The President and the Truth [i]or[/i] Milbank and Krugman and Ari, Oh, My!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Let’s presume for a moment that GWB has not deliberately lied or intentionally attempted to mislead the public about the threat of Iraq. Let’s assume he is, on occasion, simply talking out of his ass without having a command of the facts, or a clear understanding of information which he, himself, has been given.

Is this any better than lying?

Is the public any better informed?

Does this still have the potential to stampede the public into an unwarranted “pre-emptive” invasion of an other country?

If Iraq is indeed the imminent threat that the WH would have us believe, then shouldn’t all of W’s handlers and babysitters be able to keep him armed with accurate information, make sure he understands it, and make sure that he knows precisely how to present it to the public?

If Iraq has the ability to hurt the US then why doesn’t the president have a clear grasp of what those abilities are, and why can’t he articulate them to us?

Is he a bald-faced liar, or is he an incomprehending nitwit drowning in a job which is clearly over his head?

Does it matter?

[elucidator]

Again with the “six months” already! Scylla, the report did not exist! Never happened! He did not misquote the bloody thing, it was not a distortion of a fact, it was not “spin”, the report in question DID NOT EXIST! Did I mention that it didn’t exist? Yes, I think I did. Well, it didn’t. Exist, that is. “I’ll take “Things That Don’t Exist” for $600, Alex.”

And then, pressed to the wall, the White House drags out this utterly lame bit of booshwa about how it was an “intelligence report” being quoted. That dog won’t hunt. That dog won’t even lick his balls, that dog is dead, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, El Croako. Let us not forget the clinching quote: “I don’t know what more proof you need”.

Well, proof that actually exists. I won’t accept anything less. Will you?

(cue sound track: The Who, Won’t Get Fooled Again!)

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

No report? What about Iaea one of 1998 which says Iraq was 6-24 months away from the bomb before the gulf war?

Is that the report that doesn’t exist?

Because seeing as you quoted from it, that would be surreal.
Diogenes:

Let’s presume for a moment that GWB has not deliberately lied or intentionally attempted to mislead the public about the threat of Iraq. Let’s assume he is, on occasion, simply talking out of his ass without having a command of the facts, or a clear understanding of information which he, himself, has been given.

Ok.

Is this any better than lying?

Yes. The President has to absorb a lot of information. He has to speak authoritatively extamporaneously on a wide variety of subjects. The nature of that suggests that he will occasionally speak in error. As the psychologist in Elucidator cite points out, this is pretty much par for the course. We’ve been over this a number of times.

Is the public any better informed?

Yes. Errors get caught and corrected.

Does this still have the potential to stampede the public into an unwarranted “pre-emptive” invasion of an other country?

Yes. Mistakes can be disastrous. Did you really not know that?

If Iraq is indeed the imminent threat that the WH would have us believe, then shouldn’t all of W’s handlers and babysitters be able to keep him armed with accurate information, make sure he understands it, and make sure that he knows precisely how to present it to the public?

No. We’re talking about huge amounts of information. The mideast isn’t a subject like 10th grade algebra that you can just understand completely. And, the President does have other responsibilities other than studying facts. The best that they can hope to accomplish is a generalized knowledge and some key specifics. There will be mistakes in the details. That’s the nature of the thing.

If Iraq has the ability to hurt the US then why doesn’t the president have a clear grasp of what those abilities are, and why can’t he articulate them to us?

He does. His basic thesis is sound. his mistakes (and we have two of them. TWO) are in the details. Two mistakes is hardly a campaign of deceit or an example of uninformed incompetance.

Is he a bald-faced liar, or is he an incomprehending nitwit drowning in a job which is clearly over his head?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, or are you still in denial?

[Scylla]

elucidator:

And then, pressed to the wall, the White House drags out this utterly lame bit of booshwa about how it was an “intelligence report” being quoted. That dog won’t hunt. That dog won’t even lick his balls, that dog is dead, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, El Croako.

So you’re saying that the idea of the President seeing one report and confusing with another is impossible and that it is therefore a lie?

[elucidator]

No report? What about Iaea one of 1998 which says Iraq was 6-24 months away from the bomb before the gulf war?

Is that the report that doesn’t exist?

Because seeing as you quoted from it, that would be surreal.

You’re kidding right? You don’t know? I have brought this up more than once, in fact, you participated in a thread on precisely this subject. Now, as to quotes, what quote of mine are referring to? Surely not the “six month” stuff. Shirley you know I am quoting *you? *

No way. No way you don’t know that report is bogus. Got your faults, stupid isn’t on the list.

Wait, let me check…slippery…mutter mutter mutter…arrogant…mutter mutter mutter… page 2…insuffficiently respectful of a clearly superior intelligence…mutter mutter…nope, not on the list. Read both pages, ain’t there.

But this gem, ah, this is a chestnut!

So you’re saying that the idea of the President seeing one report and confusing with another is impossible and that it is therefore a lie?

I’m going have to be careful here, metaphysics has always been a weak spot for me. The really big question: “What is everything, anyway?”

OK, got it now. Report A does not exist. Report B is reported to exist, but is not defined or revealed. Report B very well may not exist. So: is it impossible to confuse a report that does not exist with a report that may not exist?

Well, its obvious! That’s impossible!

Wait a minute…A does not exist, if B does not exist, they both don’t exist, therefore they are identical, so you could easily confuse two things that are identical. Unless one of them doesn’t exist. But essence precedes existence…

No, I was right the first time. It is obvious.

[Scylla]

I see right through you.

If it didn’t exist, how do you know he misquoted it?

If they both don’t exist, how come their different, and how can you prove he didn’t read it, and didn’t quote it accurately.

Can you show me where in this report that doesn’t exist it doesn’t say Iraq is 6 months away from Nukes?

I didn’t think so.
Thus your whole house of cards crumbles.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Scylla is absolutely right:

When The President of the United States MAKES UP a report to push us into war, hey that could happen to anyone, right? Also, it’s not true! And it happened months ago!

And when A political reporter for the NY Times MAKES MINOR FACTUAL ERRORS in his column, my goodness, he shouldn’t even be reporting after that outrageous offense! This cannot stand! we need someone respectable and factual and hot like Ann Coulter!

Liberals, understand, you owe it to us to believe what the President says at all times, even when he contradicts himself; he was always right, he’s just more right now! Those of you tilting windmills at Bush, give up – unless Bush slips up and becomes a reporter for the NY Times, you cannot prove he is not simply uninformed, so you cannot possibly catch him a lie – stop trying!