quote:Now, I think, Jim, that -- make a couple of more points. I think the vast majority of the American people support this program. And I also think when ultimately the history is written about this period, the relevant reaction of the Congress will be the reaction of the leadership when we briefed them into the program in years past, and they signed up to it, and they agreed that it was an extraordinarily important program, and they urged us to continue. And that's an independent, outside, separate group, bipartisan -- did not involve just a selective group of Republicans, and that that's the reaction that's important -- not the one that comes after it becomes a political issue and people are trying to score political points.
He's clearly not talking about the Republican leadership, he says bipartisan. There were only eight people in Congress briefed.
Of course, one of them sent Cheney himself a letter, and its pretty clear he didn't sign up for it, and he didn't urge them to continue. Read it yourself.
Another one of the eight has also asserted he voiced concerns.
You really have to admire the media management of the Bush administration, its a lot better than most any administration before. Just never admit you've lied, keep saying what you said, and eventually people will believe you're right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth"- Vladimir Lenin
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yeah, he's the first President to employ that tactic. Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Oh will you shut up for once Russell, you over blown pundit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
smitty: no, but it wasn't pulled off particularly well, as far as I know. Are you going to cite examples, or just assert that it happened?
Shepherd: No.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
You agree that it happens, and then ask me for examples? don't worry about it kid, you'll see it once or twice more in your life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fugu's right. It appears Cheney is being misleading.
It doesn't help anyone, saying, "Well other presidents have done it..." That's not a good reason to keep on doing it, and it certainly isn't a valid excuse.
Stop excusing the weakness of your elected officials, and start making them accountable.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Or the other politicians went with the flow, knowing they could change their story when they wished. I hate to tell you guys, but we don't get enough information to make even a slightly informed opinion about these subjects. All we ever get is he said / he said.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's kinda like saying other people have fender benders so it's perfectly acceptable to run over pedestrians.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I'm glad to see that nobody that has posted here yet is suprised that Cheney told a lie. And Scott, when is Cheney not misleading about the facts in ANY INTERVIEW THAT HE HAS EVER GIVEN?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
No, it's more like saying most accountants use math in their work. Your analogy is very, very flawed.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hahahahaha. Good example smitty.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Or the other politicians went with the flow, knowing they could change their story when they wished. I hate to tell you guys, but we don't get enough information to make even a slightly informed opinion about these subjects. All we ever get is he said / he said.
That's certainly a valid point. I would love to see some Republican senator, perhaps the one from Arizona, stand up and say, "Dick Cheney lied to Jim Leher, and he needs to be held accountable for it. Here are the facts of the situation:...."
And then he'd say, "I promise, as a loyal Republican and more importantly as a patriotic American, that I will never lie. Furthermore, I will not excuse ANY lie that I hear or otherwise come in contact with; and even further, I will hunt out the lies and liars, so that accountability in this government will be enshrined along with liberty."
But I won't hold my breath.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yeah, I wouldn't reccomend it. Most of these guys are more interested in keeping their station in life, as opposed to serving the people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most of these guys are more interested in keeping their station in life, as opposed to serving the people.
Given this, it's our responsibility as citizens to elect those who WILL serve the people, and to disdain those who show contempt for values we hold dear (like honesty).
Since we also have the freedom of speech and assembly in this country, in addition to voting rights, we don't need to wait until 2008 to express concern to the Bush administration, and request action against Cheney. We should certainly be doing something right now to let them know that this sort of behavior is not acceptable.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
If the President has stuck by his people up to this point, I'm fair certain that people assembling to protest something as flaky as this wouldn't change anything.
The problem is, we have limited choices in candidates, and a limited choice of who gets to be a candidate. And, without some form of revolt (which, in general, people are too apathetic to care enough about, myself included), this won't change, since the change has to be implemented by the people who would be negatively affected.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Then, isn't what we're really saying, "We don't care enough about honesty in our politicians to do anything?"
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shepherd: Oh will you shut up for once Russell, you over blown pundit.
Wow, this comment doesn't belong in the Hatrack that I know. I've been known to be snarky and such to people, but this is beyond that. I thought that our purpose here was for reasoned discussion, not flagrant name-calling.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
well, pretty much. The problem is, it's great to recognize a problem. But unless you have a solution to said problem, you're spinning your wheels.
