• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq War lies, past and present, and punishments?

Should lying Mass Media be punished?

  • Yes, but for a lack of professional journalism.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • No, they told the truth.

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Yes, for collusion to promote a false agenda.

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • No, they were just doing a favor to get inside access.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • If they lied before, they are lying now?

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • This just represents Mass Media manipulation and is normal.

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
ecofarm said:
Enough shovelling, you must be exausted. How about another source, this time one with something about lying.
Click to expand...
Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN
Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS | War Is A Crime .org
pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-lies.html
The Center for Public Integrity | Investigative journalism from a nonprofit newsroom › Politics › The White House
www.rawstory.com/.../rove-bad-wmds-iraq-blames-democrats-katrin
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-two-most-esssential-a_n_7...
www.alternet.org/story/.../ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_ir...
Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline (8/1/90 - 2/14/08) | Mother Jones
warisacrime.org/keydocuments
Bush’s Iraq War Lies Were Untrue...
www.thedailybeast.com/.../wikileaks-shows-rumsfeld-and-casey-lied-...
Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS | Common Dreams

I'm sorry if the list is only partial, but my fingers are still stiff.
 
Mesmerizing.
 
DaveFagan said:
When somethiong is not true, it is a "lie."
Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:
No mobile weapons labs.
No WMDs.
No yellowcake from Niger.
No missile tubes.
Since none of these were true, then they are by definition "lies."
Your investigative reporters are supposed to catch and reveal lies. In this case, like Judith Miller, they were part of the deception.

Again, if it's not true, it is a lie. Not complicated. When a politician's lips move, is he lying? That is innate wisdom of the proletariot.
Click to expand...
:naughty

No Dave, it isn't complicated.
You are using the term loosely instead of a more accurate definition, and doing so in the attempt to cast aspersions.
Heck, not all dictionaries carry the definition that you are attempting to use.



In this instance, known untruths were not deliberately told to mislead/deceive, as they were believed to be true.

No matter how pedantic you want to get, you do not call that a lie.
 
Excon said:
:naughty

No Dave, it isn't complicated.
You are using the term loosely instead of a more accurate definition, and doing so in the attempt to cast aspersions.
Heck, not all dictionaries carry the definition that you are attempting to use.



In this instance, known untruths were not deliberately told to mislead/deceive, as they were believed to be true.

No matter how pedantic you want to get, you do not call that a lie.
Click to expand...

"In this instance, known untruths were not deliberately told to mislead/deceive, as they were believed to be true."

Missile tubes and yellowcake from Niger were told to mislead/deceive and were known lies. Those are just the most obvious two.
 
DaveFagan said:
"In this instance, known untruths were not deliberately told to mislead/deceive, as they were believed to be true."

Missile tubes and yellowcake from Niger were told to mislead/deceive and were known lies. Those are just the most obvious two.
Click to expand...
:naughty



Is that what you think?

:doh

Interesting!
 
Media is protected from "punishment" and you are subsidizing them if you have cable/satellite whether you watch them or not.
 
DaveFagan said:
No mobile weapons labs.
No WMDs.
No yellowcake from Niger.
No missile tubes.
Since none of these were true, then they are by definition "lies."
Your investigative reporters are supposed to catch and reveal lies. In this case, like Judith Miller, they were part of the deception.

Again, if it's not true, it is a lie. Not complicated. When a politician's lips move, is he lying? That is innate wisdom of the proletariot.

It's the tenth anniversary of Iraq and if we were decieved, how do we react and make appropriate change? Is it ongoing? What do you think, or perhaps you don't?

Hard to type, fingers are still frozen.
Click to expand...

That is factually and logically untrue. "I believe based on these measurements that Jupiter's orbit will follow X pattern" Oh but that wasn't true. So I must have lied about it. There is a world of difference between something being proven wrong, and it being a lie. Only a fanatic could fail to comprehend this distinction.
 
Moreover for all the war profiteering American companies really missed the boat on the Iraqi oil industry, and didn't exactly corner the market on reconstruction contracts. They could apparently launch a war, but couldn't secure their expected gains.
 
Sherman123 said:
Moreover for all the war profiteering American companies really missed the boat on the Iraqi oil industry, and didn't exactly corner the market on reconstruction contracts. They could apparently launch a war, but couldn't secure their expected gains.
Click to expand...


Please post your links proving posts 32 and 33.
Show me a photo of a Iraqi Mobile Weapons Lab
Show me a photo of captured WMD
Show me a photo of yellowcake from Niger
Show me a Centifuge tube from Iraq (not a missile tube)
Show ExxonMobil, BP, Total, Chevron profits before and after the invasion of Iraq resulting from Iraqi OIL in their distribution network

THANK YOU!
 
