Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Compilation of prewar false statements
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,071 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ImpulseEngine
Jan 23 2008, 05:42 PM
RTW
Jan 23 2008, 05:27 PM
   

I've quoted the relevant part of your post. Thanks for the contribution. :)

:clap: :rotfl: :loling:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 23 2008, 05:21 PM
Where's your source and how is that the same? :rolleyes:

Most sources are cited.

How is it the same??? How is it different?

How come the "Center for Public Integrity" only cites Bush when many other politicians were saying the exact same thing?

This is suspiciously similar to a moveon.org hit piece. Soros "only" donated $1.7 million to the center. (link)

Once again, it's a right-winged sistertrekkian providing balance to the left-winged post of a progressive/moderate/independent (?) sistertrekkian. Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Moderator Response:

Yes, RTW, you are correct that your post quotes sources in the same format used by the linked website.

However, Impulse Engine did link to the website with the entire list.

You either have to provide link(s) to the website(s) from where you got the entire list or you need to provide links to the individual sites for each source used.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
 
...  how is that the same? ...


Earlier in the thread you said:

ImpulseEngine
 
Saying "we believe Iraq has..." or "Iraq likely is..." is entirely different than "Iraq has..." and "Iraq is...".


You are absolutely correct - if the statements from other officials contained world like "likely", "possible", "suspected", or even "probable". As demonstrated we can see that they didn't contain those words.

You also said:

ImpulseEngine
 
And, even if you are correct, saying "someone else did it" isn't a justification for it.


No, but it certainly is an explanation for the reaction to the comments that the site you linked to calls "false".

If the President (generic President) told us tommorrow that we had to attack Monte Carlo tommorrow because it had weapons of mass destruction and they were ready to use them, the collective response of US citizens would have been "Are you nuts?" and calling our Congress to fast track impeachment.

Why? Because who has ever made any claim of any kind that Monte Carlo is a physical threat.

However, if we had been hearing for a dozen years that Monte Carlo was a powderkeg ready to go off or that they were working secretly to attack us, then we wouldn't say "Are you nuts?".

We would have been conditioned by the previous statements to - at least - be more likely to believe the later statements.

The statements together had a collective effect of helping to make the case for war against Iraq "discussable".

ImpulseEngine
 
The specific numbers aren't important.


I'm glad to hear you say that.

On the various occasions that I have listed the "whoppers" told the American people to justify intervention in a European civil war, I usually get the answer "Did anyone die?"

If a statement is truly a lie, then it doesn't matter what the numbers are.

As to the website ....

Time does not allow me to participate much in this thread but I was interested enough to look and see what the site itself said.

"Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War" was the title on the first page.

I would have to say the site set themselves up for failure from the get go.

Quote:
 
or·ches·trate      (ôr'kĭ-strāt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.  or·ches·trat·ed, or·ches·trat·ing, or·ches·trates

To compose or arrange (music) for performance by an orchestra.
To arrange or control the elements of, as to achieve a desired overall effect: orchestrated a successful political campaign.


dictionary.com

I'm guessing that they are using the second definition.

Well, if the Administration really did what they claim, they were involved in a conspiracy from the beginning. They aren't claiming that Bush just preferred to pick the choice of information that supported his position. They are claiming that he KNEW the information was false and deliberately chose to mislead the country and did so consistently without anyone in on the conspiracy ... for lack of a better word ... squealing.

First, that is an impossibly high standard to prove and I didn't get the sense from what I did read that they were even trying to reach that standard.

Second, I haven't seen anything from this administration that would convince me that they are capable of pulling off such a conspiracy.

Then, in the third paragraph, it said:

Quote:
 
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have any meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. 


Well, first of all that statement is false. ;)

But, more importantly, I have to question the statement in relationship to the quesitons that they claim are "false".

For example, did each and every reference, about Al Qaeda ties to Iraq, specifically state that the ties were "meaningful"? Somehow I doubt that, but, if the "false" statement did not contain the word "meaningful" then the site is claiming something is "false" that never was actually said.

Again, I wish I had time to go into it further, but it is not be be at this time.

It was interesting though.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Moderator Comment


RTW, you will have to produce a link to your previous post as to where these sources come from.

Sorry, but otherwise I will have to delete that post.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
This is why the vote for President is so very important. Consider that there are two very different answers to a critical decision for a given President.

Option #1. Attack, Invade, justified, pre-emptive strike.(Before the Mushroom cloud)

Option #2. Keep your options on the table until the last possible minute and keep talking until the Last possible minute.

Examples: JFK and Bush.

John F. Kennedy:
During the cuban missle crisis JFK stuck to option #2 because he believed if he chose option #1 the Soviets would retalliate in Europe against Berlin. The Hawks in the Joint Chiefs of staff rode Kennedy's ass to strike those missles in Cuba. Kennedy got away with it. It appears that he made the right decision.

George W. Bush:
During the build up to Shock and Awe invasion of Iraq Bush listened to the Hawks (Slam dunk anyone?) Further more he honestly believed the hype. He did not Lie, he honestly believed this threat was real. So did Colin Powell, and so did I. Bush did not get away with it. It appears to me on the evidence at hand he made the wrong decision.

However in these times I do not have the luxery of 40 years of historical reflection, we are still learning where the Proverbial chips are falling.
Ultimately I regret the destabilization of Iraq by the invasion, yet the bright side may yet be on the horizon. A foothold in the region for ALL ETERNITY. In the end I have no other choice but to support my next PRES whom I will choose very carefully.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Note on JFK reference:

The first time he had a choice (Bay of Pigs), he picked the wrong one.

He didn't really know the answer, but he did learn what he didn't know.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
Jag
Jan 23 2008, 07:01 PM
This is why the vote for President is so very important. Consider that there are two very different answers to a critical decision for a given President.

Option #1. Attack, Invade, justified, pre-emptive strike.(Before the Mushroom cloud)

Option #2. Keep your options on the table until the last possible minute and keep talking until the Last possible minute.

Examples: JFK and Bush.

John F. Kennedy:
During the cuban missle crisis JFK stuck to option #2 because he believed if he chose option #1 the Soviets would retalliate in Europe against Berlin. The Hawks in the Joint Chiefs of staff rode Kennedy's ass to strike those missles in Cuba. Kennedy got away with it. It appears that he made the right decision.

George W. Bush:
During the build up to Shock and Awe invasion of Iraq Bush listened to the Hawks (Slam dunk anyone?) Further more he honestly believed the hype. He did not Lie, he honestly believed this threat was real. So did Colin Powell, and so did I. Bush did not get away with it. It appears to me on the evidence at hand he made the wrong decision.

However in these times I do not have the luxery of 40 years of historical reflection, we are still learning where the Proverbial chips are falling.
Ultimately I regret the destabilization of Iraq by the invasion, yet the bright side may yet be on the horizon. A foothold in the region for ALL ETERNITY. In the end I have no other choice but to support my next PRES whom I will choose very carefully.



This is a very succinct post, Jag. I tend to agree.


Whether it was a "mistake" or not to invade Iraq using the methodology we did, I do not believe that Pres. George W Bush did it for "subversive" or "self-serving" reasons. I think he honestly believed that it was in the best interests of US and Middle East security; especially in regards to the long term picture.

As well, Saddam Hussien was still a long-term problem, and one of the most dangerous people on the planet. People say he was "contained".
Yeah? For how long? For the indefinite future? No-fly zones, retarded inspections by Blix and his seeing-eye guide dog? A UN that is more interested in superficialities, payoffs, and meaningless "peace" prizes for doing nothing? Wishfull thinking that Saddam will eventually "behave" himself ? Why this belief that Saddam was "rational" ? The man was addicted to large scale killing and violence, and always would be. He even had indoctrinated his diabolical sons (both iced by US special forces) in the finer arts of torture and ethnic genocide.

Whatever state that Iraq may be in for the next few years may still be preferrable to the long-term nightmare that Saddam and his offspring had in store. I'm not claiming that this is not complicated. However, if we'd have very little problems rebuilding Iraq; and there was peace and love with few US casualties and it was going well, would anyone REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PRE-WAR INTEL ????


Of course not.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Wichita
Jan 23 2008, 11:08 PM
Note on JFK reference:

The first time he had a choice (Bay of Pigs), he picked the wrong one.

He didn't really know the answer, but he did learn what he didn't know.

Not sure what you mean by he picked the wrong one.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion failed and the exile Militia with CIA support were slaughtered on the beaches while Navy Destroyers sat idle.
Kennedy for some reason either froze or chose.
True he inherited Ike and the CIA's plan to overthrow Castrow but at the moment of Blink he blinked.
There may be more Intel he was facing than we know.
Either way the Military Brass embraced a huge hatred for JFK as did the CIA types.
Pissing off too many players JFK was.(sorry for the master Yoda speak :doh: )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Jag
Jan 23 2008, 08:01 PM
Option #1. Attack, Invade, justified, pre-emptive strike.(Before the Mushroom cloud)

George W. Bush:
During the build up to Shock and Awe invasion of Iraq Bush listened to the Hawks (Slam dunk anyone?) Further more he honestly believed the hype. He did not Lie, he honestly believed this threat was real. So did Colin Powell, and so did I. Bush did not get away with it. It appears to me on the evidence at hand he made the wrong decision.
How many YEARS of UN resolutions, non-cooperations with UN weapons inspectors did you just gloss over? Ten?

