If he didn't know what he claimed to know does that make him a liar? If someone says "I know for a fact..." and it turns out he is wrong, is he a liar for claiming to "know for a fact"? Or is he just mistaken?
If he didn't know what he claimed to know does that make him a liar? If someone says "I know for a fact..." and it turns out he is wrong, is he a liar for claiming to "know for a fact"? Or is he just mistaken?
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Think of it this way; if someone said " i know for a fact that XZeroII is a brainwashed loon who's mind has been turned to putty by the neo-con agenda being subliminally pounded into his head though nightly viewing of foxnew.", that would be a lie. Sure there is evidence to support the claim, but its only a possibility where as it is presented as a fact. In doing so the statement above it is meant to deceive, just as many of Bush and his cabinet's statements about Iraq and WMD were meant to deceive.
yes, you need to realize bush SAID he had full evidence. he did not. he had a good possibility, but that was not what he said he had. he said he knew for sure, rather than saying he thinks.
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Yes, that would be a lie (and FYI, I don't watch Fox News. Funny how you associate someone who defends bush that way...).
However...You don't seem to understand how being a leader works. Here's a hypothetical situation for you...
You are the CEO of IBM. You recieve some news that a rival company (Dell, for instance) is planning to blow up your HQ, with 1500 people in it, in 5 hours. How would you handle that situation? First thing you would have to ask is if the information is reliable or not. Can you afford to take the chance? I would argue that you would take it seriously. Next step would be to call the FBI. The FBI tell you to get everyone out of the building. You pick up the PA and make an announcement to the entire company...
What do you say?
A. EVERYONE THERE IS A BOMB IN THE BUILDING! GET OUT NOW!!!!!
B. Everyone stay calm, but we've recieved a bomb threat. Everyone calmly make your way to the exits...
C. This is *****, I would like everyone to exit the building right now. There is no cause for concern, but we would like everyone to leave the building immediately.
Option A is obviously a no no.
Option B is decent, but you're going to have some trampling and paniced people running around. People will get hurt and rush out the door.
Option C is the best option. The reason is because everyone will safely leave the building and no one will get hurt. You are lying to them by not telling them that there was a bomb threat and there is no cause for concern. There is a cause for concern, a big cause. But you won't tell them that, obviously. After everyone is out, then you would make an announcement. This is how leadership works.
Now, would you go calling that CEO names? Would you call him a liar and demonize him? Of course not. This is what Bush is doing. Selectively doling out information. If he gave out all the information he ever gets, there would be hystaria.
I think that answers a different thread, but now I'll relate that story to this thread...
Let's say you're the CEO of IBM (again). You realize that profits are probably going to be down and layoffs will probaby be nearby. There is only a 9% chance that people will get layed off, and the layoffs would be small (only a few people from each dept). Rumors start floating that layoffs are coming and people are panicing. What do you tell them? Do you instill fear into their hearts by telling them the truth, thus lowering productivity and actually causing lower profits and layoffs? Or do you deny the rumors and reassure everyone so that they work harder and profits go up and layoffs are avoided?
Please don't harp on the hypothetical story. It's just a story. Don't go into crap about how the layoffs would happen anyway and whatever else you can think of to avoid the issue.
The point is that there are times when a leader must stand tall and give the impression that everything is ok and will be fine, even when it may not be. Even if he doesn't know if he is doing the right thing, he must inspire his people and make them believe in him. Would you follow a leader that said, "I think we should go north, but I don't know. We'll go north for awhile, then if we don't get out of the woods, we'll head south". Heck no. But if the leader said, "Going north will get us out of the woods!" you would be inspired to go. That's what a leader does.
Ok, go ahead and pick it apart. Talk about my double standards and whatever else you can think of that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
So now you are saying bush lied but it was a "good" lie? What bush did is more like yell hire in a crowed places when the fire was just some one smoking. Sure there was a fire but to make people think it is worse then it is wrong.
Commander, if Bush's intent (UQ's word) was to convince the public that he knew for a fact of the existence of WMDs, when in fact he didn't (there was MUCH evidence stating the contrary that was either discarded or just not taken seriously....some would say because it didn't go along with his plan), would he be a liar?
IOW, if it was Bush's intent to deceive the public into thinking that he knew the truth, when in fact he didn't (maybe he just had a reasonable guess), would he be a liar?
IOW, if it was Bush's intent to deceive the public into thinking that he knew the truth, when in fact he didn't (maybe he just had a reasonable guess), would he be a liar?
AFAIK, Bush never said "To the best of our knowledge..." nor did he say "All our data/intel suggests that..."
Instead he (and others in his admin) said "We know..." and "Without a doubt..."
Instead he (and others in his admin) said "We know..." and "Without a doubt..."
This is such a silly argument because not one person here has access to top secret intelligence information. Without this information, it is foolish to make a statement that he definitely did or did not have WMDs. Recent history makes it logical to assume that he probably still had wmds up until the war, but we can't make definitive statements about this. Only the president can.
Frodo:
If Bush knew they had WMD why haven't we found any? Or do butter knives count?
Someday you will be a bit more skeptical about anything you hear out of Washington-from either side. Assuming we are always being fed a pack of lies is probably a healthy approach.
-Robert
If Bush knew they had WMD why haven't we found any? Or do butter knives count?
Someday you will be a bit more skeptical about anything you hear out of Washington-from either side. Assuming we are always being fed a pack of lies is probably a healthy approach.
