Wrong is not the same as lying
Bush/Cheney were wrong, and they did make huge mistakes in their understandings of the situation. Nevertheless, being wrong is not a lie. A lie is telling someone something you know to be wrong. In order for it to be a lie we would have to have evidence that they believed that Saddam had no WMD, but clearly the believed that he did: ergo they were wrong, not liars. I understand that it is politically expedient to portray all mistakes as lies, because people who are just wrong might be right about something else, but you can completely write off liars.
Back to my original point though, which is that it is better to use facts and shape discussion in your favor as part of a media campaign than it is to lie.0 Bush/Cheney actually did just that, not making things up, but using the information available to the IC to shape discussion such that in America the question was how to stop Saddam, not if he needed to be stopped.
I suspect that the reason that the Bush team went from so easily being able to control the debate to losing control so rapidly was that they bought absolutely into things we now know to be false. They really believed that we would be quickly proven right, Iraqi's would rise up to greet us in joyous throngs, and Iraq would settle into town hall meetings and happy electoral democracy about a week or two after the invasion. A willing dupe is actually much more dangerous in my view than a cunning liar who can always manipulate you. At least that way, we arrive at someones destination instead heaven only knows where.
Is reality rigged in your favor or do many media reports support your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Besides; you got it all wrong. Cheney did not act on intelligence. He made intelligence act on his fixed idea to get some talking points to hammer into the citizens in order to make his stupid ME adventure fantasy feasible.
Do you know this or is that what many sources you have seen say they think they know?
Quote:
*: In fact, I could simply proceed to another Cheney quote or to intelligence briefs known to Cheney that were not beyond doubt at all to make my point. Reality has has a strong bias that this whole discussion is really rigged in my favour.
Let me be sure I understand this discussion. The question is whether a politician tried to influence policy and decisions, possibly shaded the truth and /or lied outright in the process of doing so. Is that correct?
I'm not trying to apply any standards other than asking
if you have knowledge or well founded suspicions; if you know that raw evil was perpetrated or or a callous disregard for facts was shown; if erroneous statement were due to sincere but wrong belief or willful dissimulation led to events. There are differences in those things...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
In a complex world like ours, I surrender to the dominant uncertainty by valueing overwhelming information as reliable...I have read and heard dozens if not hundreds of sources about the lies we're discussing about in the last few years. The arguments and evidence is overwhelming, and although that still doesn't give me the same degree of certainty about it as to god, it should nevertheless count.
No. it tells me you have your mind made up based on the 'evidence' you have seen. Which we both know is correct and is certainly acceptable. What we also know is that evidence is largely from the media who had an agenda that coincides with what you wish to believe. Nothing at all wrong with any of that; you're Eurocentric and the US does things that adversely affect Europe.
That's fine -- doesn't change the fact that none of us can get inside anyone's mind and say emphatically that they thought thus and such. You can say it appear s that X did so and so, you can't say flatly that X did so and so unless you were directly and personally involved.
Quote:
That's not how a discussion works - that's how to (attempt to) kill a discussion.
No, discussion works when two people with opposing views differ but still respect each others position -- it get's killed when people, based on their beliefs and perceptions start using worlds that are inflammatory and insisting that only their 'facts' are valid. That's rarely very beneficial.
In any event, concentrating on my question about knowing this, you missed the important part of my post: ""Let me be sure I understand this discussion. The question is whether a politician tried to influence policy and decisions, possibly shaded the truth and /or lied outright in the process of doing so. Is that correct?""
IOW, this is sort of a silly discussion that lends nothing to anyone or anything. As you said:
Quote:
I'm sorry that you went back to this, as it's quite obvious that none of us is going to be convinced by the other one, and the thread was already back to topic/title.
good idea but let me point out that you led the thread off into a pointless discussion -- as UBoat said -- when you chimed in six days ago with this:
Quote:
The whole thing isn't completely covered by science yet, so there's still some art involved. Imagine Rove/Cheney had applied their liar talents for useful purposes...
That gratuitous, off topic and really pointless dig of a comment led to where the thread is now.
My perception, rightly or wrongly is that you have chosen to accept all the antieverything propaganda relative to Bush et.al. and the various wars. Your prerogative, certainly -- but you shouldn't object to being called on it.
Since the thread is so far off already
Mind If i ask a simple question-
With of course the prerequisite lead in;)
Common knowledge check-
Saddam attacked Kuwait, we attacked him, In Iraq many tried to stand up and over turn him.
So thinking they might do it again doesn't seem that far from being something which was believable. Problem is when they tried to overthrow him he gas the crap out of them. Mass destruction 150000+ or something like that.
So UN inspectors spend years running around there and being run in circles but never saw anything(remember the circles;))
He threatens to have bad stuff, he'd used bad stuff, Far as I remember can't recall anyone ever saying they saw him dispose of it all.
So here come OIF we go in , years later nobody finds any well didn't have it
Huh
Last check I remember at least three or four newspaper articles about stuff from Iraq that they are just now finding in all sorts of places(other countries)
Aw heck Fuch's I suppose ur right can't see why something like that that maybe somewhere else wouldn't have shown up by now.
Why would anyone want to hide it :D
Just a different perspective I guess, Lucky thing is we all get to have them
Perspectives that is