PDA

View Full Version : The GWB you don't want to know...


mikey23545
03-09-2008, 11:12 PM
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=70

|Zach|
03-09-2008, 11:13 PM
You look at weird shit.

Otter
03-10-2008, 05:04 AM
I sleep better at night knowing I didn't help that narrow-minded moron into power.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 06:22 AM
Good post, mikey.

I'm sure a lot of our local posters won't bother to read it when they find out what it's about. They don't want to know.

Another great example is the way people actually believe the lie that Bush lied us into war, even though they really can't identify any actual, significant lies.

And another thing I recently found interesting. You know how the media makes a really big deal about the Pentagon's parallel intelligence operation that developed alternative analysis of raw intelligence data for Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to compete with the CIA's assessment? I recently read that back in the months leading up to the first Gulf War, the intelligence folks working in Dick Cheney's pentagon came up with a dramatically different reading of WMD intelligence wrt Saddam's Iraq. The CIA was saying that Saddam was still over a decade away from having nukes, but Cheney's pentagon intel operation came to the conclusion that he was much closer than that (as did Israel's intelligence folks). As it turned out, Cheney's guys and Israel were right and the CIA was dramatically wrong. But Rumsfeld's pentagon intel operation is characterized by many critics as making up false intelligence. :rolleyes:

Duck Dog
03-10-2008, 07:35 AM
The news outlets have a liberal bias? Really?

Shocker! :eek:

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 07:50 AM
Global warming is just one big game of Telephone? Gotcha.

banyon
03-10-2008, 08:09 AM
Another great example is the way people actually believe the lie that Bush lied us into war, even though they really can't identify any actual, significant lies.

Comedy Gold.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 08:26 AM
Comedy Gold.

See what I mean.

chiefforlife
03-10-2008, 09:36 AM
I really dont see what is so good about it. So, Kerry was just as dumb as GW?
Well, that makes me feel better.
To bad Kerry's father wasnt a former president, he may have had a better chance.

banyon
03-10-2008, 10:04 AM
See what I mean.

I think we've discussed this ad nauseam (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3387514&highlight=peanut+butter#post3387514).

patteeu
03-10-2008, 12:12 PM
I think we've discussed this ad nauseam (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3387514&highlight=peanut+butter#post3387514).

I thought I'd settled it with my peanut butter analogy. :p

I say that jokingly, but I'm serious when I say that I don't think your side has carried it's burden to show these substantial lies that would support the "we were lied into war" meme. There's no doubt that some of the statements of the administration turned out to be wrong, but it's not fair to say that the administration knew better and told falsehoods anyway (at least not to any significant degree).

Ultra Peanut
03-10-2008, 05:51 PM
DAMN LIEBRULL MEDIA

noa
03-10-2008, 06:31 PM
I really dont see what is so good about it. So, Kerry was just as dumb as GW?
Well, that makes me feel better.

Exactly. What a silly argument.

And my guess is that more people formed an image of GWB as dumb from listening to him struggle to put together a coherent sentence, not from the "C-student" label.

tiptap
03-10-2008, 07:26 PM
I thought I'd settled it with my peanut butter analogy. :p

I say that jokingly, but I'm serious when I say that I don't think your side has carried it's burden to show these substantial lies that would support the "we were lied into war" meme. There's no doubt that some of the statements of the administration turned out to be wrong, but it's not fair to say that the administration knew better and told falsehoods anyway (at least not to any significant degree).

The fibbing is mostly about the connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. And we have your arguments somewhere on this site so we don't have to revisit this or we could look at Christopher Hitchens statements about the movement of Al Queada operatives in Iraq. But without more open assess to Bush materials there isn't a way to evaluate this. But I haven't made my assessments of this administration on thinking the Bush camp was out and out lying.

But the CIA's assessment about Nuclear capability in the first Gulf War came without the on ground inspections in Iraq. The second time around there were people on site who did not find enough physical evidence of an active program. (Saddam kept his engineers to restart WMD but it was more for Chemical and Biological weapons.) But even here there was little physical evidence of active programs.

If the success in evaluating in the first Gulf War capability was from the merits of evaluating data and not just insistence that he must have that nuclear capability, why was it so poor the second time around. Why with people on the ground and monitored sites did the administration get it so very wrong. It was wishful thinking and the first time it was wishful thinking and action by Saddam as well. Independent of evidential determination by the Defense Dept. the first time.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 09:20 PM
The fibbing is mostly about the connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. And we have your arguments somewhere on this site so we don't have to revisit this or we could look at Christopher Hitchens statements about the movement of Al Queada operatives in Iraq. But without more open assess to Bush materials there isn't a way to evaluate this. But I haven't made my assessments of this administration on thinking the Bush camp was out and out lying.

But the CIA's assessment about Nuclear capability in the first Gulf War came without the on ground inspections in Iraq. The second time around there were people on site who did not find enough physical evidence of an active program. (Saddam kept his engineers to restart WMD but it was more for Chemical and Biological weapons.) But even here there was little physical evidence of active programs.

If the success in evaluating in the first Gulf War capability was from the merits of evaluating data and not just insistence that he must have that nuclear capability, why was it so poor the second time around. Why with people on the ground and monitored sites did the administration get it so very wrong. It was wishful thinking and the first time it was wishful thinking and action by Saddam as well. Independent of evidential determination by the Defense Dept. the first time.

The CIA, not the WH btw, got it badly wrong both times. The alternative assessment got it right once and got it wrong once. That's not to say that the alternative assessment was superior, but it is an argument for the proposition that intelligence assessments are inherently inexact when you are operating with imperfect information (and contrary to your implication, onsite inspections were obviously insufficient for the purpose of perfecting our information) and that it is perfectly reasonable to ask a 2nd group to provide a different perspective if you lack confidence in the work product of the first group.

And of course, just for the record, I reject your characterization that the Bush administration fibbed about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Logical
03-10-2008, 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by patteeu http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4623548#post4623548)
Another great example is the way people actually believe the lie that Bush lied us into war, even though they really can't identify any actual, significant lies.


OMG I am rolling on the floor in pain, now it only matters if the admin uses significant lies. I wonder who gets to determine those.:rolleyes:

tiptap
03-10-2008, 10:44 PM
The CIA, not the WH btw, got it badly wrong both times. The alternative assessment got it right once and got it wrong once. That's not to say that the alternative assessment was superior, but it is an argument for the proposition that intelligence assessments are inherently inexact when you are operating with imperfect information (and contrary to your implication, onsite inspections were obviously insufficient for the purpose of perfecting our information) and that it is perfectly reasonable to ask a 2nd group to provide a different perspective if you lack confidence in the work product of the first group.

And of course, just for the record, I reject your characterization that the Bush administration fibbed about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Well we have another thread started indicating that the Iraqi documents indicate that while Saddam was willing to use terrorists act to eliminate enemies abroad or even make an attempt on Bush I (which Clinton militarily responded to), he totally mistrusted religious based groups. He took his model from fascist Germany and communist Soviets of a central, SECULAR government that worshiped the Leader and the State. There wasn't a place for religion. This was known within the intelligence communities. So the degree that the Bush administration sought to connect Al Quaeda to Saddam was merely an attempt to push an agenda to remove this other constituted terrorist location of Iraq. But trying to link Iraq, Iran and Al Queada was a convenient misrepresentation. That specifically is a Convenient Lie.

As far as the CIA getting the assessments incorrect, we Democrats wonder out loud how much the White House directed the focus and accumulation of material to make their case as opposed to giving space for the intelligence community to give a fair assessment. They were willing to dismiss those voices who were not in step with their game plan. And it was a group who explicitly stated that the military, being the last Super Power, should be used to advance their position. The mistrust of the UN discounting their information even when it came from European Allies on the ground. And it doesn't change that this administration enlarged the scale of fronts that we had to military pursue. Let's open a two front war. I damn their policy as driving what they considered evidential.

So you want to revisit this debate during the fall. This recrimination of how poorly this administration managed their war on terrorism. It will not end well for the Republicans even if things are fairly quiet in Iraq. Incompetence was on display all to often to be vetted with anything but rejection.

Baby Lee
03-11-2008, 04:27 AM
he totally mistrusted religious based groups. He took his model from fascist Germany and communist Soviets of a central, SECULAR government that worshiped the Leader and the State. There wasn't a place for religion. This was known within the intelligence communities.
Wait, I thought religion had nothing to do with anything, as this was all BLOWBACK!!! OGMWTFCHILI'SBBQSAUCE!!!!!

patteeu
03-11-2008, 06:58 AM
OMG I am rolling on the floor in pain, now it only matters if the admin uses significant lies. I wonder who gets to determine those.:rolleyes:

It's always only mattered if they used significant lies. What's the point of complaining about an insignificant lie? Were you lied into war by insignificant lies? How lame is that?

As I've always said on this topic, I can't vouch for every deputy assistant secretary and stenographer in the administration. It's possible that some minor lies have been told that I'm unaware of and that had pretty close to zero significance.

I've also always said that I understand that this administration was involved in the normal type of puffery that goes on in a sales job and that is common in every administration. What I'm talking about here are things like saying "we know" when it would be more accurate to say "we believe".

tiptap
03-11-2008, 09:01 AM
Wait, I thought religion had nothing to do with anything, as this was all BLOWBACK!!! OGMWTFCHILI'SBBQSAUCE!!!!!

You know Baby, I personally don't think religion is anything in the ultimate scheme of existence. But I do recognize that the majority of the US population and the world's population do act or negotiate understanding based upon their religious beliefs. Those people are real. And they could walk up and ring my doorbell with their tracts, if not their weapons. Are you going to obfuscate my arguments about the merits of any religion with my willingness to address the political realities that religion does play in the world?