Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 1:47:22 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
Olbermann’s Top 9/11 Story: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration [VIDEO]
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/62414/

-----

Olbermann is spot on as always.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 1:51:19 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 1:55:56 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
CuriousLord:

Can you tell the difference between investigating and manufacturing evidence?

Jeez...

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 1:58:53 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
Can you tell the difference between investigating and manufacturing evidence?


Ah, yes.  Manufacturing evidence.  I nearly forgot how the Bush adminstration planted nukes in Iraq instead of facing the political suicide of letting it come to light that they were wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
Jeez...


Hum?

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:03:03 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
Straw man again. Don't you get bored with it?

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:05:22 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Straw man again. Don't you get bored with it?


It's kind of funny.  I hear that term, "straw man [argument]" pretty often when someone isn't able to counter an argument of mine that doesn't meet their agenda, yet I'm still unclear as to exactly what a "straw man [argument]" is beyond this.

Would you mind defining it, then telling me how my post meets this definition?

PS-  Afraid I have to run off to Bio, so I may not be responding for an hour or so.  Never stop learning, right?

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 9/12/2007 2:07:47 PM >

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:08:43 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
Have the two of you set a date yet and who is wearing the dress?

~stef


_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:10:37 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Have the two of you set a date yet and who is wearing the dress?


Him?  Hell no.  Bushy beards do nothing for me.

You, on the other hand.. well, how do you do in heels?

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:47:22 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations.


...odd argument. So, i can justify virtually any action by suggesting a set of circumstances which, if true, would justify it? The plain fact is that there were no WMD's in Iraq, the oversight process was cut short by Bush in order to invade and the business regarding acquiring yellowcake was made up....and known to be made up by security services. Can Bush invade Canada because if Canada were to explode Anthrax bombs over Washington then it would be justified?

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 2:51:46 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Him?  Hell no.  Bushy beards do nothing for me.

You, on the other hand..

Umm, no.

~stef


_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 3:48:06 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
It was obvious the UN inspectors were doing a decent job, despite efforts by Iraq to thwart them. I have always loved the term weapons of mass destruction, as if weapons not of mass destruction, just killing lots of people, are okay. Iraq didnt have any, the inspectors had destroyed them after the first Iraq war. Okay so they were hoping to build some, maybe they could have bought some from a rogue state. The USSR  allegedly had nuclear suitcase bombs, so its feasible some went missing, after all they did sell a submarine to Columbian drug cartel.

I think the reason no one took a fall for bad intelligence ect, was because everyone knew it may start a domino effect, if only amongst public opinion. One of Blairs advisers has now said Blair wanted to avoid the war and hoped political pressure would remove Saddam, a man who murdered any dissenters !

I fully agree that they took their eye off the ball as to where the real danger lies, Afghanistan, all invading Iraq has achieved is pointless suffering and a recruting ad for Al Qaeda

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:07:01 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them,


There's a hella lot of distance between the intentional fraud committed by the Bush Administration, and due caution in a dangerous world.

Perhaps they could have disclosed the caveats required by the use of 1/2 truths, unconfirmed rumors, and outright lies, including playing up alleged facts of which YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN.

Given the proven lack of honesty and integrity, it's not surprising. It *is* surprising that the DOJ is so corrupt, that the criminal acts go without prosecution.

So, to allege that Bush acted IN ANY WAY in "Good Faith" is just plain bullshit.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:10:37 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
"Prosecutable Misstatements and Material Omissions"

Please confine any responses to the LETTERED PARAGRAPHS below, and use the same indicators for your responses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Overt Acts

A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:19:47 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them, and if taking this chance caused a nuclear weapon to be detonated on US soil, there would have been no end to the chaos that the same people who critize him now, plus more, demanding to know why he did nothing about reports of WMD's from Iraq or/and terrorist organizations.


...odd argument. So, i can justify virtually any action by suggesting a set of circumstances which, if true, would justify it? The plain fact is that there were no WMD's in Iraq, the oversight process was cut short by Bush in order to invade and the business regarding acquiring yellowcake was made up....and known to be made up by security services. Can Bush invade Canada because if Canada were to explode Anthrax bombs over Washington then it would be justified?


Actually, this argument was simply pointing out the irony in particular poster's reasonings, not providing a logical justification.  (Which is just saying that I believe you misinterpretted me, not that your question isn't something that can be asked.)

So, to address your question, I suppose it would be.  As justification for most things, do we not look for sets of circumstances that may be true, weigh them based on their likelihood, then act on them?

Your question is a valid one.  The best answer is that it depends on the likelihood of the circumstances and the consquences with regard to these likelihoods.

Now, if we had reports that Iraq was going to, say, use nuclear weapons to destroy major cities in the US.  At what point are we justified in taking action?  When there's a 0.0000001% chance it's true?  When there's a 1% chance it's true?  2%?   10%?  50%?  90%?  99.999%?  (Since we're only human, 100% is an impossibility.  Though, if, say, Saddam said he was going to, and we had every reason to believe him, including video evidence he and the CIA both provided, the chance could be like 99.99999999%- which would just about be 100%, but the mathematician in me protests it's not truly 100%.  But I disgress.)

In making decisions, is it not appropriate for one to consider the risk?

(To reiterate, I'm answering your question, not defending Bush.)

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:20:58 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Him?  Hell no.  Bushy beards do nothing for me.

You, on the other hand..

Umm, no.


See?  What's the point of making a joke if you're not going to take it in good humor?

Ah wells.  Take care.

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:27:09 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The irony I'd point about this is that, should the Bush administration have ignored reports of WMD's in Iraq, or terrorists attempting to acquire them,


There's a hella lot of distance between the intentional fraud committed by the Bush Administration, and due caution in a dangerous world.

Perhaps they could have disclosed the caveats required by the use of 1/2 truths, unconfirmed rumors, and outright lies, including playing up alleged facts of which YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN.

Given the proven lack of honesty and integrity, it's not surprising. It *is* surprising that the DOJ is so corrupt, that the criminal acts go without prosecution.

So, to allege that Bush acted IN ANY WAY in "Good Faith" is just plain bullshit.


Among the uncertainities, is not that he lied one of them?  I know I'm opening up something I probably'll regret later due to just how many things you'll cite, but could you point out some of the reasons you believe his arguments to have been based upon lies?

Edit:  Actually, I see you went ahead and provided some points.  :P  A moment to read through them, if you'd please.  (My question above can be considered answered, should the next response you've given me be what I think it is.)

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 9/12/2007 4:28:22 PM >

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:40:07 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Does look like a lie, as the story makes it out to be.  Out of curiousity, do you know if this turned out to be true or not later on?


Okay, actually, there's a lot you have here.  :P  I'll try to respond to them, and I do appreciate the cites.  My night's a bit heavy, so I'm afraid this is a bit much for me to get to at this moment.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 4:46:22 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
It's a check written which cannot be cashed.

The sacred trust, that the officers of the United States have, is predicated on their acting with Good Faith, Honesty and Integrity.

Simply put, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity *should have* gotten people tarred, feathered, and ridden out on a rail.

Then perhaps given a cigarette and a wall to stand in front of, should that be the verdict of the court.

Good thing all the honest USAttys were chased out in favor of the proven religious fanatics --- Well, good for the alleged felons.


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/12/2007 9:09:32 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Umm, no.


See?  What's the point of making a joke if you're not going to take it in good humor?

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

~stef


_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration - 9/13/2007 8:10:42 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The best answer is that it depends on the likelihood of the circumstances and the consquences with regard to these likelihoods.............

.........Now, if we had reports that Iraq was going to, say, use nuclear weapons to destroy major cities in the US.  At what point are we justified in taking action?  When there's a 0.0000001% chance it's true?  When there's a 1% chance it's true?  2%?   10%?  50%?  90%?  99.999%?  (Since we're only human, 100% is an impossibility. 


.....ok, first a little history.......i'm sure you're aware of game theory. Essentially it creates probability ranges so that decision makers can tell what is the more likely outcomes.
Arguably its heyday was back in the 60's. i heard that the proponants of game theory in the whitehouse during the Cuban missile crisis ran their models and came up with a horrifying conclusion..... a US first strike against Russia would save the most US lives. Kennedy ignored them and was proven correct.

Why did he ignore them? Perhaps the problem with numbers is that although they create awesome maps they are still only maps. The territory always reserves the right to surprise the best modeller. As a mathematician i'm sure you've considered its limitations. When push comes to shove  our leaders have to be guided by something in addition to worked out probabilities......they need to act wisely.

The presence of WMD's in Iraq before Gulf2 is a bit like the status of Schrodingers famous cat...one can only know once one has opened the box. The real query is whether Bush was wise in appearing to be so very eager to open that box.....especially when in order to do so he cut short a process by which the box could have been more accurately mapped.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.108