Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lies or Mistakes?

  1. LIES

    8 vote(s)
    80.0%
  2. MISTAKES

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. Jun 18, 2003 #1
    Were the Bush claims of WMD the result of deliberate fabrications of reality high up in the Bush 'cabal,' or were they based on shoddy work by the CIA and buttressed by Rumsfeld's assumptions?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2003 #2
    They either lied to themselves, or they lied to us...which denotes a higher unworthiness for office?
     
  4. Jun 18, 2003 #3

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    I do not see why would a person want to participate in this
    poll as long as it includes only the above two answers
    and thus clearly misleading and biased. If you want
    to make an objective poll you should add the abvious
    third possibility. Thanks.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  5. Jun 18, 2003 #4

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The search isn't over, but if nothing does turn up, then I'll have to go with lies.

    (Hope that something does turn up...)
     
  6. Jun 18, 2003 #5
    You're right, I thought about that a little later after posting.. if it should have 3 options - 1)lies, 2)mistakes, 3)everything Bush said is factually true, then the 3rd option is not as rigorous as the 1&2, because it has no possibility of being correct. Unless you're talking about a parallel universe or sth.

    _____________
    "Accept the result of a free election" --M.Gorbechev 1989
     
  7. Jun 18, 2003 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    3

    (though thats not how I would word the 3rd option)
     
  8. Jun 19, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I thought 3 was all of the above...

    :wink: Only joking....
     
  9. Jun 19, 2003 #8
    I didn't vote. In a way, I agree if FZ if he means what I'm about to write below.

    The way I see it, the Bush Administration had an agenda and believed they were doing the right thing. They interpreted the data they were given to their advantage and flew with it regardless of how shabby the evidence may have been (I say because if they had strong evidence it would have been disclosed to the public and the UN). So in short, I believed they believed there were WMD's in Iraq, they lied to make it seem to be an urgent issue and to justify the war, but in the end I believe they would have made a mistake with the assumption that WMD's exist in Iraq.

    Yes, the latter statement is a belief not a fact. Of course I'll retract it if and when WMD's have been found. It's just that I highly doubt it will be found at this point since we have not yet found significant evidence to suggest that it does exist.
     
  10. Jun 22, 2003 #9
    Okay, Russ, you word the 3rd option. Keep in mind that US soldiers are dying every day in Iraq.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2003 #10
    Anyone who thinks Bush has been giving us facts is *edited for Physics Forums guidelines against personal attacks*.
     
  12. Jun 23, 2003 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And what, pray tell, does that fact have to do with Saddam and WMD? Misdirection?
     
  13. Jun 24, 2003 #12
    No, not misdirection, what is it? You're implying that the WMD witch hunt has nothing to do with US soldiers dying in Iraq. That's not what the president said! He said that Iraq was on the verge of destroying us with WMD and that we had an obligation to stop him. He might not have been lying, but then again, he was demonstratably lying about Iraq's nuclear weapons. Certainly it is possible that Saddam's cronies dumped VX into the Tigris & Euphrates on the eve of the invasion. But the nuclear weapons Bush spoke of never existed. The US soldiers are doing an excellent job in Iraq, given their predicament of having only a skeleton crew, abandoned by the air force and Navy, and being given an assignment of indeterminate length in a hostile country. How dare Bush and his apologists justify the continued loss of US soldiers' lives by instituting no less than a police state in Iraq. Let's look at how moral and honorable the Russians are compared to Bush.
     
  14. Jun 24, 2003 #13

    kat

    User Avatar

    I don't remember Bush ever saying that nuclear weapons actually existed, I remember them speaking about thinking they had acquired some equipment that would help in developing and were attempting to gather materials TO develop nuclear weapons...can you give me a link, quote, something that shows them stating they existed? I can't believe I would have missed that...
     
  15. Jun 24, 2003 #14

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If there was any talk of this then it probably regarded
    nuclear materials like readioactive waste and so on.
    Such materials were in fact found, or to be precise - what
    was left of them after the local Iraqi population stole
    most of them, unaware of the danger. These could, amongst other
    sources, be the remains of the Iraqi nuclear plant that was bombed
    by Israel. Also, these could, amongst other thing's, have found
    their way into the hands of terrorists like the Al-Qaeda training camps that were at the north of Iraq and then could've been
    used to attack targets with dirty nuclear bombs in dense
    population centers around the world. (Not that making
    a dirty bomb is such a complex or difficult task for a
    terrorist organization of this scale.)

    Peace and long life.
     
  16. Jun 24, 2003 #15
    Funny...we knew this site existed, and yet no troops were assigned to secure the nuclear materials.
     
  17. Jun 26, 2003 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And the thousands of other sites as well (not to mention the museums...).

    I'm sure you know from your time in the service that when fighting a war, you fight the enemy military and you secure sites of tactical interest FIRST. Only when the war is won (or is far enough away that the tactical threat is low) do you start securing sites of low military value. Its just not a good idea to pull combat troops away from a site of high military value with a known threat to protect a site of unknown value against an unknown threat. Thats a wonderful way to lose wars and get people killed.

    And yes, I know, we secured the oil wells. Since many of the oil wells were wired with explosives, NOT securing them would have been a huge tactical and strategic mistake.
     
  18. Jun 26, 2003 #17
    Are you claiming that a nuclear plant wasn't worth securing for months, and that troops should have had to stumble across it? You really can't be serious! Nuclear sites should have been a #1 priority, for obvious reasons...that is, if Bush ever really thought they had a nuclear program, which is becoming less probable daily.
     
  19. Jun 26, 2003 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    Months?
    I would think that this:
    MIGHT indicate that items may have been removed prior to the military guards leaving and the civilian guards taking over guard duties.

    http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/909154p-6331478c.html
     
  20. Jun 26, 2003 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can't vote yet. I am still holding out for the possibility that I'm all wrong about Bush. Oh gees I'm cracking myself up again. ...
     
  21. Jun 26, 2003 #20
    Sorry, Kat...I guess I accidentally included the time up until now, since the officer on teh scene said he still(as of when I read the article) didn't have enough men to actually secure the site.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Lies or Mistakes?
  1. Lying politicians (Replies: 112)

Loading...