BF2S Forums Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

From another thread:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Now for the contrast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ … on_study_7

What a riot. After the fact, some journalists (who I'm sure have nothing but pure, altruistic intentions) find that the information the US (and the rest of the Western world) had on Iraq prior to 2003 was incorrect. Earth shattering. And they frame it as "hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq", implying an intention to mislead when the truth is that the information was bad...which led to statements that turned out to be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying something that is incorrect and making a false statement...at least in connotation. What utter fucking yellow journalism.

Frankly, I agree with FEOS.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-23 20:39:02)

SenorToenails wrote:

From another thread:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Now for the contrast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ … on_study_7

What a riot. After the fact, some journalists (who I'm sure have nothing but pure, altruistic intentions) find that the information the US (and the rest of the Western world) had on Iraq prior to 2003 was incorrect. Earth shattering. And they frame it as "hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq", implying an intention to mislead when the truth is that the information was bad...which led to statements that turned out to be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying something that is incorrect and making a false statement...at least in connotation. What utter fucking yellow journalism.

Frankly, I agree with FEOS.

i can see where u are coming from and i respect your opinion, but it really hard to believe that they got so much info wrong. what were all those many many millions of dolllars spent on intelligence services for then??

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Why do we put up with this?  These morons are supposed to serve us, every decision is supposed to be made in our best interests.  God this system needs an overhaul.

Not that I disagree with you as this is definitely not acceptable but one would be grossly naive to believe this is unique to this administration, in time of war or otherwise.  Whether the intentions were honorable or not, many administrations have inflated, exaggerated or flat out lied to gain popular support for unpopular actions.  I see a problem too but am buggered to have a solution yet.

462nd NSP653 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Why do we put up with this?  These morons are supposed to serve us, every decision is supposed to be made in our best interests.  God this system needs an overhaul.

Not that I disagree with you as this is definitely not acceptable but one would be grossly naive to believe this is unique to this administration, in time of war or otherwise.  Whether the intentions were honorable or not, many administrations have inflated, exaggerated or flat out lied to gain popular support for unpopular actions.  I see a problem too but am buggered to have a solution yet.

That's true, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure that we've heard more lies than just those about the war.

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

so either everybody was lying to further their own agenda or the intelligence they ALL received was totally flawed.
lots of lives lost and money spent based on these lies or false intel no? either way its a disgrace, imo.

edit: typo

Last edited by tthf (2008-01-23 20:54:07)

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Why do we put up with this?

We put up with it because it was accepted behavior due to previous administrations.  Are you that far gone that you think this is the first time?????

Kmarion wrote:

Being wrong and incompetent are different. A case can be made for both. However this "study" should be exposed for what it is. It is also disgraceful that this is being reported as news without mentioning who is behind it.

That I do have to agree, you do make a valid point.

i will never understand how Bush & Co won re-election those years ago...

tthf wrote:

i will never understand how Bush & Co won re-election those years ago...

L33t haxs.

Literally. Actually, dirty politics. Karl Rove should be shot treated as a Muslim terrorist in Guantanemo, because getting Bush elected is in effect an act of treason.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-01-23 23:11:04)

Kmarion wrote:

Good point. ..By stopping the research at 2001, the story was destined to misreport the facts.
Soros was there prior also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for … orge_Soros

• A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."
• A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."
• A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."
• A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project."

Yeah, so none of the funding from OSI was used for that (link in OP) study.

The link you posted to quoted an article from 2002, not the OP link.

Kmarion wrote:

Impartiality I think not.

Soros wrote:

Defeating President Bush in the 2004 election "is the central focus of my life"

http://209.85.165.104/custom?q=cache:V6 … k&cd=4

As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted on December 30, 2003: "Combine… the $1.7 million that Mr. Soros gave the Center for Public Integrity, the $1.3 million he gave Public Campaign, the $300,000 to Democracy 21, the $625,000 to Common Cause, and the $275,000 to Public Citizen – and you can be forgiven for believing Mr. Soros got campaign finance passed all by himself."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/fund … ategory=79

Fully aware of Soros' dislike for GWB.  Still doesn't mean he influenced the research or publication of the list at all.  Your (and TexasRainmaker.com) argument that Soros influenced the report in any way is weak.

Kmarion wrote:

Now for the common sense part of my weak argument.

Cheney wrote:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Bill Clinton wrote:

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

John Edwards wrote:

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Al Gore wrote:

Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Joe Lieberman wrote:

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Nancy Pelosi wrote:

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

If Bush lied then so did all the top Dems before the Bush admin. Clinton felt it was enough evidence to drop bombs on Iraq. Either the threat was there or it wasn't.

Your argument I addressed wasn't that other dog and pony show politicians made similar comments, it was the link to Soros.  Those quotes above are of no relevance to that argument.

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

That's funny, I don't see The Open Society Institute as a financial backer, which is interesting because they have a full disclosure agreement with all their donors.

Open Society Foundation = soros.org


Don't be so naive Ken.. There are plenty of things to criticize the President with. Don't cheapen them by defending an obvious Soros front.

How am I being naive?  You linked to the funding of four grants - which were disclosed - that had nothing to do with the funding of the report linked in the OP.  Yet you and the link you provided are trying to make a connection between Soros' disdain for GWB, his foundation's grants to the Center For Public Integrity, and the funding/publishing of the list quoted in the OP when there is no link.

The Center For Public Integrity is non-partisan and even criticized it's own donors.  It's a self-described corruption and silent donor/influence whistle blower, why would they partake in what they fight against?  They actively criticize Soros and disclose his penchant for donating to various liberal causes.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-24 00:06:31)

GWB - "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army."

"Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

If there was no evidence whatsoever, why did he say there was?  That is lying, is it not?

tthf wrote:

well, whatever the case may be, there was/is a serious intelligence breakdown. be it lies or misinformation (how can such a huge and well funded organization like the US Govt can be that dumb confounds me) the current administration has failed the american public on a massive scale.

I won't address the "article" again, as my thoughts were captured earlier.

However, on this point: We had this discussion ad nauseum on the temp forums. tthf, I highly recommend you read the book Cobra II. It is about the lead up to and execution of the invasion of Iraq. It makes it pretty clear that the world intel community (not just the US) was picking up indications of an active WMD program in Iraq because Hussein wanted them to. He was running a deception campaign focused on Iran to make them think he still had WMD. Unfortunately, his plan worked too well--his own inner circle believed they had WMD until he told them at the 11th hour that they didn't. All the intel presented at the UN by Powell (which was a tiny fraction of the total intel available on the issue) was legitimate, in that it pointed to Iraqis taking actions consistent with an active chem/bio program. Those Iraqis were taking those actions because they truly thought they were dealing with chem/bio agents.

That is why the intel from multiple countries--not just the US--thought Iraq had an active WMD program. I have tried to summarize what is an entire section of the book. There is far more detail there.

The bottomline is that it's not a matter of being dumb, as you so eloquently put it. It's a matter of working exactly as it was designed to. Unfortunately, the key piece that would have told us it was all a deception operation wasn't there: human intelligence. The US HUMINT program was decimated in the 90's, leaving us with mostly technical intel sources...which can't show you intent, only indications of activity.