US House votes not to set timetable for withdrawl

[Pangloss]

False pretenses have not been established either.

[KLB]

False pretenses have not been established either.

 

In a statement to the Security Council of the United Nations Collin Powell provided what was call irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and mobile biological weapons labs and was a clear and present danger to the US. Iraq was also accused of harboring al Qaeda terrorists. In fact NO evidence has ever been found that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and those "mobile weapons labs" turned out to have no ability to produce biological weapons and were for peaceful purposes. Furthermore alQaeda was not being harbored by Sadam and they did not gain a foothold in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded.

 

We can argue whether or not it was faulty intelligence or intentional misrepresentation of the evidence, however, the fact is that the reasons for going to war were false. It was only after the reasons were found to be false that the reasons for going to war shifted from Iraq being an imminent threat that the reasons for going to war were shifted to liberating Iraq and bringing them Democracy.

[Saryctos]

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

 

WMD are not the only reason for the war, but it is the most popularized due to the ability to argue against it.

[ecoli]

Good for them. I don't think the portrayal of withdrawl-advocates as "cut and runners" is fair' date=' but I still think it's a bad tactical move to set a timetable, and setting a timetable has always been more about politics than realities anyway, so it's just a bad idea.

 

If you want to see how your congresscritter voted, this article has a list of each vote, broken down by state. My critter voted for the resolution.

 

I guess the down side of this story is that the House spent 13 hours debating a non-binding resolution instead of getting on with the business of government. There's something to be said for that, but I think this was the right thing to do.

 

my guy didn't vote... f-ing figures.

 

 

anyway, I'm glad such a resolution didn't pass. Not setting up a time-table now means not having to violate our time table later.

[Pangloss]

We can argue whether or not it was faulty intelligence or intentional misrepresentation of the evidence' date=' however, the fact is that the reasons for going to war were false. [/quote']

 

The phrase "false pretenses" doesn't mean what you think it does. It requires knowledge on the part of the teller/seller/criminal that the information was false. Essentially you've accused the administration of lying. Your quote above suggests that you agree that that point is debatable, rather than fact, so I'm guessing you just weren't aware of how the phrase is defined. (shrug)

 

IMO the book is still out about whether Iraq had WMDs in 2003 (some of the indications are credible, and it's a big dang country, much of which (as the left keeps reminding us) we can't even access), but I tend towards your point of view on the matter -- I don't think they had 'em. I don't think the administration KNEW they didn't have them, I think the administration gambled and manipulated that information in order to gain popular support. It was wrong, and I hold them responsible for it. But I won't support people accusing them of lying (and stating that that's a FACT) without evidence. Not while I have something to say about it.

 

I'm not trying to be obnoxious about this, or nit-pick people to death. There is a method to my madness. What I have a serious bug up my derrier about is when it comes to people who repeat things endlessly on the theory that sooner or later people will begin to believe those things. The "false pretenses" argument is one of those things. So is the "the war is unsustainable" argument. They bother me for the exact same reason. If that's not what you (or bascule) were trying to do, great, I hope that's the case -- but I stomp on stuff like that around here. Always.

 

That's not debate, and it's not science. It's faith. And I won't have it here.

[KLB]

The phrase "false pretenses" doesn't mean what you think it does. It requires knowledge[/i'] on the part of the teller/seller/criminal that the information was false. Essentially you've accused the administration of lying.

I'm sorry but supporting one's policy to go to war based on what should have been known to be bad intelligence is false pretenses. A classic example of this was the Administrations claim that Iraqi had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. Yet this was based on forged evidence and the validity of that information had been brought into question long before the administration used this as part of their justification to go to war. On the surface, this intelligence supported the desired objective so the intelligence was not questioned.

 

Failure to question the intelligence on an issue that is as important as this is unforgivable.

 

Your quote above suggests that you agree that that point is debatable, rather than fact, so I'm guessing you just weren't aware of how the phrase is defined. (shrug)

No, I just think that you can't defend your position on the issues so you have to nitpick semantics. This is a classic debating tactic.

 

 

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

 

WMD are not the only reason for the war' date=' but it is the most popularized due to the ability to argue against it.[/quote']

 

That joint resolution by Congress was not what the Bush Administration was using to justify the war to rest of the world. They were selling the WMD issue and they were selling it very hard using what was in fact very flawed intelligence. Furthermore most of the points of that joint resolution directly or indirectly depended upon Iraq posing an imminent threat due to their stockpiling WMD. No matter how you try to spin it, the issues always go back to WMD.

