• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Walter Cronkite: "worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,308
340
126
I'm old enough to remember watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News, and must say that he is the last news anchorman that I've ever held in high regard. That's why I think his opinions are worth noting here.

Iraq: The Aftermath

Former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite criticizes war in Iraq
Associated Press

CARBONDALE, Ill. - Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite says President Bush's decision to attack Iraq to stop potential threats to the United States was the "worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

Speaking at Southern Illinois University on Thursday night, Cronkite said such a pre-emptive attack sets a dangerous precedent for other countries. "

He is setting an example for every nation in the world, if you don't like what's going on with your neighbor it's perfectly all right to go to war with them," he told the audience.

Before the war, Cronkite called a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake, saying that it would destroy the United Nations and saddle "our grandchildren's grandchildren" with its cost.

On Thursday night, the 86-year-old Cronkite said that, "For every advance made in the tools and skill of making war, we should demand an equal advance in the tools and skill of making peace."

Cronkite was the anchorman for the "CBS Evening News" from 1962 until 1981, during which he broadcast such events as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, man's first walk on the moon and the war in Vietnam.

He said that he believes there is not enough time in a half-hour news show to give the public a full view of the day's events. "The most complicated story of the day gets two or three minutes of air," said Cronkite.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
I wonder how he would've felt had clinton invaded Afghanistan (without explicit UN approval because there wasn't a major conflict between the two nations, just the worms using it as a terror redoubt) during his Presidency and 9/11 never ended up occuring? I know this is speculation but it is in league with what someone who doesn't have the responsibility of running this country can say. Walter, me, and anyone not in the US administration can say whatever we want and criticize the President. But at the end of the day, were not responsible for the lives of 280 million Americans.

EDIT: And let's remember that Bush NEVER undermined the United Nations. The first UN Gulf War never ended. Iraq disobeyed/flouted 17 UN Article VII resolutions. A call to action was imminent after 12 years of dormancy by the UN. Bush, like previous US presidents, has always had the highest regards for the UN. Seeing that the US stands to benefit from a strong UN, he upheld its resolutions by attacking a nation still at war with it (the United Nations). Without the Iraqi campaign, the UN would've seem like another toothless paper tiger not unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,308
340
126
I'll certainly agree that you're engaged in speculation. And I'll also agree that our individual opinions aren't translated into national policy like those of President Bush, and that we haven't "walked a mile in his shoes". That said, democracies require its voting citizens to form opinions of their own on what should or should not be done. I hope you're not saying that the President should be above criticizm.

I'm also thinking that Kofi Annan might not agree with your claim that our invasion of Iraq did not undermine the UN.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Dari


EDIT: And let's remember that Bush NEVER undermined the United Nations. The first UN Gulf War never ended. Iraq disobeyed/flouted 17 UN Article VII resolutions. A call to action was imminent after 12 years of dormancy by the UN. Bush, like previous US presidents, has always had the highest regards for the UN. Seeing that the US stands to benefit from a strong UN, he upheld its resolutions by attacking a nation still at war with it (the United Nations). Without the Iraqi campaign, the UN would've seem like another toothless paper tiger not unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations.
You don't actually believe this, do you?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I'd say old Walt's got it half right,lying about the WMD was probably the worst decision ever made.
Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?

No follow me here, but if the Bush adminstration knew Iraq didn't have any WMD, why didn't they cover this lie a little better, by, you know, planting some WMD so that they wouldn't have got caught lying?

People keep saying "lie" but it defies all reason and logic. Surely the planners of the single largest supposed hoax played on the American people would have covered their tracks, right? I mean, the planning of this "lie" was perfect......nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced. Yet not one person who planned and executed this grand "lie" thought about what was going to happen when no WMD were going to be found?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Corn
I'd say old Walt's got it half right,lying about the WMD was probably the worst decision ever made.
Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?

No follow me here, but if the Bush adminstration knew Iraq didn't have any WMD, why didn't they cover this lie a little better, by, you know, planting some WMD so that they wouldn't have got caught lying?

People keep saying "lie" but it defies all reason and logic. Surely the planners of the single largest supposed hoax played on the American people would have covered their tracks, right? I mean, the planning of this "lie" was perfect......nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced. Yet not one person who planned and executed this grand "lie" thought about what was going to happen when no WMD were going to be found?
I wonder the same thing every day. How can they "lie" without knowingly doing it? Makes no sense to me.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,157
3,852
126
I have a different problem. What sort of a nut case would attack a country with weapons of mass destruction. And besides the lie was the immediate threat, remember. That means that in the first days of the war we should have suffered huge casualties. RIGHT, Bring it on. WMD was part of a comedy act.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
"Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?"

No, if they said they knew there was WMD when the truth was they didn't know, that would be equally insincere.


 

Shelly21

Diamond Member
May 28, 2002
4,111
1
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?"

No, if they said they knew there was WMD when the truth was they didn't know, that would be equally insincere.
yeah, that's lying in my book.... but who didn't expect lying from any administrations?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
"We know they have WMD." <---- When people say that there were lies told about WMD, this probably isn't the only claim that they are talking about.

Other claims made about WMD concerned drones, solid evidence, 45 minutes, Uranium, metal rods, etc.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
I'd say old Walt's got it half right,lying about the WMD was probably the worst decision ever made.
Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?
No, that's not right. And in fact this is a ridiculous assertion. To tell a lie does not imply you know the opposite to be true. A lie is an untruth. Whether or not you know the truth. All talk radio hosts are drug abusers. That's a lie. I have no idea whether or not all talk radio hosts are drug abusers. But to say they are is a lie nevertheless.

No follow me here, but if the Bush adminstration knew Iraq didn't have any WMD, why didn't they cover this lie a little better, by, you know, planting some WMD so that they wouldn't have got caught lying?
Another ridiculous assertion that makes an implausible leap of logic. The Bush administration knew their invasion wouldn't have support unless they made a claim that US security was threatened. An imminent threat. They claimed Iraq had WMD and the ability to use it against the USA. For the Bush administration to plant WMD in order to cover themselves would have put them in an even worse position of being found out in their lie.

People keep saying "lie" but it defies all reason and logic. Surely the planners of the single largest supposed hoax played on the American people would have covered their tracks, right? I mean, the planning of this "lie" was perfect......nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced. Yet not one person who planned and executed this grand "lie" thought about what was going to happen when no WMD were going to be found?
They didn't even bother to cover their tracks regarding the aftermath of the invasion. What makes you think these people would cover themselves regarding their rush to invade Iraq?

Look at the facts, corn. Not the rhetoric. The Bush administration said on numerous occassions that Iraq HAD WMD and they could use it against the USA. An imminent threat. Before, during and after the invasion there was NO use of WMD. There has been no WMD found in Iraq. The US has searched for months and spent $33 million so far with NO results.

Bush told the UN he had proof of Iraq's possession of WMD while the UN inspectors were THERE. The UN asked for the proof so their inspectors could verify the WMD. The Bush administration refused to provide proof. That's because they KNEW there was no WMD to begin with. Else why would they make the accusation, claim to have proof, refuse to provide their proof, invade Iraq without UN support, then when unable to find ANY WMD change their claim to "WMD program"?

It's a lie plain and simple. Twisting events and logic can't change the fact. A lie is an untruth. The Bush administration used an untruth to invade Iraq regardless of their lack of planning or their incompetence. Regardless of their failure to cover their tracks.

Maybe they relied on people like you who will believe anything they say even after it's proven false.

I edit to add:

Your assertion that "nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced" is another lie. Millions of people world wide and the majority of the world's nations opposed the Bush administration invasion of Iraq. That's not a "few." And they all said there was no proof of Iraq's possession of WMD. They asked for the proof the Bush administration repeatedly said they had. None was forthcoming and the proof they claimed to possess before the war hasn't been produced even now.

That's because it was all a lie. Stop trying to re-write history. Or at least give it a few years until people have time to digest the US porpaganda. Your attempt to twist the truth is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who lived through and continues to live through this fiasco.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
"We know they have WMD." <---- When people say that there were lies told about WMD, this probably isn't the only claim that they are talking about.

Other claims made about WMD concerned drones, solid evidence, 45 minutes, Uranium, metal rods, etc.
One more time, for those who have forgotten or are trying to make everyone else forget, here are the words stratight from Bush's mouth. A child could recognize these statements as lies.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<< edit to add:

Your assertion that "nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced" is another lie. Millions of people world wide and the majority of the world's nations opposed the Bush administration invasion of Iraq. That's not a "few." And they all said there was no proof of Iraq's possession of WMD. They asked for the proof the Bush administration repeatedly said they had. None was forthcoming and the proof they claimed to possess before the war hasn't been produced even now.>>


I'm glad I saw your edit...I was just about to comment on this statement myself. ;)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<< edit to add:

Your assertion that "nearly everyone sans a few anti-war demonstrators were convinced" is another lie. Millions of people world wide and the majority of the world's nations opposed the Bush administration invasion of Iraq. That's not a "few." And they all said there was no proof of Iraq's possession of WMD. They asked for the proof the Bush administration repeatedly said they had. None was forthcoming and the proof they claimed to possess before the war hasn't been produced even now.>>


I'm glad I saw your edit...I was just about to comment on this statement myself. ;)
They tell so many lies, Gaard, it's hard not to miss one now and again. I caught this one after re-reading the post I replied to.

The right complains about re-writing history and being "PC" yet they are the worst offenders.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
I'm old enough to remember watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News, and must say that he is the last news anchorman that I've ever held in high regard. That's why I think his opinions are worth noting here.

Iraq: The Aftermath

Former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite criticizes war in Iraq
Associated Press

CARBONDALE, Ill. - Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite says President Bush's decision to attack Iraq to stop potential threats to the United States was the "worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

Speaking at Southern Illinois University on Thursday night, Cronkite said such a pre-emptive attack sets a dangerous precedent for other countries. "

He is setting an example for every nation in the world, if you don't like what's going on with your neighbor it's perfectly all right to go to war with them," he told the audience.

Before the war, Cronkite called a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake, saying that it would destroy the United Nations and saddle "our grandchildren's grandchildren" with its cost.

On Thursday night, the 86-year-old Cronkite said that, "For every advance made in the tools and skill of making war, we should demand an equal advance in the tools and skill of making peace."

Cronkite was the anchorman for the "CBS Evening News" from 1962 until 1981, during which he broadcast such events as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, man's first walk on the moon and the war in Vietnam.

He said that he believes there is not enough time in a half-hour news show to give the public a full view of the day's events. "The most complicated story of the day gets two or three minutes of air," said Cronkite.
I'm old enough to remember Cronkite's newscasts as well. Cronkite was trusted by Americans more than they trusted their elected leaders. During his time the news was about telling people what they needed to hear. Not what they wanted to hear.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
I'm old enough to remember watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News, and must say that he is the last news anchorman that I've ever held in high regard. That's why I think his opinions are worth noting here.

Iraq: The Aftermath

Former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite criticizes war in Iraq
Associated Press

CARBONDALE, Ill. - Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite says President Bush's decision to attack Iraq to stop potential threats to the United States was the "worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

Speaking at Southern Illinois University on Thursday night, Cronkite said such a pre-emptive attack sets a dangerous precedent for other countries. "

He is setting an example for every nation in the world, if you don't like what's going on with your neighbor it's perfectly all right to go to war with them," he told the audience.

Before the war, Cronkite called a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake, saying that it would destroy the United Nations and saddle "our grandchildren's grandchildren" with its cost.

On Thursday night, the 86-year-old Cronkite said that, "For every advance made in the tools and skill of making war, we should demand an equal advance in the tools and skill of making peace."

Cronkite was the anchorman for the "CBS Evening News" from 1962 until 1981, during which he broadcast such events as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, man's first walk on the moon and the war in Vietnam.

He said that he believes there is not enough time in a half-hour news show to give the public a full view of the day's events. "The most complicated story of the day gets two or three minutes of air," said Cronkite.
I'm old enough to remember Cronkite's newscasts as well. Cronkite was trusted by Americans more than they trusted their elected leaders. During his time the news was about telling people what they needed to hear. Not what they wanted to hear.
That's the difference between News and "Info-tainment". The difference between Journalist and Photogenic Teleprompter Reader.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
"We know they have WMD." <---- When people say that there were lies told about WMD, this probably isn't the only claim that they are talking about.

Other claims made about WMD concerned drones, solid evidence, 45 minutes, Uranium, metal rods, etc.
And "thousands of liters", "massive stockpiles", "we know where they are", "mushroom cloud", "only possible use", fleet of mobile WMD labs, UAVs ready to spread chemical/biological agents across the U.S., links to 9/11, etc., ad nauseum.

A lie is any statement made with the intent to deceive. Bush and his minions lied their asses off for months to sell America on their lust to annex Iraq. It's a sad commentary on us that so many Americans bought it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
No, that's not right. And in fact this is a ridiculous assertion. To tell a lie does not imply you know the opposite to be true. A lie is an untruth. Whether or not you know the truth. All talk radio hosts are drug abusers. That's a lie. I have no idea whether or not all talk radio hosts are drug abusers. But to say they are is a lie nevertheless.
Maybe you should look up the definition of lie.

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
If I were to say 2+2=5, thinking that the answer was actually "5", this would not be a "lie". Instead it is simply a wrong answer.

I find it telling that you extreme leftist partisans now have to lie about proper definitions to serve your rabid purposes. Of course your errent definition of what constitutes a lie could quite possibly be simply a result of your stupidity. Who knows, either way you're a mentally ill moron with too much time on his hands.

Bowfinger got it right when he said:
A lie is any statement made with the intent to deceive.
In order to intend to deceive, one must know the truth.

Now get back to googling your life away BOBDN...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<Someone help me out here. In order for the Bush administration to have "lied" about Iraq's WMD program, that would require that they knew Iraq didn't actually have any WMD, right?>>

The least you could do is say "Thanks". After all, you were helped in understanding how the Bush administration could "lie" about WMD without actually knowing if Iraq had any or not. Right? ;)
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
If I were to say for a fact that 2+2=5, not knowing whether or not 5 is the right answer, would that fit the definition of a lie?



<<In order to intend to deceive, one must know the truth.>>

Not true. You can intend to deceive me into thinking you know the truth, when in fact you don't know the truth.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
No, that's not right. And in fact this is a ridiculous assertion. To tell a lie does not imply you know the opposite to be true. A lie is an untruth. Whether or not you know the truth. All talk radio hosts are drug abusers. That's a lie. I have no idea whether or not all talk radio hosts are drug abusers. But to say they are is a lie nevertheless.
Maybe you should look up the definition of lie.

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
If I were to say 2+2=5, thinking that the answer was actually "5", this would not be a "lie". Instead it is simply a wrong answer.

I find it telling that you extreme leftist partisans now have to lie about proper definitions to serve your rabid purposes. Of course your errent definition of what constitutes a lie could quite possibly be simply a result of your stupidity. Who knows, either way you're a mentally ill moron with too much time on his hands.

Bowfinger got it right when he said:
A lie is any statement made with the intent to deceive.
In order to intend to deceive, one must know the truth.

Now get back to googling your life away BOBDN...
NO, you don't need to know the truth to tell a lie. All you need to do is attempt to decieve. If I believed the moon was made of green cheese but I told you it was made of halvah I'd still be lying. Even if I had no idea of the moon's true makeup.

A lie is a lie. Stop trying to defend the Bush administration's lies. It only makes you look that much more ignorant of the facts.

I am constantly amazed by the ignorance of people willing to say ANYTHING to defend the Bush administration's lies.

I'm even more amazed that any of them expect us to believe a word of it.

You should try Googling sometime instead of blabbering the trash you post. After all, there is a wealth of information and knowledge on the internet. But you're not interested in that sort of wealth, are you?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Not true. You can intend to deceive me into thinking you know the truth, when in fact you don't know the truth.
Now here is an example of reasoned thinking. BOBDN, take a lesson from Gaard's example, even though I'm sure it's a pointless exercise.

Anyway, I could probably go along with this Gaard. Still not sure I would classify overconfidence in intelligence a "lie" in itself, but I can appreciate where you're coming from here.

If I were to say for a fact that 2+2=5, not knowing whether or not 5 is the right answer, would that fit the definition of a lie?
No, I would consider it a bad guess. :)
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Then they lied by presenting a guess as a fact. They KNEW that they didn't have factual evidence that Iraq had WMDs, yet they told the public that they KNEW Iraq had WMDs, FOR A FACT.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Not true. You can intend to deceive me into thinking you know the truth, when in fact you don't know the truth.
Now here is an example of reasoned thinking. BOBDN, take a lesson from Gaard's example, even though I'm sure it's a pointless exercise.

Anyway, I could probably go along with this Gaard. Still not sure I would classify overconfidence in intelligence a "lie" in itself, but I can appreciate where you're coming from here.

If I were to say for a fact that 2+2=5, not knowing whether or not 5 is the right answer, would that fit the definition of a lie?
No, I would consider it a bad guess. :)
If you don't mind, corn, I don't want to rely on you for the definition of reasoned thinking.

After all, you can't even recognize a lie when it's told to you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY