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 (2,069 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:35 AM
Dr. Noah
Jan 24 2008, 07:00 AM
If you say something that isn't true even though you believe it to be true, isn't it still a lie?

Yes, if it's presented as though it is true rather than "I believe it to be true".

:huh: :huh: :huh:

If you believe it to be true, you will present it to be true, the "I believe" is implicit in everything we say. Of course “I believe” it – I am saying it aren’t I?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:42 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 09:51 AM
There are so many questionable historical facts that if we demanded “honesty” then the world might not be where it is today. We might not be as well off as we are. How right is it for us to play the victim now?

Or we might be even better off.

"Playing victim", as you all it, is as right as it makes sense. And I think the day that we accept this is just as good as it gets and give up on trying to improve is the day that this country starts to die.

I am all for improvement. What I am not for is irrationality in scope and simply stating ideals as if that’s all we need to get to the promise land. Life does not work in ideals it works in reality. In realty complete honest by a leader/authority figure is not always a good thing and can lead to devastating consequences. If FDR told the American people “Listen I know you don’t like this European war and want to stay as far away from it as possible. But I’m going to help them anyway against your wishes, further more it might be dangerous, some of my actions will appear aggressive to Europe’s enemies, they may in time come to think of us as their enemies and we may need to fight a war you want nothing to do with. But I think it’s the right thing to do” – How long would he have remained in office? Would he even make it to the next election?

And what about those enemies, at some point they came to see the US as their enemy but for a while before that point they didn’t know what to think about the US. But if FDR was honest about his intentions they would have known earlier and the axes could have prepared better sooner.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:45 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:32 AM
The misleading is only one way in which I want future presidents to do better.  What bothers me more than anything is that this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it.  Some of that is because of 9/11 and some of that is because of how his administration has handled it and the country's business in general.  And it will likely take us a long time to recover.

I don't have time to answer all of what you wrote.


But I dont accept that "this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it." You will have to quantify this statement.

For a President that was supposed to be a "uniter", national unity is at an all time low. Our economy is far worse off. The national debt has grown enormously. Our reputation around the world is diminished. Although we aren't told this specifically, I believe our military supplies must be largely depleted - I'm not saying we are left vulnerable, but it's like having a savings where you've spent half of it. Our military options are somewhat limited by the large deployment in Iraq. There are many things. There are some that I won't even bring up because it depends on your party affiliation as to whether they will be viewed as pluses or minuses, but for me they are minuses.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:48 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:35 AM
Dr. Noah
Jan 24 2008, 07:00 AM
If you say something that isn't true even though you believe it to be true, isn't it still a lie?

Yes, if it's presented as though it is true rather than "I believe it to be true".

:huh: :huh: :huh:

If you believe it to be true, you will present it to be true, the "I believe" is implicit in everything we say. Of course “I believe” it – I am saying it aren’t I?

I wouldn't. If I have to choices and I don't know which is correct, but I must choose one, then I will choose the one that I most believe to be true. But I will recognize that I made this choice and might not be correct. Therefore, when I tell others about it, if I say it actually is correct, then I am lying. This is especially true for someone like the President who is viewed as someone in a position to know. So if he says it like he knows, at least many people will believe he really does know.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:57 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:42 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 09:51 AM
There are so many questionable historical facts that if we demanded “honesty” then the world might not be where it is today. We might not be as well off as we are. How right is it for us to play the victim now?

Or we might be even better off.

"Playing victim", as you all it, is as right as it makes sense. And I think the day that we accept this is just as good as it gets and give up on trying to improve is the day that this country starts to die.

I am all for improvement. What I am not for is irrationality in scope and simply stating ideals as if that’s all we need to get to the promise land. Life does not work in ideals it works in reality. In realty complete honest by a leader/authority figure is not always a good thing and can lead to devastating consequences. If FDR told the American people “Listen I know you don’t like this European war and want to stay as far away from it as possible. But I’m going to help them anyway against your wishes, further more it might be dangerous, some of my actions will appear aggressive to Europe’s enemies, they may in time come to think of us as their enemies and we may need to fight a war you want nothing to do with. But I think it’s the right thing to do” – How long would he have remained in office? Would he even make it to the next election?

