through its heart, and bury it at the crossroads with a silver dime, a black cat and some Johnny Conkeroo and yet, it rises at night to feed on the living! What does it take to finallly kill a nugget of bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/217 "2005-06-30T18:48:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What does it take to finally kill a nugget of bullshit? Unless we make it an unacceptable social behavior, like with being racist, we will always have bullshit filled apologists for the current regime, “America, Love It, Or Leave It” types. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/218 "2005-06-30T19:11:52Z")
On the subject of how the war was sold, how about [Powell’s speech to the UN?](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html) How many times is the word ‘liberate’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘freedom’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘humanitarian’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘democratic’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘torture’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘oppression’ used? Zero. How many times is the word ‘terrorism’ used? Seven. How many times was the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’ used? Seventeen. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/219 "2005-06-30T19:12:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s hardly a semantic nitpick to be pretty damn upset when someone grossly misrepresents my post and puts that misrepresentation in quotes. You know perfectly well that the semantic nitpick I was referring to was the use of “imminent threat” and the common use of it to derail debates. I have already apologized for putting words in your mouth. Since I am so accustomed to those words following your statement, “Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat,” I saw a hint that wasn’t there. But “pretty damn upset?” Dude, it’s an internet message board, not the floor of the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/220 "2005-06-30T19:28:54Z")
**Mr. Svinlesha** , I’ll take a run at this. _1) The employment of the OSP to stovepipe previously discredited intelligence directly into the White House;_ All this shows is a disagreement between different analysts as to what weight certain intelligence observations should be granted. This doesn’t show that the “previously discredited” intel was correctly discredited, or that the other intel was correctly credited. Note that “correctly” doesn’t mean “turned out to be true”. “Correctly” means evaluated in a reasonable and prudent manner. _2) The infamous “yellowcake” statement in the SOU – intentionally included after specifically being stricken by Tenet from a previous speech;_ That’s an odd summary. According to CNN, Tenet took responsibility for the error himself: > [@CNN](#): > > In a statement released Friday evening, Tenet said that the CIA had seen and approved the speech before it was delivered, and he took responsibility for the mistake. > > “The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president,” he said. That indicates that Mr. Bush relied on the intel presented to him, and Mr. Tenet was in error to have presented it. That goes to incompetence of the administration, but not to Mr. Bush’s lying. _3) Assertions that Iraq was “six months away” from building a nuclear weapon, a claim based on a non-existent report;_ From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61903-2002Oct21¬Found=true): > [@](#): > > On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic – the IAEA – that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.” This was not true. I agree that the IAEA made no such report. But is that the end of the story? Was there _A_ report that said this, and Mr. Bush simply misattributed the source? If so, while I agree it’s an untruth, it’s more likely a mistake than a deliberate lie. From the same article: > [@](#): > > The White House said that Bush “was imprecise on this” and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA. > [@](#): > > 1. Documented rhetorical exaggerations of the evidence, including the wholesale removal of caveats or assertions of uncertainty in the relevant intelligence reports; Removal of caveats or assertions of uncertainty doesn’t create a lie. It reflects the editorial choices that go into any public address by a president, on any subject. > [@](#): > > 1. Claims of total certainty prior to the war exchanged for assertions that intelligence is by its very nature a “murky” business, after the invasion; Again, how does this prove a lie? It shows what we all already know: that the assertions of certainty were based on inaccurate and incompetent evaluation of the evidence. When that was made plain, the comment that intelligence is a murky business is absolutely true: its vaery murkiness precluded (or hindered) an accurate assessment in advance. > [@](#): > > 1. Statements that there existed a clear, documented relationship between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime; What statements, specifically, are those? > [@](#): > > 1. Assertions that the “aluminium tubes” were intended for use as enrichment centrifuges, in complete contradiction to the conclusions of the overwhelming (read: total) majority of the government’s own experts on these devices; Total? Indeed? The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): > [@](#): > > “Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors - as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools - provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that the reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.).” > > All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes if the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons worth of highly enriched uranium per year. Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Director General of the Iraqi Nuclear Weapon Program, testimony to the House Armed Services Committee: [/quote] The nuclear weapons program is now almost complete waiting for the enrichment sector, which makes 90% of the program to finish its job and put together a working production facility. The bottlenecks in the enrichment are already resolved. German sources provided Iraq with classified reports and a working unit in the centrifuge enrichment technology. This can reduce the time needed for research and development for a country like Iraq by at least ten years. The whole centrifuge technology was acquired for a little over a million dollars. This included state of the art carbon fiber cylinders. The recent announcement of interception of large orders for aluminum cylinders indicate that the process of putting together large enough units for full production is not complete yet. At the same time it also indicates that Iraq has already bypassed the initial testing and possibly pilot plant stage. Also Iraq always use duplicate sourcing of materials and supplies which may mean that it is already in possession of enough materials for a small scale production facility. My estimate is that Iraq may be in actual production in two years with enough accumulated product for two to three nuclear weapons in three years. [/quote] Rolf Ekeus, former chief U.N. arms inspector for Iraq (United Nations Special Commission on Iraq – UNSCOM) from 1991 until 1997, stated in an interview with News Perspective Quarterly: Global Viewpoint: > [@](#): > > Even then they [Iraq] had the understanding and design of a highly enriched uranium-based nuclear weapon. But they lacked the fissile material itself, the uranium. Clearly, they were trying to manufacture the fuel and had the centrifuges to do so. But we found most of them and destroyed them, though I can’t be sure we got them all. > [@](#): > > 1. The State Department’s pre-war assessments that containment was working, and that the sanctions had effectively curtailed Saddam’s “WMD” programs; So the State Department had an assessment. DOD had a different assesment. Mr. Bush went with DOD. Why does that make him a liar? > [@](#): > > 1. The Downing Street memos; Which prove what? > [@](#): > > 1. No WMDs, despite administration assurances there could “be no doubt” Iraq possessed them. Irrelevant. The issue is whether Mr. Bush lied about what we knew going in – not what ultimately resulted. > [@](#): > > In other words: what would I need to do to convince you? Of a lie? Direct contradictory statements. Admission of a lie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=12)