quote:Misinformation helps conservatives. If you are chalk full of lies about the government. You are going to be distrustful of everyone and just want to keep everything exactly how it is, especially if you personally are in a stable situation.
Except conservatives don't want to keep everything exactly how it is, at least if you're talking about political conservatives.
Edit: And, of course, lies can be just as, if not more, useful in effecting change than in maintaining a status quo.
posted
Individual lies don't necessarily serve the status quo, but I think that a persistent culture of lies does. When there isn't anyone who you trust to tell you the truth, you can either live in a state of constant uncertainty or become aggressively apathetic about the whole deal or you can pick out people who agree with you and trust whatever they say.
The strange thing is that cognitive dissonance is a rubber band force. If you have good reason to believe in something or you have actual faith in it, it is very weak. It's when belief is weak and faith is absent but the need to believe is strong that you see cognitive dissonance really kick in. Hatred, prejudices, book burnings, etc. are the hallmarks of insecurity. Inquisitions don't happen without their perpetrators first going through an exquisition (i.e. a forced removal of doubt and questioning from their own minds).
We're going through a presidential race right now that, to me, is a good indication that democracy in our country has some major problems. The very fact that George Bush could win again (and a large part of this is how unsuited for the job his opponent it) tells me that our system of deciding who leads us is extremely flawed.
George Bush is a liar and a deceiver. His party is full of liars and deceivers. He and his administration put me in a position where I had to appologize to people because I trusted what the government was telling me about why we should go to war. (Don't give me that BS. Be honest with yourself. You know they had the deception as their intention.)
John Kerry is also (well, he's not told any baldface lies that I know of, but he's sure been deceptive) a liar and a deceiver. His party is very full of liars and deceviers.
I think that our main hope lies in the coming together of people from whatever part of the political spectrum (or n-dimensional graph) who are willing to stand up for principles, who aren't willing to be lied to, who are dedicated to the truth. A new political party may arise dedicated not to a particular set of issues, but rather towards those so rare qualities character, maturity, and responsibility in whatever form they shown themselves.
I was semi-watching the Eagles game the other day and I was thinking about how many people will boo and disagree with a call just because it's against their team or cheer and support it because it's against the other team. I don't believe in that. I'm one of those people who wants to judge it based on it merits. I think this is kind of childish when it's in the world of professional sports, but in the world of politicals it's almost criminally irresponsible.
One of my main fears is that, if there is a coming togething and acting out of these people, there will be far too few of us to make a difference.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please Dag. It's rare that I'll pull this out, but if there are people who really believe that the Bush administration weren't trying to deceive people, I'm willing to say that those people have serious problem with reality.
It's like saying, in response to the speechs going from:
We're fighting al Queda. -to the next line: We have to win in Iraq to defeat our enemies. -to the next line: The terrorists are out there trying to attack us. -to the next line: We're fighting in Iraq against the people who want to harm us. -to the next line: September 11th taught us that we need to go after these people. -to the next line: We're going into Iraq to protect ourselves. -Repeat for another 10 minutes.
that they never explictly said that there were links between Iraq and al Queda, so they weren't trying to link the two.
You can take whatever formal position you want to take, but, if we're both reasonable people, we both know the truth.
posted
McSquicky, you make good points. I noticed that throughout the moments leading to the war. It was confusing to me because it seemed as if something was wrong, but it was hard to put into words why and how.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, enjoy your view of reality. It must be nice to be so sure that someone who disagrees with both your interpretation of and designation of motive to a political speech is out of touch with reality.
Makes it nice and simple to disregard a large portion of the population, which I'm sure is convenient to you.
posted
But isn't that the correct view of reality? I mean, how can you reconcile all of Bush's speeches connecting Iraq, WMDs, and Al Qaeda with the suggestion that Bush wasn't trying to mislead us? I've seen many of those speeches myself, from his state of the union address all the way to his debate performance, he's consistently tried to make the connection and threat appear more significant than it is - even AFTER he admited such connections did not exist to the extent most people thought.
It's good to give presidents the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not. I've given another possible reading of those speeches at various times here. You can disagree with it all you want, but the instant you dismiss those advocating it as disconnected from reality or knowingly self-delusional, you're going one step to far. In fact, it sounds a lot like what people often attack in OSC's articles.
I suppose it's easier to tolerate unprovable assertions of other people's motives when you disagree with those people, huh?
posted
Very very little is provable. Conclusions are based on what appears to be the case based on the evidence. Sure, we can't prove the administration's motive was to decieve, but I think we can say it's very hard to come up with a believable alternate explanation for the evidence.
You say you've given an alternate explanation elsewhere - what is it?
If it's the commonly used "We were all tricked" claim, I don't think that should fly, for a couple reasons - foremost of which would be the fact that he continued to make his assertions even after the rest of us realized there were no such connections. Bush even tried to suggest that that vague, limited weapons-related activities we eventually found constituted the sort of WMD threat he claimed Iraq had. The fact is, even after we got to see the same evidence he was seeing, he consistently called it more of a threat than we could all see it was.
The only other possibility I see is that Bush actually did believe all the things he was saying - but given he's the President of the United States and someone who has access to countless expert advisors, I think it would be unfair and unrealistic of me to believe that Bush couldn't see what the rest of us average Joes saw once we looked at the evidence. Bush is, I believe, too smart for that.
posted
Dag, I disregard the opinion of a large section of the population almost as a matter of course anyway. That's remarkably easy to do if you know as much social research as I do. The American public has consistently shown itself to be on average very poor judges of just about everything. Throwing populist rhetoric at me doesn't phase me all that much. I'm confident that millions of people not only can be wrong, but, by virtue of the normal curve distribution statistics involved are actually more likely to be wrong because of the large number.
This isn't a matter of me trying to label the people who disagree with me one way of the other. This is about my belief that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person who is being honest to claim that there aren't overwhelming reasons to believe that the Bush Administration has been intentionally deceptive. This is not a classification that I use lightly, but in this case I think that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is completely justified.
edit: And, I should really include in here that I can completely understand why people would vote for George Bush in the coming election. I'm not talking about not voting for him. I'm just talking about distorting reality to such a point that you actually are comfortable saying that he and his people didn't intentionally deceive us.
quote:You say you've given an alternate explanation elsewhere - what is it?
*sigh*
Ok, I'm not interested in debating this, because it's been proven pointless time and time again here.
I'll simply post it to say that a large number of people do not believe Bush intended to deceive regarding Iraq's connection to 9/11 and al-Quaeda.
Basically, the idea is that 9/11 awakened us to the possible dangers posed by an Iraq that 1) Had WMDs or the capacity to make them (so we thought) 2) Had a brutal dictator that had no moral qualms against see large numbers killed with those weapons. This danger could be posed by Iraq supplying these weapons to terrorists who had recently shown their willingess to launch largescale attacks against purely civillian targets resulting in thousands of deaths.
It's not that Iraq contributed to 9/11, but rather that al-Quaeda now had the credentials to possibly get WMDs from Iraq, and Iraq hated us enough to possibly do it. The reports of possible meetings between operatives supported this theory much more so than "Iraq supports al-Quaeda."
This is the case as I heard from the beginning.
And Squick, it's not the case that a large number of people believing something makes it true. Rather, it's the case that dismissing opinions as you have here (and do elsewhere with much of your rhetoric) simply makes it impossible for you to be abble to effect willing change. Especially when it's patently untrue that all reasonable people who aren't fooling themselves agree with your interpretation of events. If you're comfortable with that, OK. But I really hate it when someone tries to make preemptively make their position unassailable by insulting those who might disagree with you.
posted
I try to avoid speaking to the motives or interpretations of what Bush himself says, as he is always. always, always protected at some level beneath himself by a layer of people that may or may not have acted without the knowledge of their higher ups.
However, it may be conclusively (as conclusively as anything is ever show in history) shown that many higher ups in the administration were selective in the evidence they looked at to the point of deception. Perhaps it was primarily a deception of themselves, not letting themselves see the evidence correctly, or perhaps it was conscious, but either way it was a deception which mislead the american public and the congress.
I, for instance, have never heard someone give a gloss of the aluminum tubes situation that has not included deception of one or both of the sorts I speak of above among the highest levels of Bush's administration.
Would you care to discuss what you think of that, Dagonee?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
If that was the case, why do so many Bush-backers still believe the case is that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected? And more importantly, why didnt't Bush change his rhetoric or correct people once it became clear the people were under the impression there was a connection? He has only admitted that on rare occassion, and then only when pressued by Democrats to do so. Bush couldn't be unaware of the widely published statistics that people thought there was such a connection. Even today, Bush and Cheney are still at it. Cheney even insinuated there was a connection in the same debate in which he claimed he never said there was a connection.
We now know there was only a limited threat from Iraq - and so does Bush. When he keeps insisting there was a grave threat and Iraq's invasion was contributing to the fight against Al Qaeda, even given this knowledge, how can he not be misleading us? Your explanation doesn't account for this either.
quote:I, for instance, have never heard someone give a gloss of the aluminum tubes situation that has not included deception of one or both of the sorts I speak of above among the highest levels of Bush's administration.
Would you care to discuss what you think of that, Dagonee?
Actually, I wouldn't, as it seems pointless. You've reached your conclusions; I've reached mine. I'll do you the courtesy (which you've well earned) of assuming you have thought the issue through and arrived at your conclusion based on evidence you find sufficient.
I'm not trying to prove anything - my post explaining the other meaning of Bush's case for the war provides no proof of any kind. I realize that.
I'm not trying to change minds on whether Bush lied or not. I'm trying to move past the baseless assumption that a reasonable person can't disagree on that.
posted
I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about any plausible explanation that does not involve high level figures in the Bush administration deceiving themselves or intentionally deceiving the public, either on a grand degree. I would love to hear one, from anyone, yet I have not yet found a single one (and I'm often quite good at coming up with bizarre scenarios).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish polititians didn't use crooked was to get in office. After all, what we need is the truth. We really don't know either of the candidates as much as we should to know if they would make good leaders. Almost like a talk show you know? Its not like you can get to know a person in less than half an hour. I just hate it when people start calling girls on stage sluts and stuff, its just not right. There is more to a person, and I feel that in out society, individuals are losing so much of their identity. I'm sure Bush is more than just the U.S. president, he's a person. What we must know is if he's intelligent enough to confront the situation and truly deliver the truth. Thats all America is asking for. The TRUTH.
P.S. I don't support Bush, I can't even vote, but I'm a democrat. I think Kerry has looked more confident in the debates than Bush. But that's just me.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm sure Bush is more than just the U.S. president, he's a person."
Personally, I would prefer our presidents to be more than just people. I would, in fact, like them to be presidential.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Squick, it's not the case that a large number of people believing something makes it true. Rather, it's the case that dismissing opinions as you have here (and do elsewhere with much of your rhetoric) simply makes it impossible for you to be abble to effect willing change. Especially when it's patently untrue that all reasonable people who aren't fooling themselves agree with your interpretation of events. If you're comfortable with that, OK. But I really hate it when someone tries to make preemptively make their position unassailable by insulting those who might disagree with you.
Yeah, I'm not really sure that I use what I would consider rhetoric here all that much. And here, I'm not tying to gain some sort of unassailable high ground by saying what I did. I'm reflecting my beliefs that I've come to after rigorous examination. Basically, as I've said, I believe, based on what I think are overwhelming reasons, that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person to honestly believe that the Bush administration has not in many cases been intentionally deceptive. I am confident enough in that that I'm willing to treat it as equivilent to a statement of fact.
Even now, I don't actually believe that you don't believe that the Bush administration hasn't been intentionally deceptive, even if that's the position that you're defending. However, if you actually do, you and I live in different world where the realities governing our impressions of this don't intersect. As such, what you and I call reason are different things and I have no idea what conclusions you are going to come to next. This is on the level of, when presenting with accurate astological data, one of us claiming that the sun goes around the earth and the other claiming that tis the other way round. There can be no rational reconciliation of our views.
I'm not trying to win an argument with this here. I've more or less ceded the intention to even argue.
---
Oh, and it doesn't really fit, but I'm too taken with it to not put this in. With the OSC thing, you're saying the because I don't like violence in cartoons, I must also be for banning Michelangelo's David. I disagree.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
edit: I think I may have an ear infection, so I might be a little loopy lately. Of course, on a board that supports Thor, among others, I don't think that should be that big a problem.
posted
No I meant it seriously, more or less. I think that there are very important differences in the things that you were declaring the same. Although, yeah, I guess it was mostly for my own amusement and as further proof that there is an appopriate Simpson's quote for any situation you find yourself in.
One thing I don't think you've gotten about me yet is that I don't just say crap, except when I forget myself. I'm pretty deliberate and (I think) rigorous. When I said this, it wasn't a rhetorical position that I was adopting. It's an honest reflection of how I really think. I really don't think that the claim that the Bush administration was intentionally deceptive needs to be defended as it is self-evident from a reasonable, honest examination of the evidence. There are very few things that I'd make this claim for.
edit: And like I've said, I don't think we could have a reasonable conversation between the position I firmly believe in and the one you're representing. At best, we'd have a replay of the Galileo conversation.
posted
You know what, I think we'd better drop this.
quote: I don't actually believe that you don't believe that the Bush administration hasn't been intentionally deceptive, even if that's the position that you're defending.
quote:One thing I don't think you've gotten about me yet is that I don't just say crap, except when I forget myself.
quote:And like I've said, I don't think we could have a reasonable conversation between the position I firmly believe in and the one you're representing.
