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

[Robbie Lindauer]

On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:18 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> 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?

Check:

http://www.thetip.org/

I think you'll find there exactly what you're looking for.  Don't 
forget to check with your local nameservice provider too.

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

As a matter of fact...

>
> 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.

The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
http://www.thetip.org/

> 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.

Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold 
its soul to that devil.  All us ordinary citizens can really do is 
complain loudly, I'm afraid, given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone 
over it or blow anything up myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided 
whether it's a character flaw or not.)


>> 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.

No, it's a fact in evidence.

>
> 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?

Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.  George Bush 
said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought Uranium in 
Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans to be 
false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with citations 
from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, just to the 
right time....).

> 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.

Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org 
:)

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

Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard 
the statement before:

"The Buck Stops Here"

It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.

> Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
> the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.

He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
suprising that he can't keep this one either.

>  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.

Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?

>
>> 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.

Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.

> 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.

Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record 
of the incident in the guardian, still available online.

>
>> 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?

Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.

I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for 
no good reason :)

>
>> 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?

Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
speak to is easily convinced of the matter.

Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
see past their own bile.

>> 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?

Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.  Again, you can find 
them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!

>
>> 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.

Quite right.  No mystery.

>> 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.

Not if the congress is controlled by the President's party along with 
the Supreme Court, you idiot.

> 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.

Well, as I recall during the last Republican Impeachment Effort, no 
evidence was required to start the proceeding at all, just the 
political will.

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

Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.

> 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.

Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots 
large-scale impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats 
alike that we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies 
and then make sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so 
we'll have to revamp the way people get and accept news because the 
major news services in the United States are uninterested in this 
story.  We'd have to make something internetty actually work.  If it's 
impossible at least we can have said we'd tried and we didn't blow 
anything up.

Start here:

http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php

It's not much but you'd be suprised :)

Robbie Lindauer
www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)