-Robert
Our intelligence was top-notch. It was capable of putting out such Grade-A, Choice intel that we used it's conclusions as our primary reason for going to war.
Then the war came.
Now where is our intelligence? We can't seem to locate the WMD. No problem, our intelligence community, which spits out nothing but Grade-A, Choice conclusions, will surely pick up their scent.
10 months later. Nothing.
Comments by the prowar crowd
Before the war - "Are you on crack?! Of course the WMD are there! We need to attack...our very existence is in jeapordy!"
During the war - "Patience my child. In case you haven't noticed, we are at war. We'll get around to finding them."
Immediately after the war (I mean major combat operations) - "See? We found them. Ooops. False alarm, but just you wait!"
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
A few months later - "Give it time! Do you realize how big Iraq is?!?!"
A few more months later - "Well, maybe they didn't have WMD. But Saddam was a tyrant! So there! And besides, he had PROGRAMS!"
Then the war came.
Now where is our intelligence? We can't seem to locate the WMD. No problem, our intelligence community, which spits out nothing but Grade-A, Choice conclusions, will surely pick up their scent.
10 months later. Nothing.
Comments by the prowar crowd
Before the war - "Are you on crack?! Of course the WMD are there! We need to attack...our very existence is in jeapordy!"
During the war - "Patience my child. In case you haven't noticed, we are at war. We'll get around to finding them."
Immediately after the war (I mean major combat operations) - "See? We found them. Ooops. False alarm, but just you wait!"
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
" " "
A few months later - "Give it time! Do you realize how big Iraq is?!?!"
A few more months later - "Well, maybe they didn't have WMD. But Saddam was a tyrant! So there! And besides, he had PROGRAMS!"
I think the most honest perspective to take in this debate is simply to say "I don't know", because the truth is that not one of us here "Knows" whether Bush did or did not lie. All we have is rampant speculation. For the most part, it's a pointless discussion, as I'm pretty sure all of us agree that, speaking by principle, it would be unacceptable for the president to knowingly lie to the people of the United States, and that if it were to be *proven* that he did, most of us would support his being punished for it.
Jason
Jason
Well we do know that substantial amounts of WMD have not been found in Iraq. It is abundantly clear that WMD from Iraq was little more than a hypothetical threat. In fact, the nuclear program appears to be nothing more than "hopes and dreams".
State says DOD was getting bad intel from the Chalabi.
DOD says Chalabi provided bad intel.
Chalabi says he provided very little intel.
CIA said no nukes. Then they said no evidence of no nukes.
Powell said Iraq in a box. Then Powell said Iraq a threat to global security.
Rummie says WMD in Tikrit. Then Rummie said WMD in hiding. Then Rummie said WMD in Syria/Iran. The Rummie said . . . well maybe it was all destroyed before we got there.
In our 20/20 hindsight, the people making decisions know precious little more than the people challenging the rationales for invading Iraq.
State says DOD was getting bad intel from the Chalabi.
DOD says Chalabi provided bad intel.
Chalabi says he provided very little intel.
CIA said no nukes. Then they said no evidence of no nukes.
Powell said Iraq in a box. Then Powell said Iraq a threat to global security.
Rummie says WMD in Tikrit. Then Rummie said WMD in hiding. Then Rummie said WMD in Syria/Iran. The Rummie said . . . well maybe it was all destroyed before we got there.
In our 20/20 hindsight, the people making decisions know precious little more than the people challenging the rationales for invading Iraq.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Bush is either a liar, or he took this country to war on shaky intelligence. Either way he has to go.
This is a typical Bushism. You take a figure that's purely a guesstimate - upwards of 30,000, apply a solitary piece of factual information (turned up 16), and then claim that the only exculpatory evidence would be incontrovertible evidence of the remaining 29,984. Of course, the latter figure is totally meaningless . . . except for partisans that lack basic skills of logic and arithmetic.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Thanks for the info CAD. What do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." phrase with "Without a doubt..." phrases?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,861
- 6,396
- 126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Bush is either a liar, or he took this country to war on shaky intelligence. Either way he has to go.
Yup. This brings up a more legitimate point: Is "lying" the only attribute that makes a poor Leader? Whether you think he "lied", "was misled", or simply "assumed too much" are any of these acceptable in a Leader, especially in light of the consequences?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It's worse than that. I don't have the exact numbers handy, but the original estimate was based on worst-case estimates of Iraq's potential production capabilities. They came up with an estimate that Iraq could have potentially manufactured something like 12,000 to 24,000 weapons. Bush & Co. rounded that up to "upwards of 30,000."
If anyone has the specifics, it would be helpful. I just remember the basic concept, that the White House took a worst-case range based on theoretical production capacity and rounded it up to 30,000.
Then *poof* active chemical munition bunkers not only contain no chemical weapons they contain no trace of chemical weapons.
The magic of crack Iraqi decontamination teams . . . these guys did better work than OJ.
The US economy declared 1000 net jobs in December but administration economist estimate the US could have produced 100K new jobs . . . where are the jobs?
Accordingly, the US government proposes a global ban on model airplanes.
But if it turns out that the intelligence is inaccurate then we are still right because Saddam is a bad man.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Thanks for the info CAD. What do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." phrase with "Without a doubt..." phrases?
I've expressed my opinion about WMDs - I was merely providing you with evidence that Bush has infact used the wording you suggested you never heard.
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter