237 Bush Administration Lies About Iraq

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
“The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.”



[/ QUOTE ]


First Point: This is almost as silly as the people that count the times four-letter words are used in movies or the number of times a bare breast is shown. The people that compiled these 'facts' are both pathetic and fatuous.


Second Point: '237 misleading statements' 'Ten of the statements were simple false'. This works out to only 4.22% lies out of the total 'misleading statements’ This is a rather anemic number and I am grossly unimpressed. Clinton, in his grander moments, could outpace that percentage in a trice.

Third Point: ‘Misleading statements’ is itself a misleading nebulous concept and can be defined by anyone in just about any manner that fits their own preconceived notions and political agenda.

Fourth Point: By now, Bush and Company should be at 10 or 100 times the numbers in the above quote. They need to up the propaganda machine to match the quixotic drivel of the pedantic lefties.

-Zeno

[Utah]

There is zero chance of China attacking Taiwan. All their posturing is just that

Well, game theory will tell you that all the posturing has a nasty little way of leading to actual conflict. Kinda like a big game of chicken when all of a sudden neither side decides to swerve. And, we also know - there is no such thing as zero chance.

Do you believe that China watched the U.S. attack two countries with ferocity - one on its border - destroyed those countries right quick, and showed a new willingness to use military might and this didnt affect their thinking about U.S. miliary abilities and the U.S. willingness to use force in Taiwan?? Doesnt seem possible. I really wish I could find that report.

I don't think we can bring democracy to Iraq. I hope I am wrong.

You might be right, but I would rather be an Iraqi now than an Iraqi before the war. Also, we did install legitimate govenments in many countries after WW2.

[Utah]

Sure - your arguments are fair enough. And, there are certainly some bad repurcussions. However, overall the net effect is a huge gain for the Iraqi people.

Lets say you were an Iraqi in the current situation and you have the power to reinstall Saddam's regime. Would you do it? Because, that is what you are implying when you argue the bad outweighs the good.

[Utah]

While attempting to shoot you between the eyes, I misfire and kill a gunman armed with a semi-automatic weapon about to open fire on a group of schoolchildren. Am I a hero?

Exactly my point and I agree with you. But, we must admit, the gunman is still dead.

[Chris Alger]

I didn't imply that at all, but it has nothing to do with the topic I raised.

Clinton had no right to bomb anything. He was reportedly warned repeatedly that the target was what it turned out to be: a pharmaceutical plant, I think the only in Sudan. It was a war crime, an atrocity for which he should have been tried and punished.

The only thing this has to do with Bush and Iraq is that leaders of obth parties and the mainstream commentators either ignored or accepted Clinton's excuse at face value. It played no role in his impeachment.

But it doesn't excuse Bush's conduct, anymore than greater atrocities by Johnson and Nixon (or Hitler or Stalin).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I said "ancillary benefits." I would have much preferred we had invaded Iraq with the intent to liberate Iraqis. And, yes, reasons for actions do matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to disagree, but to take it a step further in this light: reasons for actions do matter in evaluating the party performing the actions. From the standpoint of the passive party, howewer--i.e. the victims or beneficiaries of an action--the reasons for the actions are of minimal importance compared to the effect of the actions (so the benefits that are ancillary in evaluating our motives are a primary consideration from the Iraqis' perspective). This is why I have repeatedly argued that our motives have little to no bearing on the validity of the humanitarian case for action in Iraq--a point which I am sure you have already considered but which I feel certain others may never have fully grasped. The exception to this may be when the motives are not only ulterior but perniciously so--as I suspect Chris Alger would argue--and my response would be that in this case we will have to wait and see, but I think it highly likely the Iraqis will soon be far better off than under Saddam (and may be better off already).

[andyfox]

The guys that run China are idiots, but savvy enough to know Iraq has a much different meaning to us than does Taiwan. They know, as well, that we know the meaning Taiwan has to them. And there is a younger generation of leadership in China that realizes that accommodation with Taiwan, rather than confrontation, is inevitable, given the economic realities of the relationship.

In fact, Bush's Taiwan/China policy has recently shifted towards accommodation of China. Bush scolded Taiwan for putting two initiatives on the ballot in their recent election which China opposed, because it would upset the status quo. The hawks in the Bush administration see Chen Shui-bian as a troublemaker and most likely wish he would have lost the recent election (he won by a narrow margin).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
n fact, Bush's Taiwan/China policy has recently shifted towards accommodation of China. Bush scolded Taiwan for putting two initiatives on the ballot in their recent election which China opposed, because it would upset the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

And even more recently China has been doing things to make both Taiwan and Hong Kong nervous or uncomfortable. Didn't save the articles but bet you canb find some via search.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
First Point: This is almost as silly as the people that count the times four-letter words are used in movies or the number of times a bare breast is shown. The people that compiled these 'facts' are both pathetic and fatuous

[/ QUOTE ]
While there's nothing magic about the specific number, its magnitide is significant, obviously. It shows Bush and his right-hand people to be a serial liars, rather than just Keystone cops. Second, it demonstrates the disconnect between public perceptions of Bush and the reality of his dishonesty. A recent poll poll shows a majority of the public (52%) believing that the phrase "honest and trustworthy" applies to Bush. Although some people might agree that this could apply to someone who lied only a few times, very few people would apply this phrase to someone who lied, and allowed his subordinates to lie, scores and even hundreds of times about the same vital policy matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Second Point: '237 misleading statements' 'Ten of the statements were simple false'. This works out to only 4.22% lies out of the total 'misleading statements’ This is a rather anemic number and I am grossly unimpressed. Clinton, in his grander moments, could outpace that percentage in a trice.

[/ QUOTE ]
You accuse the compilers of being pathetic and fatuous but then quibble over demonstrably false statements of fact and misleading statements?

It seems to me that we should be able to judge the honesty of an elected leader by at least the standards by which we imprison people for fraud in the commercial realm. It is no defense in such cases for the defendant to argue that his statements were not actual "lies" but merely "misleading." Moreover, the 10 statements that were lies means that Bush & Co. lied outright and then did it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. If I were prosecuting a fraud claim against your client and you raised this argument, my first instinct would be to withdraw any plea bargain I had offered, seeing the fish in the barrel.

[ QUOTE ]
Third Point: ‘Misleading statements’ is itself a misleading nebulous concept and can be defined by anyone in just about any manner that fits their own preconceived notions and political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we fishing blindfolded in the poststructuralist pond? I doubt that Sokol would attempt a hoax where he said something as idiotically circular as "the word 'misleading' has no meaning because any defintion would be misleading." If true, we should live our lives as if we had no political leaders (they having nothing to say which we can reliably connect to experience), refrain from voting, legalize fraud, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth Point: By now, Bush and Company should be at 10 or 100 times the numbers in the above quote. They need to up the propaganda machine to match the quixotic drivel of the pedantic lefties.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this means. Your suggestion that only "pedantic lefities" want high officials to be accountable for what they say boils down to a crude attempt to intellectualize some sort of personal glorification of the tribal patriarch.

[andyfox]

If indeed this is so, then the theory that our aggressivenes vis-a-vis Iraq is not so worrisome to China as Utah asserts it should be. But I think China's policies towards both Hong Kong and Taiwan ebbs and flows as suits China. Taiwan recently had elections and there have been recent issues in Hong Kong concerning further democratization as well. I'd really be surprised if anything we did in the middle east figured in China's calculations.