DaveFagan said:
Please post your links proving posts 32 and 33.
Show me a photo of a Iraqi Mobile Weapons Lab
Show me a photo of captured WMD
Show me a photo of yellowcake from Niger
Show me a Centifuge tube from Iraq (not a missile tube)
Show ExxonMobil, BP, Total, Chevron profits before and after the invasion of Iraq resulting from Iraqi OIL in their distribution network

THANK YOU!
Click to expand...

US oil companies won very very very few field development contracts. U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME While reconstruction contracts went pretty much all over the place, US companies had a logical major presence but it wasnt (and today isn't) overwhelming. Moreover oil in a 'distribution network' is a stupid metric to use. We have a global energy market, even Iranian oil factors into supply and profit margins for American energy companies and before the worst of the sanctions hit, and maybe even still today, it is extremely likely that Iranian oil ended up filtering into Western companies distribution either from spot market purchases or through other factors. The same is true for Iraqi oil. If your claim is that greedy oil cabal executives somehow predicted the global price surge and planned the Iraq War around permanently jacking up the price of crude I have nothing to say because that is both conspiratorial and untestable, but also dumb.
 
DaveFagan said:
How the Iraq War Was Sold

"The Washington Post continues to allow former members of the Bush administration, including President George W. Bush, to distort the case for going to war against Iraq in 2003 and to blame the intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency for the decision to use force.In the “Outlook” section on Feb. 3 (“Still Fighting over a flawed case for war”), the Post cites memoirs from six key decision-makers, who are unwilling to acknowledge that the Iraq War was a deadly undertaking paved by lies and deceit.
It was never a case of whether the White House distorted the intelligence it received on Iraq or whether the Central Intelligence Agency provided bad intelligence to the White House. In fact, both the White House and the CIA had a hand in the distortion of intelligence and both contributed to making the phony case for war to the Congress and the American people."

Where Are They Now? The Reporters Who Got Iraq So Wrong

"Ten years ago today, Colin Powell made the Bush administration's case for going to war against Iraq. Much of what he said about Iraq's threats to the United States was false. But the media coverage gave the opposite impression, and most of the pundits and journalists who promoted the justifications for the war paid no price for their failures."

Is the Patriot Act necessary or an over-reaction to these lies?
Is Homeland Security necessary?
Is the TSA necessary?
Did the war waste a Trillion dollars of public money?
Does the public at large really care or want to know?
Why do we allow the perpetuation of these myths?
Did any particular group profit handsomely from this war?
What were the real reasons for the war?
As Citizens, "Do we not want to believe we've been bamboozled?"
Click to expand...

Watch this video. I think Christopher Hitchens sums it up quite well here. You can't argue with his reasoning, and I would not dare be on the other side of the debate if he is the one you are debating!

 
Capster78 said:
Watch this video. I think Christopher Hitchens sums it up quite well here. You can't argue with his reasoning, and I would not dare be on the other side of the debate if he is the one you are debating!

Click to expand...


I like Hitchens, but its really the lowest of form to post an almost 2 hour youtube video and say "Cant argue with this!" It's the kind of thing usually reserved for fanatics and conspiracy trolls, and I'm guess you aren't either of those.
 
Sherman123 said:
I like Hitchens, but its really the lowest of form to post an almost 2 hour youtube video and say "Cant argue with this!" It's the kind of thing usually reserved for fanatics and conspiracy trolls, and I'm guess you aren't either of those.
Click to expand...

If I were posting in a conspiracy thread, and trying to support such a conspiracy by posting videos and links to known conspirist garbage web sites, I would agree. However, I think Hitchens is well known not to be either of those things. He is a literary genius and a witty debater. I refer to him simply because I can't say it any better than he does.
 
Sherman123 said:
US oil companies won very very very few field development contracts. U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME While reconstruction contracts went pretty much all over the place, US companies had a logical major presence but it wasnt (and today isn't) overwhelming. Moreover oil in a 'distribution network' is a stupid metric to use. We have a global energy market, even Iranian oil factors into supply and profit margins for American energy companies and before the worst of the sanctions hit, and maybe even still today, it is extremely likely that Iranian oil ended up filtering into Western companies distribution either from spot market purchases or through other factors. The same is true for Iraqi oil. If your claim is that greedy oil cabal executives somehow predicted the global price surge and planned the Iraq War around permanently jacking up the price of crude I have nothing to say because that is both conspiratorial and untestable, but also dumb.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't say anything your poor strawman suggests. But! Big BUT! Saddam sold OIL for Euros and was embargoed by UN Nations. That OIL of Saddam's didn't go into pipelines and tankers owned by the Big Oil Western corporations and move around at a $.05/gallon profit. Now, getting that oil into the distribution network owned by these big corporations brings that $.05/gallon profit back into the picture, even if you do not own one iota of the production. Probably the OIL corporations big businessmen who profit from knowing their systems realized that if Saddam's OIL came into the system, they would profit handsomely. Ergo, try to get someone to get it into the system. It is in the system now, and they own some production also. Keerist, we're only talking about trillions of gallons here. Chump change, eh?
 
DaveFagan said:
I certainly didn't say anything your poor strawman suggests. But! Big BUT! Saddam sold OIL for Euros and was embargoed by UN Nations. That OIL of Saddam's didn't go into pipelines and tankers owned by the Big Oil Western corporations and move around at a $.05/gallon profit. Now, getting that oil into the distribution network owned by these big corporations brings that $.05/gallon profit back into the picture, even if you do not own one iota of the production. Probably the OIL corporations big businessmen who profit from knowing their systems realized that if Saddam's OIL came into the system, they would profit handsomely. Ergo, try to get someone to get it into the system. It is in the system now, and they own some production also. Keerist, we're only talking about trillions of gallons here. Chump change, eh?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I have no idea where you are arbitrarily pulling out $.05 or what its purpose is but its irrelevant. Your contention has been that American oil companies assisted in instigating the Iraq War in order to gain access to Iraqi oil fields. It is a statement of fact that the majority of Iraqi field services and extraction contracts have not gone to American companies. Moreover if your contention is that oil is now flowing into the international market (which would assist in bringing price stability not increasing them) that was true when the INOC and the Oil Ministry were distributing crude in the Oil for Food Program. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Their systems" what exactly does that mean? Their pipelines? Their tankers? Their refineries? I feel as though you vastly underestimate the complexity of energy markets let alone the crude industry, and much of what you think stems from an acute lack of understanding.
 
Sherman123 said:
What are you talking about? I have no idea where you are arbitrarily pulling out $.05 or what its purpose is but its irrelevant. Your contention has been that American oil companies assisted in instigating the Iraq War in order to gain access to Iraqi oil fields. It is a statement of fact that the majority of Iraqi field services and extraction contracts have not gone to American companies. Moreover if your contention is that oil is now flowing into the international market (which would assist in bringing price stability not increasing them) that was true when the INOC and the Oil Ministry were distributing crude in the Oil for Food Program. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Their systems" what exactly does that mean? Their pipelines? Their tankers? Their refineries? I feel as though you vastly underestimate the complexity of energy markets let alone the crude industry, and much of what you think stems from an acute lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Well now, Big Oil can make huge profits by drilling, transporting, refining, retailing, storing, or owning the product. If you are in the business, and not as naive as those who think you have to sit on it to profit from it, each of these words ending with 'ing' are very profitable. So, if Iraq's oil was not drilled, transported, refined, retailed, or stored by these big corporations before the war then you can be sure good businessmen were trying to figure out how to get this oil into their profit profile and lobby and scheme for good dollar and cents profit reasons to initiate actions that would achieve these results. Of course, I could use your logic that these people in the oil business are either too stupid or too loyal to argue against it. One of us would be a moron, I guess. Let's see. It's about capitalism. That's about profit. There's a large profit if the war can get the Iraq oil in the Western distribution network. Is this too simple? I typed real slow.
 
DaveFagan said:
How the Iraq War Was Sold

"The Washington Post continues to allow former members of the Bush administration, including President George W. Bush, to distort the case for going to war against Iraq in 2003 and to blame the intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency for the decision to use force.In the “Outlook” section on Feb. 3 (“Still Fighting over a flawed case for war”), the Post cites memoirs from six key decision-makers, who are unwilling to acknowledge that the Iraq War was a deadly undertaking paved by lies and deceit.
It was never a case of whether the White House distorted the intelligence it received on Iraq or whether the Central Intelligence Agency provided bad intelligence to the White House. In fact, both the White House and the CIA had a hand in the distortion of intelligence and both contributed to making the phony case for war to the Congress and the American people."

Where Are They Now? The Reporters Who Got Iraq So Wrong

"Ten years ago today, Colin Powell made the Bush administration's case for going to war against Iraq. Much of what he said about Iraq's threats to the United States was false. But the media coverage gave the opposite impression, and most of the pundits and journalists who promoted the justifications for the war paid no price for their failures."

Is the Patriot Act necessary or an over-reaction to these lies?
Is Homeland Security necessary?
Is the TSA necessary?
Did the war waste a Trillion dollars of public money?
Does the public at large really care or want to know?
Why do we allow the perpetuation of these myths?
Did any particular group profit handsomely from this war?
What were the real reasons for the war?
As Citizens, "Do we not want to believe we've been bamboozled?"
Click to expand...



I think now, today the vast majority of Americans have put Iraq behind them and don’t care if they were lied to or not. The only ones who care are the very partisan die hard Democrats wanting to continue to tar Bush. Was it faulty intelligence at the time or was the intelligence just read wrong, the analyst had it wrong. We probably should hope they were wrong, it would be mighty easy to hide a bunch of 55 gallon drums in Iraq’s desert that were full of chemical and biological weapons or they got rid of them just prior to the war. To me the Patriot Act seems over kill, Homeland security and TSA, probably needed, but not to the extent these two agencies have become.

The good news is another 9-11 hasn’t happened, but the unanswered question is with the loss of freedom that has been forced upon the citizens in the name of security worth it? As one of the founding fathers said and this is a paraphrase: A citizen who chooses security over liberty, will soon have neither.
 
DaveFagan said:
Well now, Big Oil can make huge profits by drilling, transporting, refining, retailing, storing, or owning the product. If you are in the business, and not as naive as those who think you have to sit on it to profit from it, each of these words ending with 'ing' are very profitable. So, if Iraq's oil was not drilled, transported, refined, retailed, or stored by these big corporations before the war then you can be sure good businessmen were trying to figure out how to get this oil into their profit profile and lobby and scheme for good dollar and cents profit reasons to initiate actions that would achieve these results. Of course, I could use your logic that these people in the oil business are either too stupid or too loyal to argue against it. One of us would be a moron, I guess. Let's see. It's about capitalism. That's about profit. There's a large profit if the war can get the Iraq oil in the Western distribution network. Is this too simple? I typed real slow.
Click to expand...

'Big Oil' is not a company I've ever heard of and therein lies the problem of this conspiracy theory. It relies upon a general dislike for 'corporations' and international business to put across extremely vague and nebulous accusations. I've pointed out again and again that American companies did not win many contracts of any kind when it came to Iraq's oil services and extraction opportunities. So no they did not benefit from any of the aforementioned areas. Some companies did, like Norway's DNO which won some contracts in the Iraqi KRG but American companies decisively lagged behind. Your premise is flawed because it is factually inaccurate. Falling back on the assertion that "Well... corporations and big oil benefited" is an absurdly weak argument.
 
Sherman123 said:
'Big Oil' is not a company I've ever heard of and therein lies the problem of this conspiracy theory. It relies upon a general dislike for 'corporations' and international business to put across extremely vague and nebulous accusations. I've pointed out again and again that American companies did not win many contracts of any kind when it came to Iraq's oil services and extraction opportunities. So no they did not benefit from any of the aforementioned areas. Some companies did, like Norway's DNO which won some contracts in the Iraqi KRG but American companies decisively lagged behind. Your premise is flawed because it is factually inaccurate. Falling back on the assertion that "Well... corporations and big oil benefited" is an absurdly weak argument.
Click to expand...

If you are a Big USA Energy Corporation and you do not lobby and give money to your Congressman to try to get a war started in Iran right now, then you are a damn poor businessman, because that is how it is done. Iran's oil is embargoed and so no UN Nations touch that oil. If you can start a war there, and get the oil un-embargoed, then you can get that OIL back into your profit stream, whether it be drilling, transporting, refining, retailing or storing. If you are naive enough to think that this is not how capitalism is done, then I can't help you, even if I type really slow. Think ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total, BP, Haliburton, KBR, Bechtel and see if your Congressman got any free money from these "perps."
 
DaveFagan said:
If you are a Big USA Energy Corporation and you do not lobby and give money to your Congressman to try to get a war started in Iran right now, then you are a damn poor businessman, because that is how it is done. Iran's oil is embargoed and so no UN Nations touch that oil. If you can start a war there, and get the oil un-embargoed, then you can get that OIL back into your profit stream, whether it be drilling, transporting, refining, retailing or storing. If you are naive enough to think that this is not how capitalism is done, then I can't help you, even if I type really slow. Think ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total, BP, Haliburton, KBR, Bechtel and see if your Congressman got any free money from these "perps."
Click to expand...

That literally had nothing to do with my post. Moreover you have an incredibly high burden to show that any of those companies are actively lobbying for a war with Iran, and furthermore it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It is also hilariously convoluted logic:

1. We want Iranian oil.
2. We have enough influence and power to force the US government into a war with Iran.
3. We use it to get that oil because it is under sanction and we cannot currently contract directly for shipping or servicing their fields (not that it would matter because Iran has a state oil company and Oil Ministry, like Saudi Arabia and virtually all the GCC states in which most up and mid stream development is controlled by the state)
4. But instead of using our apparently obscene levels of influence to... remove sanctions we decide to go to war. Why? PROFIT???!

It is audibly ludicrous to anyone who reads it aloud. Once again though you are avoiding the issue because you do not have an answer.
 
Sherman123 said:
That literally had nothing to do with my post. Moreover you have an incredibly high burden to show that any of those companies are actively lobbying for a war with Iran, and furthermore it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It is also hilariously convoluted logic:

1. We want Iranian oil.
2. We have enough influence and power to force the US government into a war with Iran.
3. We use it to get that oil because it is under sanction and we cannot currently contract directly for shipping or servicing their fields (not that it would matter because Iran has a state oil company and Oil Ministry, like Saudi Arabia and virtually all the GCC states in which most up and mid stream development is controlled by the state)
4. But instead of using our apparently obscene levels of influence to... remove sanctions we decide to go to war. Why? PROFIT???!

It is audibly ludicrous to anyone who reads it aloud. Once again though you are avoiding the issue because you do not have an answer.
Click to expand...

Since you have no conception of how Oil Distribution works, I probably can't help you, but you are a perfect example of someone who's been listening to TV for too long. Seek the truth and you will find it, it won't find you. However, I do think you just revealed how the Iraq War started.
 
DaveFagan said:
Since you have no conception of how Oil Distribution works, I probably can't help you, but you are a perfect example of someone who's been listening to TV for too long. Seek the truth and you will find it, it won't find you.
Click to expand...

I work with the energy industry from a legal perspective, and write about the energy industry for academic and analytic institutions in areas which require a healthy understanding of distribution, security, and basic market analysis. I think I have a cursory understanding of how it works.

But I do love the typical conspiracy theorist's rejoinder. "You've been listening to the MEDIA for too long, only I know the truth and I cant help you." It must feel very validating.
 
Perotista said:
I think now, today the vast majority of Americans have put Iraq behind them and don’t care if they were lied to or not. The only ones who care are the very partisan die hard Democrats wanting to continue to tar Bush. Was it faulty intelligence at the time or was the intelligence just read wrong, the analyst had it wrong. We probably should hope they were wrong, it would be mighty easy to hide a bunch of 55 gallon drums in Iraq’s desert that were full of chemical and biological weapons or they got rid of them just prior to the war. To me the Patriot Act seems over kill, Homeland security and TSA, probably needed, but not to the extent these two agencies have become.

The good news is another 9-11 hasn’t happened, but the unanswered question is with the loss of freedom that has been forced upon the citizens in the name of security worth it? As one of the founding fathers said and this is a paraphrase: A citizen who chooses security over liberty, will soon have neither.
Click to expand...

If you will listen to the ravings of Sherman123 you will see that there are still those who don't know they were lied to. I'm a Green, not a Dem. I think the Mass Media has not been held responsible for their culpability in the matter. That means it can happen again. I'd prefer to be able to trust the media as the group working for the citizens of this Nation. remember the "third estate." The current is more like subverting us than informing us.
 
This was the second Iraq war. The first Iraq war achieved an objective and left. The second Iraq war was an explosion of profits. If Saddam was so bad why didn't we take him down and depart? Why are we financing them to this very day? Why have we eroded our honor and hurt so many of us for so little reward?

Vietnam was equally pointless but differently motivated. Maybe we'll figure it out during this century.




ecofarm said:
Yes, because Vietnam was in violation of 17 Chapter 7 UNCRS, had committed genocide twice, sold food causing 400k children to die, fired at enforcement planes in the international no fly zone created to prevent further genocide and pretended to be developing and have WMDs.
Click to expand...
 
DaveFagan said:
If you will listen to the ravings of Sherman123 you will see that there are still those who don't know they were lied to. I'm a Green, not a Dem. I think the Mass Media has not been held responsible for their culpability in the matter. That means it can happen again. I'd prefer to be able to trust the media as the group working for the citizens of this Nation. remember the "third estate." The current is more like subverting us than informing us.
Click to expand...

I think the media as a whole has their own agenda at times. With the stringent control Saddam had over the media in Iraq, there really was no way for them to know if he had WMD's or not. The intelligence folks IMO had a better idea, knew more. Whether the analyst got it right or not, I don't really know. I think what bothered me most in going to war with Iraq, it was our first war of prevention. Iraq hadn't used those weapons yet and IMO, wasn't really a threat to the U.S. In all other wars, the nation we went to war with did something against us. They made the first move. I am still bothered by that some, not so much whether or not WMD existed or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom