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

[Brett Paatsch]

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> I've only had time to dip into some ongoing threads but I notice that 
>> both Robert Lindauer and Dan Clemmensen have
>> stated that they think that "we", meaning the US, or the Bush 
>> administration, (I'm not part of any of those "we") deliberately lied or 
>> misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq.
>>  Whilst I do tend to that view, I am not utterly convinced of it yet. And 
>> yet it is an important fact, or otherwise, to establish or not surely? 
>> One thing that I suspect most extropian or transhumanist list posters 
>> might agree on, is that the Iraq and terrorism business has grabbed a big 
>> chunk of the worlds attention. Attention that might have been directed 
>> far more profitably (to the net human good) elsewhere.
>
> The term "lie" only applies to social systems or individuals whose 
> (collective) minds are sufficiently directed to finding truth that there 
> exists knowledge inverted to create a lie.

                                                                If you're 
mired down in a
> political system devoted to finding evidence for particular theories, 
> selectively passing on arguments for particular theories, not 
> contradicting the boss, etc., the boundary between dishonest lies and 
> honest mistakes
> is too fuzzy to be worth pursuing.

The political systems we (you, me, all of us) are mired down in are the
systems that we must work with as facts.

The United States, the United Nations, existant systems of laws, these
are constructs that human beings have made. They are natural things.

In the broad sweep of evolutionary time and then historical time these
constructs mark points of human progress and delineate challenges
not yet overcome.

There are reasons, evolutionary and historical, why perjury and
oathbreaking became important to people and became dealt with
in our (in human) laws. There was a reason why the constitution was
written with impeachment procedures placed in it.

It was not so that President's would be pestered by people that didn't
like some part of their personal politics it was because the President
is a role that has enormous power and trust in it.

President's of any political persuasion that break their oaths emperil
their own people and jeopardise the progress that is encapsulated
in the best constructs of government that humans have so far
managed to build.

>  If Bush were a scientist publishing a paper on WMD we'd call it a lie. 
> But I think it very probable that Bush believed Iraq had WMD.

Whether he had a good faith belief or not is now it seems to me the
only question that remains to be answered.

> Practically everyone did, including me.  You can say we were all, 
> including Bush, fooled by a self-deceiving intelligence system for
> which Bush was partially responsible; but the fact remains, we believed it 
> at the time.

I didn't believe it. I didn't form a belief either for or against, I 
reserved
judgement.

But what I believed or thought or what you believed or thought isn't
the point.  The point is was President Bush's belief a *good faith*
one or not. Did he *knowingly* break his oath as President? That is
something that evidence can be collected on.  That is a matter
intellectually no harder to determine that for a jury to determine
whether a person who has committed what appears to be a crime
did so intentionally or acted without intent to do harm.

To make such judgements we look at facts.

Brett Paatsch