And what about those enemies, at some point they came to see the US as their enemy but for a while before that point they didn’t know what to think about the US. But if FDR was honest about his intentions they would have known earlier and the axes could have prepared better sooner.

A President should not tell the people everything if that's going to endanger national security. That's withholding information, not lying, and is not the same thing. But what a President does say should be accurate and not a lie. For example, Bush said:
Second quote on the first page of the website I linked
 
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
(bold added by me)

This could have been worded as follows:
"Based on intelligence, we have concluded that the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities to make more. According to the British government, they could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . Intelligence also leads us to conclude that this regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Same information. No lie. Simply saying "we have concluded" changes everything from saying it "is" to saying "in our best judgment, we believe" and is really just as forceful as an argument to go to war.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 08:31 AM
What's also funny about RTW's list is many of those wrong statements (ones that were said during the Bush administration and not by Clinton) were derived from the misinformation that the Bush administration was disseminating.

This implies that democrats are incapable or thinking for themselves, even those who attended the same intelligence briefings.

It implies that after hearing the same information they're not smart enough to come up with their own conclusions.

Yes, it is funny that, in hindsight, the best excuse democratic supporters can come up with for the democrats overwhelming support for the war is that they're weren't smart enough to think for themselves.



Or perhaps they only went along with Bush and supported the war because it was popular at the time? Did they really put lives at risk to help their careers?

If this is the case, it's not so funny.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 11:20 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 08:31 AM
What's also funny about RTW's list is many of those wrong statements (ones that were said during the Bush administration and not by Clinton) were derived from the misinformation that the Bush administration was disseminating.

This implies that democrats are incapable or thinking for themselves, even those who sat in the same intelligence meetings.

It implies that after hearing the same information they're not smart enough to come up with their own conclusions.

Yes, it is funny that, in hindsight, the best excuse democratic supporters can come up with for their support of the war is that they're not smart enough to think for themselves.



Or perhaps they only went along with Bush and supported the war because it was popular at the time? Did they really put lives at risk to help their careers?

If this is the case, it's not so funny.

How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:04 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:45 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:32 AM
The misleading is only one way in which I want future presidents to do better.  What bothers me more than anything is that this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it.  Some of that is because of 9/11 and some of that is because of how his administration has handled it and the country's business in general.  And it will likely take us a long time to recover.

I don't have time to answer all of what you wrote.


But I dont accept that "this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it." You will have to quantify this statement.

For a President that was supposed to be a "uniter", national unity is at an all time low. Our economy is far worse off. The national debt has grown enormously. Our reputation around the world is diminished. Although we aren't told this specifically, I believe our military supplies must be largely depleted - I'm not saying we are left vulnerable, but it's like having a savings where you've spent half of it. Our military options are somewhat limited by the large deployment in Iraq. There are many things. There are some that I won't even bring up because it depends on your party affiliation as to whether they will be viewed as pluses or minuses, but for me they are minuses.

Well then I don’t agree;

The country was divided before he took office. His elections was a testament to that divide. He has been ineffectual at reuniting it. But that can't be counted as a worse off case. In fact when I look over the last seven years I see a president that frequently tried to be a uniter. For his troubles he had his own party turn on him more then once and the opposing party never giving him an inch. I think Congress failed him and the country on this point, he didn’t fail the country.

The Economy is no worse off today then it was the day he took office in 2000. Any wows we are seeing now where not the result of his actions or inactions. Also a down turn does not automatically signal a bad economy, down turns are part of the cyclical process. When a country can’t turn out of a down turn is when you say there is a bad economy. In that way the President effectively (in as much as a president can hold sway) turned us out of the 2000 recession and we saw a great 7 years there after.

You will have to quantify that our reputation around the world being diminished. I don’t see much of a change at all.