For a revolt to happen, things have to be to a point where it's worth giving up what you have, in the hopes of getting what you want. And, quite frankly, we're not there yet. A dishonest politician is a problem, but it's not interfering too much with my day to day life as Joe Consumer.
The problem is a total lack of alternatives.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Oh will you shut up Primal, you over blown peace keeper? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have major issues with that argument (Added: to clarify, I mean the "everyone else does it too" argument) as an reason to advocate against dissent, smitty.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Not saying that, twink. I'm jsut saying they shouldn't be surprised. And they shoudl be less surprised when nothing comes of it.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:For a revolt to happen, things have to be to a point where it's worth giving up what you have, in the hopes of getting what you want. And, quite frankly, we're not there yet. A dishonest politician is a problem, but it's not interfering too much with my day to day life as Joe Consumer.
The problem is a total lack of alternatives.
Wow. While not helpful in this discussion it is very telling of why we have often less than 50% voter turnout and a great lack of participation in democracy in this country. Because the "Average Joe" is, on the surface, unaffected by decisions made in his name he then has no reason to worry. Until it does intrude on his life.
Since this seems to be a thread of metaphors, then this is like someone on the 12th floor of a building who knows there is a fire below but he won't worry until it reaches the 11th.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Or not recognizing there even is a fire.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
smitty: more that I said other administrations in recent years tried it and failed .
Reagan's administration was pretty darn good at something similar, though they managed to avoid outright lying (at least, catchable lies, I suspect many administrations tell uncatchable lies related to national security). Since then, though, I can't think of any instances where the administration managed to stay its course and continue with the lie, except the current administration (this is the second major issue I recall its happened in, the other being with regard to the strength of evidence for a nuclear program in Iraq).
Can you provide an example of it in the Reagan administration, first Bush administration, or Clinton administration?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
You mean where they weren't called on it, and the statement proven to be false in the court of public opinion? Nothing comes to mind right off. Mostly what I remember is that they seldom come out and say "I Lied", even if they are caught.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clinton did Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Every time I see this thread title I think:
"How can you tell?" "His lips are moving!"
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I love jumping from political debate to my 5 year old. They have so much in common.
"Why did you lie?" "The others were lieing too!"
Should the responce be, "Mr. Cheney, if other vice president's jumped off the roof of the White House, would you?"
I think that same argument should go for Gonzales excuse for wire-tapping--that other Presidents have done it before.
Its scarey that 5 year old logic is in use by the most powerful person in the world.
One other thing. I am no Republican fan, but I do believe that most politicians do believe they are serving the people. They believe that the lies they tell, the bribes they take, are neccesary evils needed to allow them to do the really important stuff that serves the people.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I would agree that they can convince themselves of that. They're just "working the system".
The improper anologies are getting old. If the other vice presidents jumped off the roof, and 98% of them enjoyed the experience and had no unfortunate side effects, you know d@mn well future Vice Presidents are going to keep doing it. Lying is what politicians tend to do (see Enig's quote). Stop being surprised by it.
And actually, considering "it's been done before, and was ok then" is very similiar to legal precedent, it probably is a valid excuse.
And my comment about we don't know WHO is doing the lying is completely bypassed, because hey, who likes Cheney? (Well, I guess I don't, either) We assume we know the facts of a situation, when in fact we know a little bit about nothing, and, hey, we don't like this guy.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Guys, the program has been in place for over a decade, and the only reason that it is now being brought to lied and talked about is because the democrats in congress are grasping for straws to try and wain back their failing power following their defeats in the last three elections, losing the presidency, governorships, house, and senate. They seek as always a return to power, those who have power will do all they can to keep it.
I am not saying that the republicans in congress are not equally set upon keeping their power as the liberals, but at least they aren't grasping for rather weak straws.
It is a legal program approved by some of the very members of congress now grousing about it, which they are doing because it now serves their political needs to grouse more than it does to go along with it, which was why they went along with it before, it suited their purposes.
