Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[dcentity2000]

I'm sorry, but if someone can't recognise a document nicked from Downing Street as an item of proof then I have very serious doubts as to their political health.



Rich::

 

[jrydberg]

Your definition of lies does not comport with the legal definition of lying.

My definition does not comport with the SEC's definition as it pertains to insider trading liability. Perhaps you neglected to mention that part. Or perhaps you lied

 

[dcentity2000]

A lie is a fact represented when the representor knows said fact to be untrue or has reasonable cause to doubt it's validity as per the reasonable man.

A fact is a theory that the reasonable man would consider to be fully accurate beyond reasonable doubt.

George Bush and Tony Blair were both told that the intelligence was weak and thet there were no WMDs in Iraq. They contested to the contrary.

Now, this doesn't mean that they are automatically liars; they could have believed on faith. But that raises the next quetion: why didn't they listen to MI6 et all?

"The threat that Saddam Hussein poses is an issue in its own right, because the reason why the UN Security Council passed these resolutions was precisely because we know the threat that there is from the weapons of mass destruction that he has."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair

"It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."
President George Bush Jnr

"His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair

"He's got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction."
President George Bush Jnr

A comprehensive list of the representations made by PM Blair and Pres. Bush before, during and after the war that conflict directly with intelligence reports.



Rich::

 

[jrydberg]

A lie is a fact represented when the representor knows said fact to be untrue or has reasonable cause to doubt it's validity as per the reasonable man.

A fact is a theory that the reasonable man would consider to be fully accurate beyond reasonable doubt.

George Bush and Tony Blair were both told that the intelligence was weak and thet there were no WMDs in Iraq. They contested to the contrary.

Now, this doesn't mean that they are automatically liars; they could have believed on faith. But that raises the next quetion: why didn't they listen to MI6 et all?



Rich::

George Bush was also told that there were WMDs in Iraq. I can't speak for MI6, but the prevailing view by a wide margin at the CIA was that there were WMDs in Iraq. George Tenet (appointed by Clinton) is now infamous for having called the case a "slam dunk."

So when the head of your intelligence tells you it's a slam dunk, what do you believe?

 

[dcentity2000]

George Bush was also told that there were WMDs in Iraq. I can't speak for MI6, but the prevailing view by a wide margin at the CIA was that there were WMDs in Iraq. George Tenet (appointed by Clinton) is now infamous for having called the case a "slam dunk."

So when the head of your intelligence tells you it's a slam dunk, what do you believe?

MI6 shared the intelligence with America and as MI6 is, giving Bush a reasonable doubt as to the validity of his representations; he should not have stated them as fact.



Rich::

 

[jrydberg]

MI6 shared the intelligence with America and as MI6 is, giving Bush a reasonable doubt as to the validity of his representations; he should not have stated them as fact.



Rich::

I'm not arguing that. Though it's very easy now to sit here and say that.

But are you saying Bush lied because he dismissed the concerns of MI6 when the CIA was telling him it's a slam dunk? To me, it's plain to see that Bush believed what he wanted to believe. Fault the man for not being thorough enough in his analysis. But that's a far cry from lying.

 

[Lebjwb]

George Bush was also told that there were WMDs in Iraq. I can't speak for MI6, but the prevailing view by a wide margin at the CIA was that there were WMDs in Iraq. George Tenet (appointed by Clinton) is now infamous for having called the case a "slam dunk."

So when the head of your intelligence tells you it's a slam dunk, what do you believe?

There's a man that lives a few doors from my house and he's been staring at my 8 year old daughter for the past couple of days. I didn't appreciate it very much. I have it on good authority that he's a sex offender. I wasn't going to wait until the unthinkable happened, so I went over there and beat his brains in with a bat. When the cops came they told me he couldn't have been staring at my daughter because he's blind. Oh well, I was told he was a sex offender. Too bad I got it wrong. Think the cops will let me go?

 

[jrydberg]

There's a man that lives a few doors from my house and he's been staring at my 8 year old daughter for the past couple of days. I didn't appreciate it very much. I have it on good authority that he's a sex offender. I wasn't going to wait until the unthinkable happened, so I went over there and beat his brains in with a bat. When the cops came they told me he couldn't have been staring at my daughter because he's blind. Oh well, I was told he was a sex offender. Too bad I got it wrong. Think the cops will let me go?

Cute little story that has no bearing whatsoever on international politics.

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm not arguing that. Though it's very easy now to sit here and say that.

But are you saying Bush lied because he dismissed the concerns of MI6 when the CIA was telling him it's a slam dunk? To me, it's plain to see that Bush believed what he wanted to believe. Fault the man for not being thorough enough in his analysis. But that's a far cry from lying.

If you have cause for reasonable doubt (such as MI6 poking you) then you should not present a theory as a fact, which was done so on multiple occasions as set out above.

A lie at law is, amongst others, one where cause for reasonable doubt is ignored, known as omission.

This applies even more strongly to PM Blair and Pres. Bush as they both hold a lot of power and responsibility.

Assuming that George Bush Jnr. DID ignore MI6, how does that reflect on him? Very poorly in my opinion; when it comes to war assumptions are not to be made lightly.



Rich::

 

[Lebjwb]

Cute little story that has no bearing whatsoever on international politics.

Sure it doesn't.

 

[jrydberg]

Well, I certainly agree that it doesn't reflect well on him. But my only real argument on this is that I object to the characterization that "Bush lied" is a factual statement. It seems to me there's far more doubt about that than there was about WMDs in Iraq prior to the war

 

[Lebjwb]

Cute little story that has no bearing whatsoever on international politics.

You seem to be awfully alone in defending Bu$h.....where are all your buddies?

I've always heard that the first rats to jump ship are usually the best swimmers.

 

[dcentity2000]

Well, I certainly agree that it doesn't reflect well on him. But my only real argument on this is that I object to the characterization that "Bush lied" is a factual statement. It seems to me there's far more doubt about that than there was about WMDs in Iraq prior to the war

True; there are other explanations and despite said explanations being far fetched, they still throw reasonable doubt onto the statement, therefore invalidating it as a "fact".

I therefore contest that George W. Bush Jnr knowingly lied by omission to the general public over the cause for war as the most logical and probable explanation.

I still hold that Tony Blair, however, did lie as a matter of pure fact as MI6 reported directly to him, outlined the intellignce which was then ignored.



Rich::

 

[Lebjwb]

Well, I certainly agree that it doesn't reflect well on him. But my only real argument on this is that I object to the characterization that "Bush lied" is a factual statement. It seems to me there's far more doubt about that than there was about WMDs in Iraq prior to the war

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03]
Fact: Bush Administration Knew Claim Was False

In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with added the caveat that they had received the information from British sources. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]

Still insist that Bush didn't lie?

 

[Teejay32]

I almost hate to say it. That one was true too.

 

[Professor Mouse]

My definition does not comport with the SEC's definition as it pertains to insider trading liability. Perhaps you neglected to mention that part. Or perhaps you lied

Your definition is wrong and your accusation that I lied is likewise wrong. The SEC's definition set forth in my post is what constitute the most serious form of lying, i.e. fraud that is actionable under the law. The legal definition of what constitutes the form of lying that is legally actionable is clear and under the standard in that definition, Bush's statements about yellowcake and that the US had not decided to go to war against Iraq and Cheney's lies about Atta meeting in Bulgaria are clearly lies. Your definition of lie is inadequate and does not comport with a common form of lying that the law has determined to be actionable. Under your defintion of lying, Ken Lay would still be running Enron.

 

[jrydberg]

Yes, since that charge is actually true.

One of the documents upon which the claim was based turned out to be forged, but that does not invalidate the claim in its entirety.

There is evidence that Saddam attempted to reach a deal with Niger but was unable to do so. He did, apparently, reach a deal with... I think it was Congo, but was unable to arrange delivery before the war.

The Butler Report indicated the claims made were "well founded" and the "forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it..."

 

[dcentity2000]

Yes, since that charge is actually true.

One of the documents upon which the claim was based turned out to be forged, but that does not invalidate the claim in its entirety.

There is evidence that Saddam attempted to reach a deal with Niger but was unable to do so. He did, apparently, reach a deal with... I think it was Congo, but was unable to arrange delivery before the war.

The Butler Report indicated the claims made were "well founded" and the "forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it..."

Yah, but a truth doesn't nullify a wrong, be it a lie or a small fib.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Speaking about the war in Iraq:

Iraq 'no more safe than in 2003'
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that security in Iraq has not improved statistically since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.
Mr Rumsfeld told the BBC insurgents crossed Iraq's "porous" borders from Iran, Syria and elsewhere.

Clicky.

He also claims that things are about to get better and one can only hope that this time will be the charm.



Rich::

 

[jrydberg]

Yah, but a truth doesn't nullify a wrong, be it a lie or a small fib.



Rich::

Where was the lie/fib in the State of the Union?