Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Clearly, if by conclusive intelligence you mean that which supported the given reasons for invasion, "conclusive intelligence" consisted of incorrect conclusions.
So you don't think it is material that the president ignored and suppressed information that contradicted his stated positions? I guess I can't understand that point of viwe...
|
I am not going to go through everything but...
Sadaam violated U.N. resolutions.
Sadaam had a history of military aggression.
Sadaam had a history of using chemical weapons.
Sadaam had a history of trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Sadaam, while loosing the first Gulf War, for no tactical military reason he targets Isreal with bombs.
Sadaam had a history of killing his own people.
Etc.
After the fact we find Sadaam was diverting billions of dollars from the oil for food program, I have my thoughts on why, what do you think he was going to do with the money?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i dont understand where this thread has gotten to: i dont see how it is that the question of the quality of infotainment cooked down and coalated by the administration is resolved in any way by the question of whether ace happened to believe that information or not. the information was itself false. that this false information resonated with ace's political committments is not about anything except ace's political committments.
the question of intent--which is what is at issue in the use or non-use of the category of "lie"--is obviously problematic. it will not be resolved in a space like this simply because we do not have much in the way of relevant information. here, too, the question is information: and not about whether as you watch tv you are inclined to impute motives to george w. one way or another. the question of intent would be best resolved in a proceeding--and given that the integrity of the system is at issue, i would think impeachment a healthy development--because regardless of the obvious problems that intent poses even within such a hearing, it would nonetheless function to elevate system concerns over the partisan and personal politics of this administration.
another way: insofar as ace's personal relation to the case for this debacle in iraq is concerned, it seems to lean entirely on psychological and political committments---- the argument he makes comes down to: "i cannot accept that this happened. i cannot accept that the evidence presented was false. i believed the case and so it must have been true."
that isnt much of an argument.
|
I can accept false information as false information. I did not base my views on the information that was later determined to be false. And, just because the information was false does not prove a lie. I do not accept the "lie" by omission argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I guess I have to post this article again: Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.
full article: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm
That is why I said I believe we have different moral standards for sending our brothers and sons (and sisters and daugthers) to war. |
The link did not work for me.