Ooops.

[darius]

I would guess that the number of Iraqi innocents killed accidently by the US is less than the number of Iraqis killed intentionally by the terrorist/insurgents. Their actions are the true atrocities being commited.

I hate to be flippant, but those insurgents were really destabilizing the region and killing the Iraqi people. Good thing we stepped in.

Which best describes your feelings?
1- Yeah! No WMDs existed, so its unlikely that terrorist will be able to use them to kill me.
2- Yeah! No WMDs were found, so the USA (i.e. President Bush) looks very bad.
3- Hmmn. No WMDs were found. Is our Intelligence agencies (and the rest of the worlds) really that incompetent?
4- Hmmn. No WMDs were found. Should I be worried that they were moved elsewhere (e.g. Syria) and that bad people may yet get their hands on them?

I don't like being lied to. The justification for imminent warfare was that Iraq had WMDs. Don Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are." The people closest to the problem, the weapons inspectors, had found no hard evidence prior to war. The fact that US-based weapons inspectors have come to the same conclusion shows that there was NOT an imminent threat from Saddam, and that while we may mock the rest of the world, they were right.

Abuse of oil-for-food, or shenanighans going on with Russia and France, those can be solved politically, given that both of those countries are members of the international community and serious trading partners.

Look, if the reason for the Iraq war is to further neoconservative theories on the projection of democracy via military might, that's OK. I don't necessarily agree with that, but if a certain government wishes to pursue a certain agenda, that's their business. But they should square with the public.

darius

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by darius

I hate to be flippant, but those insurgents were really destabilizing the region and killing the Iraqi people. Good thing we stepped in.



I don't like being lied to. The justification for imminent warfare was that Iraq had WMDs. Don Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are." The people closest to the problem, the weapons inspectors, had found no hard evidence prior to war. The fact that US-based weapons inspectors have come to the same conclusion shows that there was NOT an imminent threat from Saddam, and that while we may mock the rest of the world, they were right.

Abuse of oil-for-food, or shenanighans going on with Russia and France, those can be solved politically, given that both of those countries are members of the international community and serious trading partners.

Look, if the reason for the Iraq war is to further neoconservative theories on the projection of democracy via military might, that's OK. I don't necessarily agree with that, but if a certain government wishes to pursue a certain agenda, that's their business. But they should square with the public.

darius

You were not lied to. You were told information that at the time was thought to be true. Now if you believe that we went into Iraq as a first neocon step to taking over the world's oil supply, I can't help you. I do believe the general consensus for us going into Iraq is 1) get Saddam Hussein, 2) liberate the Iraqis, and 3) find and secure the WMDs. To quote the great Meatloaf......."Now don't be sad, cause two out of three ain't bad". (only trying to be a little flippant).

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

You were not lied to. You were told information that at the time was thought to be true. Now if you believe that we went into Iraq as a first neocon step to taking over the world's oil supply, I can't help you. I do believe the general consensus for us going into Iraq is 1) get Saddam Hussein, 2) liberate the Iraqis, and 3) find and secure the WMDs. To quote the great Meatloaf......."Now don't be sad, cause two out of three ain't bad". (only trying to be a little flippant).

I think you got the order wrong.

I don't remember being told that liberation of the Iraqi people was even an objective until most of the world had discounted the US evidence of Iraq as a threat...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I do believe the general consensus for us going into Iraq is 1) get Saddam Hussein, 2) liberate the Iraqis, and 3) find and secure the WMDs. To quote the great Meatloaf......."Now don't be sad, cause two out of three ain't bad". (only trying to be a little flippant).

That's the "revised" justification. Initially the American people were sold on the idea that Iraq had WMDs (not WMD related program activities or info, WMDS), that Iraq had ties with al Queda (so far no credible evidence to support the suggestion that Iraq was willing to work with al Queda), and that Iraq was a growing threat to American interests. The removal of a sadistic tyrant was touted as a fringe benefit.

The major argument for going to war with Iraq was the potential for Iraq to sell WMDs to al Queda to be used against America.

[jeff]

I recall distinctly: Powell's testimony at the UN, the "layup" from Tenet, and even a film clip of Bush I just saw saying "Iraq has not disarmed". We didn't say "we're not sure - but he might have WMD". We said "We know he has WMD". That's the "lied to" part. People in the Administration knowingly exaggerated the evidence at hand by using discredited sources, or removing caveats and expressions of doubts from analysts.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by jeff

I recall distinctly: Powell's testimony at the UN, the "layup" from Tenet, and even a film clip of Bush I just saw saying "Iraq has not disarmed". We didn't say "we're not sure - but he might have WMD". We said "We know he has WMD". That's the "lied to" part. People in the Administration knowingly exaggerated the evidence at hand by using discredited sources, or removing caveats and expressions of doubts from analysts.

It would be a lie, if Powell produced a picture of a weapons building platform, knowing that it was fabricated, and then presented that picture as evidence of Iraq's WMDs. I believe he (and most others who viewed the presented evidence) chose to believe what was presented to them by the experts (CIA, British and Russian intelligence etc.), formulated a plan, and acted on it.

Although the US took the lead, they acted with the support of many a nations (sans the ones getting healthy kick-backs from the UN's Oil for Food program).

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

I recall distinctly: Powell's testimony at the UN, the "layup" from Tenet, and even a film clip of Bush I just saw saying "Iraq has not disarmed". We didn't say "we're not sure - but he might have WMD". We said "We know he has WMD". That's the "lied to" part. People in the Administration knowingly exaggerated the evidence at hand by using discredited sources, or removing caveats and expressions of doubts from analysts.

No, that's the "mistaken" part.

[jeff]

L.O.A.S.: Unfortunately, it then merely becomes a collective falsehood rather than an individual one. The Administration here took CIA intelligence and then picked the parts they liked, not disclosing the parts they didn't like. The CIA has complained (despite their short leash) that they gave intel with all caveats and expressed doubts that the Administration chose to ignore. The same happened in the UK, where there was a big scandal (and one suicide) over "sexed up" intelligence reports.

Soldier: If I say "I know you have a chicken in your dorm room", when I don't really know that, and produce charts and arrows showing the progress of the chicken, when there really is no chicken in your room, that's not "the mistaken part" - that's saying something I have no basis to say. Had I said "I think you may have a chicken in your room, knowing you had chickens before" then that is being mistaken. Expressing certainty of something you actually don't know is a falsehood. Or, let's use another analogy: You cadets have a code of honor that requires you to report other cadet's cheating, right? If you said "I know Smith cheated", further adding "it's a lay-up", and it turns out Smith hadn't cheated, then that would be a falsehood. "I know Smith cheated" is 2 statements: "I know", and "Smith cheated", If you state the 2nd one as a fact (and make pains to emphasise it and sell that claim to others), then the 1st is a falsehood. Big distinction.

[Soldier]

You're ignoring the presence of evidence. If I had compelling evidence showing that Smith cheated, then that would be an honor board, which is just fine. And if I'd showed you a lot of pictures of a suspiciously chicken-looking object in my room, while not allowing anyone to inspect my room for chickens, then that wouldn't be a falsehood on your part.

[jeff]

But... if you didn't have compelling evidence Smith cheated, but said he did, what would kind of statement would that be? And we didn't have proof of WMD, because - duh - they weren't there. That's what the inspectors said previously, and what Duelpher said in his 1st report.

But... if you had a chicken-like object in your room and didn't let me inspect it:
What kind of statement is it if I say (A) "I suspect he has a chicken, based on the chicken-like object", versus (B) "I know he has a chicken in his room". The administration did the latter. That's fowl play.

Oh: http://www.chickenjoke.com/

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

You're ignoring the presence of evidence. If I had compelling evidence showing that Smith cheated, then that would be an honor board, which is just fine. And if I'd showed you a lot of pictures of a suspiciously chicken-looking object in my room, while not allowing anyone to inspect my room for chickens, then that wouldn't be a falsehood on your part.

You got that a bit mixed up.
Jeff's SGIR took pictures of you and your room and identified some shapes that were unusual. Jeff took those pictures and said, "Soldier has chickens in his dorm room." The Academy Security Force entered your room and inspected, and inspected, and inspected most of your room, but found no evidence of chickens being in your room other than a couple feathers near your bedspread. The Academy Security Force prepared a report and prestented their findings to Jeff that they did not find any evidence of chickens in your dorm room. Jeff then declared, " I don't care what your report says. I KNOW that Soldier has chickens in his dorm room and he must be removed. Immediately. And then sends the Academy Extraction forces to drag you out of the room, ties you up, blindfolds you, slaps a little lipstick on your kisser and drops you off in a Cuban jail run by prison guards that haven't seen a pretty girl or home cooked meal in 10 months....

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Soldier

You're ignoring the presence of evidence. If I had compelling evidence showing that Smith cheated, then that would be an honor board, which is just fine. And if I'd showed you a lot of pictures of a suspiciously chicken-looking object in my room, while not allowing anyone to inspect my room for chickens, then that wouldn't be a falsehood on your part.

What if you based your supposition that Smith had a chicken based on something you heard from a cadet who was kicked out earlier. You overheard this cadet saying that he saw feathers and heard clucking. You've went to Smith's room multiple times but couldn't find a chicken. You've told the squad master sargeant that you believe Smith has a chicken so he goes to Smith's room but couldn't find a chicken. One day, you do find a feather underneath smith's bed. The next day you take Smith on a snipe hunt and shoot him for violating the Cadet code of conduct. Then you realize that the feather came from Smith's feather pillow that had a hole in it.

Are you any less culpable for Smith's murder?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I KNOW that Soldier has chickens in his dorm room and he must be removed. Immediately. And then sends the Academy Extraction forces to drag you out of the room, ties you up, blindfolds you, slaps a little lipstick on your kisser and drops you off in a Cuban jail run by prison guards that haven't seen a pretty girl or home cooked meal in 10 months....

Rats, another one!!! I missed the second page

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by darius

The justification for imminent warfare was that Iraq had WMDs.

Nope. It was just one of many. Since it's the one which has since turned out to be wrong, that's the one upon which critics have seized in order to justify their general dislike of the Administration and the war. If you really think that was the ONLY reason we had for invading then you weren't listening very closely while the debate over whether we should go in was underway.

Have you read the actual Congressional resolution authorizing the war?

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-094744-8700r

Are WMDs the only reason mentioned in it?

The people closest to the problem, the weapons inspectors, had found no hard evidence prior to war.

Actually, "the people closest to the problem", far closer than the inspectors ever got, were Saddam's officials. Are you proposing that mere proximity confers superior perspicacity, let alone propensity to report a state of affairs fully and objectively?

The fact that US-based weapons inspectors have come to the same conclusion shows that there was NOT an imminent threat from Saddam, and that while we may mock the rest of the world, they were right.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. If one is inclined to believe that people appointed by an iniquitous, lying, deceptive Administration knew the "truth" and lied about it BEFORE the war, why be so quick to accept the conclusions of people appointed by the very same Administration now? What reason have you to believe that Bush et al. had a sudden change of heart and sent inspectors who are pure and unbiased, and have reported their honest findings honestly, instead of loyal henchmen who would say what they were told to say? Sounds like selective credulity to me...

Our inspection teams, like those of the UN before them, have been severely limited in where they could search. They have followed evidentiary trails which consist of the same sort of intelligence we were getting before the war ( which is now called horribly flawed ) gathered by the same intelligence organizations ( now called inept and gullible if not actively dishonest ). They have relied for their leads on Iraqi documents---documents which we are blithely assuming couldn't possibly have been concocted or altered in the several months in which Saddam knew the invasion was coming, and also assuming other documents could not have been destroyed. They have interviewed Baathist officials and scientists---of the same ilk whom it is now widely believed were employed by Iraqi intelligence to deceive the West before the war---and expatriates who we know did the same sort of thing for their own ends. Yet you are as eager to accept their conclusions as you were to reject those of the Administration before. Why is that?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

That's the "revised" justification. Initially the American people were sold on the idea that Iraq had WMDs

Perhaps your perception is retroactively selective. I recall hearing a number of justifications for the war during the national debate.

