http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008
I still fail to get how lying about a blow job can be a major scandal but lying about killing and stealing from people can be ok.
Simple.
SparkeyG on 2003-07-16T12:39:23
Because Bush never lied under oath.
Re:Simple.
darobin on 2003-07-28T12:31:54
And perjury is worse than sending innocent kids to be killed for personal profit how exactly? I'm curious, really. We don't at all care about sex lies, but we could well reinstate the giullotine for a head of state that'd treat his people thusly.
Re:Simple.
SparkeyG on 2003-07-30T16:18:00
Because perjury is illegal, sending soldiers off to War is part and parcel with being POTUS.
Re:Simple.
darobin on 2003-07-30T16:25:35
Legality has little to do with scandal. If I steal an apple from a shop it's illegal but it'll hardly turn out to be a major scandal. I'm interested in the disproportion of scandals, not on why no one has the legal power to finally put the Bush administration in gaol.
Injecting a little bit (OK, a lot) of truth
pudge on 2003-07-16T16:13:19
1. No one in the Bush administration ever said this. It never happened. I know of no such claim by the UK, either.
2. There still is evidence of Iraq working with al Qaeda. Call it unproven if you will, but to say it is a lie is to discredit evidence that has not been discredited.
3. Technically, this was never said in the State of the Union. Think on. It was never said in the SotU that Iraq was seeking, only that British intelligence believed that it was. And again, see #2 about lie vs. unproven.
4. I don't recall all the specifics, but I do recall this: those tubes are more expensive than is needed for the purpose Iraq claims, AND they CAN be modified for the use the U.S. claims. It is quite likely that those tubes are prohibited under UN resolutions, because they can be converted.
5. This is absolutely true. Everyone agrees on it, including all the members of the UN Security Council when 1441 was unanimously voted on, and including Blix. That they had these weapons was never in question. Where they were before the war/are now is the question.
6. I recall no such claim. I do know that Iraq had missiles that went beyond the UN-mandated limit, and Iraq was ordered to destroy them, and Iraq did destroy some of them. I don't recall a claim that could reach Cyprus.
7. This is silly. Powell simply said Iraq has the means to develop smallpox, which is not an especially interesting claim, since smallpox is easy to develop, easier than Anthrax, which we know they had the means to develop, since they DID develop it. Of course they had the means.
8. Again, the claims they actually made are true here. Not false. Not a lie. True. Blix DID document the programs, Blix DID agree that Iraq had not accounted for its anthrax.
9. Oh my. This is so clearly true it's insane they put it on here. All previous inspection attempts were failures, every one of them. A UN report saying that "important elements still have to be resolved" means the work is not finished, but finishing the work is required for success. Lack of success is failure (at least, once the process finishes). Since inspections ended several times without finishing the process, they were therefore failures. This is quite simple.
10. Again, a clearly true statement. Resolution 1441 requires that Iraq make personnel available for interviews on UN terms, including outside the country if the inspectors say so. The inspectors did say so, and Iraq refused. To say Iraq was not obstructing inspections is a lie. No one ever said Iraq was not cooperating *in part.* Of course they were cooperating, in part. They were also obstructing, in part.
11. I see no reason to believe this claim is false, let alone a lie.
12. No comment. That's a British thing, and I intentionally know and care little about it.
13. Total takeover of a large nation in a few weeks, with historically low casualty rates by allied forces and civilians. That sounds like it was pretty easy to me. Please.
14. This was not a lie at all. We thought we did have it. We were mistaken. Get a grip.
15. See #14. Sometimes intelligence in war is hard to come by. That doesn't make it a lie if the reported intelligence is inaccurate.
16. This is just bullshit. The lies told here were by the media, NOT the government.
17. A prediction of the future, that everyone necessarily knows is a prediction and not a statement of fact, cannot be a lie. And again, reporting what is in intelligence reports that are honestly believed to be true is not a lie, it is being mistaken. Jeez, find me a war where intelligence was always accurate.
18. Again, a prediction cannot be a lie. But more to the point, there is no reason to believe that this is false, as we are still toward the beginning of the process. Once again, "Get a grip."
19. This is a gross distortion of the facts. All along the U.S. said they would probably use Iraqi oil money to help fund rebuilding of Iraq, and that the money will go to Iraq, and that is what is happening. Again, no lie.
20. This is true. We did find trailers which we believed were use for the production of biological weapons, ones which still are believed to be for that purpose. Blair's statement is entirely accurate: we have found banned manufacturing devices. It is true.
So wow. I see not one lie here -- except maybe the dossier thing which I don't know about -- except for the lies told by the Independent.
YAWN.
Re:Injecting a little bit (OK, a lot) of truth
pudge on 2003-07-16T16:17:27
BTW, my comments like "get a grip" are directed at the people making the assertions, not necessarily the journal writer linking to them. Unless he is making the assertions too. :-)
slash bug
jdavidb on 2003-07-17T15:52:12
Pudge, there's a bug in slash, here. The comment's too long to view on the journal entry page, and even when you click "Read the rest of this comment," it is truncated. It ends with "
19. This is a gross distortion of the facts. All along the U.S. said they would probably use Iraqi oil money to help fund rebuilding of Iraq, and that the mo." However, if you click "reply to this," then you get to see the end of the message.
I noticed the post appeared to be truncated yesterday, and then ran across the same thing in a post I just made on slashdot. If the post is going to be truncated when displayed (presumably to avoid annoying browser tricks), shouldn't displaying the comment and replying the comment truncate them to the same length?
Or is it that you assume someone taking the time to reply would want to see the entire comment, but other people might be scanning past it and not want to see it all? If that's the case, I'd think the "read the rest of this comment" link would still show everything. Perhaps it could be enhanced to show the length of the comment before you click.
Re:slash bug
It's my fault, my bug. I'll fix it ASAP.
Re:slash bug
jdavidb on 2003-07-17T17:10:06
Cool; thanks. The more I wrote about it, the less I was sure it was a bug, actually. ;)
In case noone ever tells you, I love slashcode and wish every site on the internet worked that way. Keep up the good work.
Squid Pro Quo
TorgoX on 2003-07-16T19:19:56
I did not have sex with that African uranium!!
This is true, because it hasn't been proven to have been known to be untrue!!
Sources
djberg96 on 2003-07-16T19:24:35
What a horrible piece of pseudo-journalism. This person obviously never bothered to check any of their sources but just spouted the usual pinhead garbage.