Oh, and yes, none of us no ANYTHING about the details, uses, applications, etc of this program. We only know what we here, which is as always skewed and plawed. I personally believe both the president and vice president to be men of character, Bush is a horrible public speaker, Cheney is a bit creepy, but they are both men of honor, conviction, and character in my view, and so I will always believe someone like them, or Leiberman, far easier than some slime-ball like Feinstein, or Kennedy.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Kinda of odd that Rockefeller sent that memo two years after he was briefed on the program. He's a Senator, not a helpless baby. He could have easily gone to the other Senators and held meetings, or met with Cheney or the President about this. Handscrawling a letter two years later doesn't sound like he objected. Sounds more like he stuck his finger up in the political wind and decided to change his mind for political gain.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
forgot a link... Roberts Response Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Shepherd--"Coming to lied" freudian slip? Smitty--Just because others have done it does not make it OK. Its no more OK than cheating on your wife would be, despite the fact that others have done it for years. We can't pardon our elected officials because "That's the way the system has always been". That is the surest way to make sure the system never fails.
You keep saying that we don't have all the facts. That is what I find most frustrating. We don't have all the facts, and there is no way for us to get those facts unless they tell us the truth. The more secretive the administration is, the more important that what they tell us is the truth, not lies.
Our only other choice is to put blind faith in the administration and believe that they are 1) Honest, 2) Capable, and 3)Doing what is best for me. While I have no doubt that President Bush is Honest, we have some evidence that people in his administration and political party are not. Being capable was put into great question with the aftermath of Iraq and Katrina. Doing what is best for me is in great doubt, since their policies seem to do what is best for the upper class/upper middle class. They believe its best for me, following "Trickle Down" theories of economics. Frankly, I'm tired of getting trickled on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Shepherd-- Link, please.
Casting doubt on the motives of detractors is a fairly old political ploy.
It doesn't solve anything. And it does not alter the fact that your man got caught with his pants down.
Again-- stop making excuses, and start holding your elected officials accountable for their misdeeds.
Dan_Raven-- Bush's actual, direct responsability for Katrina's aftermath is questionable.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Shepard,
The "program" may have been in place, but its abuse, and the "oh, you caught us, but it's all legal anyway" attitude about those abuses is a new wrinkle. This has come up in part because of Cheney's philosophy on Presidential power. A philosophy that Bush Senior did not fully buy into, but that our current President has adopted as the hallmark of his administration.
When you've got even Reagan-era legal advisors coming out of the workwork complaining about the abuses involved in the NSA domestic spying program, I have to take issue with you calling this all a ploy by Democrats.
As for the integrity of our President and Vice President: to me, they beat out Nixon/Agnew as the most morally corrupt individuals to hold those offices in my lifetime. Either that, or they are the biggest incompetents. Depends on how much of their stuff is by accident (like promising to brief the FISA court before using info from warrantless searches and then not doing it). If I give them credit for intelligence, then they are acting immorally. If I grant that they are moral, then I have to conclude they are inept.
I just don't see a possible description that lauds both their integrity and their intelligence.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have to believe defense of this program by the Bush administration has nothing to do with the safety of Americans and everything to do with a grab for additional power for the administration. I believe this because provisions are available to make the wiretaps unquestionably legal even retroactively and the Bush administration refuses to be inconvenienced by those provisions. Instead, they prefer to argue themselves above any accountability. As much as I dislike Bush and this administration, and many of their policies thus far, this policy seems to me to be the biggest threat yet to our liberty.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I never said it was ok. I said it was commonplace. And to not be surprised when it happens. Or when nothing comes of it.
When it comes to the facts, there are no facts. We're not going to get this answer. As long as at least one party is willing to lie, we're not going to know what really happened. All we have is conflicting stories, with no real evidence.
As for holding them responsible, well, sure. I'll hold them responsible. Oh, wait, I only vote for Indiana Congress Critters and Senators, and of course the President. And my vote is pretty small in the great scheme of things. And there needs to be a clear-cut choice that Candidate "A" is better than Candidate "B".
While I didn't agree with all of Bush's policies, I felt he was better than Gore or Kerry. Of course, things were so bitter during the elections that the fans of Kerry are taking every chance they can to punch holes in anything W does.
Here's the real fun part. If my choice in '08 is between Hillary and, say, Kermit... I'm voting for Kermit. We've stopped voting for the better candidate, and started picking the lesser of the two evils. And how most people determine that is the (R) or (D) next to their name.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I'm not sure how they are grabbing for power... Bush and his crew will be out in '08. What does he have to gain?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Scott R--side note. President Bush had little direct responsibility for FEMA's problems with Katrina. However, he was the person who appointed Brown to be in charge of FEMA, and that was a definate mistake. He seems to value unconditional loyalty over compitance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And how most people determine that is the (R) or (D) next to their name.
How do YOU determine that? While you're not responsible for "most people," you are at least able to not vote like an idiot yourself. Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I personally look at the candidates. But, I've only been of voting age for three presidential elections. My presidential picks have all been (R). My other picks are based on what policy / background / personality information I can find. Local picks are often based on my personal opinion of the candidate (we're a small county). Let's be completely honest, though - my vote is worth just as much as the idiot who votes straight ticket, or chooses his candidates based on the best hair.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Stop excusing the weakness of your elected officials, and start making them accountable.
I agree.
quote:"I promise, as a loyal Republican and more importantly as a patriotic American, that I will never lie. Furthermore, I will not excuse ANY lie that I hear or otherwise come in contact with; and even further, I will hunt out the lies and liars, so that accountability in this government will be enshrined along with liberty."
And this I second.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Guys, you can idealize all you want, but you're not going to get this. Anyone who entered public service with this mindset would either be minimalized or be under attack at all times. Public opinion is a fickle thing. It only takes accusations, not proof, to tear a man down.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Shepherd: Ten years? You mean since well before the use of force measure in Congress that the President is using as one argument for it being legal? And of course, only eight members of Congress, Republicans plus Democrats, knew about it until just recently, so its not like you can say all the rest are only using it for convenient political hay because now's a good time; they started protesting the instant they knew of it.
smitty: there have been several studies done showing things such as that the current administration has put far more people in positions of power who are generally underqualified than any recent administration. Things like that and this are what make me dislike them. I note we're still awaiting any instance of another recent administration managing to carry off the bald-faced, repeat lying this administration has.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Anyone who entered public service with this mindset would either be minimalized or be under attack at all times.
This is true, now. That's why a general public call for accountability is so important-- so that we can root out the weeds, and encourage good government.
quote:smitty: there have been several studies
Such as? Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
As far as Bush being out of power, that may be, but he has a brother, children of his own, heck even a VP who may consider running for president someday.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
S&L Scandal the Clintons were involved in comes to mind, but I'd have to go back and research it. But first I would ask you to prove to me who is lying, so I know who I should be checking on.
Would you like me to do a study confirming something I believe? I can do it. It's not all that difficult. 97% of the people polled (plus or minus three percent) believe that there is a staple remover on my desk. 47% of the people polled believe I will use it to commit suicide before anything is accomplished in this thread. Of course, underqualified is something that's not definitive, so it can't be proven one way or another.
I like the current President because he's decisive. I'd rather be doing SOMETHING, than flip-flopping around, trying to follow public opinion. You're not likely to convince me otherwise. I'm not likely to rock you away from your convictions.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I kinda doubt Jeb and Dick will have enough political pull to do that sort of thing myself. But, who knows.
Scott, how do you get the public to make such a call? Maybe I'm just a tad dissillisioned but I don't see how you can convince people of that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's an informal study by time here, and they cite another study by Waxman that specifically compares Bush's numbers to Clinton:
quote:A study by Representative Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, found that more than 60% of the IGs nominated by the Bush Administration had political experience and less than 20% had auditing experience—almost the obverse of those measures during the Clinton Administration. About half the current IGs are holdovers from Clinton.
I think I can dig up some more, but those are some of the recent activity prompted by Brown.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: S&L Scandal the Clintons were involved in comes to mind,
The Clintons? I think it was the Bushes that were involved with the S&L scandal. I mean, Neil Bush was the president of a bank that went bust and cost the taxpayers a billion dollars.
And Jeb defaulted on a loan for a building of 4.5 million dollars. When the property was reappraised after the default, it was valued at 500,000 and what do you know, he bought it back from. . . himself(?), leaving the taxpayers to pick the other 4 million of the 4.5 million dollar loan. They later sold the building (You know, the one they bought for 4.5 million, defauleted on, then snapped up for half a million) for 7 million. But they didn't make a profit.
I think you have your scandals confused. I think you are probably talking about Whitewater, but compared to the 1.2 trillion dollar S&L scandal of the Reagan/Bush administration, it wasn't even really a blip on the radar.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think you are probably talking about Whitewater, but compared to the 1.2 trillion dollar S&L scandal of the Reagan/Bush administration, it wasn't even really a blip on the radar.
