The esoteric club of gentlemen discussing Bush' mind

[Walsingham]

[The difference between lying and misrepresenting the truth is semantics. No Bush didn't lie, he said 'go sell this side of the story' and that's exactly what his underlings did, to the point of deliberately skewing the larger picture.

 

Also, the Bush administration does seem to have been confused as to the meaning of privatization, I'm pretty sure the point is to improve efficiency, not to hand the contracts to your republican buddies who knew the right names.

 

Point 2, yes.

 

Piont 1, if you're going to lose sleep every time a politician spins information rather than lying then you're going to look very tired.

[Aristes]

Not only that, but I think it's clear that Bush belived that Iraq was a threat. I also believe that he thought the weapons were in Iraq. Yes, he clearly pitched this to the American public, including hitting the points that supported his arguments best, but that doesn't mean he lied.

 

Look at it this way, say I'm absolutely certain that a child has stolen a piece of candy. I know a variety of facts, most of which support my claim but some don't. The child's own demeanor and activities support my position. I don't push the evidence that doesn't support my claim. I push the evidence that does.

 

So, we search the child and find that he does not have the candy on his person. However, I'm still not a liar. I haven't even had the intent to mislead in regards to the essential charge: the child stole candy.

 

I don't mind if folks keep chanting the mantra of "Bush the liar." That's all fine, but I don't think it's supported by the facts. I think the majority of people in the world, including the people who had access to substantial information, thought the weapons were there.

 

What I think Bush did was assume that the weapons were there and he thought that, if he allowed Saddam sufficient time, the UN beauracracy would end up allowing Saddam more time to develop those weapons and they might be used against American soldiers in what Bush, with a bit of tunnel vision, saw as an inevitable invasion.

 

I'm not arguing that the war was justified. I'm not saying that Bush was right. Very specifically, I'm saying that I don't believe he "lied" or even "mislead" about the essential charge that Saddam had weapons. I believe that he was hasty because he indeed believed that Saddam had such weapons. I do believe that he intentionally had the pitch skewed in order to win over the American public. In that regard, you can certainly say he mislead the US. However, that's a matter of means. His means were questionable, but his intent was to remove a threat he honestly believed existed.

[taks]

The difference between lying and misrepresenting the truth is semantics.

as aristes noted, albeit indirectly, it's not even about misrepresenting the truth. bush represented the story exactly as he believed it to be. he pushed the evidence that he saw as the most likely truth. that's not just a semantic difference with lying.

 

since the topic is bush's mind, i think this goes to the heart of his doing things as he believed, rather than what the polls say. clearly this is not the work of a bumbling idiot or a liar, but someone that is highly principled. whether or not you agree with his principles is another story (and many, if not most, i do not, for that matter).

 

taks

[Gorgon]

So, you were present at his top secret briefings. I can't believe the CIA would chose to blindly accept sources with an obvious motive for regime change, handmedowns from the so called 'Iraqi government in exile' some of them.

 

I don't think the question of whether Sadam had an actual weapons capacity, or even if he was technically in violation of UN resolutions was that important to him, except to convince the UN once the decision had been made to try that avenue before going in unilaterally. Neither does it seem at all likely that what was presented was anything close to the whole picture of what was known at the time.

 

In any case the weakness of the then known evidence has been exposed aplenty since then.

 

Did he have plausible deniability, sure, the president always has plausible deniability.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Gorgon

[Aristes]

Yeah, I agree taks. I tend to hold forth a bit too long in these posts sometimes, so it's nice that someone cuts through the long winded crap to hit the heart of the matter.

 

"So, you were present at his top secret briefings." Were you? I'm saying the evidence supports that Bush believed what he said. I think the onus is on you, not me.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Aristes

[Gorgon]

Enlighten me, I'm a little late to the discussion, what evidence supports that Bush believed what he said, and what does that matter if he is only capable of seeing or believing what supports his own agenda.

[taks]

what evidence supports that Bush believed what he said

it's your job to prove he didn't, i.e., you (and every other person that makes the claim) need to provide evidence that supports your claim - the burden of proof is on you, not me. there's never been anything that indicates he lied other than ideologues running their mouths.

 

and what does that matter if he is only capable of seeing or believing what supports his own agenda.

because that's what people do?

 

taks

[Meshugger]

and what does that matter if he is only capable of seeing or believing what supports his own agenda.

because that's what people do?

 

taks

 

At least i think the current administration is guilty of this.

[Gorgon]

what evidence supports that Bush believed what he said

it's your job to prove he didn't, i.e., you (and every other person that makes the claim) need to provide evidence that supports your claim - the burden of proof is on you, not me. there's never been anything that indicates he lied other than ideologues running their mouths.

 

It's just as logical to deem Bush's supposed innocence of the facts a claim. Now the onus is back on you.

A circular argument ensues. I also wish to point out that I have not stated emphatically or otherwise that Bush lied, I just find it likely that analysts and detractors were purposefully ignored if they did not fit with the official agenda.

 

In any case the evidence turned out to be false, and what is publicly known of it also very weak. I'm talking specifically about defectors with an agenda, and the laughable Blair white paper on WMD capacity in Iraq, which the Bush administration adopted as supporting evidence.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Gorgon

[Aristes]

Of course it's a circular argument on your part. In the United States, there is an assumption of charity that extends to an individual's statements. If the evidence supports the idea that he made a statement in good faith, all things being equal, then the assumption is that he was being honest. No matter how crystal clear things seem to you well after the fact, the matter was not so settled at the time.

 

What is your essential point, Gorgon? That he did not believe that Iraq had the weapons? You are honestly saying it's better to assume that someone lied every time they are mistaken?

 

It is absolutely bewildering to me. You are honestly saying that an assumption of innocence is the equivalent of an accusation of guilt? Good Lord, man!

[Gorgon]

Why would one assume the president is being honest, he's a politician, haven't we already established that they bend the truth for a living.

[Hurlshort]

Why would one assume the president is being honest, he's a politician, haven't we already established that they bend the truth for a living.

 

Bending the truth and outright lying are very different. In a perfect world, everyone will go into situations with open minds, weigh evidence, and then choose the most logical one. But that's just not the way most humans operate. You go in with your mind made up, you find evidence that supports your line of thinking, and then sleep better at night.

[Aristes]

I wonder if this is just a word usage thing. For me, personally, 'liar' is a very serious charge. Hurlshot hit it. It's the idea he falt out lied that gets me, not the idea that he bent the truth. Even worse, there's really no way to know. Did he believe what he said or was he mistaken? But the evidence supports either case and I hate thinking he's a liar when we can't simply check facts to find out.

[Meshugger]

I would like to add that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed a separate committee in the Pentagon that would handle and interpret the data that CIA provided about Iraq. So the process of data was done accordingly:

 

CIA-->Pentagon-->Committee-->Cheney/Rumsfeld-->Bush. Something tells me that the big picture got a little bit distorted a long the way. Take into consideration that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld weren't exactly pro-Saddam even before 9/11, and that Tenet seemed to act more of a sense of duty than a sense of integrity. With the personal biases of the tops of the administration, i think that i get a pretty good picture of what happened.

[Walsingham]

I don't think it would be fair of me personally to criticise him for believing there were WMD in Iraq. I know I thought that.

 

Inspectors: "What happened to the hundreds of tonnes of nerve gas we saw at the end of the war but can't find now."

Iraq: "Oh, we destroyed it."

Inspectors: "Without calling us to witness it as normal?"

Iraq: "No, well it was a very hot day, you know? And we felt you needed a break so we just, like poured behind a sand dune."

Inspectors: "Hundreds of tonnes of nerve gas?"

Iraq: "Oh yes."

Inspectors: "No proof, though?"

Iraq: "None whatsoever. But you can believe us."

Inspectors: "Oh, well, that's OK."

[Gorth]

I don't think it would be fair of me personally to criticise him for believing there were WMD in Iraq. I know I thought that.

 

Inspectors: "What happened to the hundreds of tonnes of nerve gas we saw at the end of the war but can't find now."

Iraq: "Oh, we destroyed it."

Inspectors: "Without calling us to witness it as normal?"

Iraq: "No, well it was a very hot day, you know? And we felt you needed a break so we just, like poured behind a sand dune."

Inspectors: "Hundreds of tonnes of nerve gas?"

Iraq: "Oh yes."

Inspectors: "No proof, though?"

Iraq: "None whatsoever. But you can believe us."

Inspectors: "Oh, well, that's OK."

Sorry... an old classic and a favourite joke of mine (from usenet):

 

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK

By Bill Davidson

 

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

 

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

 

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

 

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.

 

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

 

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

 

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

 

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

 

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't we?

 

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

 

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

 

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

 

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

 

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

 

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

 

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

 

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

 

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

 

PN: He did?

 

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq.

 

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

 

WM: And a British intelligence report...

 

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

 

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

 

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

 

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

 

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

 

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

 

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

 

PN: So what is the point?

 

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society.

 

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?

 

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

 

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

 

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

 

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

 

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

 

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

 

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

 

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

 

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

 

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

 

WM: Yes.

 

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...

 

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

 

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

 

WM: I never said that.

 

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

 

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

 

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

 

PN: You know this? How?

 

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

 

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

 

WM: Precisely.

 

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

 

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

 

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

 

WM: Exactly.

 

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

 

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

 

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

 

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

 

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

 

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

 

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

 

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

 

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

 

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

 

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

 

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

 

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

 

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

 

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

 

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

 

PN: In which case?

 

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

 

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

 

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

 

PN: That makes no sense.

 

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

 

PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.

[Aristes]

I keep telling you people, Democracy. doesn't. work!

[Humodour]

I keep telling you people, Democracy. doesn't. work!

 

Maybe that's true in Commie land.

[Aristes]

Hey, if that's a crack about California, I resent it! haha