Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Quick poll about lying... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Quick poll about lying...
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, in a recently locked thread, Redskull has said that he doesn't think Bush deliberately lied about WMD; his personal opinion, as he's stated it, is that Bush just received some bad information and inserted it inadvisedly into a small, unimportant part of an otherwise important speech.

I'd be interested in hearing what everyone else thinks on this issue. How much did Bush and his administration actually know? Did they prevaricate? If they did, do their ends justify their means?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well Tom, first I might ask you to change the title of the thread to "Quick poll about Bush lying".

Second. I do not think Bush lied. I think he relied on information from a truseted ally that still stands by that information. The fact that our intelligence agencies could not verify the info does not mean it is not true. We know we lack Human Int. in that area. Now did Bush know that the info might be shaky? Probably, but with all the other info know about Saddam and his regiem(SP?) and what happened on Sept. 11. he took a worse case scenario. That is what all the detractors from the Sept. 11 report are saying. We had intelligence but we could not connect the dots. Now we have dots and we are trying to connect them.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What is a lie?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a political lie.

Nixon stating he had no involvement in the planning of Watergate was a lie.

Suborning purgery so you dont get caught with your penis hanging out in the Oval office is a political lie.

Stating that Iraq is attempting to resource nuclear material is not.

We know that they have in the past. We know that they planned to do so in the future. We can reasonably and logically deduce that they may in fact have been doing it right under our noses. The possibility that they may have been turning to N. Korea or even Iran as sources of fissil material does not invalidate the fact that they probably were. We may have gotten the geography wrong but we didnt get the facts of Iraqi weapons programs wrong.

Anyone else find it troubling that we found the mobile labs? Anyone else have a problem with the finding that their head of nuclear weapons had the current program details burried in his rose garden?

Anyone else here think that someone is being unreasonable in applying ocams razor to the point that the fact that Iraq had and actively pursued WMD and our only error might be in minutia of details and not the fact that a nation such as Iraq with geopolitacal designs on its neighbors was aggressively seeking to arm itself with weapons which would fufil its geopolitical goals?

Did Bush lie?

No

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 774

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This brings up a point that I've been pretty curious about and which I haven't gotten a good answer to yet. I haven't been paying a great deal of attention to the entire Bush lying or not issue, but I had thought that there was a bit of a bruhaha back in March that involved an admission that the Bush administration had consistently claimed certainty that they didn't have. To wit, at a certain point, there seemed to be a definite shift in the justifications for war with Iraq from saying that "We think that they have WMD" to "We know that they have WMD and we know where they are." And yet, recently, the only noise that I've heard about this issue is centered around the State of the Union.

Is my recollection of the stories in March incorrect or is there some other reason why these additional cases of possible dishonesty are not being dicussed? I was seriously suprised that all I've been hearing (well, more overhearing) about recently, from both sides of the issue, is the State of the Union.

Oh, for the record, I said prior to the 2000 elections that I felt that neither of the candidates had the ability, personal integrity, or moral character that we should expect from our president. The past three years have not offered me any compelling reasons to change my assesment. Do I think President Bush knowing and deliberately lied to the American people? You bet I do.

edit: I wanted to add that I supported and still do support the War in Iraq. I believe that there are many valid reasons for the war. I regret that our leaders decided to ignore these for the more emotionally telling ones that, since they couldn't prove, they had to fabricate.

[ July 28, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 107 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What has the administration had to fabricate?

So far we have found multiple support about the evidence that was presented in 1441 to the UN. We have found massive research facilities. We have found people who attest to the veracity of the facts as we presented them to the UN. We have found ample physical evidence concerning production facilities and deployment systems. In fact as each week goes on our claims in the 1441 resolution streagthen by evidenciary support.

The only change I have seen in the justification of the war was the shear scope of human suffering that even the UN was unaware of. It turns out the real justification for the war should have been from the start removing a government which slaughtered its people without care at a level that makes even the most jaded person blink. The conditions outside of baghdad were appaling and so desperate that the occassion of warfare was viewed by the people as a good thing.

If there has been any fabrication it is that in hind sight we now realize that the Saddam givernment went beyond the pale of what a civilized globe can tollerate and he did it behind our backs at the cost of millions of deaths. Screw the WMD....the justification alone should be that thousands of Iraqis arent dead at the end of every month anymore. Remeber the thousands dead the UN was aware of each month before the war? The fact that its not thousands of dead monthly anymore should absolve any other reason being needed for toppling his government.

Again since we simply dont know the facts about the intel and wont know for sure until long after this war is over, I think its a bit disengenous to claim that as far as the adminstrations claims go, a minor detail about the geographic resourcing of yellow cake by sadam, is justification for declaring all administration facts presented as cause for ceasing the armastice are now invalid.

Each day we find more. Each day another point we present to the UN is confirmed. Each time this happens those who claim that America was without justification for waging war find their argument becoming tiny against a roar of facts. Eventually at some point you have to realize that whether the yellow cake was sourced from africa, europe, or asia, Sadam really was trying to get it. To call your president a liar because his intel got the country of origin wrong is beyond being nitpicky. To further ignore the rest of his speech in context also ignores the absolute good he has done for every Iraqi who would have otherwised died every month under the old government.

I think people have become uneducated about what a Lie is. Intentionally misrepresenting oneself and ideas is a lie. To make a factual error without realizing it is called a mistake. People claim Bush is an idiot. If hes an idiot then why would he have the ability to lie over something which his detractors claim to be sourced by a cabal of staff. If hes an idiot hes simply a talking head and so incompetent that the entire government would be so disfunctional that he would be impeached. If however he made the speech and it was based upon what was presented to the UN < and it was> and he belived what he was saying to be true, the worst he can be guilty of is being mistaken.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Tom before you bait Redskullvw, please note that it is not his personal opinion that Bush did not lie. It is rather your opinion that he did.

I note that Red did post the accepted factual proofs that endorse what Bush said, and only pointed out to you that the one thing you hold up as a lie was actually misreported to make it seem wrong, when in fact even though this one fact, that Iraq went to Niger to negotiate getting yellow cake as ingredients to nuclear weapon, was not refuted. In this one instance 5 out of 6 intelligience sources corroborate it, and only the CIA held it at arms length - not saying it is wrong - only saying it, as an agency, does not have independent information to endorse it. Rather than say thay Tenet rejects it, you must say that he is neutral in the CIA's ability to authenticate it.

This is understandable because of the lack of CIA humint on the ground in this regaion. Recall as stated in other threads, that since the end of the cold war, with Aldrich Ames and Hanssen giving up our agents in place so the Soviets could roll them up, there are no assets there to prove or disprove anythiing.

Also remember that the full quote that you keep refering to as a lie started that "The British have given us intelligience which says..." The British still stand by their conclusion, and after a parliamentary inquiry exactly like the one the Dempocrats keep demanding be done here. Why? It's already been done, and Bush won. The forged document may even be a factual forgery. We do know it was made by a Clinton appointee, frustrated by being replaced by the new Bush administration. (It appears the replacement was certainly warranted.)

The part you are accepting as truth is actually a moot point. Wilson was a retired ambassador to Niger who met with the politicians involved in the so-called trolling mission from Iraq. He reported the government denied they were contacted about selling fissionable materials, even though the meeting did take place, and there is virtually no other export from Niger other than the yellow cake that Iraq would be interested in. Common sense would argue against this being a black and white issue - when it behooves the Niger government not to admit what amounts to international crimes. Wilson did not do any investigation, he simply spoke with the bureaucrats and accepted their story.

The argument that you did not make - that Bush may have lied about starting a preemptive war to stop imminent acts of terrorism is also invalid. Please note that the war was not preemptive - it was simply resuming an active engagement that had been held in abeyance for 12 years as Iraq broke agreement after agreement, and Congress and the UN agreed the agreements were broken. Not preemptive by definition.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"So, in a recently locked thread, Redskull has said that he doesn't think Bush deliberately lied about WMD; his personal opinion, as he's stated it, is that Bush just received some bad information and inserted it inadvisedly into a small, unimportant part of an otherwise important speech.

I'd be interested in hearing what everyone else thinks on this issue. How much did Bush and his administration actually know? Did they prevaricate? If they did, do their ends justify their means?"

Is exaggerating intelligence information considered lying? It certainly isn't being very truthful. That being said, it is more likely that Bush was relying upon evidence that he knew wasn't stable enough to draw concrete conclusions from. Which bring to mind the question, should intelligence shape public policy? Or vice-versa? Which way was it in this case?

I found it distasteful that President Bush deflected blame for this mistake upon George Tenet. Either way, it seems that many Presidents in the past have taken the blame for mistakes made under their watch...Reagan did in Iran-Contra, even though it is very likely he honestly didn't know what was going on.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, Mr.Squicky, you may want to look at the transcript of the Tim Russert/Paul Wolfowitz television interview that covered your concerns about why the war started and what was said.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think .... I don't know any of the actors. So I think that I can just offer my take.

It is hard to say that Bush deceived; I was not misled. Didn't believe it then, don't believe it now. Shame on any person with who thinks they pay attention to Africa who believes otherwise. Or pays attention to Europe. Or pays attention to the UN.

Did anyone in the administration lie? Certainly. Is Bush responsible for the advisors he has picked? Of course. Is there proof that Iraq was an uncontrolled threat to the US? Of course not; names, dates, places, hijackers please?

I don't think we know what, if anything, Iraq, or any other country, plans to do in the future. We have intelligence, we have guesses and predictions, but we are not fortune tellers. If we were, we'd all know what the US planned to do in the future, and we'd plan accordingly.

We can only go on the evidence, particularly the physical evidence. Which seems to be lacking in this case -- When you set aside the rhetoric, and the tiled images of our leaders, what is there but talk, poverty, and dry, hot sand?

Mobile labs? What mobile labs? You mean the portable birthday party van, with the helium?

Buried under the roses ... You mean the 1990 details. Under the roses, making them grow?

Squickness: You are seeing the conservative media in action.

And we see its students here.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
was the information exaggerated? No and Lambert has explained why it wasnt exaggerated. Since it wasnt exaggerated you cant then assume untruth. The nuetral view the CIA has taken on the issue is in fact the CIA directors responsibility and as such responsibility would extend to the disclosure of intel data in a State of the Union speech, he is ultimately the one responsible for making the president aware of the veracity of what the president intended to say. The CIA director gave it the green light when he perhapse should have issued a yellow light with the caveat that the CIA has yet to determine veracity beyond what was supplied to us by other governments. So guess what the buck does stop at the Directors desk.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"The argument that you did not make - that Bush may have lied about starting a preemptive war to stop imminent acts of terrorism is also invalid. Please note that the war was not preemptive - it was simply resuming an active engagement that had been held in abeyance for 12 years as Iraq broke agreement after agreement, and Congress and the UN agreed the agreements were broken. Not preemptive by definition."
I honestly believe that whether or not US military engagement in Iraq was pre-emptive, is still up for some honest debate. I do not believe Iraq's obvious violation of the UN codes should be traditionally thought of as a first strike directly against the United States. A tradiitonal pre-emptive, first strike is Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, or Hitler invading and toppling the various governments in Europe without just cause; I just don't see Sadaam Hussein's actions as being declarations of war against the United States. I personally see North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other rogue nations as being much more of a threat than Hussein ever was. North Korea actually has nuclear capabilities and could have ICBM technology in the next 10 years or so and their dictator is probably more insane than Hussein ever was. The Saudi royal family inadvertantly funnels money to terrorist groups in order to appease these groups, so they can at least keep some semblance of order in their society. Yeah, there are many tyrants that deserve to be eradicated from the face of this earth, but that wouldn't be a realistic foreign policy goal, would it? I do not have faith ability of the policy of nation-building to be a realistic foreign policy goal. I would rather the Bush Administration would have more Realists in their State and Defense Departments and less of these neoconservative warhawks.

I will just be glad when the United States will not need to depend so much on Middle Eastern oil for our energy needs, then the corrupt oil barons can just rot on their piles of sand and oil that will be no longer important or valuable.

That is just my two cents, of course. [Smile]

[ July 28, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Of course not; names, dates, places, hijackers please?"
Almost all of the hijackers were Saudi and none were Iraqi. The only devious reason that I can think of, as to why Bin Laden would make sure the hijacking crew was overwhelmingly Saudi, would be to cause more unecessary friction and distrust between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

But that is just a theory, perhaps the status quo of Saudi Arabia is actually more extremist than what the the Royal family wants us to believe.

[ July 28, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Zyne

In all the times I have read your posts I never thought you to be illogical until now. While I respect what you think, I would point out that Iraq and its leadership has spent the last 12 years denouncing the USA and declaring that eventually Iraq would strike bake at the USA and its Allies.