Jag
Jan 23 2008, 08:01 PM
However in these times I do not have the luxery of 40 years of historical reflection, we are still learning where the Proverbial chips are falling.
Ultimately I regret the destabilization of Iraq by the invasion, yet the bright side may yet be on the horizon. A foothold in the region for ALL ETERNITY. In the end I have no other choice but to support my next PRES whom I will choose very carefully.

Oh. Ummm, nice save! ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
If you say something that isn't true even though you believe it to be true, isn't it still a lie?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dr. Noah
Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
If you say something that isn't true even though you believe it to be true, isn't it still a lie?

I would describe it as unintentionally misleading rather than lying which implies a delibrate attempt to decieve.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 08:27 AM
Posted Image

:banghead:


Posted Image
Charles Lewis, a leader of the "Blame America First" crowd is
shown here participating in a discussion about the war.


:P



edited so caption would not be misinterpreted.

The result of looking at too much monkey porm :rolleyes:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
ds9074
Jan 24 2008, 10:03 PM
Dr. Noah
Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
If you say something that isn't true even though you believe it to be true, isn't it still a lie?

I would describe it as unintentionally misleading rather than lying which implies a delibrate attempt to decieve.

There was and continues to be nothing accidental or mistaken or unintentional about it.

Bush Jr and his cronnies spun and cherry picked "intelligence" , ignored the weapons inspectors (forced them to leave before they were finished) , and had already decided to finish off Iraq before 9-11 , 9-11 was simply a convenient excuse which they played for all they were worth to incite fear and hysteria and paranoia about Iraq's (non-existant) WMDs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 23 2008, 05:40 PM
Quote:
 
Dandandat
Jan 23 2008, 05:02 PM
That’s the custard in the donut ant it? In order to prove your arguments you need to sight facts.

They provided a bibliography. If there are reports, like the 911 Commission Report, that have already established certain facts, why should they have to do so again here?

If they are going to compile a List of ‘false statements’ and present it as a vast database of such. They have to do more then say "Its there, read the 9/11 commission report". It is on them to make their case with statements of facts, backed up by real evidence, so that I the reader can decided the merits. If I need to go do the research my self to see if they are right then they become superfluous and in my opinion suspect. Suspect because I have to wonder why they are making it difficult for me to find the truth fullness in their work.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Vast amount? Whats a vast amount?

Quote:
 
Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001,


935 false statements in two years, how many statements did they make in total over those two years? How many of that 935 are as questionable as these two appear to be?

I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it just sounds all to sophomoric.
935 in 2 years sounds pretty vast to me. I honestly don't see what it matters how many total statements were made. 935 is 935. That's either dishonest or incompetent. Take your pick. I don't find the two questionable except in isolation. But they aren't in isolation...


If 10,000,000 statements where made by these people in that 2 year period, then 935 becomes insignificant. If only 935 statements where made then 935 becomes very significant. This is especially important since this website counts one individual answer to one interview question as a statement. In that light I think the number of statements in a 2 year period by four of the most powerful people in the world is a rather low number. It would have been nice if the web sight gave us a count of how many statements where made. It would add prospective to the work. Again another reason to think this sight is suspect.

On top of that, when "False Statement" can simply mean "a wrong Statement" it becomes even more important.



Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Not sure what you mean. 


I mean that even if I where to accept what you are saying here as truth. What FDR did in WWII was much much worse and he is not questioned about it as much as this president. It seems odd to me.
That much I understood, but what did FDR do?


That would be a whole topic onto it self. But it is no secret that FDR played hard and fast with the 'turth', the war is considered the biggest propaganda war in history. But to give one easy example of FDRs improprieties; internment of Japanese Citizens that would make Gitmo a non issue.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
No I don't believe this administration has been the only one by any means. But I do believe that others have certainly been far more honest and I do consider this one to be among the more dishonest that I am familiar with.


Are they the most dishonest? or the worst at being dishonest?

Is it harder to be dishonest now than in the past?
Valid questions, but regardless of whether it's just him or it has always been this way, we need better.


Do we need better, I don’t know. I’m a realist not an idealist, I don’t know if there is even such a thing as better. And I am not certain that if we get what we think might be better whether we will come to regret it.

But should we look to get ‘better’ by putting this one administration on a pedestal and pretend it is the worst we have had? No, because if we do we will never get 'better' - because we will have ignored the real issue, the one that made many past presidents not better and not just this one.




Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus