Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Ah, but Smooth... do you *know* that Bush knew/suspected the claims were false? You just assume that he knew, even though many people around the world assume, nay, know, that he's the dumbest person alive... 
Until we can magically read his mind, we cannot know if Bush knows *anything*, and we cannot say for certain that he lied.
|
I was mainly answering your question as to what I thought constituted dishonesty.
In regards to Bush and Co., I can't magically read minds but I can draw inferences from the information that the media has given to the public.
The first piece of info is that the claims were researched by US intelligence officials and reported as false.
Secondly, references to our investigation were removed and the information gained was ignored. I read from a couple of sources that officials were pressured into finding what was already suspected. I doubt it was in the form of overt manipulation. More likely, revise and resubmit was the response and people became aware of what was needed or desired and wrote their reports accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised to find the best team players are the ones who will or have been promoted. Again, not due to some conspiracy, but rather due to the fact that people who were team players appeared to be the most efficient and knowledgable workers--even though they drew erroneous conclusions.
Thirdly, Bush claimed his information came from British intelligence rather than us, even though our own investigation had rejected it and British officials had seriously began questioning their information.
I think I can reasonably infer that Bush suspected or knew that the claim was tenuous, at best, and more likely than not to be false. In order to appease his conscious and/or the legalalities of any erroneous claims he made, he placed the source of his claim on a foreign agency instead of our own agencies.
I haven't heard anything else besides the fact that State of the Union addresses are the most carefully vetted speeches--from both liberal and conservative sources. I recognize that Bush certainly had motive to present this evidence even if he felt is wasn't entirely justified.
All of this leads me to believe that he was being dishonest. While I may not know if I certainly can suspect it and vote accordingly. No one can know what others think and do, anyway, and our jury system is built on the premise that we will make the best judgement in response to the available data. I'm disturbed that processes to ascertain exactly what everyone knew and didn't know are being hindered.
I am not one of the people who claim Bush is moronic--but I do claim that he isn't concerned or empathetic with my needs and concerns. I claim that he is more concerned with serving the interests of the wealthy individuals and corporations in my country than what I consider to be more important to social welfare. The legitimacy of the top slot in my government's structure is one of those elements of social welfare I am increasingly concerned about.