Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Harvey types are actually the most difficult people to debate. They stay on message no matter what.

Says he who posts

Black Angst, you need to keep up with the news. You still buy the "iraq is a part of the war on turrur!" slogan? The fuck is wrong with you? Saddam had no link to al qaeda, the only terrorists in iraq were the ones hiding where saddam couldn't reach. Al qaeda in iraq was an attempt at brand recognition and only began AFTER the invasion.

The biggest problem you do not address is the existence of several reports that state THE WAR ON IRAQ IS CREATING MORE TERRORISTS. 4000 suspected terrorists? Small loss if you create 20,000 more.

The second biggest problem you do not address is OSama himself. Now, we have learned that he could have been captured at Tora Bora, we know he's in pakistan somewhere, we know al qaeda's core is there with him, and nothing is done.

Basically, FUKK OFF if you don't know shyt and go around calling everybody a troll. Besides the fact "trolling" is a stupid term, why would you be reciting bush's soundbites from 2005 which even he gave up on? Absolutely pathetic.

in a thread titled Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed

And the relationship is what here? Are you autistic?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

And if the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else and the American public wasn't told of this? Would that qualify as a lie of omission?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

And if the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else and the American public wasn't told of this? Would that qualify as a lie of omission?

Nope. The State department has no obligation whatsoever to justify it's actions. None. We have a representative government for a reason...our senators represent us. So, when they vote, it's us voting by proxy. If you dont like how your rep is voting, vote him/her out.

 

[Gaard]

A lie of omission can only occur if an obligation exists?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ali - once again, your logic is faulty. Before I tried to tell you that, when talking about anthrax, the lack of evidence of it's destruction does not PROVE it's existence. (Did you ever understand that, BTW)

Now your Hoffa statement is way off. You said, "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, using your logic he never existed". Instead, it should go something like this ... "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, this shows he's not where they've looked".

TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

It's existence is known, it's final disposition is not. It is not logic, it is fact. According to your logic it somehow ceased to ever exist in the first place, or it's existence was pure fabirction by Bush.

Craig, I made no claims on official Iraqi involvement with AQ. I posted no lies, perhaps you should read more carefully and stop making ASSumptions. It was incorrectly stated by Harvey that AQ was not present in Iraq before the war. He asked for proof to the contrary, and I provided it for him.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ali - once again, your logic is faulty. Before I tried to tell you that, when talking about anthrax, the lack of evidence of it's destruction does not PROVE it's existence. (Did you ever understand that, BTW)

Now your Hoffa statement is way off. You said, "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, using your logic he never existed". Instead, it should go something like this ... "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, this shows he's not where they've looked".

TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

It's existence is known, it's final disposition is not. It is not logic, it is fact. According to your logic it somehow ceased to ever exist in the first place, or it's existence was pure fabirction by Bush.

I see you still don't understand.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Craig, I made no claims on official Iraqi involvement with AQ. I posted no lies, perhaps you should read more carefully and stop making ASSumptions. It was incorrectly stated by Harvey that AQ was not present in Iraq before the war. He asked for proof to the contrary, and I provided it for him.

And, in fairness, Harvey is hardly the only one here who has tried to tell us AQ didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion.

It's a staple of the left-wing talking points.

 

[kage69]

It's a staple of the left-wing talking points.

Wow, hearing you speak of talking points made my irony meter spin out of control. Next we'll be hearing John opine about bias or truth in broadcasting... Thanks for the chuckle.


Not exactly sure why a few AQ off in an area not under Saddam's rule is/was such a big deal to you bushies. There doesn't seem to be much of a problem when you note the autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan harboring terrorists - we don't even need to bring up the cost savings of wiping out a camp of wannabe's versus bankrolling an entire invasion, especially if we're already committed to a real fight just down the road (Afghanistan). AQ has no love for Musharref, and operates inside Pakistan's borders. So c'mon all you arm chair generals, where's the support for total invasion of Pakistan? You guys act like Iran is no big deal, surely there's room on your plate for more (I mean, it's not like you'll be doing any of the fighting anyway).


AQ hated Saddam, Saddam hated AQ; there was zero cooperation between the two - and no amount of spin from you cheerleaders will change that, nor will your revisionist history and sudden love for the semantics game. I wish you all cared for the troops as much as your country's future, or preserving your fragile political egos.


Gaard, you're wasting your time; even if they do realize what it is you're speaking of, I doubt many of them have the spine to admit how it applies to the topic. Integrity is just a campaign sound-byte to them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

And if the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else and the American public wasn't told of this? Would that qualify as a lie of omission?

You seem to be confusing reasons for invading Iraq with justifications provided for the invasion.

Personally, I sure hope that using Iraq as a strategic staging ground was one of the reasons for the invasion. Naturally it couldn't be publicly stated, but it would seem pretty obvious it was a reason when we plopped our military right in between the 3 countries that support and/or breed militant jihadists.

 

[Jhhnn]

A remarkable admission from TLC, in a backhanded sort of way-

You seem to be confusing reasons for invading Iraq with justifications provided for the invasion.

So, uhh, you basically agree with Harvey that the admin lied as to the reasons for invasion...

But it was a Noble Lie, in your estimation, so that makes it just peachy... it's OK to be duped, just so long as it's for a good cause...

You've approached the truth of the matter in a very oblique way, but I doubt that you'll be able to sustain further effort w/o serious reconsideration of your belief structure...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Harvey
You'd do to them what they've done to others? Wouldn't that make you as bad as them? And what of those who enabled them, as in those who continue to vocally support them, they are as much the blame, would you do the same to them?

But... but... but... George W. Bush said the U.S. does not torture, and Alberto Gonzales said waterboarding was legal. How could they object to the same treatment for their own crimes? :roll:

Sorry. I didn't think I needed < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags for you, Red.

Originally posted by: Pabster
And, in fairness, Harvey is hardly the only one here who has tried to tell us AQ didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion.

It's a staple of the left-wing talking points.

What fairness? You're still spewing the same neocon bullshit that was so resoundingly discredited in 2003 in the Report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, aka the 9-11 Commission:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

And if the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else and the American public wasn't told of this? Would that qualify as a lie of omission?

You seem to be confusing reasons for invading Iraq with justifications provided for the invasion.

Personally, I sure hope that using Iraq as a strategic staging ground was one of the reasons for the invasion. Naturally it couldn't be publicly stated, but it would seem pretty obvious it was a reason when we plopped our military right in between the 3 countries that support and/or breed militant jihadists.

Regardless whether or not it could be publicly stated, does it qualify as a lie of omission?

It's like pulling teeth with you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

I'd have to ask Michael Moore. Or maybe Dan Rather? After all, a lie is supposedly not a lie if the information is fake but accurate.

But what do you think?

I think Saddam should have been forthcoming from the beginning and we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. Then the neo-com members of the anti-war crowd could cheer Saddam on his continued oppression of Iraqis while the rest could bust on Bush for not having the balls to invade and free the Iraqis from that oppression.

Do you think a lie of omission is still a lie? I'm not entirely sure why you're dodging.

I'm not dodging anything. Your question is phrased assumptively because it makes the assertion that an ommission is a lie.

You don't think there is such a thing as a lie of omission?

Of course there is such a thing. The title of the following thread is a perfect example of it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2116194&enterthread=y

In that case the OP ommitted a key portion of the quote, making it a purposeful ommission and a lie. The distortion was intentional and the original quote was not open to interpretation.

Intel is open to interpretation and analysis. The CIA, at the time, had to determine which intel was valid an which was not. They discarded intel they felt was not valid, like they do every single day. That's part of their job. They ended up being wrong. That's not a "lie of ommission," that's just a plain old fuck up.

And if the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else and the American public wasn't told of this? Would that qualify as a lie of omission?

You seem to be confusing reasons for invading Iraq with justifications provided for the invasion.

Personally, I sure hope that using Iraq as a strategic staging ground was one of the reasons for the invasion. Naturally it couldn't be publicly stated, but it would seem pretty obvious it was a reason when we plopped our military right in between the 3 countries that support and/or breed militant jihadists.

Regardless whether or not it could be publicly stated, does it qualify as a lie of omission?

It's like pulling teeth with you.

I already explained this a while back. You're asking a loaded question that contains a false assumption. It follows right along the same vein of "Does your mother know you beat off in the closet?"

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I already explained this a while back. You're asking a loaded question that contains a false assumption. It follows right along the same vein of "Does your mother know you beat off in the closet?"[/quote]


You are thinking too much..

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive

Text

An Omission is an intent to decieve.



Take this statement:

The dog ate my homework.

The dog really did eat my homework after I coated it with bacon grease.

Or this one..

I have proof that there are WMDs in Iraq.

A conpulsive liar who is also a drunk told me that there are WMDs in Iraq.

While both first staments are true they at the same time they are both crap.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I already explained this a while back. You're asking a loaded question that contains a false assumption. It follows right along the same vein of "Does your mother know you beat off in the closet?"

You are thinking too much..

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive

Text

An Omission is an intent to decieve.



Take this statement:

The dog ate my homework.