You know, we've kind of addressed this particular method of debate as pointless and not helpful to anyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
smitty, I understand that politics can seem pretty hopeless. It very often feels like nothing we do will ever make a difference. But by failing to even try, we are giving up on the very idea of democracy.
Unlike many other countries, we Americans don't have a lot that binds us to gether as a country. We don't have a shared ethnicity, or centuries of shared history. All we have is our adherence to a set of ideals. That whole "goverment of the people, by the people, for the people", thing. You remember. It isn't a very practical idea and it is sometimes contrary to human nature and the ways of power. But, futile as it sometimes seems, many people have gone to jail, spent their fortunes, even given their lives because they believed in that ideal. The least we can do is vote and maybe send an occasional e-mail to our congressman.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Dan_Raven
quote: As far as Bush being out of power, that may be, but he has a brother, children of his own, heck even a VP who may consider running for president someday.
Jeb will not run for office for at least another two election cycles, it would be feasably impossible for this not to be seen as a ploy for a dynasty unless he waited a considerable period. The daughters stand absolutely no chance of becoming elected, lets face it, in the american electoral society a woman has no chance of becoming president unless she's basically Margaret Thatcher reborn. And Dick Cheney could never run on his own, not because of experience, he's one of the best, but his health is in too heavy a state of decay, no chance for a modern FDR.Therein Bush has no reason to grab for yet more power.
I believe that the Bush administration views this program to be a tool for the public good, not a weapon for personal gain. The facts are though, however unfortunately, that their are no facts, and even if the entire program were released we would into the public domain, we would never really know what we wanted to know, for we would be practically pulverized with swing, viewpoints, bias, and pundits, from all sides. C'est la vie. We must simply decide where our faith lies, and do what we believe to be right.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Ummm, didn't Whitewater involve an S&L? Yup. Go Google it.
Kate, I'm actually one of these guys who try to make a difference in my community. If I have a clear path, I can operate without clear results. Here's the problem. How do you create this change? How do you get from Point A to Point B? By electing politicians who say they will change things? I do vote. I do send letters to my Congressman. But you're basically asking a group of people to give something up, in return for honor. And some people don't value honor quite as high as others. I'm open to ideas. I just haven't heard any, other than the generic "hold them responsible".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. All those things. Keep at it. If enough of us do, we can change things. Or at least we can honestly say to ourselves that we did our best and that we didn't give up.
Please don't think my rant was aimed at you specifically. It is more the idea that we can't do anything so why try, that I think is our worst enemy.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
You're probably right. I'm just frustrated with WHAT to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here are some more specific suggestions:
Stay informed. Know how your elected officials vote on issues. Let them know if you agree. (I once e-mailed my congresswoman to urge her to support a bill. She e-mailed back to tell me that she was a co-sponsor. Heh.)
Inform others. Help get underrepresented voters to the polls.
Write or sign petitions.
Write letters to the editor.
Read news rather than watch it - and from multiple sources.
Volunteer or contribute to campaigns.
Run for local office.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, wome of those are good ideas (I should probably write more letters), some I already do, and some aren't very viable in this area.
And there's no way I would ever run for office. Too much mud slinging. I honestly believe the type of person who should be in office are exactly the people who will never run.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More importantly, perhaps, the Clintons were found to have been involved in no wrongdoing with Whitewater. While you may believe otherwise, that's not pointing out any lies of any sort.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Ummm, fugu, you've not convinced me yet who is lying about what. Considering how many times Whitewater was investigated, I would say there's something there. But, the Clinton's are smooth operators, and covered their tracks well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't have to convince you, I merely have to point out you haven't provided any examples of a previous Presidential administration successfully keeping up a lie despite there being public proof to the contrary.
As the Clintons were found to have no wrongdoing in Whitewater, it doesn't much matter if you think they were lying. Its perfectly possible to think someone's lying about nigh anything. That's irrelevant to the examples being looked for, though.
Of course nearly every Presidential administration we've had has lied, at the very least about national security. The question is if other Presidential administrations have used lies for such pernicious propaganda purposes, pushing their agenda despite the evidence they're building on being demonstrably false.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Well, wome of those are good ideas (I should probably write more letters), some I already do, and some aren't very viable in this area.
And there's no way I would ever run for office. Too much mud slinging. I honestly believe the type of person who should be in office are exactly the people who will never run.
Well, I guess you are proving your own point.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
No, I'm fairly certain I'm not the type who should be in office.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
My point smitty, was that the S&L scandal, which is referred to as the S&L scandal, wasn't the S&L scandal you were talking about. That was called Whitewater. Two different things. Tangentially related, but wholly separate names.
You know, I don't think we should shut up about the lying because they all did it. We only found out they all did it during our lifetime. We we were kids, we didn't know that every president since Eisenhower was lying to us about Vietnam.
There is a difference between keeping a secret, keeping your mouth shut, and lying to the people. Maybe they need Presidential seminars explaining the difference and which of the two they are allowed to do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Or the other politicians went with the flow, knowing they could change their story when they wished. I hate to tell you guys, but we don't get enough information to make even a slightly informed opinion about these subjects. All we ever get is he said / he said.
Given that we don't have any access to the facts, we have to form our opinions on what we know about the reliability of our sources.
We know from hind sight that the Bush administration has been an unreliable source of information in the past. The information they presented to pursuade us to attack Iraq, is now widely known to be false. It doesn't matter whether they knowingly mislead the country or merely failed to verify the facts they were given. Either way, they misinformed us about something which was crucially important and has lead to the death of thousands.
That well established history should make every American highly sceptical of information coming from the Bush administration. In the he said/she said debate -- we know without question that we can't trust this administration to give us the truth.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . ."
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, Rabbit, I'm less sure of the "widely known to be false". I don't know without question whether or not he can be trusted. I understand there are many who feel as you do. But there are also many who don't. Which is bore out by the whole "getting re-elected" thing. So your feelings on the matter are not the end-all answer. Sorry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
smitty: The Bush administration now acknowledges that most of it was false. This is not in dispute. Of course, they assert this was due to failures in the intelligence community, but not in the higher levels of the administration.
There certainly were failures in intelligence, but there are also reports by people like this guy: Click on the obvious story
And we do have Rice and Cheney (among others) on record saying things about how Iraq's recently purchased aluminum tubes could only really be used for uranium refinement, when there is proof their offices received strong reports by the energy department's nuclear experts not just disagreeing with the notion, but saying it made no particular sense at all.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yup, they went ahead and agreed with what the papers were already saying. Of course, the papers never acknowledged that there was evidence of illegal arms. There just wasn't the slam dunk nuke they were looking for.
I get the impression from some of my military friends that it was the administrations way of saying "we'll never prove our assertions, let's just give in". I'm sure there was some faulty intel. But saying it was outright lying....
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
On the subject of Iraq, I read this today.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know the President's mind so I can't say whether or not he was "outright lying". Here is what I can say:
He values loyalty and appoints people that are loyal to him. Sometimes that is their major qualification.
The administration made clear to the CIA what they wanted to hear.
People who didn't say what they wanted to hear were dismissed as loonies.
I think the resulting faulty intel is pretty predictable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
smitty: Ah, so anyone who criticizes the administration, despite being an intelligence expert who was a high level insider during the period in question, is making things up? No wonder you trust the character of those in the Bush administration, you've decided not to believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
Also, your adamancy that much of it may not have been false is amusing. Perhaps you'll believe Bush himself? We know it was false.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
quote: He values loyalty and appoints people that are loyal to him. Sometimes that is their major qualification.
Ah yes, because Condi Rice is well known for a being a brainless oaf and all think of her as a uneducated nitwit.
And Rumsfeld and Cheney, neither one of them have ANY sort of experience at all, unless you count serving in multiple administrations in multiple positions and performing briliantly.
Oh, and yes of course Carl Rove is a complete fool, as so well proven by his botching of Bush's campaigns.
Yes, clearly these people have no other qualifications other than being loyal to G.W.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How about you apply that sarcastic eye to his cabinet, Shepherd? Right now, you've named the high-profile appointees.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Very well, give me a tick and I might just do that, unless I decide to play starcraft instead.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Fugu -
I don't have a benchmak for believing the people in the intelligence community, either. Disgruntled employees say lots of things. Especially if they are morally opposed to war, or upset at some slight, or just wanting attention.
What I refuse to believe is that a madman, who is known for torture, gassing his own people, and starting wars suddenly turned over a new leaf and had NO WMD's. The fact that we found no stockpiles is more damning to me that if we had found one or two. This guy was using the UN "sanctions" to make himself richer. Why would I believe that he DIDN'T have these weapons? What was his motivation for getting rid of them? It's much more likely that he was able to move them into a sympathetic country.
I think the Pres was caught in a situation where everyone was accusing him of lying, he had nothing to back up his claims, so he passed it off as a mistake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oddly enough, there weren't any countries sympathetic to Iraq to speak of. Oh, some show support to the insurgents now, but Iraq had managed to piss just about everyone off.
As for your continued rejection of the failures of US intelligence despited repeated testimony from members of the intelligence community and the President of the United States, I can only shake my head and wonder.
We know the Niger evidence was forged (badly, too). We know our "source" for a major nuclear problem was wrong in all particulars so far checked and has a history of lying. We know that the aluminum tubes so considered damning by Cheney, Rice, and Powell were, just as our own Energy Department nuclear experts told us long ago, useless for nuclear centrifuges and perfect for a variety of missile it was perfectly legitimate for Iraq to have. We know every location we had considered likely to be a site for current development chemical or biological weaponry turned out to be a perfectly legitimate site for some other purpose.
These are all massive failures in intelligence. Are you telling me you somehow know they weren't wrong? If so, could you provide one (note: just one) shred of evidence to that effect?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Fugu, I don't know anything. Was some of the intelligence faulty? Surely. Any intelligence is going to have faults.
As for "prefectly legitimate sites", you do realize that many chemical weapons are very close to pesticides?
There were signs that Saddam had been working towards nukes. We've found several hidden caches of weapons, stored to be recovered after the war. We know he had chemical weapons. We know he was flaunting the UN sanctions. That's all I know.
Just so we can be clear, I'm not supposed to believe the President, except when he says something you agree with, right? I don't know what the truth is over there. But I'm not buying CNN's version of everything.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
a. Chemical weapons deteriorate over time, as do biological weapons. It's likely that the weapons Saddam had deteriorated, and he didn't have the resources to build new ones. Also, chances are he's not going to use them even if he has them, he had them during the Gulf War, and didn't use them.
b. Building nukes is hard. It's not something that no one notices that you do, and it's not something you do when you're say, strapped for resources. If you're that worried about nukes, you should have been far far more worried about Iran and North Korea.
As it happens, I think the Bush Administration saw the evidence it wanted to see. Maybe not the best judgement call on the part of the most powerful man on the planet, but neither is it lying.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
I seocnd that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:What I refuse to believe is that a madman, who is known for torture, gassing his own people, and starting wars suddenly turned over a new leaf and had NO WMD's.
Keep in mind that the chemical weapons he was known to have -- the ones that the U.S. sold him in the 1980s -- do not have an infinite "shelf life." IIRC, they were no longer usable at the time of the second invasion of Iraq.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Good point by Twink and Blac. But this is also stuff a decent chemist could make, too. And I'm not going to argue that the admin saw what it wanted in the intelligence.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But this is also stuff a decent chemist could make, too.
With appropriate supplies, yes. Certainly many of the supplies needed for some chemical weapon agents are readily available here in North America, but I have to question whether Iraq could manufacture weapons-grade material in sufficient quantities and with adequate delivery systems to be a threat to much of anyone.
If the Bush-Blair memos I linked to are accurate, the Administration had decided to invade Iraq well before they even presented their information, such as it was, to the U.N. To that end, Bush suggested the possibility of painting U.S. planes in U.N. colours to provoke an attack that would constitute a material breach of Resolution 1441, thereby legally justifying an invasion. If that's the case, saying "they saw what they wanted to see" would be putting it mildly; they wanted to invade Iraq and were apparently willing to say just about anything in order to do so.
[Edited for grammar.]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've never even asserted the President has lied, because I've never caught him at it. But you can be darn sure when he ever-so-rarely admits a mistake its one that was actually made.
Its not just that our intelligence was wrong in parts, but that it was nearly 100% wrong. If you're going to try to justify the war intelligence, then at least research a single piece of moderately major, contemporary intelligence in support of the war that turned out to be correct. I'm not aware of even one.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Uh, fugu, have you read any of your own posts?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blacwolve: As it happens, I think the Bush Administration saw the evidence it wanted to see. Maybe not the best judgement call on the part of the most powerful man on the planet, but neither is it lying.
I disagree.
