Ooops.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

When the boss of a large corporation is caught at the top of an organization in turmoil, deceipt, found mishandling information and funds, mistakes and errors that embarass and cost the stockholders - it is common practice for him to accept the responsibility for the organization he heads, aknowledge responsibility for the errors and misjudgements of his employees, and offer an apology and resignation.

Or in the case of Enron or Worldcom you lose you job AND go to jail. Funny both Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers defense was, "we never meant to decieve. We thought we were telling the truth."

http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/19/klay.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3530021.stm


If you want a smile:

www.enron.com

[lochinvar]

Or unless that large corporation is Haliburton, in which case they are expected to deny all knowledge and behead a few underlings in the hope that all will blow away.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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

Yes, perhaps. Here are remarks at a Photo Op with Sec Powell before Prez Bush sent his Iraq Resolution letter to Congress:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/13565.htm
Just in case you don't trust the state dept, here is the White House transcripts:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020919-1.html

President Bush:
Well, I haven't gotten a report from what he intends to say. But let me give you just some general observations. First of all, there are no negotiations to be held with Iraq. They have nothing to negotiate. They're the people who said that they would not have weapons of mass destruction. The negotiations are over. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to lay out resolutions that confirms what Iraq has already agreed to, see.

Secondly, I don't trust Iraq, and neither should the free world. For 11 years, they have deceived the world. They have said, we'll conform to resolutions. They've never conformed to resolutions. They've never conformed to the agreement that they laid out 11 years ago. Sixteen times they've defied Security resolutions.

And so, they -- the burden of proof is -- must be place squarely on their shoulders. But there's no negotiations about whether or not they've been telling the truth or not.

The very last thing he mentioned was that "Regime Change" is standard American Policy.

Here are the Prez's statements when he signs the Resolution (#114)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021016-1.html

Bush:
The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons. The same dictator has a history of mass murder, striking other nations without warning; of intense hatred for America; and of contempt for the demands of the civilized world.

Read the whole thing, barely a mention of Freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Sadam Hussein. Whole thing was mostly about the threat of an Iraq that possesses WMDs and it's threat to America.

Congressional HJR 114 Authorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq, statement of prerequisites for said authorization:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

No mention of an "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" to free the Iraqi people, bring stability in the Middle East, or spread democracy throughout the world.

Sept 12th address to UN:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynami...20912%2D1.html

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

Yes, the people of Iraq live in brutal submission. He then turns back to WMDs (which the majority of the speech focused on). Then he continues to insinutate a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Letter to Conress March 21, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-5.html

Bush:
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

President War Letter to Congress (March 19, 2003):

Entire Text
Dear Mr. Speaker/President:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Still no mention of a Free Iraq...
Funny thing though, I once found this on the Whitehouse.gov site, but now I can't...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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?

No, I've read the resolutions presented to Congress, I've read the speeches before the resolutions. I'm sorry if I don't focus on media sound bites (well, at least not all the time ). There was clearly a focus on WMDs and the threat that an armed Iraq posed to the U.S. and its interests. It wasn't until later that they began shifting the focus to "Well, at least we freed the Iraqi people".

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Or unless that large corporation is Haliburton, in which case they are expected to deny all knowledge and behead a few underlings in the hope that all will blow away.

Now imaging Haliburton (or a Haliburton like company) in long term charge of your SS Personal Savings Account... Company folds 2 years before you retire, CEO moves to the French Riviera, and you're hoping the dumpster outside of Taco Bell will be left unlocked tonight...

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

No, I've read the resolutions presented to Congress, I've read the speeches before the resolutions. I'm sorry if I don't focus on media sound bites (well, at least not all the time ). There was clearly a focus on WMDs and the threat that an armed Iraq posed to the U.S. and its interests. It wasn't until later that they began shifting the focus to "Well, at least we freed the Iraqi people".

Which brings me back to our prayers and blessings, or lack thereof, for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians caught up and killed by our freedom actions. Did any of us ever give a thought to the people of Iraq before they were freed? Was it a suppertime discussion around the family table. Did you drive past Lebanese Tavernas and mutter to yourself, if only the people of Iraq were freed, then there would be a more diverse middle eastern offering at the mall?

Why were they the chosen people for our freedom efforts? Don't we have starving children in Appalachia that still need our help? Aren't there school children around the country who can't read and don't have breakfast in the mornings before school? Aren't there still sick and dying in our hospitals that don't have care or cures for whom research and health care funding could help? Don't our teenagers need reinforcements when they have to face up to and resist crime, sex, and drugs every day in their middle and high schools? Those are some of the people we pray for and talk about at our dinner table in my house.

[jeff]

And please, let's not have the same "Assuming facts not in evidence -- prove it!" accusation a few months from now. We've already been here.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Drifter

"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.

Hmm, I count another one: "Practices terror against its own people. Miss that one? Ignore it? Convenient, that...

Or maybe you're just "focusing" on your own interpretations, not what's actually there in black and white? You know, sort of like you keep insisting Bush did?

1. possses & produces chem weapons - lie

Or mistake of fact. But since you insist that it is ONLY the one, though it clearly COULD be the other, maybe there IS in fact a "lie" there somewhere...

See what comes of establishing your own personal standard for what makes a lie?

In actuality, I assume that you are only advancing your fervently held belief, based on your interpretation of the evidence, as the reality. But you will not extend the Administration the same courtesy, instead insisting on characterizing it in the most unflattering light, as "a lie". So why should we not do the same with your statement? Have we any better cause---or any worse? Not that I can see.

3. seeking nuclear weapons - I'm gonna go with lie on this.

See above.

Funny those sound like lies to me.

And you, of course, are a veritable human polygraph...

I don't suppose the possibility of your being wrong has ever occurred to you?

I know if the things Bernie Ebbers said were lies that merit a still prison sentence

Hmm, seems to me that those were actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence and testimony, to the satisfaction of a court. Small difference, I know, almost not worth mentioning...

(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.

Almost as convincing as your mere insistence that they are lies...must be...have to be...'cause you think so...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Drifter

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

Sorry, I'm still missing it. Enlighten me, oh thou of superior perspicacity and memory! Because as far as I can see all that shows that the Administration's assessment was ( or rather, probably was---there remains the possible Syrian exodus and the possibility that we just failed to discover the hiding places Saddam had months to devise ) mistaken. Wrong. Incorrect.

I see no "proof" of "knowing" exaggeration, deliberate deception, or "lies". Not even of "removing" contradictory evidence from intelligence reports.

For that "proof", I'm still waiting. Obviously, you don't feel the need to wait for mere evidence; your "feelings" are enough...right?

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.

And still we wait on proof of "deliberately" and "meant". Not that that's likely to stop you.

Uhh.. yeah that's lying.

Let's see, you say "that's lying" without any proof...so..."Uh, yeah, THAT'S lying."

Have I got the methodology straight? Any wrong statement, however believed by the maker, is a "lie"?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I was already groaning at the idea of dragging out "proof" for Inq of things I specifically recall reading news stories of testimony with respect to "Knowingly", "Exaggerated", "Removing". I'm not a clipping service and I'm just not going to do hours of work to "prove" (and then get into unending arguments about whether they're "proof" or not) something that has been so widely reported.

Besides, you already "know" the truth, right?

BTW, Inq's link to the Senate Resolution: other than listing UN resolutions, it doesn't mention any reasons whatsoever. What was the point of that link?

Sorry, mea culpa; wrong resolution. Here's the correct one:

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Besides, even if you feel in your heart that the administration acted without deception - they were still wrong,

Possibly; and on that one rationale. I am still not buying the argument you're selling: that the WMD angle was the only justification presented, or the only one that "matters", and that if it falls so too does the whole case for the war.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

When the boss of a large corporation is caught at the top of an organization in turmoil, deceipt, found mishandling information and funds, mistakes and errors that embarass and cost the stockholders - it is common practice for him to accept the responsibility for the organization he heads, aknowledge responsibility for the errors and misjudgements of his employees, and offer an apology and resignation.

Heh! In which world? I don't ever recall seeing a lot of that going on in this one...

Occasionally one sees a CEO forced to resign by the board of directors, who are his nominal ( collective ) superiors. In the case of Bush, WE are the Board of Directors. And we didn't demand that he step down. Indeed, we renewed his contract. You might not like it, I might not like it, but it's what happened...

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

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....

Not quite. It would be if I had unusually (in fact, chicken) shaped objects in my room, so Jeff decided to have Stan/Eval staff inspect it. However, I wouldn't let them surprise-inspect me; I'd make them wait, while they can hear through the door that I'm obviously rearranging things in the room. Then, I don't let them inspect my bottom drawer. Same story next time, only I don't let them inspect my desk, and there's a few feathers in my bottom drawer. Each time they start poking around a bit too much, I just throw them out. Additionally, Jeff has new pictures taken through my window (creeeeepy...) of distinctly chicken-looking objects sitting in my open bottom drawer, etc. I have also shown a long-time interest in a chicken-based offense against the room next door, as well as a tendency to egg my roommates when they get insolent.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

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?

...say what?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Not quite. It would be if I had unusually (in fact, chicken) shaped objects in my room, so Jeff decided to have Stan/Eval staff inspect it. However, I wouldn't let them surprise-inspect me; I'd make them wait, while they can hear through the door that I'm obviously rearranging things in the room. Then, I don't let them inspect my bottom drawer. Same story next time, only I don't let them inspect my desk, and there's a few feathers in my bottom drawer. Each time they start poking around a bit too much, I just throw them out. Additionally, Jeff has new pictures taken through my window (creeeeepy...) of distinctly chicken-looking objects sitting in my open bottom drawer, etc. I have also shown a long-time interest in a chicken-based offense against the room next door, as well as a tendency to egg my roommates when they get insolent.

I think that once you have waived your rights, you have waived control over the extent to that right. It's why people claiming "the fifth" have to claim it early and claim it completely. Once you provide access, the search no longer has limits.

[Soldier]

I agree.

Somebody should have mentioned that to Saddam when he was doing the same thing to the UN weapons inspectors.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I agree.

Somebody should have mentioned that to Saddam when he was doing the same thing to the UN weapons inspectors.

Ya, except that Iraq doesn't have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution for Democratic Government. Cool thing about a dictatorship.

[Soldier]

Now you're not making any sense. Your response to my analogy was that that wasn't how it should work. I agree that's not how an investigation should work, but pointed out that that's how it worked in Iraq. Now you just bring up that Iraq doesn't have the same laws as us. But it was UN resolutions that were being carried out (kind of), not Iraq's own laws. My point about the suspicious nature of Iraq's activities is the same regardless.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Besides, you already "know" the truth, right?

Ro