Watergate journalist's analysis of Bush administration

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Of all the things you could've at least made an attempt at, THAT'S what you choose...!?

[kahljorn]

Well, kevin, the reason he did that is obvious. He has one of those brains that gets stuck on certain issues he hears about rather than remembering all the issues. If you picture a dog dashing around occasionally chasing it's tail you'd get the right picture.

I probably would've picked the lying about wmds/uranium/intelligence reports thing.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

How about oil revenue from Iraq would pay for the war? LINK

LOOK AT US, TEAM GEGGY.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

How about oil revenue from Iraq would pay for the war? LINK

LOOK AT US, TEAM GEGGY.

Kev, I'll read your link and get back to you, but off the cuff, I'd venture to say that that was more of an adjustment made to the reality of Iraqis being the ones that own that oil and our having no real say so as to how they spend their money. There's more to it than that, but I think it boils down to that was a stupid thing to say, but it correlated to a stupid thing he actually believed.

Gotta go for now though. I'll read it and respond more fully later...

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I probably would've picked the lying about wmds/uranium/intelligence reports thing.

Does that satisfy the test of definition? Didn't pretty much everybody actually believe that Saddam had WMD? If he believed it was true when he said it, then it was a mistake, not a lie.

The gravity of that or any of his other mistakes is another discussion, and I think we should wait on Geggy to show up for this one before we move on, if that's Ok with you...

BTW, we did actually find a stockpile of over 500 artillery shells loaded with Sarin or Mustard Gas or something. Might not be a nuke, but I think that qualifies as hidden biological weaponry, don't you?

Here: http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Does that satisfy the test of definition? Didn't pretty much everybody actually believe that Saddam had WMD? If he believed it was true when he said it, then it was a mistake, not a lie.

The gravity of that or any of his other mistakes is another discussion, and I think we should wait on Geggy to show up for this one before we move on, if that's Ok with you...

BTW, we did actually find a stockpile of over 500 artillery shells loaded with Sarin or Mustard Gas or something. Might not be a nuke, but I think that qualifies as hidden biological weaponry, don't you?

Here: http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

Well, let's say you have some intel, the veracity of which can only really be expressed in terms of ambiguity, and you fail to mention this in a caveat, you have lied. A Platonic (or Straussian) "noble lie" is still a lie.

[Preechr]

Yeah, well, what if you're an idealistic, naive person that trusts consensus and admires action over discussion? Through your rationale, pretty much everyone in our government... well, pretty much everyone in Western government... well, pretty much everyone in any.... everybody! ... Lied about Saddam possessing and working on WMD technology and material. There's no way that would qualify as a global lie for unfair advantage, so what was the point of it?

I mean, I think you're technically correct, as I'd say submission to groupthink is being part and party to lying... but for the purposes of this discussion, don't you think that's a bit of a gray area? Surely, Geggy is gonna knock my socks off with a BLATANT lie real quick like... He has people, y'know...

[kahljorn]

i guess it would count as biological even though they were used in past wars and that's probably where they came from.

weren't there reports that the yellowcake thing was a lie though?

[Preechr]

The sixteen words?

The British Government still says Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake. This was the tie in, by the way, to the Joe Wilson thing.

Not a lie.

I think I'm gonna need a stamp...