[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? On what basis?

[The Avantguardian]

--- Matthew Gingell <gingell at gnat.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of
> it, are
> > so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on
> hard facts.
> 
> Here's how I look at it. I light a candle, then I
> call 911 and tell  
> them "I'm at 123 Foobar Street and there's a fire in
> my house." I  
> haven't lied, in that I haven't made any statement I
> know to be  
> false: I really am at 123 Foobar Street, and there
> really is a fire.  
> But I'm being dishonest in the sense I can
> reasonably expect the  
> listener to come to a false conclusion.

Matt, IMO your example is overly generous to Bush.
Here are some excellent sourced quotes by Bush during
the lead up to the war in Iraq found in the CNN
webpage that Dirk posted earlier.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were: 

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological
weapons." 

United Nations address, September 12, 2002 

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons,
and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of
those weapons." 

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use
chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have." 

Radio address, October 5, 2002 

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons." 

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of
tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin
nerve gas, VX nerve gas." 

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq
has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned
that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for
missions targeting the United States." 

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held
numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a
group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear
holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq
is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part
of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted
to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other
equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used
to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." 

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam
Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500
tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." 

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003 

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised." 

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003 

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush either lied or
was irrationally deluded by his personal beef with
Saddam. The moment that Bush was elected in 2000, I
knew there would be a war. I just didn't know with
whom.

 
> The Bush administration spent a year putting Saddam
> Hussein and Osama  
> bin Laden in the same sentence. They invented a
> rhetorical umbrella  
> called the "War on Terrorism" as part of a
> deliberate campaign to  
> conflate the threat posed by Iraq and the threat
> posed by Al Qaeda.

Yes. To wage a war on an intangible entity is a great
way to excuse military action anywhere in the world.
The "War on Drugs" was a similar rhetorical tool used
in the 80's.
  
> They deliberately blurred the line between "tactical
> nonconventional  
> capability" and "weapon of mass destruction." And
> the American people  
> came to the false conclusion that Iraq posed a clear
> and present  
> danger and that invading it was a sensible way of
> fighting the people  
> responsible for 9/11.

Well apparently, if you say something over and over,
it somehow becomes true. While I agree that SOMETHING
had to be done in the Middle East, to use false
pretenses to stage an invasion of a formerly defeated
nation with little military power and a crippled
economy was very dishonorable. The initial invasion
might have been quick and easy, just like going to
hospital to finish off the guy you put there by
beating up the week before is, but this costly
quagmire is so far not accomplishing much. 
     I imagine its because our generals aren't really
sure what they are supposed to accomplish other than
wait for the insurgents to attack them so they can
kill a few more. Just for the record, the reason I
still grudgingly support the occupation of Iraq is
best explained by a metaphor. If you shoot someone
accidently with an arrow, just yanking it out and
apologizing, does not improve the situation at all.
Perhaps we should annex a few square miles of land
somewhere in the desert and build a permanent military
base there then withdraw to it. Close enough that we
can storm the cities if trouble occurs, but far enough
away that the insurgents would have to leave behind
the innocent human shields if they want to go on the
offensive. In any case, I agree we needed to occupy
the Middle East. I think we chose the wrong country
for our efforts. All the people who had the spine to
stand up to the Baathists had already been purged by
Saddam's bloody 30 yr rule.   
     As I see the cost of this occupation
skyrocketing, however, I am reminded of Sun Tzu's Art
of War in which the entire second chapter is
essentially a warning that military actions ought to
be quick and decisive and that no nation has ever
benefited from prolonged military campaigns unless
those armies finance themselves through "looting". He
also warns that occupying foreign cities is a waste of
time and money and exposes the occupier's homeland to
rebellions and enemy incursions. So whatever we are
planning to do there, we need to do it soon. Wars are
what make or break superpowers, and to see Cheney
rolling in cash is little consolation for hocking our
pensions and our children's futures. 
 
> I can't point to anything they said which they knew
> to be false, but  
> the case they were willfully deceptive is, in my
> mind, overwhelming.  
> I acknowledge there is a distinction between that
> and an outright  
> unambiguous lie, but I don't find that distinction
> terribly  
> interesting. That is, I don't really care whether
> they said "imminent  
> threat" or whether they said "grave and gathering
> threat" - the fact  
> that if you look hard enough there exists a
> defensibly parsing of the  
> words that came out of their mouths doesn't, as far
> as I'm concerned,  
> to get them off the hook.
> 
     I agree. I think the whole administration should
be thrown in prison. No President in all of history
was more covert, devious, or self serving than Bush
has been. Just look at all the mysterious resignations
and even a few mysterious deaths that surround his
administration.
      Yet as factually wrong as the statements that
come out of his mouth are, somehow when he speaks, he
comes across to the masses with such sincerity in
telling his bold faced lies that I have to wonder if
Bush suffers from Narcisism or some other
psychopathology. Even I had to agree that his demeanor
and body language during 2004 were more sincere than
John Kerry. Maybe a voice in his head really does
claim to be God. 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/