Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (148597)	11/24/2005 2:59:42 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793637

What is the difference between "intentionally mislead," cherry pick intelligence, and "lie?" I'd be hard pressed to find one. The clear sense of the charges is that in a court he would be convicted of giving false testimony about the reasons for going to war, and consequently should be impeached. If he were to be impeached, I would not think it would be for lying. I don't think you can prove that any of it was a lie. And I don't personally think it was a lie. I suspect that he was just so set on going into Iraq and had so much faith in the righteousness of that objective that he sub-consciously cherry picked. I would call that incompetence. I'm not sure you could prove that, either.

To: briskit who wrote (148597)	11/24/2005 3:22:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793637

I found this in my collection. It argues the point of how we see what we believe. *Hawks saw what they wanted to see in Iraq By Andrew M. Greeley Humans tend to see what they want to see. If facts seem to challenge our preconceptions, we reject them. Thus, practically everyone in Chicago (except sports journalists whose job it is to be mean-spirited) believes Sammy Sosa's explanation of the corked bat. I personally think White Sox fans put the bat in the wrong place where Sammy picked it up by mistake. Sox fans would do anything to ruin the Cubs' season and to divert attention from their own miserable showing. Right? Moreover, our attitude on the Martha Stewart case is shaped by our opinions about tough and aggressive women who muscle their way to the top of the heap in the corporate world. (Stewart "obstructed justice" by denying that she had engaged in insider trading. Failure to confess guilt immediately is apparently a crime in itself.) So I think it is unfair to say the Bush administration deliberately deceived the American people about Iraqi arms. The deception was not deliberate because the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense believed with their heart and soul that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the United States. The 9/11 attacks provided the rage among the American people to sell such an invasion. The intelligence reports were, like all such reports, uncertain, problematic, ambiguous. The hawks in the administration saw what they wanted to see and concluded that they were right: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was ready to use, he would use them against our troops, he was cooperating with al-Qaida, he had or would soon have a nuclear bomb, he was trying to import uranium, and he had aluminum tubes he would use for centrifuges for the manufacture of weapons-grade uranium. The hawks knew all these things were true and had known it for some time. There were plenty of hints in the intelligence data to support what they already knew. Remember me and the White Sox? Didn't they send a thug to torment Sammy at Camden Yards? So the hawks ignored the weakness of the data and argued that we had to get Saddam before he got us. Pre-emptive war was all right because Saddam was ready, willing and able to work mass destruction on the United States. Now that most of the intelligence that confirmed their faith seems questionable, they are unable to back down and say that maybe they were wrong. They simply repeat their faith and promise that the weapons will be found eventually. Similarly, they are unable for reasons of faith to admit that they were wrong about Iraqi reaction to our invasion. The Iraqis would dance in the streets and throw flowers at our tanks. Instead they loot, they shoot at us and they riot against us. The hawks can't admit they were wrong on this subject either. But they still see (though they don't use this Vietnam phrase) "light at the end of the tunnel." So I do not believe the deception was deliberate. They did not intend to lie to the American people. Rather, they wanted to prove to the American people that they were right, with little respect for the poor quality of their data. The point is that, however sincere they were, they did deceive. They were just plain wrong. President Bush was just plain wrong. People who make such terrible mistakes should not be retained in office. In large corporations, officials who make similar errors in judgment are discarded (usually with a fat check in their pocket). The whole chicken hawk cabal should be swept out of office. In American politics, this is usually accomplished by congressional investigation. But given the Bush administration's propensity to stonewall and cover up and the pro-administration bias of much of the media, a full-scale investigation is unlikely. Despite token movements in that direction, the "national security" mantra will be invoked to prevent investigation. Just now, the federal government can do almost anything it wants. It must be emphasized that while lies are immoral, bad judgment at the senior level of government - being so utterly wrong - is intolerable and dangerous in a nuclear world.. Andrew M. Greeley, a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago, teaches at the University of Arizona part of the year. His e-mail is agreel@aol.com