[clt2]

The Iraq on the Record report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

[docbud]

Originally posted by clt2:

How come they aren't all listed? I mean, like numbers 1-237?? I probably scanned too quickly, but I didn't see an actual list of 237. Just claims of.

I downloaded the PDF and see lots of footnotes.

And things like: "so and so lied 50 times, one example is....."

Or out of 52 misleading statements, one was....

And crap like that.

I'm sure Waxman was fair, honest, and unbiased.

[zachs]

Originally posted by docbud:
How come they aren't all listed? I mean, like numbers 1-237?? I probably scanned too quickly, but I didn't see an actual list of 237. Just claims of.

I downloaded the PDF and see lots of footnotes.

And things like: "so and so lied 50 times, one example is....."

Or out of 52 misleading statements, one was....

And crap like that.

I'm sure Waxman was fair, honest, and unbiased.

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?Speak...earch+Database

[clt2]

Originally posted by docbud:
How come they aren't all listed?

Click "Search Database". Click "Show All". Result: "Displaying all statements of 237 statement(s) found".

I'm sure Waxman was fair, honest, and unbiased.

I'm sure you'll get a brain transplant some day.

prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman

[docbud]

got it!

If we had an embarrassed smiley I'd use one

Will check it out. Thanks

{edit: I was reading the PDF)
doc

[zachs]

Originally posted by clt2:
Click "Search Database". Click "Show All". Result: "Displaying all statements of 237 statement(s) found".

Yeah...I posted the direct URL above, too. You can also select an individual person.
I dunno why it isn't like that in the PDF...

[Logic]

What's the difference between lying and misleading? Could anyone explain that?


:goes to buy popcorns and soda:

[zachs]

Originally posted by Logic:
What's the difference between lying and misleading? Could anyone explain that?


:goes to buy popcorns and soda:

mislead: to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

lie: to create a false or misleading impression

Ehh...

[Logic]

Originally posted by zachs:
mislead: to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

lie: to create a false or misleading impression

Ehh...

heh, my point exactly

:offers popcorn to everyone eager to see the apologists enter:

[zachs]

Originally posted by Logic:
heh, my point exactly

:offers popcorn to everyone eager to see the apologists enter:

I'll take some! :sits back and wait for the apologists:

"But..but...it wasn't technically a lie!"

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zachs:
I'll take some! :sits back and wait for the apologists:

"But..but...it wasn't technically a lie!"

Well, in order to maintain their belief that Bush is God's choice to lead this country, they must think him infallible, like the Pope. In order for that to happen, they must refuse to believe anything that is critical. Since Bush OBVIOUSLY lied, this causes them to be torn on a conceptual dilemna. Since they are unwilling to accept that Bush is anything less than a complete saint, they must therefore believe in a conspiracy to portray him as less than Christ-Like.*


:takes a handful of popcorn:

*religious references added to account for some who consider Bush to be God's choice.
--laughable though that is.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, in order to maintain their belief that Bush is God's choice to lead this country, they must think him infallible, like the Pope. In order for that to happen, they must refuse to believe anything that is critical. Since Bush OBVIOUSLY lied, this causes them to be torn on a conceptual dilemna. Since they are unwilling to accept that Bush is anything less than a complete saint, they must therefore believe in a conspiracy to portray him as less than Christ-Like.*


:takes a handful of popcorn:

*religious references added to account for some who consider Bush to be God's choice.
--laughable though that is.

[clt2]

Originally posted by zachs:
"But..but...it wasn't technically a lie!"

[zachs]

[itai195]

I'd have to say that seeing Cheney giving that speech on Fox News while double boxed with a scene of the Baghdad hotel blast was one of the most ironic and sadistically humorous things I've ever seen on television.

[ladybird]

Originally posted by clt2:

* stretches itself *

after all these readings.. I still wonder:
"why one feels if threatened??"
I'm perhaps paranoiac ladybird??...
BZZZzz...
I must go to sleep...

Hmmmm...
I don't know if my new friend Bush always sleeps under the coconuts? I will see...
go to "You and Bush Alone on a Tropical Island"

BZZZZzzzzzz..

Hum......Perhaps..
Bush Dreams In Allan Bloom ??

Oh Noo!!!!!

NoNOOnnOoNo!!...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
What's the difference between lying and misleading? Could anyone explain that?

Intent is usually one difference. Lies are deliberate falsehoods. A misleading statement can be one that is understood by the speaker to be correct, but either misunderstood by the listener, or subsequently found out not to be accurate even though the speaker thought that they were accurate. Or where the listener simply disagrees with the premise or the conclusion and wants to put a negative spin on it. That's especially likely when the person calling a statement misleading doesn't feel himself to have been mislead. He just wants to tell people he thinks are less smart than him how he thinks they were manipulated.

Waxman is one of the most partisan politicians on the Hill (not a group noted for being partisan free). But he's not dumb. Calling something "lies" would be going too far even in an election year. So it's "misleading."

In any case, I'd call the rebuttal to most of these carefully selected statements misleading in their own rights. For example:

President George W. Bush


"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

An "urgent threat" is not an imminent threat. We've discussed this enough for you to see that the rebuttal does not in fact rebut the statement. Personally, I'd call that "explanation" misleading -- which is unsurprising in what is basically a piece of campaign propaganda.

[ladybird]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]Intent is usually one difference. Lies are deliberate falsehoods. A misleading statement can be one that is understood by the speaker to be correct, but either misunderstood by the listener, or subsequently found out not to be accurate even though the speaker thought that they were accurate.

Waxman is one of the most partisan politicians on the Hill (not a group noted for being partisan free). But he's not dumb. Calling something "lies" would be going too far even in an election year. So it's "misleading."
___________

Isn't the government of the U.S. a "responsible government"???
I want to say.... "Person in charge as of the his subordinates?" humm??
if not..
Explain to me your control surface please.

I hope to be mistaken.. but, I wish to know, sincerely.
ladyb.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ladybird:
Explain to me your control surface please.

The only thing i can think of are rudders and ailerons and flaps. But what the heck does that have to do with anything?

[zachs]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Intent is usually one difference. Lies are deliberate falsehoods. A misleading statement can be one that is understood by the speaker to be correct, but either misunderstood by the listener, or subsequently found out not to be accurate even though the speaker thought that they were accurate. Or where the listener simply disagrees with the premise or the conclusion and wants to put a negative spin on it. That's especially likely when the person calling a statement misleading doesn't feel himself to have been mislead. He just wants to tell people he thinks are less smart than him how he thinks they were manipulated.

So would you consider this statement a "lie", or just "misleading"?

We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.
-- President Bush, Press conference 7/14/2003

In any case, I'd call the rebuttal to most of these carefully selected statements misleading in their own rights. For example:

An "urgent threat" is not an imminent threat. We've discussed this enough for you to see that the rebuttal does not in fact rebut the statement. Personally, I'd call that "explanation" misleading -- which is unsurprising in what is basically a piece of campaign propaganda.

A couple of things. First, if Iraq was not an "imminent" threat, then why were the UN inspectors not allowed a few more months to complete the job? Why the hurry?

Second, Ari Fleischer acknowledged that one of the reasons for going to war was that Iraq was considered an "imminent threat" at a press conference:

Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.

And another excerpt from the October 16 press briefing:

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

(Emphasis mine)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zachs:

A couple of things. First, if Iraq was not an "imminent" threat, then why were the UN inspectors not allowed a few more months to complete the job? Why the hurry?

Second, Ari Fleischer acknowledged that one of the reasons for going to war was that Iraq was considered an "imminent threat" at a press conference:



And another excerpt from the October 16 press briefing:



(Emphasis mine)

The imminent threat issue has been beaten to death. I mentioned it only because I assumed after all the discussions we have had people would be familiar with the arguments. I think I'll simply direct you to the search engine on this one. There are literally pages of posts on the subject.

As for Ari. He didn't use the term, the reporter did. Fleischer simply failed to correct the reporter's charged use of a term. And of course, it should be mentioned that a press secretary is not a top-level figure or in any way a policymaker. That's why I don't believe that even as partisan a figure as Henry Waxman would hang his hat on what a press secretary improvidently agrees to in off-the-cuff questioning.

[zachs]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As for Ari. He didn't use the term, the reporter did. Fleischer simply failed to correct the reporter's charged use of a term.

Oh, right. The question directly asked whether we went to war because Iraq was an imminent threat. He didn't "correct" it because he was acknowledging that that was indeed one of the reasons.

And of course, it should be mentioned that a press secretary is not a top-level figure or in any way a policymaker. That's why I don't believe that even as partisan a figure as Henry Waxman would hang his hat on what a press secretary improvidently agrees to in off-the-cuff questioning.

No, he's not a policymaker - but he does report what the policies and positions of the administration are. Unless you're saying that what the press secretary says isn't REALLY the position of the WH...are you?

[chris v]

"Grave and Gathering" just has a better ring to it than "Vague and Diminishing," which really doesn't roll of the tongue quite as well.

CV

[Secret__Police]

Originally posted by Logic:
What's the difference between lying and misleading? Could anyone explain that?

Lying is what we do the rest of the word leaders.

Misleading is what do to the American public.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zachs:
No, he's not a policymaker - but he does report what the policies and positions of the administration are. Unless you're saying that what the press secretary says isn't REALLY the position of the WH...are you?

He should have corrected the journalist who was obvioulsy trying to ambush him. He didn't. But a press secretary's failure to disavow the phraseology of a journalist in off-the-cuff questioning does not bind the Administration to a legal justification that the President himself disavowed in the State of the Union address.

If what you had was a declarative statement from a top level policymaking offiicial, you might have a point. But you don't, and this is an absurd stretch.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Lying is what we do the rest of the word leaders.

Misleading is what do to the American public.