Misleading statements on the war

[OnyxCougar]

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs...record_rep.pdf

For purposes of the
database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what
intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence
or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.
The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight.
If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was
made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears
erroneous.

Vice President Cheney made perhaps the single most egregious statement about
Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, claiming: “we know he has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted
nuclear weapons.”20 He made this statement just three days before the war. He
did not admit until September 14, 2003, that his statement was wrong and that he
“did misspeak.”21

For example, Secretary Rumsfeld denied on July 13, 2003, that there
was “any debate” about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities within the Administration,
stating: “We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.”23
Since the war ended, the Iraq Survey Group has been unable to find evidence of
the nuclear program described by the five officials. On October 2, 2003, David
Kay reported that “we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook
significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile
material.”24 In his January 28, 2004, testimony, Dr. Kay reported that “[i]t was
not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.”25 He added, “As best as has
been determined . . . in 2000 they had decided that their nuclear establishment had
deteriorated to such point that it was totally useless.”26 His conclusion was that
there was “no doubt at all” that Iraq had less of an ability to produce fissile
material in 2001 than in 1991.27

[Kitsune]

Eh, according to all the pro-Bush people I work with, none of this is important, anymore. They'd like to see some people put on trial for the faulty intelligence, but its not of high priority at this time. Currently, the most pressing issues in this election have to do with taxation of gasoline and how much you have to pay when filing jointly. Oh, and something about religion and Heinz ketchup.

"Well, I haven't read the Patriot Act, so I don't really know if what you say about imprisioning citizens without a reason is true. And why would the US government want to tap our phone lines without a warrant?"

I love what the priorities in this election have become and what the voting population continues to be ignornant of. If Bush gets elected, this country will get the president they deserve.

[OnyxCougar]

OK, but this statement is important:

For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.
The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight.
If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was
made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears
erroneous.

(Emphasis mine)

So this database is about what intelligence was telling them that was RIGHT, not flawed intelligence. And still they lied. Knowingly and willfully misled. This database isn't about, "well, intel said this, so we made statements to that effect." This database is about, "well, intel said this, but that doesn't justify going to war, so we're going to PURPOSEFULLY mislead people and say this..."

And that IS a big deal.

[OnyxCougar]

On the otherhand, this isn't new information. A policitian? Lying? Naww....

I don't know why I'm so pissed about this...other than I can't stand liars.

And I know Kerry lies too, I'm not trying to be partisan here...I don't like Dems or Reps. Just that this is statement by statement proof, correllated with what we know now they knew then, and they flat out lied.

How can anyone vote for someone in good conscience with a record like that??

[iamthewalrus109]

When it comes down to it, on an issue of character and style of governance, the buck will never stop with George Bush. Bushies can blame bad intelligence and faulty intel unitl their blue in the face. The bottom line here is that George Bush is commander and chief, and he still refuses to take responsiblity for this endeavor in Iraq, plain and simple. If there is bad intelligence, then he fell for it, and that's all that should matter. He shouldn't be out there saying, "well so did everybody else", he should take responsiblity for it like a man. This is a mark of a true lack of character, he simply takes no responsiblity for "his" decision. Maybe this belies the fact, that it wasn't his decision, that this is truly a card board cut out administration, a store front with some deviant, pernicious wizard of Oz character pulling the strings.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

I had a long, civilized talk with some of my co-workers who plan on voting for George Bush several nights ago. I usually leave politics out of the workplace, but this was the first chance I've ever had to have a face-to-face, normal discussion with people with a political view different from my own. No one got angry, the conversation was kept fairly intelligent, and everyone kept an open mind. In fact, all of us openly admitted when we didn't understand a subject or a certain aspect of it. I learned a lot and what came of it surprised me.

All of us agreed that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Two of the pro-Bush voters, however, noted that their support for going into Iraq has actually increased since their feelings on it one year ago while the others indicated that they felt there was no strong need for an investigation or trial for those that provided the intelligence. One person said that it was more important to stick with what decision had been made and remain strong rather than have it questioned. Another said that it is obvious that the US never planned to reveal their real reasons for going into Iraq and that it had more to do with international stability than what was told to the public.

All of us agreed that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, but when I questioned why the US isn't going into African countries where genocide rates are equal to or surpass those that existed in Iraq, one person said that there was no reason for US forces to intervene because "those actions do not pose a threat to the United States." When I asked why the US hasn't intervened with military force in a country that does pose a threat, North Korea, they replied that this is why the US is quickly developing a missile defence program, something they feel confident in and they know Kerry is against.

