The Bush Administration's Deception

[krunk7]

I've read many a thread on this topic and one glaringly obvious point seems to have been missed:

Ok, I'll give Bush the fact that he didn't realize that he had misinformed the American public in (though I have doubts), but why wasn't an immediate retraction made? I guess no one in the CIA that knew the truth (or in British Intelligence for that matter) bothered to watch the State of the Union Address.

Any way you cut it, he deceived the American public.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So are you saying that if you post something as a "fact" here on the forum and then someone proves otherwise we can say that you decieved us even if all the evidence you had at the time supported your "fact"?


CkG

 

[krunk7]

1. I'm not the president of the United States with an entire intelligence agency at my disposal
2. My statements do not result in the mobilization of the most powerful armed force in the history of the world.
3. If a significant portion of the upper echelon of the CIA knew that the statements of their Commander in Cheif were patently false (which current evidence more than indicates), I would find it hard to believe that they did not make that fact known to their superiors.
4. The list of "their superiors" includes their Commander in Cheif.
5. If 1 and 2 were true, I would be beholden to the nation to reveal the error in my claims IMMEDIATELY.
6. Premises 3 and 4 coupled with postulate 5 leave only two options: Either the President willfully deceived us (whether that occured after or before the State of the Union Address is still up in the air) or the President is a pawn who is not aware of the workings of his own nation.

There is only one conclusion either way: Whoever is leading our nation deceived us.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Care to answer my question? Sure the magnitude of the issues are different but the principles are the same.

Yes/No?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So are you saying that if you post something as a "fact" here on the forum and then someone proves otherwise we can say that you decieved us even if all the evidence you had at the time supported your "fact"?

I'd say yes, if you then refuse to retract or amend your statement after being shown that it was untrue. Your analogy is flawed anyway, since the Bush administration knew long in advance that the Africa claim was forged. To pretend otherwise now is just compounding the lie with more lies.

But, just for the sake of argument, if we assume Bush did not know this beforehand because they kept him locked in a closet and only let him out for photo ops, then he still had a responsibility to come forward and acknowledge the deceit shortly after the speech, once he inevitably discovered the truth. Moreover, if Bush were truly kept in the dark by staff, as an allegedly intelligent and responsible human being and a competent leader, this discovery should have been a huge red flag that he needed to have all of our intelligence re-valdiated, without the manipulation of his minions, before proceeding to invade another country.

Bush did none of these things. Therefore, it is accurate to say he deceived us.

 

[krunk7]

Read my post again carefully, please.

If my claim would knowingly lead to some consequence and after I had made the claim I than discovered that it was false and chose not to make a retraction, than the answer is

YES


refer to point number 3 as to why the likelihood that after the fact knowledge of Bush's claim being false is HIGHLY likely.

Edit: LOL we must have posted at the same time, bowfinger.

 

[DealMonkey]

Bush is essentially using the "Kenny Boy" Lay/Enron defense. As "CEO" of the United States, Bush didn't know what was happening on a day-to-day basis. He simply read what was put in front of him and stayed on message...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Care to answer my question? Sure the magnitude of the issues are different but the principles are the same.

Yes/No?

CkG

Care to answer this? When a doctor gives a bad advice to a patient and damaged the patient?s health, he is slap with a malpractice lawsuit. When a president gives a false statement that leads the country to a war, costing billions and thousands of lives on both sides. What should the president be slap with?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I can't believe that Bow answered yes here and in the 'Lil' thread he defends(or pass them off as childish:roll statements that were proven to be directly false(or overstatements ) You can't have it both ways people, IF you are to be consistent.

rchiu - Was the one "bad" piece of intel Bush used in the SOTU the reason people looked to and said "whoa - uranium:Q, I don't believe the other WMD stuff but man, if they are getting Uranium then we gotta go in" ? No, it was one sentence that shouldn't have been in there, but that doesn't mean the whole thing was decietful.

CkG

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I can't believe that Bow answered yes here and in the 'Lil' thread he defends(or pass them off as childish:roll statements that were proven to be directly false(or overstatements ) You can't have it both ways people, IF you are to be consistent.

rchiu - Was the one "bad" piece of intel Bush used in the SOTU the reason people looked to and said "whoa - uranium:Q, I don't believe the other WMD stuff but man, if they are getting Uranium then we gotta go in" ? No, it was one sentence that shouldn't have been in there, but that doesn't mean the whole thing was decietful.

CkG

Actually it is entirely possible to believe the whole thing was decietful.

link

 

[jackschmittusa]

Why would Bush have thought that he needed to correct this one right after the speach? All of the other BS he put out before just sort of blew away because most people asking questions got verbally bitch-slapped by Fleischer or Rummy and they shut up. Now people are gathering their cajones and were asking this question again and again until Bush started to look too much like a buffoon for blowing it off so many times. He had a ready-made patsy in Tenet. And, in my opinion, Tenet didn't get fired yet because Bush has plans for him to take another fall for something else. I don't yet know what it is, but Tenet has to still have his job then so Bush can then fire him, say action has been taken, so forget it and move on.