Which is the point of this paragraph in the post (about the GW nuclear materials claim in the State of The Union speech) that so infuriated Scylla.
“The claim that he didn’t lie because British intelligence has in fact made that claim is lying by splitting hairs for the purpose of evasion. The “fact” was obviously presented as true in order to influence Congress and the public.”
I guess if you sic the police on someone and they are wounded during their arrest, it is no problem and not your fault if you were only quoting someone else.
I find it significant, however, that before the war, the administration used figures like “25000 liters,” “38000 liters,” “100 metric tons,” and so forth, but now, afterwards, they describe the same quantities as being “so small as to fit into a two-car garage.” As a layman, it confuses me: in the first case, I think, “Gee, that’s a lot. We better do something about it!” In the second case I think, “Gee, that’s not very much. No wonder they’re having trouble finding it!”
But maybe I’m grasping at straws. Scylla:
Well, if we look at the “yellowcake” claim, Bush had good intelligence that told him the claim was untrue. For example, he had access to at least two CIA reports (one from Wilson, and another from the ambassador to Niger) that disputed the claim. The documents on which the claim was apparently based had been revealed as forgeries. The remaining information from British intelligence, although not completely disconfirmed, was viewed with skepticism by the CIA, and this was also known at the White House.
IIRC, State held on to the Niger documents, and “studied” them, for something like three months before turning them over to the IAEA, despite repeated requests from that agency for copies. During that three-month period, State intelligence never once discovered that the documents were forged. At the same time, the administration was free to go around and claim that they possessed evidence that Iraq had attempted to procure prohibited materials, which they did. After the documents were finally released to the UN, it took the IAEA less than a day to discover that they were blatant forgeries of extremely low quality.
A month or so before the SOTU, Bush was advised personally by George Tenet (who had to go around Condi Rice to do so) that he should not include a reference to the yellowcake purchase in a speech he was preparing to give in Cincinnati. He was informed that the CIA did not believe the claim was true, and that it was based on highly questionable intelligence. Bush was persuaded and removed the remark.
And yet for some reason, with all these questions swirling around the yellowcake issue, and with even his primary the intelligence source (the CIA) telling him the claim was false, Bush nevertheless chose to include it in his SOTU, stating it in strong and unequivocal language, and listing it as one reason, among many, that the US had no other option but war. In the preparation for the speech (which Bush supposedly spent hours on), the CIA wrangled with White House over the claim, telling them that it was simply false. The White House refused to budge, and finally they settled on a compromise formulation that was, technically, correct: i.e., the claim was referenced to highly doubtful, but at that point un-debunked, British intelligence sources (which have since then also been shown to be false). Never mind that the CIA had serious reservations about the information. In this instance, Bush chose to rely on British intelligence rather than his own intelligence agencies, apparently because this allowed him to make a claim that he knew was probably false.
Well, “accuracy,” or “truth?”
The point is that regardless of whether or not the statement was accurate, it certainly appears to be untruthful. Much of the evidence we have available to us suggests that the White House (and Bush) knew, prior to the speech, that the yellowcake claim was false. They settled on a method of including the claim that was technically accurate, even though they knew it to be probably false. What is that, if not lying?
And it was not just “somebody” who disagreed with the statement. It was the CIA, fer chrissakes. It was the head of the CIA, George Tenet, who had specifically informed Bush previously, in Cincinnati, that the yellowcake claim did not have enough evidential support to be included in the speech.
Well, in typical, non-significant conversation, I would not expect one to bound everything one said with caveats. But this isn’t really the case, here, since the SOTU was written to provide rationales for a WAR against a another country. In such a special case, it is not unreasonable to expect that the contents of the speech reflect the real world, and the consensual judgement of those experts whom the US relies upon for intelligence information.
But you have accused other here of lying often enough, so you must know what constitutes a lie and what doesn’t. If I were to say, unequivocally, that “According to the Boston Globe, George Bush was involved in insider trading before he became president,” you would rightly call that a lie. If, after the thread in which you and elucidator went toe-to-toe on the question, I was to continue to go around here on the boards and make such claims, you would rightly consider me to be, if not an out-and-out liar, then at the very least manipulatively misleading. In this case, I would be ignoring the analysis of one of the board’s specialists on these matters (finances and stock trading) in order to construct a picture that, though technically “accurate,” would certainly be less than true.
Or let us say that I were to claim, “I possess scientific evidence that Fox News is responsible for misleading the public into believing untruths about the war in Iraq.” That’s a technically accurate statement, is it not?
Clinton said, under oath, “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski.” Technically, that’s an accurate statement. Was Clinton lying or not, do you think?
Finally, let me ask you: with regard to statements made by the US leadership, do you feel it is enough that they are “accurate?” Or should they not also reflect a true a picture of the situation they supposedly address?
The fact is everyone thought that at least at some capacity, Iraq had some sort of WMD or bio weapons. This includes Clinton, France, and just about anyone else you can think of.
However, only the United States and Britain pushed the world in trying to convince everyone that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Obviously we know this to be false now. People are upset because the U.S. and Britain lied about how much of a threat Iraq posed.
So where are the weapons? Could Saddam actually have destroyed them to some capacity? If not, why didn’t he tell anyone? The answer may be two fold and simple. Saddam did not want his neighbors to know he was ‘weaker’ now and he also wanted to stand up against the U.S. looking strong to his Arab neighbors.
Horse, meet water. None of them is even “technically true”, yet all were asserted as fact. Saying something is true when you don’t know it to be true is lying. Making a statement with the intent of making its recipient believe something that you do not know to be true is lying - and there’s no semi-reasonable way to avoid admitting that. That’s kindergarten-level stuff. C’mon now.
I quite agree with you about the deceptive nature of this administration. You are sort of preaching to the choir in my case.
I’m of the opinion that GW has wormed his way through life as the son of a rich family. He never had to do anything so he doesn’t do anything now. He seemingly will not find out things for himself from a number of sources and looks only for those that support a previously held conviction, even when that conviction is baseless. Now many people do this, but they aren’t President of the United States.
The chickens that he has turned loose haven’t yet come home to roost, but I think they will. In my view GW’s Presidency will be a disaster for the US and recovery will be long and painful.
I only wish the onus for correcting his blunders could fall heaviest on his knee-jerk supporters.
H. S. Sapiens are a common organism which, if their metabolic byproducts are properly collected and “weaponized” can be a source of deadly biological agents. Let us examine this organism and some of its byproducts.
H. S. Sapien produces quantities of CO[sup]2[/sup] gas as a byproduct of its metabolism. CO[sup]2[/sup] is a known toxic agent which has effects described here A relevant section reads
Such a gas, in weaponized form, could be used against entrenched ground troops as it is heavier than surrounding air and will sink into trenches and bunkers, concentrating its deadly effects in low-lying areas.
H. S. Sapien also produces biological byproducts which can be used to deadly effect. H. S. Sapien lives in a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria E. Coli. This site documents dozens and dozens of cases where E. Coli which were not properly treated after being released by H. S. Sapiens were the cause of disease outbreaks and dozens to hundreds of accidental deaths in just the past year or two. The potential consequences of intentionally released, targeted, weaponized, E. Coli are even more frightening.[Research has been done on weaponizing E. Coli](http://www.cs.jmu.edu/common/coursedocs/Burnett/JMU Lecture 1.ppt). In fact, some analysis was included in the research as to the potential outcome of an attack using weaponized E. Coli
H. S. Sapien is widely considered a very unbalancing organism to the overall biology of the planet. [ul][li]No other organism is so heavily regulated at the global, national, and local level.[/ul] The nation of China has placed very severe restrictions on the growth and population of H. S. Sapien within their borders. This is probably a very wise precaution, and other countries, most notably India, are considering following suit. This is a organism which has exploded in population and whose reproductive cycles allowed the growth of a population in excess of six BILLION in 0.1% of the time it took Earth’s other organisms to reach their current population levels. What’s worse is that H. S. Sapien rate of population growth is still increasing![/li]
There are strong arguements for the strict control of the influence of H. S. Sapien organisms, their population and growth, and control of byproducts. H. S. Sapien byproducts are already very heavily regulated. A briliant man once documented individual cases where a single H. S. Sapien organism was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. The record-holder is a single H. S. Sapien being responsible for the death of 43 MILLION human beings. Talk about a WMD!
I recommend immediate sanctions against nation states found to have large amounts of H. S. Sapiens, even a few organisms can be dangerous. I also recommend the investigation of Hydric acid as a danger to the public health. Please examine this site for arguements concerning the banning of Hydric acid.
You quoted this Bush quote as an example of a lie:
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” (George W. Bush, January 28, 2003)."
What is untrue about this? It seems accurate and factual given that at unspecified point at leas two intelligence officials made such an estimate.
How is this false?
And, you do it again:
"“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” (George Bush February 8, 2003). "
Apparently several news agencies had these same sources and reported it as such. Just because these sources Bush quoted proved later to be wrong does not mean that either they or Bush made the statement in bad faith.
Now in this very post I’m replying to, you say:
Now if you read the very quotes that you cite, you would see that neither of them pass the test for a “not-lie” that you have made.
First, you must know that at least a couple of the statements are technically true which is a direct contradiction to what you said. Which is a lie by your definition.
Secondly, You have no way that I’m aware of that you could know that Bush did not both beleive and beleieve he had sufficient cause to believe that his statements were correct. Since you do know this, you are making an assertion of fact out of something which you know is in doubt, which is also a lie by your definition.
So, your statement about these things being technically untrue, as well as your contention that they are lies, is in fact a lie by your own definition.
Indeed.
Now you may think that I’m doing this to be a pain in the ass and give you a hard time, but the fact is…
(Ok, I am doing it to be a pain in the ass and give you a hard time, but there’s also something else…)
I have gone to the trouble to analyze your statements and demonstrate that they are falsehoods, and even lies by your definition. If you wish to assert that Bush is a liar, I would ask you to provide the same detail. You have made a specific accusation, you need to back it up specifically.
I’m not actually seriously calling you a liar over this, just pointing out that by your own definition you are one. I think your definition needs reexamination.
For example, you state (my parpahrase) that stating something you do not know to be true as truth is a lie.
The fact is that as human beings, there’s actually very little that we do know for sure. Most of our assertions are based on best guesses and suppositions, even when we decree otherwise.
There is a difference between being mistaken and lying.
Now I’m not trying to be a tedious bitch about all this, but hyperbole, and exagerration in the service of rhetoric really doesn’t help in factual debate.
If it is to be asserted as an ongoing given position within debates that the administration, and Bush in particular delbierately lied, than that statement at some point needs to be rigorously proven or everything else that builds off of it is just garbage.
Exaggeration in the service of rhetoric really doesn’t help in factual debate, does it?
Funny, that’s what most of this stuff has been about is esaggeration.
So, what would it take for you to consider something as a lie? Seriously, what would it take?
At the top would be a signed affadavit by Bush saying that he willfully lied. At the bottom would be someone, say, proving that Bush ignored information he didn’t like so that he could continue his war.
At what level between these will you consider an actual “lie” to have happened?
Well, perhaps we need a different word, something what will not do violence to Scylla’s delicate sensibility. Of course, if the purveyor of an untruth does not know, he cannot be fairly described as “lying”. Incompetent, irresponsible ignorance, perhaps even a highly selective scheme of information designed to preserve plausible deniability. Any of those might fit, and we could avoid the disagreeable word “liar”.
Would you be happier with “putz”? I could go with “doofus”, but that implies a certain cozy loveability, too gentle a term to apply in a situation where there are so many recently minted corpses.
How about this: a guy who fails in his sworn duty to be fully informed to the very best of his ability is a “Geedub”?
I already explained: “Making a statement with the intent of making its recipient believe something that you do not know to be true is lying”. Clear? Should be. Difficult for you to accept? Your problem.
As they say in Commons Question Time, “I refer the gentleman to the reply already given.” I’ll leave out the “honourable”, for reasons you’re making clear below. Now read more closely: Bush said these things were true. He was not depending on a few news accounts to support their veracity, nor did he even mention them. The guy who is in charge of national security and national intelligence stated something as a fact. It is not exculpatory to say “Somebody else told me.”
I’ve explained and repeated.
Sorry, I’ll need a diagram of that sentence to know what it is you’re accusing me of. Whatever that is, it’s collapsing under the weight of its own torturedness.
Then why isn’t this in the Pit, where more people can laugh at you for it?
Then stop doing it. Simple. Not easy for some, no, but simple nonetheless.
Well, Condoleeza Rice has finally, in October, dropped the “big impact” that was going to blow the “nattering nabobs of negativism” out of the water.
In the Los Angeles Times under the headline, “Rumsfeld Denies He’s Being Pushed Aside in Iraq Effort” is the following Rice statement:
“We now have hard evidence of facts that no one should ever have doubted,” she told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday. “Let there be no mistake — right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and to hide his illegal weapons activities.”
How can anyone still deny that war, lives and billions of dollars (so far) was the best, in fact the only, method available to destroy “ambitions” and to curb “activities?”
I harbor ambitions of being rich and famous, and I’ve even engaged in activities toward those ends. Doesn’t mean it’s happening, though.
Listen to Rice giving an interview sometime. There’s a quavering tone of desperation in her voice now that I don’t recall having heard before this year.
And valuable resources that could have been deployed better somewhere else or saved until they were urgently needed (North Korea, anyone?) have been squandered because of at worst willful deception and at best incompetence. Either way, we need to fire the people responsible. That’s what you would do if this were a business, right?
I understand. What method are you using to peer into the mind’s of others in order to divine their intent?
My apologies. I am saying that there is no way for you to read minds and divine intent. Therefore you cannot know what you claim to know. Since you can’t know it, but say it as fact anyway, you are lying by your own definition.