The administration saw the evidence it wanted to see because that's all the evidence it looked at. Whether Bush and Co. deceived us, or deceived themselves so they could deceive us, it's still deception, and it's still lying.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Shepherd: Yes, but apparently you haven't. I've accused several people in the administration of lying, but never Bush. I've asserted the administration (including Bush) said many things to justify the war that turned out to be incorrect, and often badly, laughably incorrect, but this does not necessarily mean a lie was (always) involved.
This President is incredibly PR-savvy. His administration as a whole has made a concrete effort to ensure he's never in a situation where he has to lie (or it can be proven he lied, no way of knowing). Furthermore, their political strategy centers around never having to admit a mistake -- he signs any bill that gets put before him, if something may have been in error they do a PR campaign to change topics/emphases/history (reasons why we went to Iraq for $500, Alex?), et cetera. You can be darn sure whenever Bush has to admit a mistake there was actually a mistake made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The administration made clear to the CIA what they wanted to hear.
People who didn't say what they wanted to hear were dismissed as loonies.
These things are either unproven or exaggerated.
However I qualify that by saying that even though I still think the Iraq war is justified, I believe our reasons for being there were terribly presented, misprioritized, and mismanaged by the Administration.
I believed then and believe now that had the Administration stuck with the fact that Saddam was still hedging on weapons inspections, that he was a brutal dictator with ties to terrorism (not just al Qaeda which is to this day debateable at best), and that we needed a drastic change in how we deal with regimes and men like Saddam Hussein post 9-11...he would've had his war, and virtually none of the problems about it today would be riding him, and us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and fugu...while you have not directly accused President Bush of lying himself while he was actually speaking...there are only so many times you can accuse a leader's subordinates of lying, deceiving, twisting, etc., and point out how it benefits the leader, before people start rather expectedly getting the impression that you're sure the leader is lying, too.
I mean, that's really the only other option besides "the President is stupid" that your frequent assertions on Administration news permits. Either President Bush is incompetent, and his Administration is lying and cheating constantly, right under his very nose and he doesn't know it...or he does know it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think fugu's drawing a distinction between actually lying, as Bush only rarely does in public, and habitually being the cause of lies in other people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That still leaves only two possible conclusions: either he's accidentally the cause of lies in others, in which case he's a dunderhead, or he's instructing them to lie for him and is the cause THAT way.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It should be noted that the the NRC determined that key documents Bush used were forgeries by doing a google search. If Bush did not know the information he presented was false when it could be so easily determined, then he and his administration are guilty of gross negligence. When one makes a decision that will cost thousands of human lives and billions of dollars, it is ones ethical and moral responsibility to double and triple check the facts. Even if you think Bush didn't know the information was bad, his behavior was highly unethical.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Whatever your views on the administration, we must all agree the Karl Rove is a public relations/campaign master.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
And what is it that he's doing that is evil?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Given Karl Rove, I would imagine that any random sampling of any given ten-minute period from his day would have at least a 50% chance of containing evil. And I'm including sleep periods.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Even if you think Bush didn't know the information was bad, his behavior was highly unethical.
And we've come full circle to the very same question I asked before: which is it? Is Pres. Bush lying, or is he incompetent?
Pres. Bush is not the one who actually checks the veracity of documents his Administration uses, Rabbit. You know that. It would be much more reasonble for you to say it has been unethical of him not to apologize and explain this behavior by his subordinates, rather than expect he never have done it in the first place as though he himself was the one who did it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: of course I think Bush bears some fault for employing such subordinates, and I've said as much. I recall on hatrack asserting Rice should have been fired, for instance, and that it spoke badly of Bush for not doing so.
However, my position regarding these things has been constant. I've always been very careful to only accuse those of lying that I can actually prove (though of course the theoretical possibility remains the people involved were astonishingly incompetent or being kept isolated due to some sort of bizarre internal conspiracy), and I resent people basically telling me that I've really been accusing the President of lying, when I haven't, or of being otherwise grossly inconsistent in my position.
Rakeesh: there's a third possibility (assuming I'm reading "dunderhead" correctly). He just doesn't particularly care if his subordinates tell lies to others, provided they're loyal and truthful to him, and the lies they tell don't harm his position. That's the possibility I lay my money on, and is what's been implied by most of my statements on the subject.
edit: I realize I said "Rakeesh" twice . . . silly me. *pies self*
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
don't worry about it kid, you'll see it once or twice more in your life.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)