The Administration certainly played up the WMD one, but not as I recall for the public. Rather, it did so in a long and increasingly uphill attempt to win over the UN and the "international community" and put together a coalition like that of the first Gulf War.

Naturally, the national and international media seized on that justification as well and played it up almost to the exclusion of all else. I suppose you blame the Administration for the media's choice of focus as well?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

People in the Administration knowingly exaggerated the evidence at hand by using discredited sources, or removing caveats and expressions of doubts from analysts.

Assuming facts not in evidence as "proof" of your thesis again, I see.

"Knowingly"? "Exaggerated"? "Removing"? Have confirmation of any of these turned up someplace? Would you like to share them with the rest of us? Or are you just reiterating your singular belief that any wrong statement anywhere anytime by anyone is a "lie"?

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nope. It was just one of many. Since it's the one which has since turned out to be wrong, that's the one upon which critics have seized in order to justify their general dislike of the Administration and the war. If you really think that was the ONLY reason we had for invading then you weren't listening very closely while the debate over whether we should go in was underway.

Have you read the actual Congressional resolution authorizing the war?

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-094744-8700r

Oct 7, 2002

Remember that date? Probably not. Few people seem to. Fortunately the Internet remembers. This is EXACTLY what Bush told the population of this country. THIS IS what the people were told, whether you want to admit it or not.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Paragraph 3

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. "

Now the way I count it he provided 4 justifications in this paragraph.
1. possses & produces chem weapons - lie
2. given shelter & support to terrorism - truth 10 years earlier.
3. seeking nuclear weapons - I'm gonna go with lie on this.
4. 11 year history of defiance - truth.

[Sarcasm]Gee I guess that other poster is right 1 1/2 out of 4 isn't bad...[/Sarcasm]

Funny those sound like lies to me. I know if the things Bernie Ebbers said were lies that merit a still prison sentence, (and they do), then these were lies. But please feel free to discount them with the easily understandable "Nope." That is after all such a convincing argument.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Assuming facts not in evidence as "proof" of your thesis again, I see.

"Knowingly"? "Exaggerated"? "Removing"? Have confirmation of any of these turned up someplace? Would you like to share them with the rest of us? Or are you just reiterating your singular belief that any wrong statement anywhere anytime by anyone is a "lie"?

Proof? Your short term memory seems to be wonderfully selective. Ok here's Proof.

Powell - I've seen NO evidence of Al Quida - Iraq relationship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?ID=3909150

Or this nifty little snippet:
"In a Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, illustrated by satellite photos and transcripts of intercepted phone conversations of Iraqi military officials, Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted that a ''conservative estimate'' of Iraq's chemical-weapons stockpile ran to 100 to 500 tonnes, or enough ''to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets''.

He also asserted the existence of ''biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails'', including ''perhaps 18 trucks that we know of'' and a new nuclear weapons programme to take the place of the one dismantled in the mid-1990s by the inspectors.

But the latter assertion was largely discredited by U.N. inspectors, who found that tubes imported by Iraq that Washington said would be used for a nuclear programme had been used for missiles instead and that written correspondence regarding the purported sale by the government of Niger of uranium to Iraq had been forged. "

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/838

Powell - they've got 100 to 500 tonnes of WMD, plus they bought aluminum tubes for nuclear missles and they tried to buy uranium. Boy he seems pretty sure of himself, it's a shame the uranium document was a forgery, kinda like that CBS Bush Guard doc but those people lost thier job why shouldn't Bush?

Or maybe it'd be good to recall the definition of a lie.

lie. (n)
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Ok let's see the Bush admin was led to believe that Iraq had WMD and told the US that he "KNEW"... Uhh.. yeah that's lying.