While I personally think most of the Arab world which purports to be our ally are not ally in fact, a Iraqi military freed from Un inspection and Coallition overflights would have easily been able to complete its programs and acheive a geopolitical domination of the region by holding Isreal hostage via WMD. A condition which we as a world power could not allow to happen for political, economic, cultural, and humanitarian reasons.

So you dont belive the 1441 evidence presented?

Ok so explain away the missle delivery systems with chemical dispersal warheads of sufficient range to reach into neighboring countries? Or do they suddenly not exist?

How about the documents uncovered by the house searching by the UN before the war started which proved that the iraqi chemical program was in existance and that its dispersal was a policy of the Iraqi government?

How about the electronic intercept data which had Iraqis discussing how to safegard their weapons stockpiles form UN discovery?

How about the Biological and chemical processing trucks and trailors we have found? Are we to belive that these small labs were seriously made for mobile production of brake fluid?

How about the fact that the plans for the nuclear weapons program contained steps to be taken as soon as the UN was out of Iraq? Or even what about the never before inspected parts of their main nuke facility which gave every indication of being in full production and only recently dismantled? Explain away the "hot" radiation.

How about the fact that the hijackers of 9-11 may have in fact recieved training at Sadam's terrorist facillity which was run by abu nidal until he was suddenly found dead shortly after 9-11 after having lived openly in Iraq for years.

How about the other facilities where Islamic radicals trained in Iraq? Do they suddenly no exist because we cant' know whats going on in a foreign country?

So you dont belive the ex scientists interviewed by both the UN and now the USA which confirm that sadam had a program designed to weaponize WMD technology?

Is there a reason why Sadam had stockpiles of chemical and biological artillery shells waiting to be filled? If i didnt have Chem or bio weapons and i expected an attack Id rather have explosive artillery shells than have empty shells ready for deployment.

Why was the Iraqi Army issued WMD protective suits? Or even Gas masks? We havent used Chem or bio weapons on any scale since WW I and didnt use them in the Gulf War part one. Why would sadam waste money and military resources on equipment he didnt need? Unless he planned on deploying Chem and Bio warfare?

Before the war , I agreed with Paul that diplomaticly we had shot ourselves in the foot over what to do with Iraq. But the undelayiing justifications for nulifying the armistice are incontrovertable and factual. We were justified even if the diplomacy was half baked.

FJIC said I will just be glad when the United States will not need to depend so much on Middle Eastern oil for our energy needs, then the corrupt oil barons can just rot on their piles of sand and oil that are no longer important or valuable.

Less than 25% of our oil comes from the MIddle East. Over 50% of our electricity comes from coal

as for what is lying ? What about speculation on availble evidence? The fact that so far our speculations have turned out to be factually based on real physical in country evidence and corraberation by the people responsible for the WMD programs would have to indicate that what we determined from the availible intel was pretty close to reality.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The question posed being, how much, if any, did the Bush "administration actually know" when they framed lies as truth?

CIA director being part of the administration, I think that that would end the query.

The forged document might be a "factual forgery," whatever that is, which is okay, since we said the British said it, and they did, in fact, say it. And even if they didn't, Clinton did it. And Bush can rely on Clinton, and if or when he's deceived, he's not at fault. Which we all know is true since Clinton invented AIDS to take out conservatives. (And he invented black cats, too, and also losing lottery numbers!!!!!!!!!)

FIJC, you are showing lots of sense [Smile]

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Reds .... I believe that viability controls over words, always.

Nobody else ever said the UN should pull out of Iraq. The UN didn't say it, either as a body or as the folks who were there. I have a plan to take over the world (yes, Pinky), you gonna bomb my house next?

I do not think we have Arab allies.

You use "fact" awfully glibly. You use "confirm" with unfounded ease. Each of your examples has a counter-factual explanation. Whilst you might score some and I might score some, can't we agree we've nothing beyond circumstance to prove our charges?

I think 25/50 is a bit overstated .... IIRC, 40/40 would be more inline today -- Considering, not only power production, but also transportation (1 hummer = 1 terrorist training camp plus change).

The neocons, you included?, might have an irrefutable fact that the British did in fact say X, and Bush did say that the British said X ... If we are to be a nation of grackles, led by parrots, so be it. But I thought that we thought -- that we heard, and listened, and assessed, and confirmed, and analyzed and reached our own conclusions; as opposed to blindly accepting a monarch's appointee's word on faith -- and that such ought to be the end on it.

Almighty Britain. Hallowed be thy intelligence?

I don't think y'all all are meaning to say that. But that is the conclusion, the only conclusion, to "I said 'the British said it', therefore it must be true."

There were innumerable reasons to intervene in Iraq, and innumerable reasons to take control elsewhere. I have not heard them from this administration, and I have heard no principled distinction among Iraq, Liberia, the Congo, Rwanda, etc. Have you?

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"No and Lambert has explained why it wasnt exaggerated. Since it wasnt exaggerated you cant then assume untruth. The nuetral view the CIA has taken on the issue is in fact the CIA directors responsibility and as such responsibility would extend to the disclosure of intel data in a State of the Union speech, he is ultimately the one responsible for making the president aware of the veracity of what the president intended to say. The CIA director gave it the green light when he perhapse should have issued a yellow light with the caveat that the CIA has yet to determine veracity beyond what was supplied to us by other governments. So guess what the buck does stop at the Directors desk."
Oh, I think it was. Did Saddam Hussein attempt to buy buy uranium from Niger? The Bush Administration claimed he was, but even now that claim is now inconclusive. There have been many claims made by the Administration that are now being decided as false information. Hussein didn't have the aluminum tubes needed to make nuclear weapons and the unmanned aerial vehicles supposedly capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons do not exist either.

The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, and neither have any of those mobile germ labs. And where are the 1 million lbs. of sarin, mustard, and VX gasses? Apparently, those are MIA too.

All I want to point out is that when a public policy shapes intelligence, perhaps intelligence analysts under pressure see what they need to see and public officials then see what they want to see out of evidence that is less than dependable.

I personally see many benefits to sticking to the US Constitution and have Congress declare war upon a threatening nation, not the Executive. Even after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR asked Congress for a Declaration of war, even though there was clearly enough evidence to authorize the movement of troops. I would like to see the pros and cons of proposed military action completely debated in Congress and military action only taken after a Congressional declaration of war, and I would also like to see a policy of nonintervention, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, applied to American foreign policy today.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"I don't think y'all all are meaning to say that. But that is the conclusion, the only conclusion, to "I said 'the British said it', therefore it must be true.""
Or what is even worse, "Saddam Hussein has nuclear capabilities, has stockpiles of Vx gas and anthrax, this is true because you cannot factually prove me wrong!!"

[ July 28, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Real quick:
quote:
Almost all of the hijackers were Saudi and none were Iraqi.
Um, proof? By my last tally, barely half of them were. Or is this just another case of creating false images through misinformed hyperbole?

Now...

The original idea of this thread is a joke. Not because of whether Bush lied or did not lie, but because neither Tom nor RS are going to accept anything other than black-and-white terms on this, because both are going to be stubborn about it.

The truth of the matter is entirely different. In all actuality, Bush probably believed wholeheartedly the things he said earlier this year. Was he decieved? Not exactly, but it's becoming more obvious that his confidence was way overstated. In fact, whether or not there are NBCs present and/or hidden in Iraq (or even if they were moved), it's pretty clear that the US did not know precisely where the weapons were, and did not fully anticipate what would have been done with them were they to be moved. Repeatedly, Bush claimed that locations were known, and that trafficking routes were being monitored through intelligence. Obviously, he was—to date—wrong. No amount of backpedaling and excuses will change the glaring fact that the weapons are not where we thought they were. Accept it.

This still doesn't convince me that there was blatant lying. However, what it does convince me of is what I suspected all along with the issue: that Bush was making a huge tactial error politically. By all rights, he didn't need to "know" where the weapons were, nor did he even need to know any locations. All he needed to do was have enough patience for a proper case to be built for the UN to follow us in and take out the offenders. Instead, whether there were weapons or not, most of the Baath party made off with tails tucked while the back doors were wide open.

The thing is, some people are going to continue to believe conspiracy-theorist ideas that Bush was "lying to the public blah blah blah," while others are going to make every excuse under the sun, while crying out against the "damn liberal media blah blah blah" until blue in the face.

And you know what? This thread is going to go nowhere. RedSkull is still going to hold delusions about Tom being some liberal bogeyman who is attacking all the good, moral right-wingers at Ornery, while Tom is going to continue getting frustrated that people actually believe so contrarily to him. And this thread will quickly degrade into insults, the more each side disagrees (though not necessarily from either RS or Tom).

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"FJIC said I will just be glad when the United States will not need to depend so much on Middle Eastern oil for our energy needs, then the corrupt oil barons can just rot on their piles of sand and oil that are no longer important or valuable."
So long as oil remains the life-blood of our economy, I will not be comfortable with depending on the Middle East for even around 25% of our oil needs. Actually, I would like to see some sort of a middle class develop in the Middle East, (not including Turkey) because I think that joblessness contributes to the popularity of extremist Islamic groups. A huge population explosion coupled with a lot of jobless young people adds up to a lot of emotionally immature people finding scapegoats for their boredom and lives riddled with poverty and despair. Unfortunately, this is a prime opportunity for demogogues of the worst kind to rally the mobs and find less than appealing outlets for their frustration.

Honestly, I have always wondered why so many young people in the Middle East always have time for protests, demonstrations, marches, and general madness--because they don't have anything else to do.

[ July 29, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Um, proof? By my last tally, barely half of them were. Or is this just another case of creating false images through misinformed hyperbole?"
Last time I checked, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

quote:
"And you know what? This thread is going to go nowhere. RedSkull is still going to hold delusions about Tom being some liberal bogeyman who is attacking all the good, moral right-wingers at Ornery, while Tom is going to continue getting frustrated that people actually believe so contrarily to him. And this thread will quickly degrade into insults, the more each side disagrees (though not necessarily from either RS or Tom)."
To tell you the truth, I don't care who hates who, or whatever personal issues go on during threads that I have no wish to partake in myself. I just want to have some good discussion.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I hope this helps clarify any confusing information as to the background of the September 11th hijackers:

A year later, the 19 hijackers are still a tangle of mystery

http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/sept11/attacks/thehijackers.html

September 8, 2002

BY DAFNA LINZER ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- They traveled the world, often in pairs, studying and working across Europe and the United States. Mostly in their 20s, they came from secular, middle-class Arab families and blended well into Western society-- hardly the profile of Islamic zealots plotting the worst terrorist attack in history.

While many details surrounding their daily lives have been discovered, these 19 Arab men remain an enigma. While they are assumed to have been driven by hatred for America, there is scant concrete, publicly known evidence of their mind-set, the means by which they were recruited and the point at which they were told about the mission.

Although 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors have alleged in court documents that it was Mohamed Atta of Egypt, Ziad Jarrah of Lebanon and Marwan Al-Shehhi of the United Arab Emirates who "formed and maintained an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Germany" in the late 1990s.

The three Sept. 11 pilots lived in Hamburg, where they studied at universities and worked at a computer-packing company. They socialized with the local Muslim community, attending mosques and community celebrations. Jarrah even had a girlfriend. A day before he hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, he wrote her a farewell letter, telling her he wouldn't be back.

In the days after Sept. 11, Jarrah's and Atta's families refused to believe what they were hearing. But as their sons have failed to materialize, they have had little choice but to accept the truth.

Mohamed Alshehri's two sons, Waleed and Wail, were with Atta aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

"If that turns out to be the truth, then I'll never, never accept it from them. I'll never forgive them for that," the Saudi has said of his sons.

U.S. officials believe the brothers trained in Afghan camps before heading for Florida. A drug store owner in Delray Beach remembered them buying soda and candy bars days before the attacks.

Sticking close together, the Alshehri brothers stayed with each other in Florida; Atta and Al-Shehhi, who were cousins, traveled together across the United States; Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi held a meeting in Malaysia with a suspect in the USS Cole bombing. When the meeting was over, the two flew together to San Diego.

According to federal court papers, 13 of the hijackers entered the United States between April 23 and June 29, 2001. Once in America, they crisscrossed the country living on-and-off in suburban towns with friendly names-- Lemon Grove, Calif., Laurel, Md., Deerfield Beach, Fla.

Over the next 18 months, they spent time in a dozen states including Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Arizona, Virginia, Maine and Massachusetts. Seven were pilots and several others studied or visited flight schools around the country.

Most entered the United States legally but aroused suspicions wherever they went.

Atta abandoned a plane on a Miami tarmac instead of parking it properly; Hani Hanjour said he had 600 hours of flight experience and a valid pilot's license, but flew so poorly that instructors at a Maryland flight school wouldn't let him go solo. One month later, Hanjour was with four other hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.

The hijackers bribed motor vehicle employees to obtain state driver's licenses. They rented apartments, opened bank accounts, took out gym memberships, bought airline tickets online and walked around with wads of cash. They took flight training by day, went to bars at night, even got speeding tickets.

