Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[Zippa D Doodah]

DING,DING,DING

There it is.......... Clinton!

Hey ThAnswr...is this todays winner?

Can you tell us about all the fabulous prizes TeeJay has won today?

You guys are so FUNNY... Errrr, tell me again why it is taboo to mention Slick Willie?

 

[Lebjwb]

If that's your standard

It's the dictionary's standard.

To me, lying is that first definition

To me...you're really reaching.

 

[jrydberg]

To me...you're really reaching.

And as I've said all along, that's your opinion.

 

[Lebjwb]

And as I've said all along, that's your opinion.

A definition from a dictionary is NOT an opinion.

 

[jrydberg]

A definition from a dictionary is NOT an opinion.

Ok, fine. I'll spell it out since you seem intent on misrepresenting my statements (lying?).

It is your opinion that Bush's statements make him a liar. It seems fairly obvious that this assertion is not accepted as factual by a large number of people.

I think it's fairly commonly accepted that when you refer to someone as a liar, that means they are deliberately presenting false information (definition one). Yes, the dictionary has a definition that suits your purposes, but the connotation is quite different for that definition. Look at the example they give. It is a metaphor. Appearances do not literally lie. They are accurate but do not give a complete picture.

 

[wvrevy]

Ok, fine. I'll spell it out since you seem intent on misrepresenting my statements (lying?).

It is your opinion that Bush's statements make him a liar. It seems fairly obvious that this assertion is not accepted as factual by a large number of people.

I think it's fairly commonly accepted that when you refer to someone as a liar, that means they are deliberately presenting false information (definition one). Yes, the dictionary has a definition that suits your purposes, but the connotation is quite different for that definition. Look at the example they give. It is a metaphor. Appearances do not literally lie. They are accurate but do not give a complete picture.

j, I gotta question...If a prosecutor were to ignore evidence that seemed to exonerrate a defendant, simply because the case was high profile and getting a conviction was important, what would you think of that prosecutor ? Even if he or she really, truly, believed that the defendant did it, despite this contradictory evidence, wouldn't they be wrong in ignoring it in order to simply go after the defendant anyway ?

I guess my point is, isn't there such a thing as "lying by omission" ? Bush repeatedly cited that UN report about Saddam having a nuclear weapon "within six months"...but he failed to continue to explain that the report was issued before the 1991 invasion, and that his capabilities were nowhere near that level today (as stated by that same UN agency). He deliberately misstated what was in the report in order to persuade public opinion to turn his way on the invasion.

Seriously, I don't understand how you can consider that anything but misleading, and, essentially, a lie.

 

[jrydberg]

Seriously, I don't understand how you can consider that anything but misleading, and, essentially, a lie.

I just don't think Bush or anyone in his administration sat down and said, "Hey, this isn't really true, so let's not mention that part." IMO, they believed their conclusions to be accurate and used whatever supporting evidence they could find to make the case. The fact that they ignored some evidence to the contrary is not particularly surprising. In any matter where human intelligence is sorely lacking (as it clearly was in Iraq), there will always be conflicting information.

In this particular case, much of the evidence available at the time supported the Bush administration's case. Thus, I don't think it dishonest that certain pieces of information that are seen in hindsight as crucial, were dismissed as irrelevant.

I can understand how one might believe there was intentional dishonesty there, but frankly, I don't find it plausible either.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that President Bush was lying. Why would he do that knowing that his lie would be exposed for all to see? If he knew their nuclear program was non-existent and they had no WMD, it would be political suicide to press that case anyway. There would be 100% certainty that he would be shown to the world to be a liar. Now no matter what your analysis of his IQ, I don't think you can make the argument he would've done it anyway.

 

[ThAnswr]

If you're expecting a fleet of 747s with a CIA logo on them, no. That they can ship individual prisoners around the world at will, sure. Did you find the CIA blameless all through the Clinton Administration or something?

Ding, ding, ding,ding............took 92 posts to bring it all back to Bill Clinton.

So, in other words, it's your contention the CIA is doing this all on their own without any input or against the wishes of the WH?

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[wvrevy]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that President Bush was lying. Why would he do that knowing that his lie would be exposed for all to see? If he knew their nuclear program was non-existent and they had no WMD, it would be political suicide to press that case anyway. There would be 100% certainty that he would be shown to the world to be a liar. Now no matter what your analysis of his IQ, I don't think you can make the argument he would've done it anyway.

Why ? Because I believe they trusted that their people would be able to muddy the waters enough that people wouldn't believe they had been lied to. I saw a study once that said something like only 1 in 5 people that get conned actually go to the authorities about it. People just don't like to admit that they've been fooled. That's probably particularly so when it's the president that has lied in order to lead them into a war that, it turns out, wasn't remotely necessary.

But their motivation aside, I don't understand how you could think they were doing the right thing in building up one side of the debate while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Again, the report clearly stated that Saddam no longer had the capabilities he did prior to the 1991 invasion. Bush quoted the report, completely out of context, and said that the report showed something it clearly did not.

How can that not be considered deceitful ? I'm certain that the report was understood, so the only explanation is that the deceit was deliberate.

 

[ThAnswr]

Well, that's correct that I was a Republican until they got so looney I moved on But I guess my point is I'm certainly not a Bush Republican. I disagree with him on more than a few issues (may not seem like it since Iraq is the topic we're usually discussing, but it's true).

As for those figures, it's political spin engaged in by all in Washington DC. The statement he made is technically correct, but made in a way that makes it appear he and his administration were more successful than they really were.

Based on that, no, I don't consider him a liar.

A deliberately misleading statement is not a lie.

Oh, good God, you can't make this stuff up. Some days you people are priceless.

 

[jrydberg]

How can that not be considered deceitful ? I'm certain that the report was understood, so the only explanation is that the deceit was deliberate.

But that's not the only other explanation. I think the report was understood, but dismissed because they believed it was coming to an erroneous conclusion. This happens in politics every day. There are a zillion economic reports, for example, that can say anything you want them to. One side cites one group of economists, another cites a different group that comes to exactly the opposite conclusion. That doesn't make them liars. They're supporting their case with the evidence that best supports it.

Is that a good approach? Probably not. But it's the way things go in politics all the time.

 

[jrydberg]

A deliberately misleading statement is not a lie.

Oh, good God, you can't make this stuff up. Some days you people are priceless.

Jeez, are we in kindergarten here? Do I have to spell out *everything*? You can play word games all you like, but it doesn't change anything.

Bush's statement was factually correct. It did not mention some details that would make the administration look less successful. Now if you want to define that as a lie, go right ahead. But I sure didn't see anyone defining that as lying in any previous administration -- rest assured, *every* previous administration did the same thing on a daily basis.

 

[ThAnswr]

DING,DING,DING

There it is.......... Clinton!

Hey ThAnswr...is this todays winner?

Can you tell us about all the fabulous prizes TeeJay has won today?

We have some special prizes today:

1) A wardrobe of First-Lady gear
http://www.internetweekly.org/2004/06/cartoon_laura_bush_just_say_no.html

2) A make-over from Dick Cheney's hairstylist
http://www.internetweekly.org/2004/07/cartoon_cheney_toupee.html

3) And a lovely autographed photo from "Condi".
http://www.internetweekly.org/2005/02/cartoon_devil_girl_from_stanford.html

 

[DisDuck]

jrd.. your last analogy makes sense when dealing with non-lethal issues. But when lives are put in harms way I do believe one should go the 'extra mile' to ensure that all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted. The Administration (cause not just Bush) did not do this. When told by the IAEA and other scientists that the 'tubes' could not be used in an uranium enrichment centrifuge as too big, etc. This conclusion was ignored not just at odds with another possible conclusion. Even with all of Saddam's blustering, the Blix team could not find anything except missing/incomplete documents as reported prior to March/2003 why was this ignored? One of the defining words used in support of the military option was that Saddam was an 'imminent' threat to the US. Now by what means could a country 8000+ miles away be an imminent threat? Did Iraq have ICBM's? Did Iraq have missile submarines? I asked this once before with no reply from anyone, if Saddam was such a grave threat to even the region, how come the Israeli's did nothing? Just remember that they took out Iran's nuclear reactor on suspicion that weapons were being developed there yet did nothing about the so-called programs of Saddam. Maybe they knew something we didn't but unwilling to share because Saddam out of the way was a plus but not worth an Israeli's life.

Most of the intelligence was inconclusive concerning Iraq on every question, what would have been the harm to wait 3-6 months as requested by UN inspection team? None. Bush went macho and look where we are now! Over 1700 US lives gone and thousands of wounded plus disruptions to our budget and families at home.

 

[ThAnswr]

Jeez, are we in kindergarten here? Do I have to spell out *everything*? You can play word games all you like, but it doesn't change anything.

Bush's statement was factually correct. It did not mention some details that would make the administration look less successful. Now if you want to define that as a lie, go right ahead. But I sure didn't see anyone defining that as lying in any previous administration -- rest assured, *every* previous administration did the same thing on a daily basis.

No, we're not in kindergarten. We're in the Bizarro world.

Even a kindergartener understands that deliberately making a misleading statement is lying.

Sorry, bad news. The "previous administration" game is up and the prizes have already been awarded. But, there's always tomorrow.

And, please, I beg of you, don't answer this. I'm having too much of a good time and I've already racked up a few centuries in Purgatory.

To all you non-Catholics, Purgatory is a place..............aww, forget it.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[jrydberg]

DisDuck, I agree that the administration should've been more diligent in its analysis of the situation. I agree that they should've gone the extra mile. I'm not gonna argue that. I just don't think that what the administration did amounts to lying.

 

[jrydberg]

We're in the Bizarro world.

On this much, we agree

 

[ThAnswr]

On this much, we agree

Moderator, this person is trying to kill me.

 

[jrydberg]

Moderator, this person is trying to kill me.

 

[DisDuck]

Obviously all 'our' thinking is based on hind-sight but the Administration had the actual contradictions of intelligence in front of them so fore-sight was present. 'Omission' may not be lying by strict interpretation of the word but try telling that to those who are now dead or the wounded including Iraqi's because of an 'omission'.

A while back on the Schaivo thread there was a pretty big debate over the terms 'kill' versus 'murder' versus 'right to die'. To one person's mind these terms are all the same as the end result is the same. I understood that person's reasoning just as I understand those here who consider that Bush lied rather than that he decided to 'ignore' some of the information. This 'ignoring' has caused great hardship. In the public explanations on the reasons for invading Iraq 'ignoring' the contrary intelligence and only presenting that which supports the invade view is an 'omission' pretty close to lying. But just my way of saying it is all semantics.

No matter how you slice it, this Administration knew that not all the facts were present to support invasion but choose to do so anyone and 'spin' it to their POV as best as possible.