The dog really did eat my homework after I coated it with bacon grease.

Or this one..

I have proof that there are WMDs in Iraq.

A conpulsive liar who is also a drunk told me that there are WMDs in Iraq.

While both first staments are true they at the same time they are both crap.
[/quote]
Do your own homework first. An omission is not "an attempt to deceive." It's simply leaving something out, the state of omitting. That's not to mention the fact that the issue is a phrase - "lie of omission." So why you have tried to argue the point by parsing that phrase makes absolutely no sense and just comes off as a weakly and poorly thought out attempt to ultimately adding nothing to the discussion.

You are not thinking enough.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your attempts at obfuscation are pitiful, TLC

Once again, you've revealed yourself as partisan in ways that deny you any credibility whatsoever.

It's impossible for the reasons for invasion and the justifications used to be different if there's no deception...

But you already knew that, and are attempting to back away from your previous admission, pretend you never made it...

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I already explained this a while back. You're asking a loaded question that contains a false assumption. It follows right along the same vein of "Does your mother know you beat off in the closet?"

You are thinking too much..

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive

Text

An Omission is an intent to decieve.



Take this statement:

The dog ate my homework.

The dog really did eat my homework after I coated it with bacon grease.

Or this one..

I have proof that there are WMDs in Iraq.

A conpulsive liar who is also a drunk told me that there are WMDs in Iraq.

While both first staments are true they at the same time they are both crap.

Do your own homework first. An omission is not "an attempt to deceive." It's simply leaving something out, the state of omitting. That's not to mention the fact that the issue is a phrase - "lie of omission." So why you have tried to argue the point by parsing that phrase makes absolutely no sense and just comes off as a weakly and poorly thought out attempt to ultimately adding nothing to the discussion.

You are not thinking enough.

[/quote]

Ahh no..

There are only two absolute truths in the world. Math and definitions of words.

From the definition of a lie it states that omissions are lies.

Please read the link above.

But i guess you cannot disprove any of my statements so you just use the line "you are not thinking enough"

Children under the age of 12 (give or take a few years) use that type of come back.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ali - once again, your logic is faulty. Before I tried to tell you that, when talking about anthrax, the lack of evidence of it's destruction does not PROVE it's existence. (Did you ever understand that, BTW)

Now your Hoffa statement is way off. You said, "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, using your logic he never existed". Instead, it should go something like this ... "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, this shows he's not where they've looked".

TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

It's existence is known, it's final disposition is not. It is not logic, it is fact. According to your logic it somehow ceased to ever exist in the first place, or it's existence was pure fabirction by Bush.

Craig, I made no claims on official Iraqi involvement with AQ. I posted no lies, perhaps you should read more carefully and stop making ASSumptions. It was incorrectly stated by Harvey that AQ was not present in Iraq before the war. He asked for proof to the contrary, and I provided it for him.

Alistair, IMO, the relevant issue to Al Queda in Iraq was whether they were provided operational tolerance/support, as they were by the Taliban, not whether there were *any* people who happened to be in the country without any operational, much less any significant operational, support from the government - and you IMO gave an answer which, like Bill Clinton's misleading but technically correct answer, gave an answer which was technically accurate but was misleading at best on the actual issue of operational presence.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I already explained this a while back. You're asking a loaded question that contains a false assumption. It follows right along the same vein of "Does your mother know you beat off in the closet?"

You are thinking too much..

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive

Text

An Omission is an intent to decieve.



Take this statement:

The dog ate my homework.

The dog really did eat my homework after I coated it with bacon grease.

Or this one..

I have proof that there are WMDs in Iraq.

A conpulsive liar who is also a drunk told me that there are WMDs in Iraq.

While both first staments are true they at the same time they are both crap.

Do your own homework first. An omission is not "an attempt to deceive." It's simply leaving something out, the state of omitting. That's not to mention the fact that the issue is a phrase - "lie of omission." So why you have tried to argue the point by parsing that phrase makes absolutely no sense and just comes off as a weakly and poorly thought out attempt to ultimately adding nothing to the discussion.

You are not thinking enough.

[/quote]

The Congress has responsibilities to make decisions, and because each member of Congress cannot have their own CIA that goes and gets the facts directly, they fund the one CIA that does, and expects the president to work in good faith for it to perform its mission of collecting accurate information for the government to make decisions.

When the administration intentionally works to get around the built-in protections against the politicization of the facts for their own policy agenda, there are real effects, and that's why it's - morally at least - a criminal matter for them to do so. It's an imperfect system because obviously the administration can get around the protections and politicize the facts reported. Ultimately, the head of the CIA is chosen by the president and serves at his pleasure, and the CIA director can determine what happens in the agency.

As for 'lies of omission', do you really need the basics explained? It comes down to intent and negligence on this issue. On intent, was the info manipulated in order to serve the political agenda that was was desired, and the administration wanted justification, so they chose to mislead the public and congress - whether by lies of fact, omission, or other - to get the justification? As for negligence - did they apply proper scrutiny to the info, or were they reckless in giving weight to things they shouldn't have, like 'Curveball'?

There is such a thing as 'criminal negligence', when the degree of recklessness causes so much harm that it's considered a crime.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: outriding
Ahh no..

There are only two absolute truths in the world. Math and definitions of words.

From the definition of a lie it states that omissions are lies.

Please read the link above.

But i guess you cannot disprove any of my statements so you just use the line "you are not thinking enough"

Children under the age of 12 (give or take a few years) use that type of come back.

Odd you make that statement because it often seems I'm replying to children under the age of twelve in here.

First of all, the definitions of words are not any sort of absolute truth. Words evolve and change. Numbers do not, though the case could probably be made that even numbers are not any sort of absolute truth. Some words we commonly use use now had an entirely different definition and meaning in the past. In fact, there's a field of study called Etymology that looks at how words have changed over the time they first enter a language. So your statement that words are some sort of absolute truth is ridiculous on the face of it. That's only one of the things you are wrong about though.

The second thing you're wrong about is that Wiki article does not state that omissions are lies. Your blindered vision that seemingly causes you to make absolutes out of everything is affecting your comprehension process. The Wiki articles merely demonstrates that omissions can be a lie:

Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

However, it does not say or even imply that all omissions are lies, or that any omission constitutes lying. If you want an example of that, look to the definition of "Careful Speaking" provided in that same article.

Now you've been thoroughly disproven and it's clear you weren't thinking enough.

Happy?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ali - once again, your logic is faulty. Before I tried to tell you that, when talking about anthrax, the lack of evidence of it's destruction does not PROVE it's existence. (Did you ever understand that, BTW)

Now your Hoffa statement is way off. You said, "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, using your logic he never existed". Instead, it should go something like this ... "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, this shows he's not where they've looked".

TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

It's existence is known, it's final disposition is not. It is not logic, it is fact. According to your logic it somehow ceased to ever exist in the first place, or it's existence was pure fabirction by Bush.

Craig, I made no claims on official Iraqi involvement with AQ. I posted no lies, perhaps you should read more carefully and stop making ASSumptions. It was incorrectly stated by Harvey that AQ was not present in Iraq before the war. He asked for proof to the contrary, and I provided it for him.

Alistair, IMO, the relevant issue to Al Queda in Iraq was whether they were provided operational tolerance/support, as they were by the Taliban, not whether there were *any* people who happened to be in the country without any operational, much less any significant operational, support from the government - and you IMO gave an answer which, like Bill Clinton's misleading but technically correct answer, gave an answer which was technically accurate but was misleading at best on the actual issue of operational presence.

I made no claim of operational presence being supported by official Iraqi government apparatus, how could that be misleading. I simply stated/supported the fact they were there before we took action.

Even if Saddam had the tactical ability to roust them out, which he did not, he would not have anyways. They were embroiled in armed conflict with one of Saddam's greatest internal enemies.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ali - once again, your logic is faulty. Before I tried to tell you that, when talking about anthrax, the lack of evidence of it's destruction does not PROVE it's existence. (Did you ever understand that, BTW)

Now your Hoffa statement is way off. You said, "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, using your logic he never existed". Instead, it should go something like this ... "They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa, this shows he's not where they've looked".

TLC - Try to be honest here. Is a lie of omission still a lie?

It's existence is known, it's final disposition is not. It is not logic, it is fact. According to your logic it somehow ceased to ever exist in the first place, or it's existence was pure fabirction by Bush.

Craig, I made no claims on official Iraqi involvement with AQ. I posted no lies, perhaps you should read more carefully and stop making ASSumptions. It was incorrectly stated by Harvey that AQ was not present in Iraq before the war. He asked for proof to the contrary, and I provided it for him.

Alistair, IMO, the relevant issue to Al Queda in Iraq was whether they were provided operational tolerance/support, as they were by the Taliban, not whether there were *any* people who happened to be in the country without any operational, much less any significant operational, support from the government - and you IMO gave an answer which, like Bill Clinton's misleading but technically correct answer, gave an answer which was technically accurate but was misleading at best on the actual issue of operational presence.

The USA provided operational tolerance and support by letting them plan and organize here in the USA prior to 9/11...thanks to lax immigration. Are we culpable also?