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

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Tue Jul 12 05:18:03 UTC 2005


Robert Lindauer wrote:

> bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au 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.
>
>
> $200,000,000,000 last count (in US spending, nevermind everywhere else) 
> that easily could have built plenty of supercomputers into which we could 
> have downloaded our minds :)  Hindsight is always 20/20 with investment 
> opportunities though :(
>
>
>> I wonder on what basis those that are convinced of it, are
>> so convinced? Please, give only opinions based on hard facts.
>
>
> The claim was that "we KNOW there are wmd's in Iraq" - this is what Mr. 
> Powell said to the UN and Bush said to the American Public.  He (powell) 
> is later quoted as having said in a briefing "I'm not reading this 
> bulshit".

Can you personally provide evidence that Bush said that to the American
Public, evidence that would convince an impartial person?  I suspect that
I could find that evidence but why should I try to if you won't get it for
me?  What's your responsibility as a citizen in your political system? And
if I won't make the effort and you won't make the effort what does that
mean?

Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link to
a transcript or a mp3 file etc?

What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of opinions
there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their opinions 
together
in such a way that they might really have a chance to persuade impartial
people willing to make up their minds on the facts.

I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching President
George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there are good
grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their shit together
enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case is a case that
would be able to convince an impartial but interested person.

> The question is why, if he KNEW it was bullshit, did he go on reading 
> given that we obviously didn't know that there were weapons of the 
> relevant kind there (otherwise, they'd be there, right?)  Or did he have 
> further intelligence revealed to him.  If so, where is it?   I mean, if we 
> KNEW where there were, we'd have found them.

That's not a question I am asking that's a diversion you are throwing up.

The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?

If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said it.

Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.

Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
the US Constitution to uphold the constitution. Its already clear that
international law duly ratified by congress (which includes the UN
Charter) is also US law and that that US Supreme Court has
jurisidiction over US law.

It is already clear that there is nothing within the UN Charter which
permits a pre-emptive war without a Security Council Resolution
and therefore also within US law. Its already clear that the Security
Council did not authorise the Invasion of Iraq. Even if they (the
Security Council) did it retrospectively that would not change that
it was illegal under US law at the time for the US President to
break the UN Charter which is part of US law and a part of the
hardwon birthright of all US citizens, not just the one that happens
to be President.

Seems to me that all that remains to be proven is that George W
Bush was acting in active bad faith rather than mere run of the mill
incompetence for the clearest possible case for impeachment to
be made.

If President George W Bush deliberately took the US to war on
a lie or a misrepresentation AND THAT CAN BE SHOWN then
you will have grounds for impeachment and as a US citizen you
should expect impeachment to happen.

> Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
> inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
> weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
> his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.

"died mysteriously" is irrelevant.

If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
the more likely it is to be persuasive.

> Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
> said they'd found no such evidence.

How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
they did it?

> Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
> material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.

Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that he 
was
not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?

> Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
> was flatly false.
>
> Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
> trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
> the sources of which are not in question.

I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to am
impartial person?

> Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
> close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this effort, 
> in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing well..

"mysteriously". Bollocks.

> In sum, you can INSIST that this all adds up to conspiracy-theory bullshit 
> because obviously anyone who opposed or opposes the administration's 
> position in the matter is a nutso-commie-conspiracy-theorist OR you could 
> say "well, there appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Bush 
> really wanted to go to war and trumped up the reasons to do so."  But this 
> wouldn't be a critical attitude but more of a dumb-ass attitude.  If you 
> like this, I also sell land in southeast asia in my spare time.  It's 
> normally valued at $50,000 but I could get it for you for $30,000 cash.

You miss the point. There is a perfectly good mechanism for impeaching
a President in the Constitution. *If* there is grounds for doing it.

But a million flapping traps don't add up to a case. Some *one* or some
*ones* have to put the case together. Once the case is put together the
million flapping traps can help create the political will to make sure that 
it is
considered but it will not and should not succeed in impeaching a President
unless the case is made.

If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the facts
then you have already lost.

Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
how to bring him to account.

Brett Paatsch 





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list