Overseas, several of them spent time in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Germany, Spain, Malaysia and the Czech Republic where authorities maintain that Atta met with an Iraqi spy.

Nothing has publicly tied the hijackers to the anthrax attacks although they were in close proximity to the American Media Inc. office, site of the nation's first fatal anthrax infection in October. A Florida pharmacist also said he treated Atta for a burning sensation on his hands.

What little doubt U.S. investigators had that 33-year-old Atta was the ringleader was all but removed by a videotape that captured Osama bin Laden saying that Mohamed "was in charge of the group."

As for the men who carried out the attacks, bin Laden said the plan was not revealed until just before they boarded the planes. The videotape is the strongest publicly known evidence linking the hijackers directly to the al-Qaida chief.

There is no evidence that any of the hijackers knew Zacarias Moussaoui. But Moussaoui, the only man charged in the United States in connection with Sept. 11, seemed to know some of the same people as the hijackers, replicated some of their movements and attended a couple of flight schools.

U.S. officials believe Moussaoui could have been training for Sept. 11 or a similar mission. But the missing 20th hijacker was likely Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who lived in Hamburg with Atta and who failed four times to get a U.S. entry permit. Binalshibh wired money to Moussaoui, a Florida flight school where Jarrah was training and to at least one hijacker. Authorities believe Binalshibh fled Germany for Pakistan around Sept. 11.

Much is known about the movements of the Hamburg cell. Less is known about some of the younger Saudi hijackers such as 26-year-old Satam Suqami, who was on Flight 11 from Boston with Atta and the Alshehri brothers. Mohald al-Shehri, who was on Flight 175 from Boston, was apparently unrelated to the other two Al-Shehris.

The FBI has determined that Nawaf Alhazmi and Salem Alhazmi, both on Flight 77, weren't related, a U.S. law enforcement official said. And three hijackers with the last name Alghamdi were also unrelated. An independent Arabic translator, a native Saudi, has said bin Laden uttered the name Alghamdi several times on the videotape.

Copyright 2002 Associated Press.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To tell you the truth, I don't care who hates who, or whatever personal issues go on during threads that I have no wish to partake in myself. I just want to have some good discussion.
This thread ain't it.

quote:
Last time I checked, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.
And by my last check into FBI records, I got the following:
AMERICAN AIRLINES #11
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national 1
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national 2
3) Wail M. Alshehri
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national 3
5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national 4
UNITED AIRLINES #175
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
5) Mohand Alshehri
AMERICAN AIRLINES #77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national 5
2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national 6
3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national 7
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national 8
5) Hani Hanjour -
UNITED AIRLINES #93
1) Saeed Alghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national 9
3) Ahmed Alnami
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah

I'd like to know who found out the nationality, though it isn't too outrageous to believe. However, I still maintain that bringing it up in the conversation is hyperbole, since no one was claiming the hijackers were Iraqi to begin with.

[ July 29, 2003, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Leto ]

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Leto

i am far from being intractible. I do think the government routinely lies or presents facts in a way to acheive policy agendas of both departments and also of administrations. However in this case i think equateing Bush's repetition of 16 words which had a neutral oppinion as far as the CIA is concerned to being evidenciary of a whole scale program of lies to permit wars at all costs is rediculous.

There is a grwoing body of evidence and information which is coraberating the charges we brought against Iraq in 1441. That isnt even up for debate. What is up for debate is that in some cases what we claimed in charges was off only in detail and not in substance.

To make this clear it is as if we declared that Sadam was building weapons labs and painting them blue. We have found the weapons labs and the only thing we have wrong is that they happen to be painted orange. Does this mean out intel was worthless? Does it mean that we were duped into war? Does it mean we were lied to by our President? I am willing to give Bush an allowance that maybe it wasnt Nigeria that was the source attempted by iraq. Tom is not because of a nitpick detail over the specific source of where and when Sadam's agents went to innvestigate the possibility of buying yellow cake for fissil material.

especially in this instance we have our own evidence to suggest that our human intel was woefully biased and ineffectual at getting to the bottom of the matter, while Britain, Kuwait, Isreal, and Italy all declare that they did indeed corraberate this information with their own human intel assets.

Maybe the debate should be why do we not have a foreign service corp of professionals who will look past party lines, as was not the case in the Nigeria question, and put the wellbeing of US citizens first over political ambitions. As everything stands right now, and without being able to see into the President's mind, no person with any sembelance of intellect and logic can declare that the man was telling a lie about anything. The fact that we are seeing our points in 1441 validated as each day passes may mean that at the very least we should give him the benefit of the doubt that Iraq did indeed seek resources from Nigera. We know that Iraqis were there. We know they talked to high officials. We know that Nigera has few exports that Iraq would even need. But the fact that iraq had hot nuke labs that were unknown before the war means that Iraq had to have had some sort of radioactive material that could make these unknown labs hot.

Common Sense was written by my ancestor. He couldn't understand why people would choose not to adopt the new republic over being subjects of a king. In this case i cant understand why some people are ignoring the evidence we have right now, adding to it intel which allowed us to find the evidence, and the track record of Iraq just so that they can make a wild accusation that Bush is a liar because no one in the Nigeria government is admiting to ever even meeting with the Iraqis. The Iraqis were there. Some one isnt telling the truth and I'll give you a hint they dont live in the USA.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"And you know what? This thread is going to go nowhere."

There's a reason I said it was a "poll," not a discussion. I wanted to see what people believed, and why they believed it; I wasn't under the mistaken assumption that anyone would genuinely convince anybody else.

It's all about the underlying assumptions, here, and the hidden biases -- especially when it comes down to arguing about issues of trust. I just like knowing HOW people are biased, and in what ways, so that I know what they're really arguing about when they pretend to be arguing about something else.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You know, Tom, when I did this very thing elsewhere, I got my ass censored, and censored very hard for it. I recall you were one of the people who said I shouldn't have done it then (something about not have everything be a "Leto vs. stupid people" match), and yet you're doing the same thing here. I'mm not saying you shouldn't ask, but why the hell is it okay here, when I get slapped down for it?

(clarification: Tom had nothing to do with me getting slapped down, he just vocally disapproved, which is fine)

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's all about the underlying assumptions, here, and the hidden biases -- especially when it comes down to arguing about issues of trust. I just like knowing HOW people are biased, and in what ways, so that I know what they're really arguing about when they pretend to be arguing about something else.
Good luck.

One interesting thing I've learned about human nature is that we hardly ever make initial decisions based on fact, and that introspection is nothing more than guesswork.

In other words, most decisions we make are based on emotion and training. Then, when someone asks us (or we ask ourselves) why we do something, we go back and assign motives and plausible explanations. We don't even realize most of the time that that's what we're doing. Between that and an unwillingness to change, you'll find that people will assign what sound like very logical reasons to the strangest behaviors.

(Classic case: Man is angry with girlfriend/wife. Man has murderous thoughts, entertains them because he is angry and weak. Man comes up with reasons he should kill girlfriend/wife, and, having justification, does it.)

I don't think you can find anyone who doesn't make decisions that way. But the thing that separates the truly honest from the rest of us is that the truly honest are willing to admit they were wrong and change their minds and retrain their emotions.

At any rate, with all this going on, you'd be hard-pressed to get the real reasons people do things, which is where "good luck" came from. I'll take a stab at it, though.

I am predisposed to believe President Bush. I like him. I think he's an honest man. When he says something, I trust that it's true first, because of emotion and training.

(I think that comes from what I've read about his private life. Personal morality really counts with me. As a counterexample, I was neutral toward President Clinton until it came out that he was aldulterous. That upset me, probably for many reasons. The reasoning afterward went like this: if he can't keep an oath to his wife, what else is he willing to do?)

Now we get to the reasoning after the emotion: I have a list of facts and inferences which seem to be indisputable, and which justify my initial reaction. I'll present it as a loose (not rigerous) proof.

1. The British are a trusted ally, and have been for a very long time.
2. CIA intelligence hasn't been stellar recently.
3. The British have better intelligence in that region.
4. The British stand by their intelligence.
5. The CIA said it could not confirm British intelligence.
6. By #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5: the decision to go with British intelligence on the subject of uranium purchase by Saddam is justified.
7. President Bush attributed the intelligence regarding uranium to the British.
8. By #6 and #7, Bush was giving the American people the administration's actual reasons for going to war.

Statements like, "It was for political gain!" strike me as unfounded as statements of, "It was to distract the nation from the Monika scandal!" There is absolutely no reason to put a prejudice like that into reasoning, so I don't.

There you have it: my predispositions and reasoning. I'm being brutally honest. This is how I think.

One more thing: it might be nice if you had stated what you were really looking for at the beginning of the thread. As it is, it looked like you were starting Yet Another Bush Lied thread.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I SAID what I'm looking for: what people think Bush did, and why they think so. I criticized Leto once for a similar thing because I felt his poll was actually a thinly-veiled attempt to get a point across -- he basically said as much at the time -- whereas I'm deliberately trying to keep mine open (and as non-judgemental as possible, given of course the fact that I have my own strong opinions on the issue -- which is why I haven't voiced 'em in this thread).

People can feel free to second-guess their own motivations and beliefs as much as they want on this thread, but my original intent was just to get a feel for the issue and the justifications that we all provided. Too MUCH introspection will actually defeat the point. [Smile]

[ July 29, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"And by my last check into FBI records, I got the following:
AMERICAN AIRLINES #11
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national 1
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national 2
3) Wail M. Alshehri
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national 3
5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national 4
UNITED AIRLINES #175
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
5) Mohand Alshehri
AMERICAN AIRLINES #77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national 5
2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national 6
3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national 7
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national 8
5) Hani Hanjour -
UNITED AIRLINES #93
1) Saeed Alghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national 9
3) Ahmed Alnami
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah"

I saw that same press release before I even chose to post the newspaper article that I did. Did you check the date on that press release? It's dated September 27th, 2001, which is just a little bit outdated. We have learned much more about the hijackers since then. Because of that, I just opted to post the Sun-Times article, because it was far more recent than that FBI press release was.

With all due respect, I don't see my post as hyperbole at all. WmLambert was discussing whether or not our military engagement in Iraq was an act of pre-emption. He respectfully believed it wasn't and stated why, while I, on the otherhand, believed it was. This was why I posted that none of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq, and that almost all of them were from Saudi Arabia. Doesn't that look a little suspicious to you? We have mainly Saudis training with Bin Laden (a Saudi himself), then we learn that the majority of hijackers were Saudi nationals, and then we also find out that members of the Saudi royal family have been inadvertently funding terrorist groups in Saudi Arabia. After all the evidence we see piling up against Saudi Arabia, then we go and attack Iraq and oust Hussein from power. Arguably, Iraq could have been taken care of under the auspices of a UN mission, with the United States leading, but that didn't happen, and now we can't find the mobile weapons labs, uranium, or the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons we were told they had within their borders.

I am not using hyperbole here, the fact is that Saudi Arabia had far more evidence implicating members of the Royal family aiding and funding terrorist groups, than there ever was with Iraq. Even if this is done for appeasement, there is no exuse for that if they consider themselves our allies.

When Caspian sea oil actually comes through and we then start to obtain more of our oil through Russia, I would like to see how tolerant we will continue to be towards the often deceitful behavior propogated by members of the Royal family that the US government has so far, chosen to ignore.

[ July 29, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because of that, I just opted to post the Sun-Times article, because it was far more recent than that FBI press release was.
And I still want to know where the information came from. You may be correct, but I want to be able to adequately update my info, and third-hand accounts don't "do it" for me. However, my desire to know the source is tangential, at this point.

quote:
With all due respect, I don't see my post as hyperbole at all. WmLambert was discussing whether or not our military engagement in Iraq was an act of pre-emption.
With all due respect, had you quoted Lambert, and actually addressed the issue of why we attacked Iraq, what you posted wouldn't have been hyperbole. Instead, you quoted Zyne out of context, and used that as a chance to post a non-sequitur fact as if it somehow directly influenced the attack on Iraq. You created an argument that had nothing to do with what Lambert said, by quoting someone else, and taking off in your own direction.

quote:
I am not using hyperbole here, the fact is that Saudi Arabia had far more evidence implicating members of the Royal family aiding and funding terrorist groups, than there ever was with Iraq.
More hyperbole. Saudi Arabia's financial ties to al Qaeda are not the reason we went into Iraq. No matter how much you try to paint a picture otherwise, the two are not related. That you are applying a relational situation between the two is the main source of your hyperbole to begin with. The two issues are separate from each other, as separate as al Qaeda and the Baath party are. Your attempt to relate the two is as futile as others who tried to associate bin Laden and Hussein as allies.

quote:
When Caspian sea oil actually comes through and we then start to obtain more of our oil through Russia, I would like to see how tolerant we will continue to be towards the often deceitful behavior propogated by members of the Royal family that the US government has so far, chosen to ignore.
Then, I suggest you start another thread, addressing speculation on the issue, and not try to tie it into a separate discussion in a manner that derails the original topic.

Tom:
quote:
I criticized Leto once for a similar thing because I felt his poll was actually a thinly-veiled attempt to get a point across -- he basically said as much at the time -- whereas I'm deliberately trying to keep mine open (and as non-judgemental as possible, given of course the fact that I have my own strong opinions on the issue -- which is why I haven't voiced 'em in this thread).
Baloney. Your intentions are not pure in this, and you intentionally put the question out in order to more fully voice your opinions. This thread was made to "make a point" as much as mine are/were. It's not that I distrust you or anything, but I hope you don't expect me to believe that you asked it because of innocent curiosity. You have something to say, and you're setting yourself up to say it. Just because our timing is different does not change the intent of either thread. [Wink]
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nope, John. It's always amazing to me that people on Ornery keep assuming that I'm more devious than I am. I'm not actually all that cunning. [Smile]

In fact, my "game" is always pretty simple -- you'll notice that I'm playing Mafia in much the same way, right now, on Hatrack -- I say what I mean, and sincerely mean what I say. I don't ever intend for this to be manipulative, except insofar as I hope it's genuinely disarming.

As I've said before, I post here only because I enjoy knowing where people come from on political issues; I've never suffered from the delusion that anything I say is going to make a difference in the world, and neither do I come here to be "educated" about political realities. More than anything in the world, I like trying to figure out what makes people tick, and trying to find out if there are ways to bring people together in consensus despite their differences.

To this end, I find it interesting that there's such a huge and -- as far as I can tell -- inapproachable gulf between people suspicious of the Bush administration and people who are resolved that Bush is doing the right thing. This is especially interesting to me because, according to most polls, the vast majority of people out there are in fact on the fence, and easily swayed either way -- but here online, and on almost all forums I've visited, practically everyone with an opinion has a firm and unshakeable one.

Back on Hatrack, I once said that I was amazed that anyone could look at the behavior of the Bush administration and think they were genuinely and sincerely motivated and truthful; I called this blindness. In a previous post, Redskull said exactly the same thing about people who think the Bush administration is NOT acting in America's best interest. That two reasonably intelligent and educated people can be baffled by opposite sides of the exact same situation is intriguing to me, and so I'm checking out the logic.

You'll notice that I stepped in to explain myself early, and to break up what was shaping up to be an argument. I don't WANT argument on this thread, and have no intentions of stepping in and saying, "See! Look how illogical these people are!" I just want people to be able to say what they believe without having to feel like they're going to be shredded for it, mainly because I selfishly benefit from understanding why they feel the way they do about things.

[ July 29, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragoon1
Member
Member # 1152

 - posted      Profile for Dragoon1     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think he told the truth insomuch as he was allowed to. ( Some things one cannot reveal without revealing sources. )
Posts: 68 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nah, Tom, I don't think you're being deceitful or devious, despite some people's insistence. However, that doesn't mean I expect you to be position-neutral or accepting of everything. You're a human, just like everyone else here. And I haven't been following the mafia game, since anything that goes on over there has nothing to do with me, and anything I say gets jumped on by a few jerks with personal issues, and is allowed by the powers that be. However, my posting habits aren't the issue...

quote:
To this end, I find it interesting that there's such a huge and -- as far as I can tell -- inapproachable gulf between people suspicious of the Bush administration and people who are resolved that Bush is doing the right thing. This is especially interesting to me because, according to most polls, the vast majority of people out there are in fact on the fence, and easily swayed either way -- but here online, and on almost all forums I've visited, practically everyone with an opinion has a firm and unshakeable one.
I'm astounded by this, as well. In fact, this very thing is getting extremely frustrating, because neither side can come up with a plausible arument for their respective stance, outside of playing party lines or straight, unsubstantiated hyperbole (on both sides). Of course, all I get from debating it is called too liberal by conservatives, and too conservative by liberals. All I see whenever it comes up here is the same line-toeing, emotional, and barely-logical arguments. So, I can understand wanting to take a tally of reasoning behind it, but you specifically address a certain instance from the get-go. I think I agree with those who said that perhaps you should have both made the thread title more pointed, as well as addressing more than one instance of someone saying one way or the other. It'd come off as more genuine that way, IMNSHO. [Wink]
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That two people can disagree is not unusual. Your assumption that you are reasonable is. You have started this thread because on the Davis thread you found that your misrepresentation of what I posted and belived backed you into a corner where the only way you could continue claiming Bush was a liar was to blame a conspiracy of administration advisors who had been planning Bush's Presidency since day 1 of the Clinton administration.

It requires a person to believe that Bush was "selected" based upon his vapid intellect and ease of handling. It requires a person to belive that a group of political appointees spent 8 years of their lives planning how to social engineer our domestic environment by engaging in 6 week lightning wars in tin pot nations. It requires you to belive that the administration appointees and cabinet members are all puppets of the cabal that plotted all this. It requires you to assume that although our human intel in Nigeria is lacking, our allies have provided duplicated and independent resourcing about iraq and nigeria that is invalid just because the CIA has issued a yellow light. It Also ignores the fact that Bush didnt even SAY NIGERIA in his damn speech and leaves out the preceeding contextual line in the speech which says more about Briatian than our own claims.

So Once you get to this level of coincidences you have to be reasonable and ask you self is it more likely that the president and his advisors werent telling a lie and belived what they were saying eventhough our own CIA couldnt independently verify what other countrys said was going on?

The number of leaps of faith you have to make to hold that the President is telling a lie is fairly high. The number of leaps of faith that the President was simply in error requires 1 leap. The possibility that the President's speech contained neither error or lies requires only 1 leap as well. So which is the reasonable posistion to take?

Note in this entire debate my stand has been that it is unlikely thta Bush has told a lie. It is slightly likely that he is in error. But is amazingly unlikely thats he is a cabal controlled, idiot savant, duped by the secret whims of the get clinton cabal and fight wars to deflect attention from the fleecing of America so that the Republicans stay in power and acheive political hegemony that must exist for him to even be likely to tell a lie.

And Tom, Leto is right , you are being a Troll on this thread. You dont want to say what your oppinion is.... you just wanna see whats we has to say and pick on the ol' bukra for hav'n such silly thoughts in our skulls.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Um, woah there, RS. I didn't say he was being a troll. If anything, I was bemoaning about how our difference in approach seems to be more acceptable, even if original intent is similar (note: not same). I don't quite have a problem with Tom making the thread, but I was saying that he isn't going to get anything but "more of the same" by starting it. Don't use me as a bludgeon, dude.

quote:
The number of leaps of faith you have to make to hold that the President is telling a lie is fairly high. The number of leaps of faith that the President was simply in error requires 1 leap. The possibility that the President's speech contained neither error or lies requires only 1 leap as well. So which is the reasonable posistion to take?
Actually, you're missing a few leaps, if you're saying that the current administration is blameless in this issue. While I may agree that the prez made a huge boo-boo in tactical and political execution, this doesn't necessarily mean that it justifies saying he outright lied. On the other hand, it also doesn't discount the administration from clarifying their sources, and making open the documents in question about the locations and activities that were supposed to be going on. So far, neither side -- those claiming lies and those nay-saying -- has adequately shown that theirs is the more reasonable stance to take. Politically, the decision to become more forthcoming with the sources is what will make or break Bush's administration. Current attempts, to date, have been weak. All this does is feed the case of those who are crying bloody murder.

quote:
Note in this entire debate my stand has been that it is unlikely thta Bush has told a lie. It is slightly likely that he is in error.
Here's what I mean about leaps of faith: it takes far less leaps to conclude that, despite the accuracy (or not) of the sources, that Bush made the wrong decision politically. Had we (the US) gone in with the UN behind us, the pressing urge to find conclusive evidence (the "smoking gun," as has been so popularly bandied about) would be nearly non-existant, and would lay on the shoulders of a multi-national party. Not bringing in opinions of rightness on the issue, it's still plainly obvious that the US, which now solely bears the burden, is coming up relatively empty-handed. That's egg on Bush's face, as far as an otherwise-supportive public is concerned. To assume that the administration has been correct form the get-go, and has plenty of basis in fact for their claims, would take many leaps of faith, since the US military has yet to come forth with anything but empty labs and no incontrovertible traces of ilegal weapons.

Please take into account that I'm not saying whether or not I think that there are weapons over there, nor am I making justifications one way or another for the war. What I'm pointing out is that before the US went in, we claimed we knew what they had and where they had it. Now, since we have yet to have a moment where we can finally say "aha!" this places an ever-increasing burden on the Bush administration to show the sources and share the information that led to them justifying going in to begin with. Either the information was incorrect (causing Bush to be incorrect), or a series of only somewhat-believable events had to happen in order for us to come up empty-handed as far as the "big issue" that Bush made for the war. Sorry, man, but even Occam's Razor (an approach I don't often place much stake in) brings us naturally to the conclusion that this was plain error, and not that he was either intentionally decietful nor totally honest and open with the sources.

Most Americans are not sure of which to believe just yet, but despite support for our president, it's not looking good for Bush's administration as far as the re-election front. Most of the American public won't cry out for Bush's head on a platter (and rightfully so), but don't misconstrue that pride and respect for our leaders into being blind devotion. People are wondering what the deal is, and the less info handed out freely to the public answering all of these silent questions, the worse things will be come next November. The public wants answers, they're just not going to form a lynch mob to get them.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Leto

If Ocam's Razor has brought us to the conclusion that it is an honest mistake, how the heck can it be a lie? By your own logic thats the stand you have taken.

Like you I do agree that our intelligence seems to be lacking in specific, but possibly important deatails such as exact locations. that there are problems with our data is correct, but to throw the baby out with the bath water and claim that all fruit that falls from the tree must now be a political lie is stupid.

As far as Tom, you gave the definition of his intent on this thread. When you did it, following the same formulae, Tom called you a troll. So if you both started a thread with the same sort of intent, why is tom correct in having called you a Troll, yet he is now innocent of being a Troll himself?

A troll by any other name with the same definition is still a troll. Not using you for anything. Just pointing out that you cant have it both ways.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, Tom did not call me a troll. He said it was unnecessary. Others called me a troll, and those others were the troublemakers, not Tom. Also, they started trouble long before Tom even said anything, so my case has nothing to do with Tom, only the original form of the beginning of the thread.

quote:
If Ocam's Razor has brought us to the conclusion that it is an honest mistake, how the heck can it be a lie? By your own logic thats the stand you have taken.
Wrong. Mistake only. "Honest mistake" has a whole different connotation, and I will only be convinced of an "honest mistake" when I see government officials coming forth with otherwise classified or unreleased corroberation of it. Until then, it is just a mistake. What needs to be found out is what kind of mistake. When people can start addressing that on a reasonable level, then some better personal approaches can be had on the subject of the events leading up to Iraq's invasion.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Leto

have you not figured out that by Tom publicly stating calling you a troll was not necesarry he was in fact calling you a Troll by way of a left handed compliment?

And as far as Ocam's razor you are correct that it does indicate only a mistake. I belive it to be an honest mistake. Tom belives that Ocam's razor indicates and orchestrated and intentional lie. So who is farther off the mark on logic. You have correctly pointed out exactly what logic indicates, it was a mistake.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, it's time to lock this thread. The personal issues are getting too thick in here.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Leto

It has nothing to do with personal problems. It has everything to do with logic.

Ocam's Razor indicates that Bush was mistaken.

My view. President Bush made an honest mistake.

Tom's view. President bush parroted a known lie which was supplied to him as part of a policy agenda that was developed by political wonks in the 1990's to enable them to conduct a Republican culture war based around 6 week wars of deception, and that this was intentional on the President's part.

Which does your logic support more? I am in error over declaring that the mistake is honest based on logic. What is the justification for Tom's view?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Listen carefully, RedSkull:

I AM NOT TOM DAVIDSON. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR TOM DAVIDSON. I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FIG WHAT YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEMS ARE WITH TOM, OR THAT YOU BLAME HIM (and his non-existant "flunkies") FOR LOSING YOUR JOB. THAT YOU FEEL THE NEED TO SEND ME A LONG SOB STORY E-MAIL OVER IT TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE TAKING THIS FORUM WAAAAAY TOO SERIOUSLY.

Your logic over Bush is flawed because you are assuming honesty from the start, which is the same amount of fallacy as those assuming dishonesty from the start. This was a mistake, plain and simple. There was nothing honest about it yet, and the only way to prove it WAS an honest mistake is to be forthcoming with the sources of information, and actually being forthright with the public in releasing said info. Otherwise, there is only doubt. Until there is something showing proof one way or another, assuming honest or dishonesty is flawed, especially if the whole argument about the issue revolves around it.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1