Bush lied, people died...

[chucK]

A provocative title for what I think is a more reasonable spray question:

 

If you believe Tenet it's now becoming pretty obvious that BushCo distorted the truth to sell the war to the public. According to Tenet, the CIA never stated that there was an imminent threat, but many a speech by BushCo announced "without a doubt", "thousands of pounds o...", "no question in my mind"... etc.... I don't think there's any reason to argue this point.

 

My question is, do you think it was justified? We obviously got a bad guy out of power, perhaps accomplished other things of which I am unclear, but maybe, showed the world we don't take any shit? Whatever the reasons for going to war, it is quite possible that BushCo would not have received congressional authorization had they been straight with the public about what we really knew. Do you think it was worth it? Perhaps they had a "gut feeling" that Saddam was dangerous, Tenet said they felt that way. Was it worth saying "Aw fuck it" and sealing the deal by deceiving all us dopey liberal fucktards, so we could do what's best for us?

 

I'm not really asking for my fellow liberal fucktards to respond with another 10 pages of, "this war is bad, 500 soldiers dead, 10 thousand hospitalized, who knows how many Iraqi's... . Why go over that for the nth time? I'm asking you to give BushCo the benefit of the doubt and assume that they really were convinced that the war is in USA's best interest. Given this premise, is it justified to lie to the public in order to promote something as serious as a war?

[Peter_Puget]

A provocative title for what I think is a more reasonable spray question:

 

If you believe Tenet it's now becoming pretty obvious that BushCo distorted the truth to sell the war to the public. According to Tenet, the CIA never stated that there was an imminent threat, but many a speech by BushCo announced "without a doubt", "thousands of pounds o...", "no question in my mind"... etc.... I don't think there's any reason to argue this point.

 

My question is, do you think it was justified? We obviously got a bad guy out of power, perhaps accomplished other things of which I am unclear, but maybe, showed the world we don't take any shit? Whatever the reasons for going to war, it is quite possible that BushCo would not have received congressional authorization had they been straight with the public about what we really knew. Do you think it was worth it? Perhaps they had a "gut feeling" that Saddam was dangerous, Tenet said they felt that way. Was it worth saying "Aw fuck it" and sealing the deal by deceiving all us dopey liberal fucktards, so we could do what's best for us?

 

I'm not really asking for my fellow liberal fucktards to respond with another 10 pages of, "this war is bad, 500 soldiers dead, 10 thousand hospitalized, who knows how many Iraqi's... . Why go over that for the nth time? I'm asking you to give BushCo the benefit of the doubt and assume that they really were convinced that the war is in USA's best interest. Given this premise, is it justified to lie to the public in order to promote something as serious as a war?

 

Good question ChucK! I would throw into the mix at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie and ask if in spray debates is it ok to lie? Let's take this whole "imminent threat" canard.

 

I think if you were read the SOTU address before the war President Bush clearly and unequivocally states that the nation should act before a threat was imminent. That the imminent canard continues to be commonly accepted indicates yet again a leftward bias (or perhaps simple incompetence) of the US media. Here is a somewhat new link of the continued imminent lie

 

link

[Peter_Puget]

For those confusing immediate with imminent here’s a nice link: Link

 

Note the link is from an offically approve Fucktard source!

 

PP

[iain]

It seems like white lies are frequently used to distill down complicated political situations to explain them to and gain general support from the public. Perhaps this is a reality of being the president. This particular one was less white than past ones, in my opinion. PP, no matter what article you post here, I don't think you can deny the Bush administration painted a portait of panic when it comes to WMD development in Iraq. Since I am an American, and I was swayed to be concerned about a real threat in Iraq, I'd say the damage was done no matter the tedious syntax you try to explain exaggerations away with now.

[Peter_Puget]

Oh Iain I am not arguing against Bush and Co. telling falsehoods. I am saying that the imminent canard is a lie and I am asking a serious question about falsehoods in political debates. Since Bush and Co were telling untruths why don’t we expose directly the untruths? Why rely on new untruths? Wouldn’t that help to purify the whole political process? I say let honesty prevail! Let hypocrisy if it exists die! Let's all lift the debate!

[Rodchester]

"the CIA never stated that there was an imminent threat"

 

I agree with you that there is no reason to argue this point. So does the President, and the congress, and most intel and NSPS people.

 

Tenent stated this for reasons apparently not very clear to the general public. If you notice, that statement has caused very little uproar. That is because is not the job of the CIA (more specifically in this case the DCI) to do so. The intleignce community is not supposed to make this type of conclusion. That is for the executive, which happens to now be Bush.

 

The CIA (DIA, NRO, NSA, Etc.) assembles intel, analyses it and packages it. For the President's consumption intel is packaged into what is called an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate"). The NIE is put in front of the executive and it is used to form policy and make decisions. They are usually only about two pages long. In this type of a situation, briefing from the DCI and his assistants will usually follow.

 

I realize many assume that the CIA makes such findings, or conclusions, however that is simply incorrect. Declaring something to be a "clear and present danger” or an "imminent threat" is a political job or label given by the politicians. Such a label is always based on intel. Whether that intel is good or not often remains to be seen. In this case its pretty clear that portions of it were not. This isn’t the first time or the last time.

 

That said, Tenet's statement on this point was not shocking in the slightest to anyone familiar with the role of intel and understanding the role of the executive in the process (which includes the Intel Oversight Committee).

[Peter_Puget]

Good post Rod but what do you think of the questions ChucK and I asked?

[Rodchester]

"My question is, do you think it was justified? "

 

Yes...In the norms of international law and the law of nations, any attempt to assinate the leader of a sovergin (not in wartime) is basis for war on the offending nation. there is no statute of limitations on the issue. In the early 1990s Iraq attempted to assinate Bush I. Enough said for my needs.

 

"is it justified to lie to the public in order to promote something as serious as a war?"

 

Specific to Bush: This assumes he lied. Further, the main lesson learned from 9/11 is to err on the side of caution and overstate the danger to prevent a surprise. In the shadow of 9/11 and with incorrect intel its easy to see how such a decision was made. That is not a lie. Its easy to see Bush believing this. Remember, most of the other intel services around the world agreed with the MAJORITY of the intel that Bush was using. The disagreement came in accessing the threat, i.e. how imminent it was.

 

Same question generally: It is almost always improper to purposely lie to your constituents. That’s easy.

Edited February 6, 2004 by Rodchester

[catbirdseat]

This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but what amazed me was the extent to which Tenet was willing to embarrass the Bush Administration. He doesn't seem worried about losing his job does he? He probably figures that if Bush fired him it would look really bad before the election, so he won't. Bush would probably fire him after he was reelected, but Tenet apparently figures the Bush will not be reelected.

[Peter_Puget]

Rod you left out my questions!

[Rodchester]

"Since Bush and Co were telling untruths why don’t we expose directly the untruths?"

 

You mean this?

 

Well what are the untruths? tenet admitted that he gave the intel to Bush...I don't se at all how this is an untruth.

 

being wrong in hindsight is not the same as a lie or an untruth.

 

Did i miss your point PP?

[Peter_Puget]

I meant this:

 

Good question ChucK! I would throw into the mix at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie and ask if in spray debates is it ok to lie?

[chucK]

CBS,

From what I read, he did not embarrass BushCo too bad. We all see the headline "Tenet: No immediate threat" or imminent or whatever, but if you read more of his comments he did say he was convinced that Sadam was dangerous and that he conveyed that to the President. I think the headline is a distortion of the truth and is one checkmark in PP's column toward liberal bias in the media (though I think it still can be chalked up to sensationalistic bias in the media).

 

Also, why would it surprise you if Tenet is trying to hurt GWB? It seems to me that BushCo has been trying to play the intelligence community as a scapegoat for a while now, as well as outing one of their agents? BushCo is not making friends at the CIA.

 

Finally, I think Tenets remarks, in full, get back to my question. I think many people's best guesses may well have been that Sadam was dangerous, but they just didn't have the smoking gun. BushCo is an agressive administration, emboldened by 9/11.

 

Is it really so bad to tell a lie to further something you truly believe is in everybody's best interest?

[Rodchester]

if in spray debates is it ok to lie?

 

Is it really so bad to tell a lie to further something you truly believe is in everybody's best interest?

 

___________________________

 

Ask Col. Walter E. Kurtz and Cpt. Willard. they struggled with a similar topic...

Edited February 6, 2004 by Rodchester

[Peter_Puget]

If it causes a breakdown in the system and doesn't stop an imminent threat: Yes!

[Peter_Puget]

Rod - My first question was ignored. here it is - 'at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie" What inspired the thought well the use of the “imminent” word. This is a loaded word chosen expressly because it has become loaded. How does this impact the public discourse? I think negatively. Look at the following link: Link

 

PP

[Rodchester]

"at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie"

 

From the President and assuming full knowledge of the truth, I'd say a complete disregard for the truth is pretty much a lie.

 

However, if done so openly, it isn't a lie...it is simply a complete disregard for the truth. So it becomes a lie if a story or something else is used to mask or hide the disregard for the truth.

[erf]

All this backpedaling is priceless. Good to see the warmongers on the run.

[chucK]

Erf you are too confident. Confidence like this will be our downfall. My "question" will be the ultimate refuge for the "warmongers". "They did what was best for US". Think Ollie North.

 

Alternate tacks need to be enouraged. The prez lied for a good cause defense is already in place. Unless proof comes out establishing some base motive like "oil for profit" (don't hold your breath), GWB will easily survive this minor flap.

[erf]

Where is Ollie North now?

 

"The prez lied for a good cause" will not sway the core of the vote. Short of major happenings (Osama turning up, another 911, etc ..), Bush is gone. Too many people are pissed off and too many seem willing to vote.

[mattp]

PP - ChucK thought we might talk about this topic without going back to the earlier debate over whether they lied in the first place, but you apparently cannot.

 

Is it not a lie to say that they were purchasing aluminum tubes that can be used for production of enriched fuels when virtually every scientist who had looked at those tubes told them that the tubes could not be used for that purpose? ( I say "virtually every one" because there may have been somebody who said "well, maybe if ..." but I believe it has been reported over and over again and that it has not been refuted anywhere that the overwhelming if not 100% agreement was that the tubes were not for centrifuge's as reported by Bush and Co. and that this 95% or 100% agreement was known to them or at least would have been known to them if they bothered to read their own intelligence reports and alalysis.)

 

Is it not a lie to say that Saddam tried to purchase enriched Uranium in Niger where the intelligence community, for over a year if I remember correctly, had been telling the White House staff that the evidence in support of that story was fake and it was probably untrue?

 

Is it not a lie for various members of the Bush administration to have kept hammering away on the connection between Iraq and al Queda, promoting the public's general perception that Saddam was behind 911, without ever correcting that misunderstanding? (And don't try to tell me they didn't know they were being "misunderstood" on this pont - that ‘s absurd.)

 

In my view, the discussion we should have had before going to Iraq would have been something like this: he's a bad guy, he's not coming around, and we're still messing around with sanctions after over ten years with little apparent progress and with bad side-affects. Isn't it time we just take him out? But instead, they DID lie and exaggerate and promote fear. ChucK asks: do you justify that and if so, HOW do you justify that?

[Rodchester]

erf:

 

The perception among the public may be just that. As such, it is possible that Bush will be defeated for that reason. It will be interesting.

[willstrickland]

Where is Ollie North now?

 

Hosting some military show for the history channel and doing news commentary/analysis.

[catbirdseat]

PP, did you see the article in the Tuesday Wall Street Journal about Bernard Lewis? Lewis has had a large influence on the Bush Administration policy towards the Middle East. Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld practically worship the guy to hear the WSJ tell it.

 

According to the Lewis Doctrine, peace in the Middle East must come through promotion of democracy and in his opinion, Iraq was the best place to start because of a tradition of democracy and an autocratic ruler (Saddam).

[catbirdseat]

Where is Ollie North now?

 

Hosting some military show for the history channel and doing news commentary/analysis.

When Tom Lykis says, "... it's a different kind of radio program- one that is not hosted by a right wing wacko or a convicted fellon, no!" He's talking about Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy .