6 ms·

> according to U.S. officials. "officials" said iraq has wmd. "officials" have an ambassador's daughter crying in front if congress, telling lies about babies

by glasz 10y ago

> according to U.S. officials. "officials" said iraq has wmd. "officials" have an ambassador's daughter crying in front if congress, telling lies about babies being killed. "officials say" all kinds of shit. "officials" have lost all credibility. and still, "officials" have their "say" in some stupid paper. edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) https://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y https://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y

webkike 10y ago
"officials" aren't a single person either.
- revelation 10y ago
  So name them. No US official will tell classified info on some agency phone, so it is always the opinion of the administration that is being repeated. But papers like WP and NYT allow "officials speaking on the condition of anonymity" to claim any number of things and slander whoever without even the remote possibility of supporting documentation. It's not even about access, there is no access to be had, just more PR that didn't hit the wire. The only journalist who got classified info from a gov official in the last years was the mistress of Petraeus writing his biography, and even he realized that mere words are useless so helpfully supplied his notebook and docs.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Why? You already know everything about who gets what classified info and what journalist's internal processes look like. Surely you have access to the names of officials who hold public office in the relevant departments and agencies.
- glasz 10y ago
  you're right. it's a bunch of folks without a spine to stand up straight and oppose lies and question "facts" thereby supporting and carrying forth the myths. some may fail simply because of bureaucracy but still all of this happens because the majority are desperate sheep.
sigmar 10y ago
Are you saying you have reason to believe that Grizzly Steppe code was not used to penetrate the Vermont utility? Or are you just being cynical?
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  I think he's saying that government officials should have absolutely no credibility given their long and nearly perfect track-record of always being wrong. The real tragedy isn't that government officials have no credibility, its that so many Americans fail to grasp this indisputable truth.
- ue_ 10y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with what GP is saying, but I don't see why we should be trusting people so much so as to require evidence of absence from people who simply doubt what's being said. GP provides some examples of cases in which trust was mis-placed, which is fine enough for me to have a second-think about this rather than assume it to be true.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Bush misused and misled the public on the little WMD evidence that was had: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02... Also, Powell: "I'm Not Reading This. This is Bullshit." http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/44516:powell-im-not-reading-this-this-is-bullshit http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/44516:powell-im-not-re... On top of that, your little talking point, which is endlessly repeated on the internet, makes no sense. So Iraq was sold to the public dishonestly, thus all claims from the government are dishonest, but for some bizarre reason the Russian government is unusually honest and truthful? Come on.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Reasonable minds can agree both governments have proven to be dishonest, although Russia is almost certainly worse. I think he's just saying he has some skepticism, which is perfectly reasonable.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    But he/she is not making a reasonable argument though, they are making a cynical one that doesn't even remotely make room for a rational discussion. This seems to be a scary new norm where people are so frustrated they cannot see the complexity and nuance of the world, its just all crap and crap crap crap. The only think these people seem to trust is everyone lies and you can't trust anything, and when you can convince enough people of this (who will in turn stay home on election day and leave control up to the extremists who will not be) and you can take control, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The thing that scares me about this the most is the attitudes of people I ran into face-to-face registering voters this year. I ran into quite a few people to would make similar statements and the interesting thing was that after a while I could actually predict pretty well how people would respond to being asked if they were registered to vote from a distance. The people who had very cynical responses looked miserable (from a distance, before I talked to them) and likely were miserable (thinking the world is crap and everyone is lying and we're all being spied on and no-one can stop it, etc) and it leads me to believe many of the people who comment on these stories in similar ways are similarly miserable. The bad-news flood from our overly connected lives I think is starting to have a serious effect on peoples psychology and it is making it harder and harder to have reasonable discourse. In the end at this rate its going to be a small number of news-junkies and academics and a bunch of extremists and the rest of the population will be tuned out as long as there is enough food and distractions available.
lisivka 10y ago
Iraq had WMD and used it frequently, like other countries in the region.
- armenarmen 10y ago
  well, we never found them.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think what may be confusing the issue is at what time we're talking about. Given the broad strokes being argued in this thread, it makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion. There are documented cases of Iraq using chemical weapons while under Saddam's rule. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program Following the 1990 Gulf War, there was a concerted international effort to eliminate Iraq's WMD capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis By 2003, when the coalition invaded Iraq, for all intents and purposes Iraq no longer had WMDs, as reported by the Iraq Survey Group.
    - glasz 10y ago
      concerning halabja let me quote my fellow countryman: Dieter Backfisch, managing director of West German company Karl Kolb GmbH, was quoted by saying in 1989 that "for people in Germany poison gas is something quite terrible, but this does not worry customers abroad." i hate all this being discussed and referenced in a one-sided way. as if saddam or putin or others are the only evil. background on how the west delivers all the groundwork which they then condemn: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
      - grzm 10y ago
        I agree that it can be difficult to figure out where to limit the scope. On the other hand, figuring out a place to start where you can agree is important, otherwise people are left talking past each other. Trying to clarify a few points being discussed does not mean everything else not mentioned is being ignored or assumed to be justified.

by glasz 10y ago

webkike 10y ago

"officials" aren't a single person either.

revelation 10y ago
So name them. No US official will tell classified info on some agency phone, so it is always the opinion of the administration that is being repeated. But papers like WP and NYT allow "officials speaking on the condition of anonymity" to claim any number of things and slander whoever without even the remote possibility of supporting documentation. It's not even about access, there is no access to be had, just more PR that didn't hit the wire. The only journalist who got classified info from a gov official in the last years was the mistress of Petraeus writing his biography, and even he realized that mere words are useless so helpfully supplied his notebook and docs.
- Retra 10y ago
  Why? You already know everything about who gets what classified info and what journalist's internal processes look like. Surely you have access to the names of officials who hold public office in the relevant departments and agencies.
glasz 10y ago
you're right. it's a bunch of folks without a spine to stand up straight and oppose lies and question "facts" thereby supporting and carrying forth the myths. some may fail simply because of bureaucracy but still all of this happens because the majority are desperate sheep.

sigmar 10y ago

Are you saying you have reason to believe that Grizzly Steppe code was not used to penetrate the Vermont utility? Or are you just being cynical?

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
I think he's saying that government officials should have absolutely no credibility given their long and nearly perfect track-record of always being wrong. The real tragedy isn't that government officials have no credibility, its that so many Americans fail to grasp this indisputable truth.
ue_ 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree with what GP is saying, but I don't see why we should be trusting people so much so as to require evidence of absence from people who simply doubt what's being said. GP provides some examples of cases in which trust was mis-placed, which is fine enough for me to have a second-think about this rather than assume it to be true.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Bush misused and misled the public on the little WMD evidence that was had: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02... Also, Powell: "I'm Not Reading This. This is Bullshit." http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/44516:powell-im-not-reading-this-this-is-bullshit http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/44516:powell-im-not-re... On top of that, your little talking point, which is endlessly repeated on the internet, makes no sense. So Iraq was sold to the public dishonestly, thus all claims from the government are dishonest, but for some bizarre reason the Russian government is unusually honest and truthful? Come on.

wallace_f 10y ago
Reasonable minds can agree both governments have proven to be dishonest, although Russia is almost certainly worse. I think he's just saying he has some skepticism, which is perfectly reasonable.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  But he/she is not making a reasonable argument though, they are making a cynical one that doesn't even remotely make room for a rational discussion. This seems to be a scary new norm where people are so frustrated they cannot see the complexity and nuance of the world, its just all crap and crap crap crap. The only think these people seem to trust is everyone lies and you can't trust anything, and when you can convince enough people of this (who will in turn stay home on election day and leave control up to the extremists who will not be) and you can take control, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The thing that scares me about this the most is the attitudes of people I ran into face-to-face registering voters this year. I ran into quite a few people to would make similar statements and the interesting thing was that after a while I could actually predict pretty well how people would respond to being asked if they were registered to vote from a distance. The people who had very cynical responses looked miserable (from a distance, before I talked to them) and likely were miserable (thinking the world is crap and everyone is lying and we're all being spied on and no-one can stop it, etc) and it leads me to believe many of the people who comment on these stories in similar ways are similarly miserable. The bad-news flood from our overly connected lives I think is starting to have a serious effect on peoples psychology and it is making it harder and harder to have reasonable discourse. In the end at this rate its going to be a small number of news-junkies and academics and a bunch of extremists and the rest of the population will be tuned out as long as there is enough food and distractions available.

lisivka 10y ago

Iraq had WMD and used it frequently, like other countries in the region.

armenarmen 10y ago
well, we never found them.
- grzm 10y ago
  I think what may be confusing the issue is at what time we're talking about. Given the broad strokes being argued in this thread, it makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion. There are documented cases of Iraq using chemical weapons while under Saddam's rule. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program Following the 1990 Gulf War, there was a concerted international effort to eliminate Iraq's WMD capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis By 2003, when the coalition invaded Iraq, for all intents and purposes Iraq no longer had WMDs, as reported by the Iraq Survey Group.
  - glasz 10y ago
    concerning halabja let me quote my fellow countryman: Dieter Backfisch, managing director of West German company Karl Kolb GmbH, was quoted by saying in 1989 that "for people in Germany poison gas is something quite terrible, but this does not worry customers abroad." i hate all this being discussed and referenced in a one-sided way. as if saddam or putin or others are the only evil. background on how the west delivers all the groundwork which they then condemn: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
    - grzm 10y ago
      I agree that it can be difficult to figure out where to limit the scope. On the other hand, figuring out a place to start where you can agree is important, otherwise people are left talking past each other. Trying to clarify a few points being discussed does not mean everything else not mentioned is being ignored or assumed to be justified.