6 ms·

One thing I can't stand is about our hyper-partisan culture is that attacking someone from one side is seen as 100% political and there are posts like these tha

by chez17 13y ago

One thing I can't stand is about our hyper-partisan culture is that attacking someone from one side is seen as 100% political and there are posts like these that are trying to be "even" when, in fact, it's you yourself that is being partisan here. >It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?_s=PM%253Cimg%2520src= http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?... It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Don't white wash history in an attempt to be "even" or see "both sides". There is objective truth here.

talmand 13y ago
So, no chance they were simply wrong? Making a false statement doesn't necessarily mean lying. I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake or, in your words, lying about it.
- subsection1h 13y ago
  > I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake Your recollection is wrong. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
  - talmand 13y ago
    You're right, I didn't recall the totals. I'll revise my statement to be that most everyone in a leadership position was making the same mistake.
JackFr 13y ago
The article you point to, to be clear, relies on reports from two non-profit (not not non-partisan) journalism watchdogs. And what they come up with is 'false statements'. They won't go so far as to call them lies, because to be a lie the statement has to be believed to be false by the speaker. You seem to reach the conclusion that it is inconceivable that the Bush Administration believed their own arguments. I not only find conceivable, I think its probably likely. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. There's certainly room for moral revulsion for the Bush Administration -- negligently acting to cause destruction and loss of life at such a scale makes one culpable nonetheless. I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.
- chez17 13y ago
  >I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you assume they are my ideological opponents? Are you assuming I'm a liberal in this case? This is the hyper-partisan culture I'm talking about. I do assume good faith from people who disagree with me, there comes a point when an intelligent person must look at the evidence provided and adapt their view. People hide behind the "both sides" argument in an attempt to be wise and fair, when in reality that can be the most partisan of all point of views. People are wrong sometimes. People lie sometimes. Not acknowledging this is not wise. Some arguments don't have "both sides", some have one side, some have two sides, some have fifty sides. Remember that.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  This is what bothers me about modern American politics. Both sides are too quick to demonize the other side, and to disallow the possibility that people on the other side are acting in good faith.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jebblue 13y ago
>> It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Clinton lied? Who would have thought it possible. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...
shawn-furyan 13y ago
I read the article you're linking to, and I don't see any allegations that the 900+ false statements were known to be false by the administration at the time[1]. This particular article certainly doesn't meet my standard for "[showing conclusively] that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that that they lied a lot". Perhaps that evidence exists in another form, but I think you strengthen the GPs argument by presenting this as definitive evidence when it's not. Addendum: The money quote from the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism run study is this: "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003". The use of the word erroneous here is problematic. It doesn't imply intention. If they had used a word that implied intention, then they would essentially be saying that the administration intentionally propagandized with information that they knew to be false toward the goal of leading the US into war with Iraq. But they don't go that far. They use the word erroneous. IF the administration was unaware of the eroneousness of the information, then there's no reason that "methodically propagating" it is immoral, I mean, this is called "consciousness raising" in other contexts. Perhaps the authors are just being cagey so as not to paint themselves into a corner, but this is not a clear statement that the administration lied. [1] Perhaps my reading skills aren't up to par, and I missed it. If so, let me know. [edit 11:06 CDT to add addendum]
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Downing street memos, Rumsfeld memos, the Project for a New American Century Report, Hans Blix assertions that there were no WMDs, historical acts of aggression in other countries, subsequent acts of aggression in other countries, and post-hoc assertions that WMDs were not the main reason for invasion, among other evidence all show that the invasion of Iraq was geo-strategic and not primarily based on disarming Iraq of WMDs, though some senior officials were led to believe that. http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-proves-iraq-war-started-on-false-pretenses/5323576 http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-...
  - Uhhrrr 13y ago
    Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war". Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!

by chez17 13y ago

talmand 13y ago

So, no chance they were simply wrong? Making a false statement doesn't necessarily mean lying. I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake or, in your words, lying about it.

subsection1h 13y ago
> I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake Your recollection is wrong. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
- talmand 13y ago
  You're right, I didn't recall the totals. I'll revise my statement to be that most everyone in a leadership position was making the same mistake.

JackFr 13y ago

The article you point to, to be clear, relies on reports from two non-profit (not not non-partisan) journalism watchdogs. And what they come up with is 'false statements'. They won't go so far as to call them lies, because to be a lie the statement has to be believed to be false by the speaker. You seem to reach the conclusion that it is inconceivable that the Bush Administration believed their own arguments. I not only find conceivable, I think its probably likely. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. There's certainly room for moral revulsion for the Bush Administration -- negligently acting to cause destruction and loss of life at such a scale makes one culpable nonetheless. I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.

chez17 13y ago
>I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you assume they are my ideological opponents? Are you assuming I'm a liberal in this case? This is the hyper-partisan culture I'm talking about. I do assume good faith from people who disagree with me, there comes a point when an intelligent person must look at the evidence provided and adapt their view. People hide behind the "both sides" argument in an attempt to be wise and fair, when in reality that can be the most partisan of all point of views. People are wrong sometimes. People lie sometimes. Not acknowledging this is not wise. Some arguments don't have "both sides", some have one side, some have two sides, some have fifty sides. Remember that.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
This is what bothers me about modern American politics. Both sides are too quick to demonize the other side, and to disallow the possibility that people on the other side are acting in good faith.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jebblue 13y ago

>> It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Clinton lied? Who would have thought it possible. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...

shawn-furyan 13y ago

I read the article you're linking to, and I don't see any allegations that the 900+ false statements were known to be false by the administration at the time[1]. This particular article certainly doesn't meet my standard for "[showing conclusively] that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that that they lied a lot". Perhaps that evidence exists in another form, but I think you strengthen the GPs argument by presenting this as definitive evidence when it's not. Addendum: The money quote from the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism run study is this: "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003". The use of the word erroneous here is problematic. It doesn't imply intention. If they had used a word that implied intention, then they would essentially be saying that the administration intentionally propagandized with information that they knew to be false toward the goal of leading the US into war with Iraq. But they don't go that far. They use the word erroneous. IF the administration was unaware of the eroneousness of the information, then there's no reason that "methodically propagating" it is immoral, I mean, this is called "consciousness raising" in other contexts. Perhaps the authors are just being cagey so as not to paint themselves into a corner, but this is not a clear statement that the administration lied. [1] Perhaps my reading skills aren't up to par, and I missed it. If so, let me know. [edit 11:06 CDT to add addendum]

foobarqux 13y ago
Downing street memos, Rumsfeld memos, the Project for a New American Century Report, Hans Blix assertions that there were no WMDs, historical acts of aggression in other countries, subsequent acts of aggression in other countries, and post-hoc assertions that WMDs were not the main reason for invasion, among other evidence all show that the invasion of Iraq was geo-strategic and not primarily based on disarming Iraq of WMDs, though some senior officials were led to believe that. http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-proves-iraq-war-started-on-false-pretenses/5323576 http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-...
- Uhhrrr 13y ago
  Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war". Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!