News What Best Describes Bill Clinton's Legacy?

[JohnDubYa]

Where did the sarin-filled cannon shell come from? (I haven't followed the story since it first broke.)

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree. The war is still going on. Americans are dying daily. How can you contend that Bush was an idiot and did not even consider this major part of the action, rather than recognizing that Bush lied to the American people by hiding it.

Hiding what? Hiding the outcome of events that hadn't happened yet? Sorry, Prometheus, but our differing interpretations of how a "war" works and differing predictions on how long events over which he doesn't have complete control will take does not constitute a lie.

Did you notice the citation about Cheny claiming that our occupation would be short?

And...? How can a prediction ever be a lie? Are you saying he said this while at the same time planned for a long occupation? Do you have evidence of that?

Do you really think that Bush planned to have soldiers doing police duty, for which they were not trained, for long stints that are extended multiple times, and that he just forgot to tell us?

No, I don't think he planned that - do you?

No, you call it a failure in planning. Does Bush bear any repsonsilibity for this failure, in your opinion? If so, what responsibility?

Absolutely - he's the one who got us into this mess and he's therefore soley responsible for it.

 

[russ_watters]

We had the issue pretty much sorted out before the invasion. There was no evidence of any WMDs. And this was a large part of the rationale for the war. It took the blind arrogance, as well as the lies of the Bushies to push us all into it.

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

 

[Gokul43201]

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

Yes, that is a worrisome question...but it's not the question. The teeth of the WMD claim was that new programs had been set up; that there was renewed activity; that there was more destructive capability than what could be had from the leftovers.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can a prediction ever be a lie?

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has. (A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.) If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar.

 

[JohnDubYa]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has.

Well, if he INTENTIONALLY gives the readers more confidence than he really has.

Once war breaks out, I find nothing wrong with expressing optimism, even if somewhat unwarranted. As a leader, you are supposed to inspire confidence in your troops. What kind of leader would tell his army that he doesn't have much faith that they will carry out the job in a timely manner?

 

[Gokul43201]

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

True, the lack of evidence is not a proof. But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war. And if the case for WMDs is not really strong, but there were other, equally compelling reasons for going to war, the people desrve to have heard them. The argument for war was based almost solely on WMDs and the al-Qaeda link. We heard little about saving the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator, until after the war started.

It's not the words themselves that constitute a lie, but their effect on the people. Half the people in the coutry thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Many people still see the "mushroom cloud" picture, as the reason for immediate action. To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war.

Given that Saddam never cooperated in providing evidence that WMDs did not exist in his country, I disagree. He went out of his way to make himself look guilty, so I hardly think we can be blamed for acting on that suspicion.

To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

I agree. The question is whether the administration knew the ideas were false. Again, you are being very presumptuous.

And I hope you're not a Michael Moore fan with that last quote.

 

[russ_watters]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has.

I'd generally agree with that, but that's a fuzzy thing - and one that requires evidence. But you are trying to have it both ways: if he expected the "insurgency" and downplayed it, he's a liar. If he (or his advisors) didn't expect it, but should have, he's (or his advisors are) incompetent. He cannot be both at the same time.

(A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.)

I share that view (it actually goes beyond the real definition), but I'm surprised to see it from a democrat. Perhaps you'd like to go back and re-open the Michael Moore thread...?

If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar.

Granted, but that's not really functionally dis-similar from being incompetent.

 

[amp]

This is fairly recent lie.

CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

Site given by Prometheus: http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM

 

[Prometheus]

Absolutely - he's the one who got us into this mess and he's therefore soley responsible for it.

We agree that he is repsonsible.

Hiding what? Hiding the outcome of events that hadn't happened yet? Sorry, Prometheus, but our differing interpretations of how a "war" works and differing predictions on how long events over which he doesn't have complete control will take does not constitute a lie.

Bush led the county to war. He made a number of statements about cause and he made a number of assurances about how the war would go. You may consider these mere predictions, about which he has no control. I consider that he made purposeful statements designed to convince people to accept and adopt a course of action that they otherwise might not support, and he promoted these statements as the truth, and it turns out that many of them are not the truth. If we consider him an idiot, and therefore do not hold him responsbile for the incorrectness of the statements that he made, so what. He made statements to the American people that were not true. Statements that are not true are lies. Bush made untrue statements, which I consider are lies. I do not forgive him because he is an idiot. Feel free, if you wish.

How can a prediction ever be a lie?

He made statements in a voice of absolute certainty, with no room for doubt. He did not preface his statements with "I think" or "I guess". How can you contend that his statements, which were designed to convince people to a course of action, and which did lead us to a course of action as planned, and which have been shown to be untrue, were not lies merely because they were statements about the future, which can never be known with 100% absolute certainty?

Are you saying he said this while at the same time planned for a long occupation? Do you have evidence of that? No, I don't think he planned that - do you?

So, you recognize that he was a bumbling incompetant? Fine. My point is this:

He made clear, unequivocal statements. These statements were designed to convince people to a course of action. If people had known that these statements were not true, they might not have followed the recommended course of action. We now know that the statements were false. Statements that are not true are lies. They are certainly lies in my mind in this case, because of his motives and his abuse of power. His stupidity cannot be used as an excuse for pushing untruths.

 

[Prometheus]

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

How do you know what he is forgetting? How do you claim that no one wants to ask, when you and many others have asked it.

WMDs have a shelf life. None of the weapons of 1991 would have been usable, they would have "disappeared" on their own. Therefore, nothing need have been done with all of his WMDs of 1991.

Is there any evidence that he has recent WMDs, which were still potent? This is the ugly little question that you seem to not want to ask.

 

[russ_watters]

This is fairly recent lie.

"CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03."

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. Then explain how its not allowed that the situation be able to change any time later.

He made statements to the American people that were not true. Statements that are not true are lies.

We're going around in circles now - the fallacy in that has been pointed out to you a number of times and no matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't get any less wrong.

He made statements in a voice of absolute certainty, with no room for doubt. He did not preface his statements with "I think" or "I guess".

Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?

He made clear, unequivocal statements. These statements were designed to convince people to a course of action.

Certainly. Things like 'The war will be short' or 'I will make sure the war is short' (not exact quotes) are clear, unequivocal predictions. That doesn't change the nature of what a "prediction" is.

If people had known that these statements were not true, they might not have followed the recommended course of action.

Well hang on there - since these statements were made before anything happened, how is the word "true" even applicable? People choose to follow the course of action or not based on whether they think he is capable of following through on his prediction. That's pretty much the definition of leadership.

We now know that the statements were false. Statements that are not true are lies.

Again, how can the statement 'the war will be short' possibly be false at the time it is stated? You're not suggesting that a statement that wasn't a lie when he said it can become a lie later, are you?

 

[russ_watters]

How do you know what he is forgetting? How do you claim that no one wants to ask, when you and many others have asked it.

I have not once ever seen anyone who was against the war bring it up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He didn't move entire facilities. How did he hide those?

 

[Prometheus]

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. Then explain how its not allowed that the situation be able to change any time later.

You ask for his definition, yet you have none of your own. Instead, you accept that the status quo implies his defintion.

We're going around in circles now - the fallacy in that has been pointed out to you a number of times and no matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't get any less wrong.

This statement says nothing. There is no content to this statement.

Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?

You are arguing over semantics. He made statements that were not true. You defend him by quibbling over whether or not they were lies. Why don't you try a little critical thought? Can you? Of course, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but that is not the question, is it. He framed his statements as though he were absolutely certain, and attempted to instill such certainty in everyone else.

 

[Gza]

Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?

A report came out on October 1, 2002 by the National Intelligence Council with an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments" with this interesting info:

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930


We were sure as hell "absolutely certain" of the above facts before the war.
Assuming Bush to be literate, he should have read this and acted accordingly. He didn't. His knowledge of the report, and subsequent ignorance of its contents to me is a clear indication of lying.

 

[Prometheus]

Assuming Bush to be literate,

I think that your problem is that you make unfounded assumptions of this type.

 

[Gza]

I think that your problem is that you make unfounded assumptions of this type.

I guess the false premise invalidates the rest of the argument.

 

[amp]

Russ: (Though both of the defs are subjective).

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's.

I take it to mean all that's left to do is 'sweep up' the loose ends, that there are no significant operational objectives to be met.

 

[Prometheus]

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's.

I take it to mean all that's left to do is 'sweep up' the loose ends, that there are no significant operational objectives to be met.

You failed. Oh sure, you have an excellent definition. And sure, most of us would agree with you. However, you completely failed to substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. He is president, and you are not. That makes his definition better than yours. You failed completely, and russ_watters can gloat.

 

[russ_watters]

He didn't move entire facilities. How did he hide those?

I'd really like to know the answer to that question as well.

 

[BobG]

He didn't hide them.

In poker, you're as likely to hide what you don't have as you are to hide what you do have.

He obviously had some chemical weapons capability at some time because he used them. Whatever he had he got rid of (because of the inspections?), but didn't want to appear to have given in.

 

[russ_watters]

You ask for his definition, yet you have none of your own. Instead, you accept that the status quo implies his defintion.

What are we, in grade school? I asked you first.

Personally, I'd define he end of "major combat operations" to be the point at which Saddam was toppled (or, perhaps, when he was captured) and the Iraqi army surrendered. That fits with amp's definition too, imo.

You failed. Oh sure, you have an excellent definition. And sure, most of us would agree with you. However, you completely failed to substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. He is president, and you are not. That makes his definition better than yours. You failed completely, and russ_watters can gloat.

Gee, Prometheus, his definition looked pretty good to me. Do you disagree with it?

Anyway, to continue, the so-called "insurgency" is a new and, it would seem, unexpected phase. Even with a high death toll (relative only to the public's unrealistic expectations) , its still at least an order of magnitude less intense than the "major combat operations" phase.

This statement says nothing. There is no content to this statement.

You have stated several times now that a statement that is not true is a lie. There is a third possibility that has been pointed out to you and you are ignoring.

You are arguing over semantics. He made statements that were not true. You defend him by quibbling over whether or not they were lies.

Well, that's precisely the question, isn't it? At the time the statements were made, they were neither true nor false. If a statement that is neither true nor false becomes false at a later date, is it retroactively a lie?

Of course, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but that is not the question, is it. He framed his statements as though he were absolutely certain, and attempted to instill such certainty in everyone else.

I'm sorry, Prometheus, if you can't tell the difference between a confident prediction and a statement of fact, there is no way to resolve this. The difference is critical here.

 

[russ_watters]

We were sure as hell "absolutely certain" of the above facts before the war.
Assuming Bush to be literate, he should have read this and acted accordingly. He didn't. His knowledge of the report, and subsequent ignorance of its contents to me is a clear indication of lying.

Gza, that's not what we were discussing here. We're discussing Bush's statements/implications about the length of the war.

 

[Prometheus]

Personally, I'd define he end of "major combat operations" to be the point at which Saddam was toppled (or, perhaps, when he was captured) and the Iraqi army surrendered.

You do not consider the daily battles and the daily American deaths to be major. You certainly have the right to your opinion. Surely you recognize that not everyone agrees with you here.

Gee, Prometheus, his definition looked pretty good to me. Do you disagree with it?

No, I like it. I am surprised that you do, as it seems to differ from your opinion, and it certainly does not satisfy the conditions that you demanded.

Anyway, to continue, the so-called "insurgency" is a new and, it would seem, unexpected phase.

Are you saying that because Bush is such an idiot that he completely unexpected that the U.S. forces would not be welcomed as liberators from god that he has no blame for the unexpectedness? It seems to me as though you are.

Even with a high death toll (relative only to the public's unrealistic expectations) ,

I disagree with your portrayal. It is the public's unrealistic expectations only because Bush and company mislead the public due to their unrealistic expecttions.

its still at least an order of magnitude less intense than the "major combat operations" phase.

I disagree again. Battles everyday, and American deaths everyday. The difference is not sufficient to claim that the battle that is going on now is not major. If it were not major, then the conclusion would not be so in doubt or of such tremendous importance.

There is a third possibility that has been pointed out to you and you are ignoring.

Nice try. Because I reject it, you claim that I am ignoring it.

I'm sorry, Prometheus, if you can't tell the difference between a confident prediction and a statement of fact, there is no way to resolve this. The difference is critical here.

How cute. You are sorry. We all believe you. If you can't tell the difference between hyping evidence to promote a war, and then later claiming that no statements about the future can be lies because the future is unknown, then I am not sorry to tell you that you are wrong in my opinion.

Bush told us that war was necessary. He told us why. His statements were not true. His justifications for the war were not true. Your claim that he cannot know the future is ridiculous. The administration claimed that they knew for a fact that there were WMDs and they knew exactly where they are. They could not have known this, because they were not there. Even if we assume that they did actually believe their statements, these were not statements about the future, they were statements about the then present.

I think that you are arguing over whether Bush intentionally and knowingly lied to you. You do not want to believe that. Fine, follow him to the death. More than 1,000 Americans have done so so far. His claims were not true. They were lies. Whether the lies were deliberate or not does not change the fact that they were lies.