BF2S Forums Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

tthf wrote:

there are strong arguements for boths sides here, but after spending a night of reading old news clippings, i tend to believe that Bush & Co manupilated what 'positive' intel they had to promote their agenda while they suppressed the 'negative' intel.
and oh, there was a bunch of lying about having war plans as well.
whatever your belief may be, the terrible tragedy is that countless lifes have been loss by an administration that has sorely abused its power as the sole superpower on this planet.

Fair enough. There are war plans for just about everything, so saying there wasn't a war plan for Iraq was folly. If you characterize going with the bulk of the intelligence at hand as "manipulating...'positive' intel...while they suppressed the 'negative' intel", then you've pretty much got to characterize any action taken based on intelligence that way. There's nearly always intel pointing both ways.

BL: Saddam ran a successful deception campaign against Iran--and, inadvertently, everyone else. We didn't know it was a deception op until after he was captured. If it's easier for you to believe that the Bush administration conspired to lie to the American people about available intelligence rather than Saddam just running a successful deception op...nobody's going to change your mind.

tthf wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If it weren't written by the same guy they're talking about--and trying to make himself look like the unappreciated hero--then it might hold a bit more weight.

He said the same before the Congress, I doubt he was lying.

but then again, everyone and their dog has lied before congress...
hell, good ole bill proclaimed about not having any sexual relations at first, no?
i won't even mention dubya..

Bill having oral sex with a fatty didn't ruin the US.

tthf wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

tthf wrote:

but then again, everyone and their dog has lied before congress...
hell, good ole bill proclaimed about not having any sexual relations at first, no?
i won't even mention dubya..

Bill having oral sex with a fatty didn't ruin the US.

this is true.
but clarke could very well be lying as well.
we may never know the truth.
maybe the truth doesnt even exist now..

From Against All Enemies:

Among his highly critical statements regarding the Bush Administration, Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".  After initially denying that such meeting and request between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

tthf wrote:

but then again, everyone and their dog has lied before congress...
hell, good ole bill proclaimed about not having any sexual relations at first, no?
i won't even mention dubya..

Bill having oral sex with a fatty didn't ruin the US.

That wasn't what the impeachment was about. It was about Clinton lying under oath. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again, that didn't do any harm to the country.  You are focusing on the legal process and forgetting the importance of the facts.

FEOS wrote:

You're right. I'm focusing on the legal aspects because impeachment is a legal proceeding.

The importance of the facts is paramount. The fact is, he lied under oath...regardless of the question asked. When you lie under oath, it is illegal. Which gets back to legal aspects.

Well, I prefer Clinton lying under oath about a sexual affair rather than Bush lying to everyone about a war.  And we know Bill lied because he admitted it, that shows integrity.

FEOS wrote:

The disagreement is whether Bush lied to everyone about a war, not whether lying is bad. And if Bush didn't lie, then why would he admit that he did? You're in a circular argument: Bush had to have lied because he hasn't admitted he lied. It's like asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife.

Do you really think he didn't lie?  My argument is not based on Bush never admitting it, but on the facts that show he did lie.

So you've dropped back to your old ways, I see. Oh well...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm pretty sure the two authors weren't in a bunker in the US.

Probably not, CENTCOM is however in a bunker in the US - duh.
Scott Ritter was active in Iraq, not looking at photos taken from orbit.

CENTCOM is not a bunker in the US. It's a big building at Macdill AFB in Tampa FL...duh.
True, Scott Ritter was there. So were a lot of other people. People who weren't allowed on sites until after the Iraqis had "cleaned" them...as shown in photos taken "from orbit". And from airplanes. And reflected in signals intercepts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Making a decision on bad information is completely different than making a decision on false information. You keep saying that it was intentionally falsified. All I have done is offer arguments that, while wrong, it was not falsified.

Its pretty clear the Bush regime leaned heavily on the intelligence services to get the intel they wanted, and ignored any intel which did not fit their agenda.

Strange that you point to Ritter as someone on the ground whose word should be gospel, yet you disavow any truth when a guy who would have felt the pressure you speak of saw no indication of that. Double standard much? I guess it's OK if it fits your view.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The 'intel' Powell presented to the UN was pathetic, it convinced no-one, which is why it was never put to the vote in the UN.

Do you even remember the full extent of what Powell presented almost 6 years ago? The only part that has been shown to be inaccurate was the Curveball information. The rest of it--imagery and signals intercepts--actually happened. The Iraqis who were photographed and whose signals were intercepted actually thought they were dealing with WMD...so the evidence--the indicators collected by various methods--showed exactly that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Saddam-AQ link put forward by bush was totally concocted, as we now know.

That linkage was only conjecture, based on Zarqawi living openly in Baghdad and meeting on occasion with Iraqi Security officials. Yes, the administration did say it, but they quickly backed off that when the intel community told them there was no clear linkage.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Probably it was a mixture of bad and falsified intel.

You're half right, at least.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Curveball story is useful although the intel is peripheral. The Germans gave the intel to the US, with the cover letter saying the Germans thought the intel was garbage. The US intel community threw out the cover letter and treated Curveball's intel as gospel.

No, it's not at all peripheral to your argument. It is the centerpiece of your argument. Unfortunately, the Curveball incident has no bearing on the validity of the non-HUMINT sources used.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What should we read into that about the rest of the 'intel' gathered by the US?

You're going to read into it what's convenient for you. I've explained the differences repeatedly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But then there is no point trying to have a reasoned argument with you, as you know best and everyone else is an idiot, liar or has an agenda.

FEOS wrote:

'No one here expects you to know that.'
'People blinded by hatred of the current US administration are having a hard time dealing with the historical record on this one.'
'but the arguments from people with zero background in intel'
'What do you expect when people rant on about "intel this" and "intel that" and they know exactly the square root of fuck all about how intel actually works?'
'because apparently there are so many military planning and intelligence experts on BF2S. I mean, who'da thunk it?'
'So...one guy with an axe to grind after the fact.'
'If it weren't written by the same guy they're talking about--and trying to make himself look like the unappreciated hero--then it might hold a bit more weight.'

Please highlight where I said anyone posting was an idiot, liar, or had an agenda. You can't, because I didn't. Saying someone is ignorant of a certain field is not at all the same as calling someone an idiot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And I remember a load of stuff about 'snot nosed brats' and 'assholes'. Maybe if you had some limited experience of life outside the military you would have learnt a bit of humility.

I'm glad you remember it, because I sure don't. Is it posted on this thread somewhere?
What does humility have to do with anything? Stating your position and the context in which it was derived suddenly means I have no humility? Maybe if you had some experience in life inside the military, you would realize how farcical some of your own comments are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Whatever, there were no WMD, there was no REAL intel on WMD as there weren't any.

No...there was just REAL intel showing indicators of an active program.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the mighty US was fooled by a tin pot 3rd world dictator and his deception plan thats pretty pathetic. I don't believe it.

You don't have to believe it. Your belief or non-belief has zero impact on the real world. It happened. Whether you choose to believe reality or not is entirely up to you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe you should be a little less smug and condescending about your position in the Pentagon. Your intel colleagues screwed this up royally, it doesn't reflect too well on you that you're at the same level in the system and believed unquestioningly anything they pushed your way - and seem to continue to do so. They were wrong, whatever intel they had was not objectively assessed and was misinterpreted.

You are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. You have no idea how the intel community works. You have no idea what my position in the Pentagon actually is. Maybe you should be a bit less smug and condescending yourself?

Dilbert_X wrote:

The general consensus (outside the Pentagon) seems to be Bush is the one who is an idiot, liar and had an agenda.

Maybe in your household. But there's a lot of the world outside of the Pentagon and outside of your household. I'll go ahead and not try to speak for everyone else on the planet...how about you? Is Bush an idiot? Maybe. Did he have an agenda? Probably. Did he lie about the intel? No.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even if Saddam had WMD there was no reason for invasion, Saddam had no connection with AQ, that link was fabricated to justify the invasion There was no more prospect of terrorists getting hold of WMD from Iraq than Russia.

Linkage to AQ was never a reason for invasion. Only WMD and the perceived threat of Hussein providing them to terrorists. Revise history all you want, but you'll still be sideways with the facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

'Intel' pointing to a link  was created by torturing someone to say what Bush wanted to hear - since retracted and admitted unreliable.

Again, you focus on a single source. You keep conveniently overlooking the 12 years of technical intel showing an active program. And you keep conveniently overlooking multiple reports of Saddam's deception plan that resulted in those indications of an active program.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bush et al had an agenda to invade Iraq and lied until they got there, its steadily unravelling, the subject of the OP.

They may very well have had an agenda to topple Saddam. However, the subject of the OP was a "study" performed after the fact saying that the Bush administration made false claims 935 times leading up to the invasion. The "study" is what is unraveling here. Their going-in assumption that any statements that turned out to be inaccurate were falsehoods...which is invalid. They are presupposing that any claims of an active Iraqi WMD program did not have any objective data to back them up...which is untrue.

The "Unbiased Study"  wrote:

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Even in the study, the weight of their "false statements" was in regard to WMD, not links between Iraq and AQ.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And I remember a load of stuff about 'snot nosed brats' and 'assholes'. Maybe if you had some limited experience of life outside the military you would have learnt a bit of humility.

FEOS wrote:

I'm glad you remember it, because I sure don't. Is it posted on this thread somewhere?

No, it was on the temp forums, but hey that was two months ago - nobody here expects you to remember that far back.

FEOS wrote:

There are as many adults on this forum as there are snot-nosed brats like yourself.

http://bf2s.liquidat0r.com/viewtopic.ph … 6&p=10
Condescending much?
You seem to have a poor or selective memory, take your pick.

Need to drink beer now - Its Australia Day!

I don't doubt that Bush told some half-truths, probably some knowingly, but Richard Clark is a full-on douchebag who bends the truth like it's a wet noodle.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Regarding the specific subject of lies:-

The Bush govt instructed the intelligence services to go out and find evidence showing Saddam had WMDs, and to ignore evidence which suggested he didn't or that the intel was doubtful.
To present information gained by such means to the public as unbiased and accurate is a lie.

You have to tell the intel community what to look for. It's called Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs). And you mischaracterize it. The "instructions" (as you put it, anyway...they're actually called "requirements") are to look for indicators of WMD activity. And that is done in many places around the world, not just in Iraq or Iran. If those indicators are found, they are reported. If they aren't, the report says "nothing found" or words to that effect.

So to characterize observed indicators as biased or inaccurate is incorrect. Therefore, your assertion that presenting it as unbiased or accurate is a lie is also incorrect.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Similarly evidence which was wholly concocted, the connection between Iraq, terrorism in general and Al Quaeda specifically, was presented to the public as being accurate and truthful - which was also a lie.

There were very few of those made, and they were shut down pretty rapidly by the intel community. Not necessarily a lie, but certainly a haphazard use of information that was known to be questionable and uncorroborated. Which is why only 20-odd statements relating to that were ever made by the administration, as compared to 230-odd regarding WMD.

Dilbert_X wrote:

To tell the public the invasion was about WMD when in fact it was actually regime change, as evidenced by Bush and Blair's recent statements, was also a lie.

The administration was clear from the beginning that it was about both. WMD more than regime change, but in order to fully kill the suspected WMD program, regime change was inevitable.

CameronPoe wrote:

The issue of who lied about what is pretty irrelevant in drawing conclusions about Bush et al. All you need to do is look at a map of the world, realise that Iraq is one entire quarter of a rotation of the globe away from the US and logically conclude that even if Iraq had WMD it would have made no difference to the national security of the US and hence the US invaded for less than honest reasons.

Because Afghanistan is one half of a rotation around the world from the US and people who were operating from there posed no threat when they flew planes into WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania...right?

The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The issue of who lied about what is pretty irrelevant in drawing conclusions about Bush et al. All you need to do is look at a map of the world, realise that Iraq is one entire quarter of a rotation of the globe away from the US and logically conclude that even if Iraq had WMD it would have made no difference to the national security of the US and hence the US invaded for less than honest reasons.

Because Afghanistan is one half of a rotation around the world from the US and people who were operating from there posed no threat when they flew planes into WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania...right?

The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.

Ever heard of airport security? Ever heard about investigating situations where flight school attendees aren't that interested in how to land? Ever heard of not letting people with potential weapons onto planes?