Our military supplies are not largely depleted. My perspective from inside the defense industry tells me that we are at a military level higher then before he took office. Much new technology made it to the battle fielded and we are winding down from a cycle of upgrade.

And the ideological pluses and minuses have been going back and forth as presidents change and clearly cant be used as a worse off metric.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:18 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:57 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:42 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 09:51 AM
There are so many questionable historical facts that if we demanded “honesty” then the world might not be where it is today. We might not be as well off as we are. How right is it for us to play the victim now?

Or we might be even better off.

"Playing victim", as you all it, is as right as it makes sense. And I think the day that we accept this is just as good as it gets and give up on trying to improve is the day that this country starts to die.

I am all for improvement. What I am not for is irrationality in scope and simply stating ideals as if that’s all we need to get to the promise land. Life does not work in ideals it works in reality. In realty complete honest by a leader/authority figure is not always a good thing and can lead to devastating consequences. If FDR told the American people “Listen I know you don’t like this European war and want to stay as far away from it as possible. But I’m going to help them anyway against your wishes, further more it might be dangerous, some of my actions will appear aggressive to Europe’s enemies, they may in time come to think of us as their enemies and we may need to fight a war you want nothing to do with. But I think it’s the right thing to do” – How long would he have remained in office? Would he even make it to the next election?

And what about those enemies, at some point they came to see the US as their enemy but for a while before that point they didn’t know what to think about the US. But if FDR was honest about his intentions they would have known earlier and the axes could have prepared better sooner.

A President should not tell the people everything if that's going to endanger national security. That's withholding information, not lying, and is not the same thing. But what a President does say should be accurate and not a lie. For example, Bush said:
Second quote on the first page of the website I linked
 
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
(bold added by me)

This could have been worded as follows:
"Based on intelligence, we have concluded that the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities to make more. According to the British government, they could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . Intelligence also leads us to conclude that this regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Same information. No lie. Simply saying "we have concluded" changes everything from saying it "is" to saying "in our best judgment, we believe" and is really just as forceful as an argument to go to war.



I chose my example for a reason. While FDR was promising American mothers that there boys would not be sent to fight a foreign war, he was taking steps that draw the US ever closer to that war. It was not just withholding infromation.


Quote:
 
"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance.I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its
very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our
shores. The purpose of our defense is defense."

FDR, Speech in Boston, October 30, 1940.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 09:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:

So Bush should have been smart enough to know the intelligence was wrong, but not the democrats? Why? According to your side THEY'RE the smart ones.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 11:46 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:04 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:45 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:32 AM
The misleading is only one way in which I want future presidents to do better.  What bothers me more than anything is that this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it.  Some of that is because of 9/11 and some of that is because of how his administration has handled it and the country's business in general.  And it will likely take us a long time to recover.

I don't have time to answer all of what you wrote.


But I dont accept that "this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it." You will have to quantify this statement.

For a President that was supposed to be a "uniter", national unity is at an all time low. Our economy is far worse off. The national debt has grown enormously. Our reputation around the world is diminished. Although we aren't told this specifically, I believe our military supplies must be largely depleted - I'm not saying we are left vulnerable, but it's like having a savings where you've spent half of it. Our military options are somewhat limited by the large deployment in Iraq. There are many things. There are some that I won't even bring up because it depends on your party affiliation as to whether they will be viewed as pluses or minuses, but for me they are minuses.

Well then I don’t agree;

The country was divided before he took office. His elections was a testament to that divide. He has been ineffectual at reuniting it. But that can't be counted as a worse off case. In fact when I look over the last seven years I see a president that frequently tried to be a uniter. For his troubles he had his own party turn on him more then once and the opposing party never giving him an inch. I think Congress failed him and the country on this point, he didn’t fail the country.

The Economy is no worse off today then it was the day he took office in 2000. Any wows we are seeing now where not the result of his actions or inactions. Also a down turn does not automatically signal a bad economy, down turns are part of the cyclical process. When a country can’t turn out of a down turn is when you say there is a bad economy. In that way the President effectively (in as much as a president can hold sway) turned us out of the 2000 recession and we saw a great 7 years there after.