None of them had read nor understood the implications of the Patriot Act, yet they supported it because they felt it was important to defending the United States against terrorism. When I noted to them that many sections of the laws passed directly affected their rights, they admitted that it was "probably worth looking into". One noted that in order to protect freedom, sometimes "you have to give up some up for the greater good".

What were their biggest issues with voting for Kerry?

They were concerned more with US self sufficiency than the errors in the war. One noted that if we would be finally able to produce all of our own oil and stop purchasing food we don't need from other countries (such as wheat from Russia) that international conflicts would solve themselves and wouldn't happen, the middle east would suffer due to lack of business, etc.

"Kerry doesn't have the leadership skills needed to protect my children."

They felt Kerry was a traitor because he spoke out against US actions in Vietnam and that they could never, in their right mind, vote for someone who would ever speak out against his fellow soldiers.

Above all, however, they were most concerned with taxes. Gas tax, joint filing taxes, estate taxes, etc. Being self employed, my taxes are always bad regardless of what laws are passed, but in what was probably the only angry words uttered during the entirety of the conversation, I got to hear how nearly violent these people were when it comes to how threatened they feel by being taxed.

I learned many important things with regards to how a lot of pro-Bush voters think and what is important to them. I understand, now, that no matter what came out in the debates that people aren't going to change their position and that, really, a third debate isn't needed. I even found out that when it came to many subjects, we really didn't think too much differently and actually agreed on most topics regarding this election. The major difference, though, is that while I found the misinformation concerning the war and citizen's rights violations to be the most important aspects of these elections, they felt these were nothing to worry about compared to their safety and their money. Yep -- I made a generalization, there, but I do not fault them for these feelings. A lot of them, I could tell, are voting for their person of choice because of media bias. Guess which channel they watched while declaring all other media outlets to be bias?

The quote of the night came from an ex-marine, himself: "One thousand dead really isn't a lot of people."

[iamthewalrus109]

Reading the quote that finished the last reply was quite disheartening. This is probably from someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but a 1,000 deaths of young service people is just fine. The level of hypocracy is astounding. Low taxes, but let's dump another 87 billion into a flagging war effort. It just makes no sense, they want lower taxes, but yet want to wage an aggresive war on terror. They want a robust economy, but don't care to realize that bad relations with other countries and a long term war does nothing to line their pockets. Sure the arms industry, construction firms, and few other folks make out, but all non war reltated industries are in ruin. Meanwhile international trade agreements and corporate subsidies, bleed this land dry of all it's products, ceading the workers that create it from really making any profit on whatever good or service that they create or provide. It's a circle of paradoxes, one that drive this country into the ground I'm afraid.

-Walrus

[hot_pastrami]

I live in Utah, which is one of the most blatantly Republican states in the U.S. I have had many conversations with people in regards to this election, and I have come to some bleak conclusions. Too many are guilty of logical fallacies:

• Many people are protective of their political party, akin to a religion or a sports team. Such a person's political party (and elected members of it) is incapable of doing any wrong, and is deserving of boundless loyalty and faith, regardless of the party's actions. To such a person, their party of choice is completely unaccountable for its actions, and the actions of its elected members.
  
  
• Many people value material things (money) over human life, so long as the aforementioned human life doesn't belong to themselves or anyone they directly know. For instance, 1000+ dead soldiers and 13,000+ innocent Iraqi deaths is "not too many, really," but 5 cents more per gallon of gas is an outrage.
  
  
• Many people value safety over liberty.
  
  
• Many people trust the government blindly.

These are not the squakings of a card-carrying, life-long Democrat.... only a few years ago I described myself politically as "middle of the road, with Republican leanings." Today I wouldn't really call myself a Democrat precisely, it would be more accurate to say "anti-Republican." And the primary contributor to assigning me that label is our president.

I hope to find the middle of that road again some day, but our liberty, and the lives of many, are hanging in the balance on this election.

[xoxoxoBruce]

For instance, 1000+ dead soldiers and 13,000+ innocent Iraqi deaths is "not too many, really,"

43,220 US highway deaths, 18,209 US murders, the average American child will have watched 8,000 murders on television by the age of twelve. Is it surprising that people don't freak at the numbers from Iraq, especially the civilian (innocent??) numbers?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

43,220 US highway deaths, 18,209 US murders, the average American child will have watched 8,000 murders on television by the age of twelve. Is it surprising that people don't freak at the numbers from Iraq, especially the civilian (innocent??) numbers?

You have to take into account, as well, that many people don't believe innocents are being killed in any great numbers in Iraq. The child who was killed had a gun, the old woman who was killed was carrying a bomb. That's the mindset. And beyond that, "they're" not like "us." "They're" a people we really don't know much about from a foreign culture and with a strange religion. Xenophobia plays a large part here.

I have been talking with quite a few people in my neighborhood canvassing, and the staunch Republicans will always bring up the issue of a "steady hand at the helm" of the war. I don't see how anyone can consider George Jr.'s hand a steady one. It feels to me like we're all passengers at the mercy of a drunk driver who refuses to admit that he's had far too many and his judgement is severely impaired as he takes us all carreening down the highway. It seems to me that people are too afraid or too ignorant to admit something is seriously wrong here. Switzerland is looking better every day.

[Kitsune]

It seems to me that people are too afraid or too ignorant to admit something is seriously wrong here.

Maybe not fear, but the administration, the media, or the American public themselves has installed a very interesting piece of logic in a lot of people's heads: if you're questioning the war or the government, you don't support America/our troops/you support the terrorists. I think this has even been underlined in a not so direct way in the anti-Kerry ads in which the Vietnam vet says that nothing hurt our soldiers more than Kerry's testimony.

[Skunks]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

• Many people are protective of their political party, akin to a religion or a sports team. Such a person's political party (and elected members of it) is incapable of doing any wrong, and is deserving of boundless loyalty and faith, regardless of the party's actions. To such a person, their party of choice is completely unaccountable for its actions, and the actions of its elected members.

I <a href="http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~gvidas/photos/outsideralph.jpg">went</a> to a <a href="http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~gvidas/photos/ralph1.jpg">Nader</a> talk the other night, and he specifically compared politics to sports. But he went the other way with it, bemoaning the fact that people don't treat politics like sports; in his analogy, sports fans know the statistics, the strategies, and the individual role of each component part of the team and the support group (coach, manager, etc) thereof. They're willing to criticize the people who do poorly, while still maintaining faith in the team as a whole beyond the bounds of rational man. Most people don't spend that much time on politics.

Just thought I'd tangent a wee bit.

[tw]

It gets depressing. I talk to strangers quiet regularly now because the US government has become so bad. Too often (ie last night) people don't even know what the Axis of Evil is. A few still insist that Saddam had conspired with bin Laden to attack the WTC. Moreso, most are Kerry supporters (which is contrary to what polls say). They don't even know facts. Most just feel George is bad. But its all about feelings - only feelings.

Debates are about emotion. I don't watch them. No reason to. No facts will be learned. I wait for the polls and responses. That says how people really think. Facts be damned. Who appeared to be a leader verses who lost his cool is more important. A pathetic way to judge people. And yet that is what so many do. It makes about as much logical sense as "stay the course".

First they get a feeling. Then wrap that feeling in summary and logical sounding opinions. I never understood this thinking. But then Hitler did which is why he was so phenomenally successful in Germany.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

It seems to me that people are too afraid or too ignorant to admit something is seriously wrong here.

Maybe not fear, but the administration, the media, or the American public themselves has installed a very interesting piece of logic in a lot of people's heads: if you're questioning the war or the government, you don't support America/our troops/you support the terrorists. I think this has even been underlined in a not so direct way in the anti-Kerry ads in which the Vietnam vet says that nothing hurt our soldiers more than Kerry's testimony.

It's actually very Orwellian. We have a country founded on the principle of dissent - dissent from a monarchy which was taxing us and using the colonies for its own ends without giving any heed to the people who lived here - and now suddenly it becomes "un-American" to question the acts of those in power. How very useful for those in power. "America, love it or leave it." George Jr. and his keepers would love nothing more than for everybody who disagrees with their self-serving and short-sighted actions to shut up and go away.

The protests against the war in Vietnam did not hurt our soldiers. They were killed or wounded by the Viet Cong, not college students in America's streets. The American people as a whole became disgusted by the endless sacrifice of our young men for no real purpose. Kerry's testimony helped to SAVE soldier's lives by bringing to a halt a senseless war that was not in the national interest of this country and its people, much less the Vietnamese.

The soldiers in the current war against Iraq are being hurt by the current administration more than anything. Bush went in for the wrong reasons, he lacked planning and foresight, and the Bush administration refuses to support the veterans who have fought. My friend who is a disabled Gulf War vet said that on his last visit to the local VA center there were 500 men assigned to each counselor. A significant proportion of the homeless people you see on the street are veterans. Bush is cutting funding for medical and social services left and right. He has no idea what it is to be a soldier or fight in a war. He uses the men and women of our military as if they were so many disposable toy soldiers, and then in a truely Machivellian maneuver, he accuses his opponent of being against the men and women who fight for our country. I have never ever seen members of the military as upset with a president as the ones I have spoken with recently here in this major military town near where I live.