 

The U.S. Administration convinced other nations to support their decision to invade Iraq based on a clear and present danger Iraq posed because of their stockpiling of WMD, attempts to acquire nuclear material and they were harboring al Qaeda. None of this was true and these were the only reasons of all the reasons listed in that joint resolution that could remotely justify invading another country.

 

The fact of the matter is that the policy of containment was working and Saddam was continuing to weaken. As the pace of the opening days of the war proved Saddam did not have the ability to pose a serious threat to our national security, nor did he pose a serious threat to the region. No credible evidence has been found that Iraq had or was trying to develop any WMD.

 

In regards to the claims that al Qaeda was being harbored by Saddam this wasn't true either. While there were elements of al Qaeda in Iraq, they were primarily in the north eastern parts of Iraq that were not in Saddam's control due to Kurdish independence and no fly zones. Also al Qaeda's objectives and Saddam's objectives did not mesh up, plus ironically enough Saddam didn't want to give the U.S. a reason to invade. Iraq not was harboring al Qaeda terrorists any more than the U.S. and the Canadian governments were harbor al Qaeda terrorist in 2001.

 

The fact is that we went to war under false pretenses, you may not like me using that phrase, but I challenge you to prove that Iraq harbored al Qaeda, had WMD and/or posed an imminent threat to our security. Furthermore I challenge you to prove that the policy of containment was not working.

 

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war of choice and a preemptive attack against potential threats. This is not a way to conduct international policy and it is a very dangerous precedent.

 

With all of this said, while I may be totally against our having gotten into this mess, I believe it would be a big mistake to declare a time line of when we are pulling out. I would agree that measurable milestones could make for good guides as to when we begin to draw down troops while leaving a stable country behind.

[Pangloss]

As I indicated above, you're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. But if it makes you feel better to pretend I'm Rush Limbaugh in disguise, go right ahead. I'm right there with you.

 

I'm sorry but supporting one's policy to go to war based on what should have been known to be bad intelligence is false pretenses.

 

No, it's not. You've just admitted that it's not. False pretenses (note the emphasis on the second word) means something very specific. If you mean something else, use a different word. As I said, my beef is with people who make misleading statements in order to propagate an ideological belief. It's not a "debating tactic" in the larger issue of WMDs, because I'm not arguing with you about WMDs.

 

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses

 

Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact.

 

The debate on ALL issues in this country has become overshadowed by misdirection and obfuscation by "true believers" on both sides, and the result stands directly in the path of resolution and progress. You get to decide whether you're going to fight that tendency, and seek truth regardless of agenda, or participate in it, and spin the truth to suit agenda. If you choose the latter in these forums, you get called on it.

[Saryctos]

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

 

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified, is Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this Council, his contempt for the truth, and, most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities. Five thousand men, women and children died. His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing and ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of some 2,000 villages.

 

He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country -- tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

 

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.

[bascule]

What difference does it make what I think? You believe the matter to be settled, or did I read you wrong?

 

I've not been exposed to information which would lead me to believe otherwise. If you are in possession of such information, I'd certainly like to hear it. It certainly sounds like you disagree with my position (particurly in regards to your ad hominem against the mainstream media) but if you're unwilling to put up information for formal debate, I'm rather curious why you posted such an adversarial response in the first place. You may not like the mentality of people who feel similarly to me, but unless you're willing to challenge my position in formal, logical debate, I'm forced to conclude that you have more against people who feel similarly to me than you have logical arguments against my position.

 

We are borrowing unprecedented amounts of money from foreign countries, which has weakened the dollar and thus America's role in the international marketplace. In what way is our continued presence in Iraq beneficial for America or the Iraqi people?

[Pangloss]

I'm rather curious why you posted such an adversarial response in the first place. You may not like the mentality of people who feel similarly to me' date=' but unless you're willing to challenge my position in formal, logical debate, I'm forced to conclude that you have more against people who feel similarly to me than you have logical arguments against my position.

[/quote']

 

I've explained the reason for my response already, but I'll be happy to explain it to you again.

 

You've stated -- definitively, as if it were unassailable fact, not opinion -- that the war in Iraq is unsustainable. Rather than present evidence to that fact, you insist that contrary evidence must be presented, suggesting that anyone in their right mind would begin from the position that the war is unsustainable and assume that that's the case until demonstrated otherwise.

 

Why is that? Hmm? Never mind the war, I'd like to know why you think it's okay to begin from one ideological viewpoint as a basis of assumption, and why you think everyone does that? Isn't that basically... faith? Where can I send my donation to your church, bascule?

 

Note that I haven't asked you to produce any evidence that the war is unsustainable. I haven't disagreed with your position, or argued your point. You've leaped to the conclusion that I disagree with you -- by your own statement directly above -- not because I stated a disagreeing position, but because I've criticized your premises. I guess if we're not with you, then we're against you -- is that it?

 

Interesting.

[KLB]

As I indicated above, you're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned.

Okay I misunderstood your intentions.

 

 

No' date=' it's not. You've just admitted that it's not. False [i']pretenses[/i] (note the emphasis on the second word) means something very specific. If you mean something else, use a different word. As I said, my beef is with people who make misleading statements in order to propagate an ideological belief. It's not a "debating tactic" in the larger issue of WMDs, because I'm not arguing with you about WMDs.

 

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses

First I would think that people in this forum above all others would understand the reasons why Wikipedia should not be used as a reference source. Heck even the New York Times doesn't allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference source.

 

The more I think about my usage of "false pretense" the more I think it was totally appropriate in this case. If for no other reason than there are more definitions to pretense and thus false pretense than you will allow. I'm going to nitpick your narrow definition of pretense and show that my usage is not incorrect:

 

Google search "Define:pretense"

http://www.dictionary.net/pretense

1. The act of laying claim; the claim laid; assumption; pretension. --Spenser.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pretense

http://www.answers.com/topic/pretense

6. A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim.

 

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pretense.html

2. unwarranted claim: a claim, especially one with few facts to support it

 

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pretense (Merriam-Webster)

1) a claim made or implied; especially : one not supported by fact

 

Note the last definition "a claim made or implied". Yes false pretense especially applies to claims made that are known to be false, but it can also be used for claims that turn out to be false as was the case with the WMD claims. Bush may have believed his claims about WMD. He may still believe that Saddam had WMD; however, the fact is that no WMD have been discovered in spite exhaustive efforts to turn them up and claims made by Donald H. Rumsfeld in press conferences that they knew where the WMD were.

 

You can argue all you want about whether it was intentional or simply being blind to intelligence that refuted the claims being made; however, the Bush administration via Collin Powell asserted to the UN Security Council that Saddam had WMD and that he was harboring al Qaeda. As it turns out these assertions were without merit or foundation. In fact by all accounts the claims that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda was known to be untrue from the beginning but the Bush Administration tried to use the thinnest of evidence to convince the world otherwise to help justify a war they had already decided to undertake before 9/11/01. According to an interview given by President Clinton around the time of the opening of his Presidential Library, the same group that convinced Bush to invade Iraq had also tried very hard to convince Clinton to do the same thing but he refused because he didn't have strong enough intelligence to justify such an act.

 

The Bush Administrations assertions were made based on bad analysis of intelligence, bad intelligence from unreliable sources and the ignoring of intelligence that led to conclusions that were contrary to what the Bush Administration wanted to see. Did Bush him self know that the information was false? Maybe not, but they took what information supported the reality they wanted to believe in and discarded the rest. They deceived themselves and the rest of the world. We went to war under the false pretense that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

 

When laying out the reasons for going to war with Iraq, the Bush Administration had an obligation to question and vet all intelligence that was being used to support those reasons and to make sure the intelligence was factually correct, they also had an obligation to question the motives of the sources providing the intelligence. They did not do this. They even included intelligence that was known to be faulty in the State of the Union address (the attempts to by yellowcake uranium from Niger). In the case of the yellowcake incident, it would not have taken very much digging or fact checking at all to realize that the information was not reliable. This fact checking, however, was not done.

 

Just because the Bush Administration might be able to claim they did not know the intelligence was bad does not excuse their actions. They should have known how reliable the intelligence was that they were using. In fact they had an obligation to make sure that they didn't just have evidence, but that they had irrefutable proof. There was a willful decision not to properly vet intelligence that supported beliefs that we should go to war with Iraq. This is no better than out right lying and should in this case be considered the same thing.

 

The debate on ALL issues in this country has become overshadowed by misdirection and obfuscation by "true believers" on both sides, and the result stands directly in the path of resolution and progress. You get to decide whether you're going to fight that tendency, and seek truth regardless of agenda, or participate in it, and spin the truth to suit agenda. If you choose the latter in these forums, you get called on it.

I understand this but I stand by the usage of the term "false pretense" because our pretense for going to war was that Saddam had WMD, was trying to acquire nuclear material and was harboring al Qaeda. The justification for going to war was based on false intelligence provided by unreliable sources thus we went to war under false pretenses.

 

[url']http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm[/url]

No doubt the things you quoted were some very horrible acts, but the UN Security Council would not have supported any invasion of Iraq for these reasons alone. They only supported our invasion of Iraq because of the WMD claims and the claimed links to al Qaeda. Immediately after 9/11 those attacks and the war on terror were the Bush Administration's trump card to justify our right to self defense. It was because of the claims about WMD and the links to al Qaeda that the UN Security Council did not stand in the way of invading Iraq. The other reasons were nothing more than secondary considerations.

[Pangloss]

Yes false pretense especially applies to claims made that are known to be false, but it can also be used for claims that turn out to be false as was the case with the WMD claims.

 

No, it cannot. You posted several definitions of the word "pretense", but you didn't look up "false pretense". As I explained to you before, this phrase has a very specific meaning. If you'd looked at the bottom of that Wikipedia article you would have noticed that its text came from the classic (in fact world-famous) 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica (almost a century old and still the standard by which all encyclopedias are judged). (An original copy of which I proudly own myself, by the way.)

 

The quote I posted was an exact copy of what the Brittanica says. You can look it up here if you wish:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/EUD_FAT/FALSE_PRETENCES.html

 

Here are two more modern sources:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0024800.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/false-pretenses

 

That second link contains a thorough review of the subject. In all cases, without exception, they indicate that the phrase can ONLY be applied when the speaker/seller/criminal has full knowledge of their deception.

 

Regarding the use of the Wikipedia, I'm a doctoral candidate at a major university and I'm familiar with the APA guide and the use of references. This is not an academic paper, and in this forum we use Wikipedia as a pathway to investigation. I was using it in that capacity -- trying to point something out in a deliberately non-authoritative manner. I know you're new here so I can understand that you missed this subtlety, but I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it in mind in the future. Of course, in this case the Wikipedia's definition of "False Pretenses" turned out not to be wrong anyway, as is generally (but as you indicated, not always) the case.

[Pangloss]

The Bush Administrations assertions were made based on bad analysis of intelligence' date=' bad intelligence from unreliable sources and the ignoring of intelligence that led to conclusions that were contrary to what the Bush Administration wanted to see. Did Bush him self know that the information was false? Maybe not, but they took what information supported the reality they wanted to believe in and discarded the rest. They deceived themselves and the rest of the world. We went to war under the false pretense that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

 

When laying out the reasons for going to war with Iraq, the Bush Administration had an obligation to question and vet all intelligence that was being used to support those reasons and to make sure the intelligence was factually correct, they also had an obligation to question the motives of the sources providing the intelligence. They did not do this. They even included intelligence that was known to be faulty in the State of the Union address (the attempts to by yellowcake uranium from Niger). In the case of the yellowcake incident, it would not have taken very much digging or fact checking at all to realize that the information was not reliable. This fact checking, however, was not done.

 

Just because the Bush Administration might be able to claim they did not know the intelligence was bad does not excuse their actions. They should have known how reliable the intelligence was that they were using. In fact they had an obligation to make sure that they didn't just have evidence, but that they had irrefutable proof. There was a willful decision not to properly vet intelligence that supported beliefs that we should go to war with Iraq. This is no better than out right lying and should in this case be considered the same thing.

[/quote']

 

Getting back to the subject at hand, I think you're making some really important points here, and ones which I sincerely hope that the historians will take a long, hard look at down the road. It may ultimately be decided, in the fullness of time, that in fact false pretenses were used.

 

But you raise an even more interesting point in talking about the (as you put it) "willful decision not to properly vet intelligence". I believe that if that is found to be true it will be an important development and one which we need to explain to our future leaders is not acceptable behavior. Whether we can do that amidst the clammor of extremists on both sides remains to be seen.

 

I hope we can, because the environment created by that clammor is one of the reasons they get away with it.

[Helix]

The vote to set a time-table for withdrawel was never meant to be serious, it was a tactic used to 1) Set up the debate for the coming elections and 2) "Check up" on who supported what.

 

Did you even see the vote outcome? It was around 196-4 against. The vote wasn't serious.

[Pangloss]

I happened to catch it live while I was eating my lunch that day, as a matter of fact. I generally agree with your interpretation of the purpose of the vote, but I also think it's important for congress to contribute to the debate in this manner. Bear in mind that their vote in support of the war itself was of exactly the same nature, but nobody can say that that vote was not important, because were it not for the faulty information they would be just as accountable as the president for this war (and as such, votes like this are therefore important).

 

I hate to post and run, but I'm running out the door and won't be back for a week. I may get a chance to pop in for a few minutes here and there, but we're on vacation so I won't have time to say much. You guys have fun and be good in here.

[KLB]

No, it cannot. You posted several definitions of the word "pretense", but you didn't look up "false pretense". As I explained to you before, this phrase has a very specific meaning. If you'd looked at the bottom of that Wikipedia article you would have noticed that its text came from the classic (in fact world-famous) 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica[/b'] (almost a century old and still the standard by which all encyclopedias are judged). (An original copy of which I proudly own myself, by the way.)

 

I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate reference source for writers who contribute to my environmental chemistry site and I won't accept it as a reference source here. Their posts are created by anonymous persons who can post anything they want regardless of their qualifications. References or no references any scientist knows that without editorial control and full disclosure a source should not be relied upon.

 

I have provided multiple sources for the definition of "pretense" (and provide multiple sources for "false pretenses" below). You are continuing to rely on only one unreliable source that fits your narrow view of the word. As with other English words and phrases, "false pretenses" is not defined by one very narrow definition, rather there are a range of definitions and similar meanings.

 

I stand by what I said. WE WENT TO WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. Members of Bush's administration declared on multiple occasions that had irrefutable proof that Saddam had WMD and Donald Rumsfeld went so far as to state he knew where they were. As no WMD has ever been uncovered since the invasion, obviously there is no way Mr. Rumsfeld could have known where the WMD was because they did not exist. Collin Powell claimed Saddam had mobile biological weapons labs, yet even when he was making these statements the intelligence community was questioning this. Furthermore Dick Cheney repeatedly tried to create links between Saddam and Bin Laden that did not exist. This means that even by your strict definition of "false pretenses" we went to war under false pretenses.

 

The Bush Administration dragged out all kinds of trumped up half baked intelligence to show that Saddam had WMD yet all indications are that Saddam had not had ANY WMD programs since at least the late '90s. This means that the vast majority of the intelligence used to justify our going to world was faulty yet we were assured that it was irrefutable. This again supports the claim that we went to war under false pretenses. The reality is that Saddam cared more about staying in power than he did developing WMD and thus he probably abandoned his WMD programs so as to deny the U.S. an excuse to invade.

 

If this Administration was going to invade another country, ask our soldiers to die and cause the death of innocent civilians via "collateral damage", then the Bush administration should have exhausted every intelligence source and make sure that the reasons for going to war were true. This obviously wasn't done or they would have quickly learned the sources they were relying on were faulty. A failure to properly validate intelligence used to justify going to war DOES NOT exonerate the Bush Administration from the fact that they took us to war under false pretenses.

 

false pretenses - Representation of some fact or circumstance which is not true and is calculated to mislead, whereby a person obtains another's money or goods.

Dick Cheney repeated tried to create connections and relationships between Saddam and Bin Laden that did not exist. No reasonable intelligence found that there was a connection. In other words Dick Cheney tried to misrepresent facts so as to gain support for going to war with Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism.

 

5. Not well founded; not firm or trustworthy; erroneous; as' date=' a false claim; a false conclusion; a false construction in grammar. [/quote']

Whether intentional or not, the intelligence used to justify going to war was seriously flawed. There was no WMD, there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and apparently by nature of its rapid fall Iraq did not possess the ability to be an imminent threat to anyone.

 

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

When using Merriam-Webster, dictionary one must look at the definition of each word, which is what I did. Again I stand by my interpretation of how to use the word pretenses.

 

Regardless of how much you want to argue the Queens English usage of "false pretenses" my usage was reasonable and appropriate as I used it in this thread. You can choose to substitute some other word in your mind if you want, but based on the definitions I posted and my justifications I will continue to use the phrase "false pretenses" in regards to President Bush taking us to war. It is an accurate description of what happened.

[KLB]

I generally agree with your interpretation of the purpose of the vote,

I'll agree that it was a political stunt for this fall's elections.

 

but I also think it's important for congress to contribute to the debate in this manner.

I personally don't think this was a serious debate. Call me cynical if you want, but to me it was nothing more than cheap political stunt and provided no real value to the overall debate about when and how we extract ourselves from Iraq.

 

I hate to post and run, but I'm running out the door and won't be back for a week. I may get a chance to pop in for a few minutes here and there, but we're on vacation so I won't have time to say much.

Have a good vacation.

[GutZ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretense

 

sorry. I such a shite disturber

 

This is the problem with a country acting alone (running the show with a little help would probably be more fitting). If only the UN had the...well you know. Issues like 9/11 and this invasion wouldn't misconstrued. This clearly is a global issue, Why the hell do we even have the UN? They should be able to gather all countries and allocate arms and they should be planning this so that Bush isn't under-fire all the time. I don't always agree with him but he's basically pinned as the devil in politics. It's impossible not to be cynical with the information given by media. If this last major war we would never received so much information, then add in the fact that not all information is given because of the medias freedom, and you get a huge mess publicly.

 

Quite frankly (and this is highly opinionative) If we were in Bush shoes I really can't see how we would of made the decision different. The people wanted that war. He's getting information that says (false or not) theirs WMD. He will look weak if he does nothing, half the world didnt care because it didn't happen to them. I saw him as very much alone, with a hell of a decision.

 

Then again how would we know otherwise, it's not like they are going to type up conversations and leave them on the lunch table for people to see.

 

*Employee finds paper*

 

Employee: "Omg, he faked the whole thing!"

 

-cutscene-

 

*Bush rushing to the lunch room*

 

Bush: "I really need to stop doing that...and going to lunch rooms, I got my own office. I hope no one finds it"

[KLB]

There was a really good Frontline episode on PBS this evening entitled "The Dark Side" about all of the intelligence used to draw us into a war with Iraq and how Dick Cheney and Donald Rusfeld used unvetted intelligence to push their case even when the CIA said that the intelligence was flawed or the CIA provided proof that what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were claiming was wrong (e.g. the tie between al Qaeda and Saddam).

 

For those who didn't see the episode, it can be watched online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/. There is also a lot of supporting information online as well. This also provides very good evidence that justifies my use of "false pretenses" even in the strictest definition of the phrase.

[bascule]

I've explained the reason for my response already' date=' but I'll be happy to explain it to you again.

 

You've stated -- definitively, as if it were unassailable fact, [i']not opinion[/i] -- that the war in Iraq is unsustainable. Rather than present evidence to that fact, you insist that contrary evidence must be presented, suggesting that anyone in their right mind would begin from the position that the war is unsustainable and assume that that's the case until demonstrated otherwise.

 

Why is that? Hmm? Never mind the war, I'd like to know why you think it's okay to begin from one ideological viewpoint as a basis of assumption, and why you think everyone does that? Isn't that basically... faith? Where can I send my donation to your church, bascule?

 

Note that I haven't asked you to produce any evidence that the war is unsustainable. I haven't disagreed with your position, or argued your point. You've leaped to the conclusion that I disagree with you -- by your own statement directly above -- not because I stated a disagreeing position, but because I've criticized your premises. I guess if we're not with you, then we're against you -- is that it?

 

Interesting.

 

Pangloss, would you consider borrowing 25% more than what you earn each year to be sustainable economically?

[KLB]

Pangloss, would you consider borrowing 25% more than what you earn each year to be sustainable economically?

This is a very solid argument as to why the war is not sustainable. Keeping us bogged down in a protracted war is a good way terrorists/insurgents can weaken us. Every billion dollars spent on this war is a billion dollars that can not go towards more constructive ends that make our own country better.

 

The only one's benefiting from this war is the military industrial complex (e.g. Brown & Root and Haliburton).

[Pangloss]

Hey, back from vacation.

 

I wish I didn't have to drag up old business again, but it's clear that my last post (here) wasn't read. Let me reiterate by way of reply:

 

I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate reference source for writers who contribute to my environmental chemistry site and I won't accept it as a reference source here.

 

I'm at a loss how you can say that since you actually quoted me saying that my source was NOT the Wikipedia, but rather the famous 11th edition Brittanica. I also gave you more recent sources, which you quoted and again ignored. This is not a good sign of comprehension or serious debate interest (as opposed to mere proselytization) on your part.

 

I'd appreciate it if you would please respond to what I actually said.

 

I've never had a problem with you believing that we went to war under "false pretenses" (the inclusive phrase which you seem to want everyone to assume that everyone else parses as separate words rather than a specific phrase with a specific meaning that you happen to not like). That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I happen to disagree with you on that point, but that's no reason to ignore and then distort my sources.

 

What I have a problem with is people spreading misinformation, such as what you are doing when you claim that it is a fact that we went to war under false pretenses. It isn't a fact. It's an opinion.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, would you consider borrowing 25% more than what you earn each year to be sustainable economically?

 

Stop with the distractions and just admit you were wrong.

 

While I certainly acknowledge KLB's point that a billion spent there is a billion that could have been spent elsewhere, this ultimately has little to do with the budget deficit, because we'd have to cut a lot more than the war in Iraq in order to bring spending inline with earnings. And other things could certainly be cut instead of the war in Iraq, if people were actually serious about cutting spending. So while that's an interesting discussion in itself, and certainly an important one, it's obvious that you've only raised it here as a distraction.

 

I also happen to think that the war in Iraq doesn't HAVE to be sustainable. Pushing that angle is basically just the Vietnam comparison all over again. That's about "Making Sure We Lose in Iraq Because a Republican Made it Happen, 101". Sorry, not interested in blatant ideological posturing. Maybe you can sell that over at DemocraticUnderground.com, but not here.

 

And by the way, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse you of putting your ideology ahead of your intellectual honesty and integrity. Thanks for rendering us another example.

 

Now will you answer my question? I asked you why you think it's okay to begin from one ideological viewpoint as a basis of assumption. Care to take a shot at defending your approach in this thread, instead of just throwing out defensive irrelevencies and obscuring what you said?

[Pangloss]

There was a really good Frontline episode on PBS this evening entitled "The Dark Side"

 

I'm a big Frontline fan, and I have this on my Tivo. I watched the first part of it just now, and I'll get around to the rest of it as soon as I can, but so far it looks like more or less a rehash of previous episodes, reworked into a new assessment/approach. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does key into my pet peeve about Frontline's last couple of seasons. But that's another discussion.)

 

Anyway, yeah, I need to watch the rest of it, but it does look like a pretty good assessment. Of course, unless there's some great relevation waiting for me in the denouement, it doesn't PROVE that false pretenses were used, but it certainly supports that opinion. It clearly and explicitly stops short of proving that they knew the intelligence was wrong. And it also supports the notion that they thought the intelligence was right, and were simply mistaken.

 

I think Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack touches on this as well, and I highly recommend that book to any objective-minded reader who's interested in the effort to uncover truth regardless of one's ideological desires (hint hint).

[KLB]

Stop with the distractions and just admit you were wrong.

As I said in my PM reply to you I can not admit I was wrong, because I do not believe I was wrong in my usage of "false pretenses" even based on your very narrow definition of the phrase based on the evidence I provided by way of the PBS Frontline link. Anyone who takes the time to watch the Frontline special in question, read the interviews of Bush Administration officials, CIA officials and others in the intelligence community and takes the time to read and follow all of the other documentation provided on Frontline's website in regards to their documentary on this issue will see that there is more than enough evidence to support my position that the Bush Administration lied (yes lied) to the American public and to the world at large in an effort to drag us into a war that certain Bush Administration officials had wanted to drag us into well before 9/11.

 

For those who missed my earlier link, here it is again: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

 

Anyone who is not familiar with Frontline, should be and should follow the link to their website I provided above. I personally respect PBS Frontline as one of the most thorough and detail minded investigative reporting documentary series on TV today. This isn't some low budget ratings grabbing, half baked program. They get the interviews others could only hope to get and they pull apart an issue and explore it with surgical precision and they document everything they claim. Frontline isn't about hyperbole, they are about a search for the truth wherever it may lay.

 

Now will you answer my question? I asked you why you think it's okay to begin from one ideological viewpoint as a basis of assumption. Care to take a shot at defending your approach in this thread, instead of just throwing out defensive irrelevencies and obscuring what you said?

What I am saying is not based on an ideological viewpoint. It is based on very solid evidence and interviews from within the Bush Administration on the exact issue of whether or not we went to war based on false pretenses. Yes it will take people several hours to watch the documentary and to read all of the supporting documentation, however, once one has done this it will be very hard to argue that the Bush administration did not lie and twist intelligence to get the results they wanted.

 

--EDIT--

Note this post was written before seeing Pangloss's last post so take that into account.