General Petraeus Would Rather Betray Us Than Tell Us The Truth, After All.

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Corn,

You are sure tossing the someone lied charges around when in fact we are all emotional animals and have opinions that don't always pan out. I just got done reviewing some of your pasts posts and can hardly conclude you have been honest with us although you may be biased on that subject. Nor will I make any claim any infallibility either.

What the hell are you talking about? When I accuse someone of lying, its because they are intentionally stating an untruth. Having an "opinion that don't always pan out" is not cause for the charge of burning pants.

By all means, post an example of any of those posts I've made which you've reviewed that belies my real opinion regarding the topic at hand. Don't waste our time with any obvious parodic or sarcastic utterances of mine--lets see some meat.

[/quote]
More importantly you have admitted you were wrong about GWB and now are sadder but wiser. Or to put it in a more frank way, you lied to yourself.
[/quote]

Um, no. Learning from one's mistakes is not an exercise in self-deception, but one of honest self-reflection.......but it certainly was worth the shot. You and Moonbeam should get together sometime.........

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well we already knew Thomas and Scalia were nutso---and now to see Roberts and Alito go down that same road---sad.

I can only hope that in the course of investigation GWB&co, they find the kind of communications that prove some of these judges are engaged in major impropieties.

Now *that* is a prime example of someone lying to himself.

..............you go around insulting people in Pakistan by suggesting that their country will always be India's parking lot......

Another outright fabrication. Intentional.........or just functionally illiterate? You're too smart for the latter, sorry.

Don't stop LL, yer on a roll.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn
[ ... ]
This has nothing to do with the supposed "lies" used to sell this war. I don't, not for a second, believe that Bush or anyone in his administration knew or believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and therefore your "war of LIES" is nothing but a lie in and of itself. ...

A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. I have no doubt most, perhaps even all, of the people within the Bush administration sincerely believed Iraq had some remaining WMD capabilities. Had they said, "We think Iraq still has some WMD capabilities," that would have been truthful. That is not what they said, however. That's where the lies started.

The lies were in the way the Bush administration sold the war on Iraq. They lied about the certainty of their information, e.g., "There is no doubt" when there was, in fact, significant doubt about many of their claims. They lied about the extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, e.g. claiming greater quantities and capabilities than was supported by their intel. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq, for example publicly suggesting Iraq would provide WMDs to terrorists when their own analysts said this was extremely unlikely ... except maybe, maybe in a situation where Hussein felt he had nothing left to lose, e.g., an invasion by the U.S.

The Bush administration lied about their motives and agenda for invading; several insiders have come forward to say Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq long before they had built a case to do so. They lied by intentionally shopping for cherry-picked intel to justify their predetermined decision, going so far as setting up their own intel agency when the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently inflammatory reports. They lied by using innuendo to suggest a connection between Iraq and 9/11. The list goes on and on.

In short, the Bush administration did not give America a full and honest report on what they did and did not know about Iraq. Instead, they intentionally withheld, misrepresented, and overstated the real story to deceive us to sell their invasion. That is lying, plain and simple.

Your definition and example of Bush's grand lie would brand nearly every single prosecuter who convicted someone wrongly as a liar. Are some? Probably......however profession of certainty while believing the probability is likewise certain is not intentional deception upon discovery the inverse was actually true. You split hairs and use innuendo. I suppose that makes you also a liar.......because you know for certain......when you do not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn
[ ... ]
This has nothing to do with the supposed "lies" used to sell this war. I don't, not for a second, believe that Bush or anyone in his administration knew or believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and therefore your "war of LIES" is nothing but a lie in and of itself. ...

A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. I have no doubt most, perhaps even all, of the people within the Bush administration sincerely believed Iraq had some remaining WMD capabilities. Had they said, "We think Iraq still has some WMD capabilities," that would have been truthful. That is not what they said, however. That's where the lies started.

The lies were in the way the Bush administration sold the war on Iraq. They lied about the certainty of their information, e.g., "There is no doubt" when there was, in fact, significant doubt about many of their claims. They lied about the extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, e.g. claiming greater quantities and capabilities than was supported by their intel. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq, for example publicly suggesting Iraq would provide WMDs to terrorists when their own analysts said this was extremely unlikely ... except maybe, maybe in a situation where Hussein felt he had nothing left to lose, e.g., an invasion by the U.S.

The Bush administration lied about their motives and agenda for invading; several insiders have come forward to say Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq long before they had built a case to do so. They lied by intentionally shopping for cherry-picked intel to justify their predetermined decision, going so far as setting up their own intel agency when the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently inflammatory reports. They lied by using innuendo to suggest a connection between Iraq and 9/11. The list goes on and on.

In short, the Bush administration did not give America a full and honest report on what they did and did not know about Iraq. Instead, they intentionally withheld, misrepresented, and overstated the real story to deceive us to sell their invasion. That is lying, plain and simple.

Your definition and example of Bush's grand lie would brand nearly every single prosecuter who convicted someone wrongly as a liar. Are some? Probably......however profession of certainty while believing the probability is likewise certain is not intentional deception upon discovery the inverse was actually true. You split hairs and use innuendo. I suppose that makes you also a liar.......because you know for certain......when you do not.

Whatever. You addressed only the first of several examples I gave, and even there your counter seems rather specious given that a prosecutor is supposed to provide only one side of the issue at hand while the POTUS and his administration are supposed to present information without slant and distortion. Your analogy also fails given that a prosecutor is obligated to present his evidence accurately and factually. Otherwise, he would justifiably be considered to be lying.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
..........given that a prosecutor is supposed to provide only one side of the issue at hand while the POTUS and his administration are supposed to present information without slant and distortion.

You make me laugh and laugh and laugh. :laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn
I don't, not for a second, believe that Bush or anyone in his administration knew or believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and therefore your "war of LIES" is nothing but a lie in and of itself..

How many times can so many people with so much access to many top level intelligence resources be so wrong about so many critical issues, especially when they had so much contrary input from so many qualified people before they launched their war of LIES?

I guess you didn't listen when your mother told you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind... whatever "it" is. :shocked: :laugh:

I apologize in advance for reposting the following from one of my earlier posts, but maybe you're mouse challenged and couldn't find it.

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

If you still believe they weren't lying, you're incredibly naive, or you're incredibly dense, or you're one of their cabal of liars.

The difference between you and I? I've never once lied to you........you've lied to me several times. Doesn't matter that you "had" to, you're still a liar.

If you referring to the fact that, as a Mod, we were specifically instructed by Anand to keep our identities as Mods secret, get this straight. I've been the lead mod on these forums longer than you've been a member. Anand is the reason you have these forums where you can continue to prove your ignorance.

His forums. His rules, not mine. If you don't like it, find forums where you like the rules better.

Anything else? If not, get over yourself, wake up to the fact that everything the Bushwhackos and his cronies told you was LIES.

They weren't my lies, either.

 

[Gaard]

I remember back in winter of '02 Bush said he had 'solid' evidence of Iraq's WMD, however, he refused to even hint at what this evidence was or even what it pertained to - chemical, biological, or nuclear. Telling us that he had this 'solid' evidence, refusing to tell us what it was, what it pertained to, or how he got it...just to trust him.

link

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
..........given that a prosecutor is supposed to provide only one side of the issue at hand while the POTUS and his administration are supposed to present information without slant and distortion.

You make me laugh and laugh and laugh. :laugh:

That you expect so little from our public servants doesn't make their lies less wrong. (And can I safely assume you are not going to address anything I said?)

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you referring to the fact that, as a Mod, we were specifically instructed by Anand to keep our identities as Mods secret, get this straight. I've been the lead mod on these forums longer than you've been a member. Anand is the reason you have these forums where you can continue to prove your ignorance.

His forums. His rules, not mine. If you don't like it, find forums where you like the rules better.

Anything else? If not, STFU!

Ahhhhh, so you were justified in your lies.....under orders to lie, so to speak.......ironic to say the least. I know, I know.........your lies didn't start any wars...........

....and just so we're clear. I've go no problem with any rule past or present. That's not the point and you know it.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
..........given that a prosecutor is supposed to provide only one side of the issue at hand while the POTUS and his administration are supposed to present information without slant and distortion.

You make me laugh and laugh and laugh. :laugh:

Corn, as the already self admitted deceived, I have to wonder what parts of recent events make you laugh and laugh and laugh?

If you ain't crying a river and being a part of what to do now, I have to wonder about about your self justifying ego over riding your rationality.

Proving someone else not being not totally correct has nothing in the world to do about you being in any way correct.

Get a clue, these national debates have nothing to do with your ego.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
..........given that a prosecutor is supposed to provide only one side of the issue at hand while the POTUS and his administration are supposed to present information without slant and distortion.

You make me laugh and laugh and laugh. :laugh:

Corn, as the already self admitted deceived, I have to wonder what parts of recent events make you laugh and laugh and laugh?

If you ain't crying a river and being a part of what to do now, I have to wonder about about your self justifying ego over riding your rationality.

Proving someone else not being not totally correct has nothing in the world to do about you being in any way correct.

Get a clue, these national debates have nothing to do with your ego.

And here I thought we were talking about "truth" and not right or wrong.........oh....wait.....

Regardless, I do more than waste my time here trying to affect change....just not the way you would like. I'm disgusted with the neocon hijacking of the Republican Party. I support (Republican) candidates whom want to purge this element from their position of influence with my time and money. I certainly won't vote for someone *more* liberal just for the sake of change.

I post on this forum for my amusement only. I'm not so deluded in thinking that *anyone* posting *anything* here actually changes anyone's mind to any significant degree. Nearly every post on this forum is "I'm wrong, you're right". Sometimes I'm wrong (errrrr, see previous sentence for example).......and yet the earth keeps spinning.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Anything else? If not, get over yourself....

nice edit...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Harvey
Anything else? If not, get over yourself....

nice edit...

Glad you like it. I moderate my own posts, too.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This thread is now temporarily locked until the report actually arrives.

This will allow tempers that are flaring within the thread to cool down.

When the report arrives, the thread will be unlocked, bumped to the top and the report itself can be dissected.

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[SAWYER]

So is it General Betrayus now? Are the war crimes, secret prisons, enhanced drone strikes etc good now or are they still bad? What about extended Patriot Act provisions, expanded powers for law enforcement etc?

 

[Corn]

Keep screaming, keep foaming, keep flailing, keep up the disturbed psycho stalker facade......It certainly is amusing. Oh, sure, you claim this is no facade, but you are a one trick pony. You whine about Bush subervting your rights but utter no complaint when the democrats do the same--if not worse. If I didn't know you were an actual person, I'd assume you were a bot programmed into the forum software by Derek:

LOL, I can see the future!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2044287

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2070021