I'm getting awfully tired of responding to posts that blithely assume I mean something contrary to what I've actually said or for which there is no possible textual basis in my posts. It's one thing when someone misunderstands something I've posted, whether because I stated it badly or because they interpreted it badly. It's another to simply impute opinions to me because you feel like it.
posted
Because of your reactions, like telling me that I obviously don't understand why people do things, or your response here and on the OSC attacks thread, or in various other places.
I'm not a particulary nice person when I'm posting here. I'm not all that personable. The only reputation that I've pursued is that I'm someone who, when he is serious, is stone serious about things, who restricts himself to talking only things that he knows about, and who can always, always back up what he says.
Maybe you get this about me. I don't know that you did.
edit: I'm fine with dropping this. As I said, I don't expect any good to come out of it. Just one thing I want to emphasize. I wasn't trying to score rhetorical points. Those were more or less accurate representations of what I think. That's why they're there.
second edit: Ok, dropping it right after this that is. Dag, you've come across to me as a very weak Bush supporter. I quite honestly thought you were about as disgusted by the dishonesty of the Bush administration and campaigns as I was. I don't know if I intend that as an apology or a question or a heads up or what, but there you go.
posted
Among the outright "falsehoods" Dag claims the left wing has posted at Hatrack was the following
quote:That the U.N. has declared the invasion of Iraq somehow "illegal" or contrary to international law.
Whether that is true or false depends on how you define the UN. Is it the charter, the resolutions, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the secrerary General or all of the above?
Kofi Annon, UN secretary general, did indeed declare that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to international law. The UN charter and numerous resolution define this type of action as illegal.
The Security Council has not declared it illegal, largely because the US and Britain both have the power to veto such a declaration.
The statement is perhaps not insufficiently specific but it is not incorrect.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kofi Annon, UN secretary general, did indeed declare that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to international law.
Annon has no power to declare something contrary to international law - he is expressing an opinion, which might be given more deference because of his position, but has no more force than mine or yours.
quote:The UN charter and numerous resolution define this type of action as illegal.
No, the UN charter contains clauses that some have said make this war contrary to international law. Just as you can't say for sure that the constitution defines a particular law as unconstitutional until a court rules on that issue, no matter what some lawyers may say about the issue, you can't say that the Charter declares a particular use of force to be in violation of international law. There have been several analyses done showing the invasion to be in accord with the Charter; there have been several analyses done showing it to be contrary to the Charter. As of this date, no higher authority than the lawyers who drafted those analyses has ruled on them. you might as well say that a lawyer filing a complaint proves that the defendant was negligent.
quote:he Security Council has not declared it illegal, largely because the US and Britain both have the power to veto such a declaration.
The statement is perhaps not insufficiently specific but it is not incorrect.
The statement is absolutely incorrect. It's claiming authority for a legal opinion that does not, and can not, exist. It's the exact kind of statement of fact that gets bandied about by both sides with no consideration for the realities of the situation.
I finally found the courage to dive back into this thread and saw your thoughtful response to my questions back on page 2. Thanks.
----
quote:Individual lies don't necessarily serve the status quo, but I think that a persistent culture of lies does. When there isn't anyone who you trust to tell you the truth, you can either live in a state of constant uncertainty or become aggressively apathetic about the whole deal or you can pick out people who agree with you and trust whatever they say.
I know that a popular, seemingly-reasoned argument to make is that political discourse has always been vitrolic and that politicians have always lied and been corrupt [c.f. Andrew Jackson, the whole Aaron Burr thing, etc.].
That may indeed be the case.
But I think that what makes our current climate so troubling to me is that politicians and the media have so much money and so much reach -- unpredented even [yes, I realize that there have been empires in the past with greater military dominance (actually maybe not) and bureacratic reach -- I'm talking on the level of image and discourse here] -- and yet at the same time they've squandered so much of their credibility and broken public trust.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil, it is not incorrect to say the U.S. has called Iran part of an axis of evil. It may not be the entire U.S. government, or the legislature, but it is a representative of the U.S.
The same goes for Annan. His opinion may not represent the complete government of the U.N. or binding legal authority, but he can speak as chief representative of the U.N. just as Bush can speak as chief representative of the U.S. Thus his statements carry significantly more authority than yours or mine.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, You're not paying attention to contexts here. George Bush said that Iran was a part of the axis of evil in an official context. Kofi Annan said that the war in Iraq was illegal in a personal context. He doesn't have the authority to say that in an official context in regards to the U.N. The best he can offer is his arguably well-informed personal opinion, which he did. There's a huge difference between him saying this as a guy who also happens to be the Secretary General of the U.N. and him officially speaking for the U.N.
quote: Basically, as I've said, I believe, based on what I think are overwhelming reasons, that it is next to impossible for a reasonable person to honestly believe that the Bush administration has not in many cases been intentionally deceptive.
--Mr. Squicky
Speaking as someone who has been mostly ivory towerish . . .
From the beginning I have been a uncomfortable with the war in Iraq. But I have grudgingly trusted in the leadership that we have because I haven't come up with a plausible motive for deception. Why would a person or group of people have wanted war in Iraq badly enough to make it happen without being able to justify it with truth? Why go to all the effort to deceive the nation and the world? Deception on that scale involves a massive amount of effort as well as a substantial amount of risk (one would hope). What is the payoff?
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Bebe, I think the idea is that they thought the war was right for reason A, but knew the American people and world would consider going to war for reason A wrong. So they came up with reason B, which everyone would accept, even though reason A was what they really wanted.
The payoff is they got to do what they felt was right.
In this case, I suspect reason A is "to spread the American way in Iraq and protect our own interests there" and reason B is "to elimate the terrorist WMD threat in Iraq." I think the neoconservatives really wanted imperialism, but knew we all wouldn't agree, so they fashioned the WMD argument as the main idea instead.
This is not to say they weren't convinced WMDs were in Iraq. But it does give them reason to overstate that WMD threat, and look for every excuse to go to war before other options are considered (like letting the U.N. finish its job).
posted
Bebe, There are multiple plausible motives for them going to war in Iraq, not the least of which is that three of the high ranking members, including the Vice-President, of the Bush administration are public members of a group of neo-conservatives called The Project For A New American Century that has publicly stated that they want America to take a more militarily aggressive role in the world and that had the invasion of Iraq high on its wish list.
If the U.S. were greeted by an overwhelming majority of the Iraqis as liberators, which was a result the members of the administration said they expected prior to the invasion, it would have been political gold. A successful Iraq war that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a working Iraqi democracy would have been a great thing for the world and would have carried George Bush into a second term easily while also possibly increasing the Republican hold on Congress.
Also, after 9/11, it is important to the country to be fighting somebody. The organized fighting in Afghanistan had ended and the much more problematic stage of post-war reconstruction was starting. If the state of things there as they are now were the most prominent face of the War On Terror, it would be politically very damaging. Also damaging was that we hadn't captured or killed Osama bin Laden, who had been set up as the Head Bad Guy.
And that's leaving aside all the other motives, political and economic, that accompany the U.S. going to war.
This is not to say that their motives were all self-serving. Any action takes place in a complex web of motives. I've no doubt there were also admirable motives in the mix when they made their decisions nor that many of these negative motives would be contributing factors in any President's decisions about Iraq. The thing I'm taking exception to was not necessarily their motives, which may even have been mostly good, but rather that they set out to intentionally deceive me. If they had the purest motives in the world, I'd still have a big problem with the means that they took to achieve their ends. You don't get to lie to me and have me be happy about it.
Also, I think it's important that when I said that they were intentionally deceptive, I wasn't talking just about the Iraq War, although I think this is one of the worst cases of it. There are plenty of other cases were it's pretty clear that the Bush administration have been intentionally deceptive starting at least as soon as Republican primaries in 2000. Unless you think that dirty tricks like asking people how they would feel about John McCain if they found out he had an illegitimate black child (which is only the most obviously reprehensible thing that campaign did) had any other purpose than to deceive.
posted
Thanks Tres and Mr. S. Interesting responses both. This is from Cheney's organization: New American Century.
The possible motives listed in your responses seem to me to be totally inadequate. If they were the driving motives I could understand the need to resort to deception by individuals not committed to honesty.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are many people who have questions about the war in Iraq, and they are not just the Democratic politicians and thier flunkies and minions. There are lots of strange conspiracy theories in this country, and they blossom faster in others.
This is bad for the US's image and economy.
Why do these questions and fears persist?
Is it because the Democrats have been so crafty in creating them? I've seen 0 evidence for that.
Is it because the President has held one of the most secretive administrations ever, keeping information so tight that it cries in pain?
Defenders of the President say, "You can't know Why he did things or What he was thinking."
They are right.
But what we can know, so we can make a reasonable decision, is so convoluted or missing that all these theories seem to make about as much sense.
We have been kept in the dark, tricked and swindled (the Drug Restriction Plan we are paying for, the Tax Cuts that balanced only when they were allowed to expire, but now are not being allowed to expire) etc by politicians for so long we will believe anything bad about any of them.
Perhaps an honest truthful person would have no chance to remain in office. I'd be willing to give them a shot though.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