You will have to quantify that our reputation around the world being diminished. I don’t see much of a change at all.

Our military supplies are not largely depleted. My perspective from inside the defense industry tells me that we are at a military level higher then before he took office. Much new technology made it to the battle fielded and we are winding down from a cycle of upgrade.

And the ideological pluses and minuses have been going back and forth as presidents change and clearly cant be used as a worse off metric.

This can easily go off on a long tangent of its own. I'm not really surprised that you don't agree with me. However, in the interest of remaining somewhat focused, I'm going to choose to let this stand as is. I suspect I could argue vehemently and you still won't agree anyway. That's fine.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 11:51 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:18 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 10:57 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:42 AM
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 09:51 AM
There are so many questionable historical facts that if we demanded “honesty” then the world might not be where it is today. We might not be as well off as we are. How right is it for us to play the victim now?

Or we might be even better off.

"Playing victim", as you all it, is as right as it makes sense. And I think the day that we accept this is just as good as it gets and give up on trying to improve is the day that this country starts to die.

I am all for improvement. What I am not for is irrationality in scope and simply stating ideals as if that’s all we need to get to the promise land. Life does not work in ideals it works in reality. In realty complete honest by a leader/authority figure is not always a good thing and can lead to devastating consequences. If FDR told the American people “Listen I know you don’t like this European war and want to stay as far away from it as possible. But I’m going to help them anyway against your wishes, further more it might be dangerous, some of my actions will appear aggressive to Europe’s enemies, they may in time come to think of us as their enemies and we may need to fight a war you want nothing to do with. But I think it’s the right thing to do” – How long would he have remained in office? Would he even make it to the next election?

And what about those enemies, at some point they came to see the US as their enemy but for a while before that point they didn’t know what to think about the US. But if FDR was honest about his intentions they would have known earlier and the axes could have prepared better sooner.

A President should not tell the people everything if that's going to endanger national security. That's withholding information, not lying, and is not the same thing. But what a President does say should be accurate and not a lie. For example, Bush said:
Second quote on the first page of the website I linked
 
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
(bold added by me)

This could have been worded as follows:
"Based on intelligence, we have concluded that the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities to make more. According to the British government, they could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . Intelligence also leads us to conclude that this regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Same information. No lie. Simply saying "we have concluded" changes everything from saying it "is" to saying "in our best judgment, we believe" and is really just as forceful as an argument to go to war.



I chose my example for a reason. While FDR was promising American mothers that there boys would not be sent to fight a foreign war, he was taking steps that draw the US ever closer to that war. It was not just withholding infromation.


Quote:
 
"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance.I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its
very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our
shores. The purpose of our defense is defense."

FDR, Speech in Boston, October 30, 1940.

You're making a valid point about FDR, but how does that apply to Bush? Wouldn't we know by now if there was some "clever" strategy behind the misleading? (And, by the way, I'm not ready to concede that this was such a great thing FDR did either.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:

You do know one of the highest duties of congress is to provide check of the executive? In maters of war, congress is duty bound not to just read what the executive gives them. They are duty bound to come up with the facts them selves and provide oversight. That is how you run an effective government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 11:55 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 09:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else?  There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:

So Bush should have been smart enough to know the intelligence was wrong, but not the democrats? Why? According to your side THEY'RE the smart ones.

Bush and some administration members had first-hand information. The others had what was reported to them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else?  There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:

You do know one of the highest duties of congress is to provide check of the executive? In maters of war, congress is duty bound not to just read what the executive gives them. They are duty bound to come up with the facts them selves and provide oversight. That is how you run an effective government.

There is a system in place to do that. I don't know all the procedural details, but I would be surprised to find that it is the duty of every member of Congress to independently do their own verification process of everything the president says or even everything just specifically pertaining to war matters. At some point, many members relied on the information of others. And for the ones who did verify, I doubt they have access to all of the information that the President does. At the very least, they weren't part of all the same discussions, with the dissenting opinions, that the President was.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus