'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

[Bester]

I dont think Bush intentionally lied on the whole matter, but he hasn't shown he has the intellegence to see past those lies either.

 

[punisher73]

Not rewrtiting history-Mr. George "Slam Dink" Tenet qualified some of the intel himself-it's the statements that Mr. Bush made that didn't use those quallifications-he didn't say "We think," or even "we have reason to believe." He said "We've learned," or "we have evidence" or simply stated some fo those things as fact.

As for the satellite photos of convoys, and the weapons facilities, most of those were possible "dual use" facilities-insecticide does not necessarily equal nerve gas, though it could. That was known then-the logical assumption was that this was WMD activity. That it wasn't, and that Bush asserted that it was are what constitute lying. Not even saying that he didn't believe himself to be telling the truth, just that for it to legally be lying, he had to also have reason to believe that it might not be, and he did.

Again, the senate and the rest of the world looked at that evidence and came to the same conclusion from those reports. It doesn't matter WHAT Bush said. The senate still looked at the reports and came to the same conclusion. "Dual Use" is a nice euphimism in Iraq. Almost all of their storage facilities were that because they were being monitored. It still doesn't change Hussein being on tape talking about hiding the WMD's and eluding the UN.

It is not "legally lying" if you believe something to be true and later it turns out false. If I am under oath and testify that I saw a blue car, and I think it is a blue car. Then I am asked could it have been a green car, and I say "well maybe" and it turns out it was a green car. I still testified truthfully to the best of my knowledge. Even in a court of law there are "rules of evidence", one of them is along the lines of "most favorable in light of the prosecution". That is if there are two stories for a piece of evidence, it is looked at in the most favorable way for the prosecutor to be interpreted.

This is what people are blaming Bush for. He was given intelligence, he read the intelligence and came to a conclusion, and the same conclusion as 77 other senate members came to when looking at the report. Bush made the mistake of not padding his comments and do proper "CYA" when he talked, you are NEVER dealing in certainties in the intelligence community so you will NEVER get a straight answer. Also, in the intelligence community you have to know how "fresh" the info is. By the time the info was acted on months had gone by.

Hindsight is always 20/20, what we think we know now is not what we knew back then.

 

[elder999]

It doesn't matter WHAT Bush said.

It is not "legally lying" if you believe something to be true and later it turns out false. .

I beg to differ.

FALSE/FRAUDULENT STATEMENT - A statement related to a material fact and known to be untrue or made with reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity. A statement or representation may also be "false" or "fraudulent" when it constitutes a half truth, or effectively conceals a material fact.

seen here

The material fact, and concealment thereof, took place when Bush&Co. neglected to inform of the qualification statements made in intel reports with regards to the intel and its sources. Doesn't matter what conclusions they chose, or what they believed to be true: they concealed the fact that they had been told that it might not be true, and asserted a "strong proabability" to be fact, and that is, legally, lying.

 

[Twin Fist]

W. was fighting for his family honor. His father was being taunted, provoked, and ridiculed by Saddam by his refusal to "respect" that be had been beaten once, and could be again. I'm not going to say that this attitude is true of all Texans, but it is certainly true of nearly all of my relatives who live in Texas. W. felt the need to respond to those taunts. He took it personally.

But he couldn't use that as a justification for the nation to declare war. He needed something else. For the businessmen, the thought of cheaper oil got their attention, for the peacekeepers, the fear of WMD was enough to keep them quiet, for the religious, the "Evil" of Saddam had to be removed, but in reality, it was a personal vendetta.

ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?

 

[Empty Hands]

ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

 

[thardey]

ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?

To quote myself:

All the above is just my opinion, take it or leave it!

You think Bush is going to formally promote a personal agenda? Or leave proof behind? The "simple" matter is that all of us do what we believe will ultimately benefit ourselves. What other benefit would Bush get?

He had already gotten the "victorious war hero/avenger" label from Afghanistan, and for the most part, the media isn't complaining about that. He could have left it alone and reaped the popularity. Instead he took that political capital to apply it to his defense of the family honor.

The cultures of Both the Middle East, and the South hold honor, especially family honor, as highly important. Saddam began to get more outspoken when W. came into office, since he represented the family that defeated him before. W. was drawn into the fight, since he felt personally attacked, and the memory of his Father's victory was being challenged.

It's not an attack against Bush, it was simply inevitable. Once we put Bush in office, of course it was going to back Saddam into a corner. His only way to "save face" and keep his power in his own land was to challenge the family of the man who humiliated him. I don't think he actually expected Bush to get the approval to attack. Bush couldn't let this guy get away with challenging the treaty, and getting away with openly defying us like that, or else others would be bolder about doing it as well. According to his thinking, Saddam's challenge had to be answered. But you can't get the support of this nation by putting it that way, you have to make it about something else before you can get approval.

I saw it at the time, and I still say it. Nope, no proof, just conjecture, take it or leave it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Then there is those couple of years worth of deleted emails from the white house, where you havve to wondere just how damning all that was.

 

[Twin Fist]

uh Bob?
how often do you delete YOUR email?

I do mine daily

 

[Sukerkin]

'Official' mail is rather different, TF.

It's supposed to be logged as, in these electronic days, the e-mail (with it's associated data trail) is as binding as the more venerable written word. Also, such things are rather ephemeral and 'sub rosa' activities that much more easy.

Even the stuff I deal with has to be recorded and given a correspondance number and that's just 'business official' rather than 'political'.

 

[elder999]

uh Bob?
how often do you delete YOUR email?

I do mine daily

My deleted email at work goes into a special, recoverable file-it's not "deleted" at all.....

 

[Sukerkin]

Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, Elder, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.

About those 'deleted' White House e-mails that Bob mentioned, can someone fill me in on the background?

I ponder because I know that data recovery is a lot more sophisticated than most people think and unless you physically destroy the platters of the drive it is normally possible to reconstruct a high percentage of what has supposedly been erased. Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, Elder, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.

About those 'deleted' White House e-mails that Bob mentioned, can someone fill me in on the background?

I ponder because I know that data recovery is a lot more sophisticated than most people think and unless you physically destroy the platters of the drive it is normally possible to reconstruct a high percentage of what has supposedly been erased. Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.

My email goes back to the mid 1990's. I also have copies of -every- PM I've received on 10 different forums, 6 dial up BBS's, and all IM conversations.

Businesses and government agencies are required to retain theirs for varying periods of time. I recently quoted out a mail server for a financial broker who has to keep his for 10 years due to some rules with his industry. In the case of the White House, they are required by federal law to archive all emails.

As to the couple million missing ones, see here for a start.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html

 

[Empty Hands]

Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.

Forensic data recovery is a very interesting field. They can apparently use Scanning Electron Microscopy to physically image the location of the magnetic drive particles, which will allow recovery even after multiple over-writes.

 

[elder999]

Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, Elder, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.

.

Oh, no-that email goes through a completely different server, with different software.

"Delete" isn't even an option. :lol:

I was talking about more mundane, day-to-day e mail.

 

[Big Don]

Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).

Oil companies made about a 10% profit. Banks and lenders made a 25% profit, 10 is much smaller than 25, last time I checked.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Oil companies made about a 10% profit. Banks and lenders made a 25% profit, 10 is much smaller than 25, last time I checked.

Doesn't change the fact that in '06 Exxon Mobile made profits then any other company in the U.S.

 

[Big Don]

Doesn't change the fact that in '06 Exxon Mobile made profits then any other company in the U.S.

Nor does it change the fact that since the environmentalist pandering democrats took control of the house and senate in november of 06, gas prices have DOUBLED. Gee, but, aren't the republicans the ones who are supposedly in the pocket of the oil companies?
Nor does it change the FACT that state and federal governments collect more from gas sales than oil companies.
Did you miss this?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Nor does it change the fact that since the environmentalist pandering democrats took control of the house and senate in november of 06, gas prices have DOUBLED. Gee, but, aren't the republicans the ones who are supposedly in the pocket of the oil companies?
Nor does it change the FACT that state and federal governments collect more from gas sales than oil companies.
Did you miss this?

Gas prices have more than doubled since the Dems took control of Congress. - Thats 1 right.
But, I think you're wrong on the distribution of wealth.
Taxes are 15%, Oil Company costs and profits are 17% as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/

Also, you're saying that limits on drilling are the cause of recent record highs, and not uncontrolled and unregulated speculation?

 

[Big Don]

Complaining about the price of gas while simultaneously blocking any attempt to expand the supply, which, would lower the cost, strikes me as hypocritical to say the least.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But the supply isn't the problem. There's plenty available.