So no, I'm actually not in ecstasy about Saddam's capture. It's not that I don't despise the guy, and it's not that I don't recognize how wonderful it is that he's history. It's just that America lost so much in getting here that it's hard to take excessive joy in it. And one real tragedy here is that we didn't even give up a lot to get Saddam - we simply lost things, apparently without any real consciousness that we were losing them. We didn't nobly decide to make sacrifices in order to do what is right and bring down the tyrant. Rather, we were tricked into doing it for craven reasons. Because we were stupid and uninformed, and because we were easily frightened and overly deferential to authority, we allowed ourselves to be talked into going to war. What we did will probably, on balance, have morally good consequences (unless the administration cuts and runs before the next election, that is). But we don't get credit for those consequences since we didn't go to war in order to achieve them. If I'm a tad dim and easily frightened and, as a result, I shoot someone who in fact posed no threat to me, then I don't get any moral credit for shooting him, even if I saved someone else by doing so. If my reasons for shooting were stupid and cowardly, then I'm a stupid coward--no matter what good is accomplished by my bullet. Actions are morally good or bad on the basis of intentions--on the basis of the goals for which they are undertaken--and we undertook this war not in order to bring justice to Iraq, but in order to eliminate a threat our leaders invented almost out of whole cloth. We had a morally good goal and a goal that motivated us, but sadly these were two different goals. The not-especially-noble goal of self-defense actually moved us to act, something that the morally laudable goal of deposing the tyrant never would have done by itself. The morally laudable goal was invoked only after the fact, after it became painfully obvious that our action taken in self-defense was based on irresponsibly shoddy evaluation of the evidence. Shamed, and left without a plausible reason for doing what we had done, we were all too willing to be manipulated again, especially when this time we were being manipulated into accepting an account of things that made us, not pusillanimous lackwits sheepishly obeying orders to fire indiscriminately, but brave and noble defenders of the downtrodden.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
Bingo!
2 - Brian Flemming
Winston:
I find your views on the capture of Saddam Hussein insufficiently gung-ho.
Accordingly, I have reported your name to the Centers for Patriotic Compliance.
Have a nice day.
3 - Al Barger
Winston, my people are from Kentucky, so you might need to dumb this down. Us stupid people seem to think that Bush has been something close to mostly truthful with us, and take the war in Iraq at face value. That is, Bush said and I think that we're there for the intended purpose of defending our country, and secondarily to make the world a better place. Hussein had WMDs (or certainly so everyone thought), he openly bankrolled Palestenian terrorists (who killed some Americans among others), he provided sanctuary to terrorists, provided training camps, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
Oh, and he killed a million plus people.
But that's not why we REALLY went to Iraq.
Alright, then, what was Bush's REAL SUPER SECRET reason for going to Iraq that isn't what it obviously looks like on the face?
There's plenty of room to be less than fully satisfied with our progress in the larger war on terror. It's reasonable to question whether the good we do by going there is worth the various types of prices.
Still, even YOU are saying that we've accomplished a very good thing by ousting, and now absolutely laying hands on this evil thug.
Yet you cannot feel some sense of satiisfaction with this accomplishment for even a day. You seem to think that this somehow conveys an intellectual or morally more sophisticated outlook than simply rejoicing in the final ending of one of the worst killers in history.
There's a whole list of obvious reasons why Saddam needed brought down, so we've gone in and took him down. But of course we should not accept the obvious good reasons, but instead assume some murky and obscure dire hidden motivations that you mysteriously allude to.
What, did Bush lead us into war for the sake of giving some rebuilding contracts to the dreaded Halliburton? Had Bush already paid a month's rent on the battlefield?
Sometimes, in fact, things are just as they seem. Following the Occam's Razor simplest explanation principle, in fact the rational choice is to believe that we went into this war for more or less the reasons that were given.
Of course, if you get some special feeling of intellectual or moral superiority by talking yourself into being morose even on a day when clear, inarguable great good was done for all humanity, then you go right ahead. The constitution gives you every right to seek your gratification however you damned well please.
"This is a free country, baby
Live like you wanna live
Ain't no one gonna knock you, darling!"
-Chuck Berry
Of course, that just meant that Uncle Chuck was giving you permission to play with your own ding-a-ling.
It's slightly premature yet, but I'm definitely going to celebrate his demise with an airing of the South Park movie.
And I'll feel right happy about it, thank you.
4 - Winston Smith
The real question, of course, is:
Why do I hate America so much?
WS
5 - fyreflye
"The real question, of course, is:
Why do I hate America so much?
WS"
Because you're not from Kentucky?
6 - Joe
Winston-
Why DO you hate America so much? Kidding aside, I thought this was one of the more thoughtful responses to these events that I've seen so far. My own opinion is that I'm satisfied, overall, but not necessarily overjoyed. Actually, seeing the images of Hussein were kind of a letdown (we've been up against a dumpster diver?).
I wish I posessed your certainty of the morality or immorality of the situation but perhaps I just assume what is, in my mind, a more pragmatic view. I guess I just feel like there's too much we don't know or won't know for some time to make a judgement.
It seems that it all comes down to risk management. Was 9-11 a one-time best shot for the terrorists or an opening salvo? Well, what's the risk maintaining the status quo? I think most would not be willing to accept that risk. Did Iraq have WMDs? Prior to May of '98, we didn't think Pakistan did. Is the risk of what we don't know now acceptable? Again, I think most would not be willing to accept the risk. Sure, we had alternatives leading up to this, but realistically how feasible were they? The UN and NATO are pointed to as potential saviors so what's keeping them from getting involved? The UN pulled out of Iraq recently, we're not keeping them from coming or going. As for NATO, the majority of member countries are already comitted to the coalition in Iraq.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe in the war on terror, or not. Obviously, a threat exists. Whether every move we make is the right choice is arguable. I'd rather we take the fight to our enemies. In this instance, we did.
7 - Mac Diva
Very astute, Winston. You've zeroed in on the complexities of the so-called war on terrorism. I've been trying to explain that not being transported to ectasy by Saddam's capture does not mean one is in love with him to Righties. You've done it better than I did.
8 - Eric Olsen
Winston, this is well written and thoughtful but why would you let your contempt for the current administration get in the way of your appreciation of the big picture - like you said, this is a 12-year arc - appreciate it for what it is. No one says you have to like or support Bush - your priorities seem inverted here.
I am not right wing, not a Republican, I did not vote for Bush and may or may not again, I am in lockstep with no one, but: the country has lost NOTHING abroad with the War on Terror, I do not support all of the provisions of the Patriot Act and think Ashcroft is a deluded prig but I also know this has been an extraordinary time, I believe Bush is sincere about the War on Terror and have heard nothing to make me think otherwise.
Cheer up, it's better than you think.
9 - Eric Olsen
Winston, also, give your fellow citizens a little more credit. No one was "tricked" into anything. People don't care nearly as much as you do about the "why," they care that it was the right thing to do, and it was done, and we are all better off. People are not stupid.
10 - Winston Smith
Eric suggests that I've let my contempt for Bush blind me. This could of course be true, and I'm not in the best position to decide whether that's true or not, being the potentially blinded on after all. The question comes down to this: are my reasons stated above my real reasons, or are they *post hoc* rationalizations that result from my antecedent hatred of Bush? In such cases it's often a mix of these things, but I assert that it's the former and not the latter. I could be deluded; but, of course, Eric could be deluded about his reasons, too. Perhaps his antecedent *love* for Bush drives his position... Of course he *thinks* that's not what's going on, but... Blah, blah, blah. See, once we start playing that (quasi-Freudian) game, everying goes to Hell...
Anyway, also from Eric: "the country has lost NOTHING abroad with the War on Terror."
Well, I guess I have to disagree. In fact, we've gained nothing, since SH had nothing to do with OBL, but we've lost much. (a) this has been a recruiting bonanza for AQ; very much worse (b) this has shredded our relationships with the world and in particular with our allies, and it is those relationships that are most important for our efforts against terrorists; (c) we have strengthened the precedent that no moral laws shall constrain the mighty; (d) we've lost enormously in blood and treasure;
I guess I'm just repeating myself now, but domestially we've shown how sheep-like and uncritical we are, and greased the rails to perdition by allowing ourselves to be led to war by blatant lies.
This simply isn't the America that I learned about as a child. Call my conception childlike if you will, but it's not based on any hatred of the country or its people. And all of this is a *reason for*, not a *result of* my growing antipathy for the Bush admin.
Anyway, Eric, you could be right and I could be wrong, of course. I don't think so, but I acknowledge it as a real possibility.
WS
p.s. Eric writes: "Cheer up, it's better than you think." I hope you are right.
11 - debbie
WS,
"this has been a recruiting bonanza for AQ;"
They are fighting our military in Iraq...much better than killing our civilians on our soil. Incase you missed the news, they hated us long before we went to war in Iraq...remember 9-11?
"this has shredded our relationships with the world and in particular with our allies,"
France, Germany and Russia were going to "VETO" so they could protect their financial contracts with Saddam. I don't think that their best interests matched our best interests.
"...allowing ourselves to be led to war by blatant lies."
What blatent lies? In order to "lie" you have to tell something that you KNOW to be false. Are you suggesting that Bush KNEW there were no WMD? There is no way that he could have KNOWN, he can only work on the intellegence provided to him. Bush and the Republicans aren't the only ones that claimed the WMD, Clinton's admin. claimed it too. I just get tired of hearing the "Bush Lied" mantra, you can't lie if you don't know the truth. You can be wrong, you can come to the wrong conclusion but the term LIE means to deliberately deceive. Deliberately means knowingly.
I also have a problem with the assertion that we went to war for the "oil". Bush is the one that wants the 87 Billion to be a grant to Iraq, the Dems want it to be "repaid" from the sale of their oil. WHO wants it to be about oil? If it was the other way around then I might be a little more suspicious.
What was the "real" reason that we went to war with Iraq? The trouble with this is that you can come up with a conspiracy theory for every event that happens, but at least back it up with some type of proof. It's when people chant this crap without a shred of proof of any wrongdoing that you are thrown into the "Bush Hater's Club".
12 - Eric Olsen
Debbie, I agree with every one of your points - thanks!
13 - Tom Johnson
Occam's razor, in almost every situation, comes up with the most logical, and eventually the most truthful answer. Apply it to the situation in Iraq and see what you come up with. Either the administration was sincere about their beliefs of the dangers present in Iraq, or they had some huge, convoluted conspiracy that would easily be uncovered and would surely ruin the reputation of not only the administration but the entire Republican party.
(Now I'm just waiting for someone to say that the Bush admin. planned it this way. Of course.)
14 - Winston Smith
Debbie,
Like the blog says, Sadly, No. On all points.
Debbie writes:
(1) "this has been a recruiting bonanza for AQ;"
>
They are fighting our military in Iraq...much better than killing our civilians on our soil. Incase you missed the news, they hated us long before we went to war in Iraq...remember 9-11?
Response:
This is a textbook fallacy called "false dilemma." The choice isn't between fighting 'em here and fighting 'em in Iraq. They were never IN Iraq. The evidence is soundly against any significant SH-OBL connection. We were attacked by AQ which was financed by Saudi Arabia and hiding out in Afghanistan...so we attacked Iraq. The evidence here is farily clear, though, of course, not conclusive. Such evidence rarely is; that's why you have to HONESTLY assess the evidence and go with what's strongest. That's what the CIA did, and the administration rejected their analysis. If you allow this kind of cherry-picking of the evidence, you can "prove" almost anything you want in this world of fuzzy and conflicting data.
Debbie writes:
"this has shredded our relationships with the world and in particular with our allies,"
France, Germany and Russia were going to "VETO" so they could protect their financial contracts with Saddam. I don't think that their best interests matched our best interests.
Response:
Clinton acted against the wishes of F and G and the UN in general in Kosovo, but did it withough shredding our relationships. We were in the right, and we eventually convinced them of that. We disagreed with them respectfully. The BUsh admin may actually INTEND to shred these relationships. They think that internationalism is bad.
Debbie writes:
"...allowing ourselves to be led to war by blatant lies."
What blatent lies?
In order to "lie" you have to tell something that you KNOW to be false. Are you suggesting that Bush KNEW there were no WMD? There is no way that he could have KNOWN, he can only work on the intellegence provided to him. Bush and the Republicans aren't the only ones that claimed the WMD, Clinton's admin. claimed it too. I just get tired of hearing the "Bush Lied" mantra, you can't lie if you don't know the truth. You can be wrong, you can come to the wrong conclusion but the term LIE means to deliberately deceive. Deliberately means knowingly.
Response:
THis is an obvious and important error. In order to lie about x (when I say that x is so), I need not know for sure that x is false, as you assert. Rather, if I assert that x is so when, in fact, I do not know that x is so--or, more precisely, when I know that the evidence is indeterminate as between x and not x--then I lie. That's what Bush did. You absolve him by setting the bar on lying too low. If I flip a coin and don't look at the result, but confidently tell you that it's heads, then I am lying, even though I don't know that it's tails.
Once we get straight on that point, your case disolves.
Debbie writes:
I also have a problem with the assertion that we went to war for the "oil". Bush is the one that wants the 87 Billion to be a grant to Iraq, the Dems want it to be "repaid" from the sale of their oil. WHO wants it to be about oil? If it was the other way around then I might be a little more suspicious.
Response:
I didnt say we went to war for oil. Furthermore, your response contains another texbook fallacy--the *tu quoque* version of the *ad hominem* fallacy. Even if the Dems do think this, it has nothing to do with whether Bush acted rightly or not. Besides, I don't really see the alleged conflict.
Debbie writes:
What was the "real" reason that we went to war with Iraq? The trouble with this is that you can come up with a conspiracy theory for every event that happens, but at least back it up with some type of proof. It's when people chant this crap without a shred of proof of any wrongdoing that you are thrown into the "Bush Hater's Club".
Response:
This is absurd. THe evidence that Bush lied is basically undeniable at this point. See, among a zillion other things, Judis and Ackerman's "The Selling of the Iraq War," cited above. I could rehearse the overwhelming evidence if you like, but it's widely available.
And: of course one can make up hundreds of theories about why we went to war, and hundreds of them can make Bush look good and hundreds of them can make Bush look bad. That's why we absolutely must stick with an objective assesment of the evidence. The most objective and expert assessment we have comes from the CIA. They concluded that there was, in all likelihood, no link between SH and OBL, and no significant threat from SH's alleged "WMD"s. But the Bush admin. didn't like the objective assessment, so they consructed their own rationalization, which included claims for which they had overwhelming countervaling evidence. The experts had already told them for example, that there was probably no uranium sale from Niger, and that the infamous aluminum tubes were no good for uranium enrichment. Etc. etc. Yet they kept using the evidence anyway. (Including, for example, in the State of the Union address. Lying to Congress is, incidentally, an impeachable offense.)
Bush might end up being right about everything, but if he does, it will be luck. He's defied logic and evidence to invade Iraq. God knows why.
WS
15 - Joe
Pretty interesting discussion, if I might add my own two cents:
this has been a recruiting bonanza for AQ; very much worse - Is there any metric that actually supports this? I'm not saying that it's not correct, but is there any data supporting documentation(and if not, does that make you a liar?)? And if it is a recruiting boon, is it a bubble or a long term phenomena? I would presume that the initial boom would attract those who were already susceptible as potential terrorists, but over time, unless conditions turn in their favor, potential recruits will probably turn to vocations with a higher probability of success.
this has shredded our relationships with the world and in particular with our allies, and it is those relationships that are most important for our efforts against terrorists;
Again, specific examples are needed, with whom and which are most important, and why? Sure we've pissed some people off, but apparently we've gotten some folks on board for the debt forgiveness issue. And although many will disagree with our methods, all are stakeholders in our success, so in the long run, the actual result of the "shredding" of our relationships is probably overstated.
I'm interested in why you would consider intent to be such an important aspect to the morality of strategic action, but it seems to not be an element to your definition of lying. What's up with that?
16 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: No one was "tricked" into anything. People don't care nearly as much as you do about the "why,"
Debbie: What blatent [sic] lies?
Americans were tricked into supporting the invasion. Many people do care at least as much as Winston does. And the unilateral invasion of Iraq was based on political expediency not security, and was supported and sold by lies.
If you recall, at the time of the invasion a survey indicated that 60+% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. [Three months ago, that was up to 70%, just before the adminstration started denying it.] "People" didn't pull that out of thin air, but rather got it as part of the sophisticated communications program engaged in by the administration.
The invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror and had nothing to do with 9/11.
In fact, 9/11 was used as an excuse to go after Saddam - Rumsfeld callously raised that possibility on 9/12 in a meeting at the White House. It was also part of a fallback plan, so that in case the "war on terror" went badly in Afghanistan, the US would not get bogged down there like Russia had (Rice, Wolfowitz, et al. discuss this on 9/15).
The "reason" given for the unilateral invasion varied with time:
It's the sleaziest, most dangerous, most destructive political gaming I have ever seen.
And too many people bought it, hook, line and sinker. Some hang on to it still.
17 - Joe
From the 12 Sept., 2002 address to the UN:
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
That was the case for war I heard. Could somebody please point out the lies, I'm easily tricked.
18 - Winston Smith
(1) Re: Hals' post: dead right. I'm astounded that this stuff still has to be said... But let this be a lesson to us: it does. Over and over and over.
(2) Re: Joe's posts above:
First post:
These strike me as being really excellent points. Let me attempt to evade them one at a time:
Joe:
" this has been a recruiting bonanza for AQ; very much worse - Is there any metric that actually supports this? I'm not saying that it's not correct, but is there any data supporting documentation
WS:
I've seen arguments supporting this, but there's no doubt about it, I don't know it to be true. Busted...
Joe:
(and if not, does that make you a liar?)?"
WS:
No, an idiot. Intent matters. See below. Still, good point. I very much appreciate being corrected on this point.
(Also: Though Bush is an idiot, the rest of the admin. isn't, so I left out the idiot possibility in their case. Perhaps a bad decision based on considerations of length and clarity. Possibly my bad.)
Joe:
And if it is a recruiting boon, is it a bubble or a long term phenomena? I would presume that the initial boom would attract those who were already susceptible as potential terrorists, but over time, unless conditions turn in their favor, potential recruits will probably turn to vocations with a higher probability of success.
WS:
Dunno. My guess is that we can't say with much certainty. But one is bad and the other is awful. So doesn't matter much.
Joe:
(quoting WS)this has shredded our relationships with the world and in particular with our allies, and it is those relationships that are most important for our efforts against terrorists;
Joe for real:
Again, specific examples are needed, with whom and which are most important, and why?
WS:
Info widely available. Recent _Foreign Affairs_ paper claimed that diplomats from other countries believe that the Bush admin. is actually *trying* to humiliate them and piss them off. It's far worse than you think.
Joe:
Sure we've pissed some people off, but apparently we've gotten some folks on board for the debt forgiveness issue.
WS: Despite our previous actions, not because of them.
Joe:
And although many will disagree with our methods, all are stakeholders in our success, so in the long run, the actual result of the "shredding" of our relationships is probably overstated.
WS:
I stick by this point. International relations to some extent mirror human relations. Our actions have been those of an indiscriminate bully who values our allies only when they do what we want (which is the way the far Right thinks of them, in fact). A relationship like that is far weaker than a relationship built on genuine respect. I didn't say that they'd never work with us again, but they will now work with us like you would work with someone who you knew was only using you, AOT the way you you would work with a friend or brother, someone you genuinely value and respect. Very, very bad.
Joe:
I'm interested in why you would consider intent to be such an important aspect to the morality of strategic action, but it seems to not be an element to your definition of lying. What's up with that?
WS:
Good point. I took that for granted. My bad that it was unclear.
Joe's second post:
This I don't understand at all. These are basically conditionals laying down demands. Lying can't be an issue in such cases. Anyway: listing some non-lies Smith tells doesn't show that Smith is not a liar, any more than pointing to some people that Smith didn't kill means that he's not a murderer.
WS
19 - Joe
Sorry, that second post was really in response to Hal regarding being tricked. Basically quoting the address to the UN. I'm sorry if people feel they were tricked in some way, but I think the case was laid out pretty plainly to anyone who was paying attention.
WRT to the point on international relations, I think you have a fair assessment and I definitely agree that it would be favorable to be working in an atmosphere of amity and mutual respect but I'd point out that we've been used for a while now so we're not the only ones culpable here.
Excellent evasions, BTW.
20 - debbie
Winston,
"THis is an obvious and important error. In order to lie about x (when I say that x is so), I need not know for sure that x is false, as you assert. Rather, if I assert that x is so when, in fact, I do not know that x is so--or, more precisely, when I know that the evidence is indeterminate as between x and not x--then I lie. That's what Bush did. You absolve him by setting the bar on lying too low. If I flip a coin and don't look at the result, but confidently tell you that it's heads, then I am lying, even though I don't know that it's tails. "
"Once we get straight on that point, your case disolves."
We won't ever get straight on this because my dictionary says:
Lie:
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
So, lets just work with the facts...shall we?
This is not the same as coming up with the wrong conclusion. You have to KNOW that you are giving false information to lie. Otherwise you are saying that there isn't any difference in making a mistake and lying and I don't agree with that, AT ALL.
"Clinton acted against the wishes of F and G and the UN in general in Kosovo, but did it withough shredding our relationships. We were in the right, and we eventually convinced them of that. We disagreed with them respectfully. "
Well, what do you know, maybe they are being convinced that they were wrong. It seems that they want to come on board now.
As for the textbook fallacy called "false dilemma."
Are you saying that they are not in Iraq now? Yes they are, and they are fighting against our military over there. Which is much better than blowing up civilians over here.
"Bush might end up being right about everything, but if he does, it will be luck. He's defied logic and evidence to invade Iraq. God knows why."
Yep, definately in the Bush Hater's Club, couldn't possibly be right. Your superior intellect couldn't possibly be wrong?
Hal,
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
I mean, come on....Bush didn't just pull this out of thin air.
Is there political gaming going on here? By WHICH SIDE?
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
Yes you are right, too many people bought the political gaming going on hook line and sinker. And some are still holding onto it now.
I never cease to be surprised when I hear a speech by President Bush and then read the comments the next day in the paper. They never seem to mesh...maybe this is where so many people came up with the belief that SH was connected to OBL.
21 - Hal Pawluk
I think the case was laid out pretty plainly to anyone who was paying attention.
Actually, quite the opposite.
You should really read the entire piece The Selling of the Iraq War where the lies and misdirections are documented step by step, and administration official by official.
After that, I'd be interested in which of the facts showing Bush, Rice and others lying you can disprove.
22 - debbie
Hal,
If you allow this kind of cherry-picking of the evidence, you can "prove" almost anything you want in this world of fuzzy and conflicting data.
Anybody can paint any kind of conspiracy on any event in history.
I just saying that I heard the President's speeches (because I take time to listen to them). I took them at face value (that means not inserting what I think he meant to say) and there just isn't anything he said that I could catagorize as a LIE. But maybe I'm weird, I don't catagorize a mistake as a LIE.
These types of accusations just really turn me off to anything you have to say. It is blatently obvious that you Hate Bush therefore I don't expect to hear anything reasonable about Bush come out of your mouth.
Its like the "Clinton killed Vince Foster" crowd, after you hear that you just can't take them seriously anymore.
23 - JR
Winston Smith: "Rather, if I assert that x is so when, in fact, I do not know that x is so--or, more precisely, when I know that the evidence is indeterminate as between x and not x--then I lie."
Debbie: "Lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."
That definition confirms what Winston Smith wrote. What's the problem?
24 - Joe
JR-
I feel like this is deja vu... If I might be sold bold to presume that the distinction that Debbie is pointing out is the element of intent that I mentioned earlier in the thread. Did you and I have a similar discussion about what consititutes a lie elsewhere on Blogcritics?
25 - Winston Smith
Deb:
"We won't ever get straight on this because my dictionary says:
Lie:
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
So, lets just work with the facts...shall we?"
Deb:
Sadly, I'm just running out the door and will have little or no web access until about 1/3/04, pleasant as this is.
But quickly:
My advice: Get a new dictionary.
Seriously:
It's well-known that dictionaries don't help much w/r/t conceptual issues like this. I'm not making this up, either. You'd be better off checking the OED, but that still might not do the trick. It's like trying to argue that the fetus is (or isn't) a human being by looking in the dictionary. It's not a question about lexical definitions. Disagree if you like, but here I am just stating the orthodox position on such matters.
Anyway:
If I have no Earthly idea whether OBL is in Afghanistan or not, but I go on television and tell people that he IS in Afghanistan, then I am lying. If you, for some reason, prefer not to use the word 'lie', it won't change the fact that I am deceiving you, which is the important point anyway.
Furthremore, If I say that I KNOW that he's there, then the lie is even more explicit, since I know that I don't know that. By confidently asserting he's there, I am indicating that I take myself to know he's there, which, by hypothesis, is false. So even if we accept your definition in this case, Bush lied.
But suppose I'm wrong about that. If so, then Bush didn't *lie* to us, he merely *deceived* us.
And the stuff about Clinton is irrelevant. If I were to argue as you are, I'd insert here some ranting and raving about how you people just can't get off the Clinton biz...but I won't do that.
Well, since you brought it up... This business on the right about invoking tricky defintions of 'lie' and 'imminent'...remind you of anybody? (...it depends on what the meaning of 'lie' is...)
I mean, c'mon: 'W didn't lie when he said there were WMD in Iraq because, hey, he *didn't know for sure they WEREN'T there*???? You cannot seriously mean that. This fallacy has a name, too. It's called an Appeal to Ignorance. Example: I can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore he exists!
As for the rest of your post... Aw, forget it. This isn't real inquiry. This is just senseless, snitty, debating. This is why people think that reason is impotent in the world, especially in the world of politics. If people don't even make an effort to get at the truth and reach agreement, then they're just burning oxygen. And that not just silly, it actually makes matter worse.
'bye.
WS