|
domiguy -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:24:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Butch,
You're trying to reason with the "the faithful". For the faithful, no amount of logic or countervailing facts will ever be sufficient to derail their fantasies one iota.
Firm
Fantasies? Why do suggest that?
The figure 935 lies--yes, lies, falsehoods, untruths, deceptions made unequivocally for the purposes of instigating a war--was derived by two not-for-profit journalist research groups: Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism. These 935 instances are not blunders, misinformation, mistakes or errors--they are lies and obfuscation.
No, you (and the authors) interpret them as lies and obfuscations. It's a matter of many biases being caught then turned to a justification of your position through an apparently analytical processes.
For example, this phrase from the study:
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda.
along with this statement:
Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
... are the basis for all the claims made in the report, and your (and other's) support of the "Bush is a liar" meme.
1. It is not "without dispute" that Iraq had "no" weapons of mass destruction. It certainly wasn't "without dispute" prior to the war.
2. No "meaningful ties with Al Qaeda" is a subjective call, and not the primary link that the administration made about Saddam's ties to terrorism.
3. Almost all effective public policies or political actions by an administration are "orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion". Ever heard of the "bully pulpit"? Yet here it seems to be better defined as a "conspiracy".
4. The conclusion that (a) the (then) current possession of WMDs, (b) "strong" links to Al Qaeda were the sole reasons for going to war is simply untrue. You can go an dig out the official White House reasons for the war if you are really interested. Overall, from memory, there were about 10 reasons for the war, at least.
5. Another interesting question is how one defines a "lie".
The point of all of this is that you (... well ... at least the writers) aren't even close to approaching a dispassionate analysis of the situation. They are guilty of confirmation bias, skewed framing, outcome bias, and selective perception ... at the minimum.
My point to Butch was simply that the majority of the "Bush lied, people died." crowd aren't thinking rationally. They can use the cloak of rationality to excuse, justify and rationalize, but, at it core, this belief is based on faith and is not disprovable to them (or generally, open to even a calm discussion) by logical discussion of facts, timelines, or social and political explanations.
*shrugs*
Just read contextual emotions by the "Bush lied" crowd. Especially when someone "gores their ox" by challenging them (even politely). They generally treat disagreement as heresy.
Firm
Here lies the problem....What was explained to the nation as "The Reasons" for war have been proven to be false. End of the fucking story. It is that simple.
It's like Clinton explaining that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." It was a lie, pure and simple...No ifs and buts.
Anyone who went and died or got blown up because they believed that the country was facing imminent danger or because they were going to be killing the perps of 9-11...Died a wasted death.
The case for war was based primarily upon fraudulent information....How can there be a dispute over this? Just ask "curveball."
|
|
|
|
