Newsweek Lied, People Died

President Bush wrote:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations

White House transcript of the speech The statement was factually false and continues to be factually false. Is a factually false statement a lie or not?

... It might be a lie, or it might be my incorrect opinion based on the best sources of information I had.

Intrepid wrote:

Curious that people post bumper stickers that Newsweek lied, but still cling to the premise that George W. Bush is sqeaky clean and did not lie

"Newsweek" has admitted that they rushed to judgement. Whether one considers that a lie or not is probably a personal choice. The idea that Bush lied is a mantra of the liberals, but when asked to give examples, all you usually get is some evasive remark that doesn't actually prove anything. The way the liberals usually operate is:

Liberal: Bush lied and everyone knows it by now.
Sane Person: Really? What was the lie? Could you give an example?
Liberal: It's not my fault if you have blinders on.

Refusing to give examples to suppport one's position, although often presented as "I can't help it if you're too stupid to see it," is really nothing more than a forfeit.

So, what was Bush's lie???

parados wrote:

President Bush wrote:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations

White House transcript of the speech The statement was factually false and continues to be factually false. Is a factually false statement a lie or not?

Your question isn't very intelligent, since the answer to it is completely obvious, and not what you say it is. A factually false statement may or may not be a lie. If I go to lunch with friends and say, "Joe will be coming too," but Joe doesn't come. It might be a lie, or it might be my incorrect opinion based on the best sources of information I had.

I would guess that Bush was looking at a lot of intelligence reports from various sources and stating what he believed to be true. It's not as though Iraq has not developed missiles. In 1991 Iraq had 24 Scud launchers and 48 'Al-Hussein' launchers-20 mobile and 28 stationary-and about 400 missiles for these. They had other missiles too. Clearly they did have a development program.

Brandon9000 wrote:

... It might be a lie, or it might be my incorrect opinion based on the best sources of information I had.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

President Bush wrote:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations

White House transcript of the speech The statement was factually false and continues to be factually false. Is a factually false statement a lie or not?

Your question isn't very intelligent, since the answer to it is completely obvious, and not what you say it is. A factually false statement may or may not be a lie. If I go to lunch with friends and say, "Joe will be coming too," but Joe doesn't come. It might be a lie, or it might be my incorrect opinion based on the best sources of information I had.

I would guess that Bush was looking at a lot of intelligence reports from various sources and stating what he believed to be true. It's not as though Iraq has not developed missiles. In 1991 Iraq had 24 Scud launchers and 48 'Al-Hussein' launchers-20 mobile and 28 stationary-and about 400 missiles for these. They had other missiles too. Clearly they did have a development program.

Why is is that you consider your questions intelligent but berate others for theirs? Your guess that Bush was looking at a lot of intelligence reports does not count for anything. Do you guess, or do you know?

And, what is the range of a SCUD missle?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Curious that people post bumper stickers that Newsweek lied, but still cling to the premise that George W. Bush is sqeaky clean and did not lie

"Newsweek" has admitted that they rushed to judgement. Whether one considers that a lie or not is probably a personal choice. The idea that Bush lied is a mantra of the liberals, but when asked to give examples, all you usually get is some evasive remark that doesn't actually prove anything. The way the liberals usually operate is:

Liberal: Bush lied and everyone knows it by now.
Sane Person: Really? What was the lie? Could you give an example?
Liberal: It's not my fault if you have blinders on.

Refusing to give examples to suppport one's position, although often presented as "I can't help it if you're too stupid to see it," is really nothing more than a forfeit.

So, what was Bush's lie???

If you have not seen enough evidence on this and several other threads then it is time that you took your blinders off.

Sane person to Brandon.....I am not a liberal and I am not an American. How many times have you read that too? It's not my fault if you have blinders on and refuse to accept the truth.

He lied about no plans for war being made, using diplomacy, and he had the intel fixed to fit his desire to go to war against Iraq.

No, I won't provide links. If you're too lazy to know what has been published over the last two weeks, you won't likely read what I cite.

Might I submit to you that the Newsweek journalistic "standards" bear close resemblance to the following:

1. The Bush Administration didn't rely on faulty intelligence in its move to depose Saddam Hussein; instead, Bush "lied." 2. Any story from an anonymous source critical of a Republican president, no matter how thinly based or weakly corroborated, must be initially believed as true and may be reported as such if deadlines are close. 3. Any story from an anonymous source critical of a Democratic president must be initially believed as untrue and should only be published out of a fear that some other news organization is going to publish it before you do. 4. Torture of Muslims is a widespread and accepted part of the U.S. military culture. 5. Virtually all of the detainees being held in Guantanamo are innocent and should be immediately released, perhaps with reparations payments for their incarceration. 6. Every action involving the U.S. military under other than a Democratic commander in chief will, within no less than 21 days, become a "quagmire." 7. There is no legitimate reason for the application of U.S. military force overseas under a Republican president until after the nuclear tipped missiles are actually launched. 8. There is no reason not to apply U.S. military force overseas under a Democratic president. 9. Anti-war activists are prone to tell the truth. Military officials are prone to lie. 10. Reporters never lie, unless they work for The Washington Times or the Fox News Channel. 11. America is great because of its government, so long as that government is controlled by Democrats. 12. If the United States government is controlled by Republicans, America is not great. 13. Freedom has nothing to do with America's greatness, no matter who is in control of our government.

Yeah .. I could go on with the list, but you get the idea. Newsweek had a story that could embarrass the Bush Administration and denigrate our military. Under Newsweek's loose standards the story ran. It fit the template ... that template being that any story critical of the Bush administration, our war effort in Afghanistan or Iraq, or our military must be given every benefit of the doubt.

And people died.

dyslexia wrote:

very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not? Well that and does it really matter to anyone?

Actually, the Newsweek quote was accurate. It was received from "a government official" and Newsweek's article was approved in advance of publication by government officials. Apparently, the quoted government official changed his story when the riot sh*t hit the fan. Then the Bush administration took advantage of the situation in an opportunity to attack the hated media and accused Newsweek of publishing a false claim. The only liars in his event were the government officials. The blameless Newsweek took the fall for the government's liars.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

BBB

Very weak argument if the only thing the Bushwackers can say is "Well, since Bush lied, it's OK that Newsweek lied."

The publisher of Newsweek stated that they should not have gone forward with the article, knowing what they know now.

May 17, 2005

Mr. Scott McClellan
Press Secretary
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. McClellan:

I write to express my profound disappointment and outrage about comments you made about a matter involving Newsweek magazine, which smacks of political exploitation of the deaths of innocent and a shameless attempt to intimidate reporters from critically investigating your Administration's actions. Your comments are contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and stand in stark contrast with your actions involving the "Downing Street Memo." I urge you and your counterpart at the Pentagon to immediately retract the comments made yesterday, and - at long last - provide a full accounting of the Administration's actions in the lead up to the Iraq war.

As you are aware, a May 9th Newsweek report indicated that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba flushed the Koran down a toilet as part of an interrogation. Newsweek has since retracted the story. However, as the magazine was reevaluating information received from its sources, it appears you opted to exploit the situation for partisan political gain by falsely laying blame on Newsweek for recent deaths in Afghanistan.

Specifically, at 11:23am yesterday, you declared in a public statement: "his report has had serious consequences. It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad. It has -- people have lost their lives. It has certainly caused damage to the credibility of the media, as well, and Newsweek, itself." The Pentagon spokesman, Larry DiRita, made similar comments. Referring to Newsweek's source, he said "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said." The clear implication of these statements is that the Newsweek report had caused a loss of life in Muslim nations, presumably referring to the recent riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, this attempt to tie riots to the Newsweek article stands in stark contrast to the assessment of your own senior military officials. On May 12th, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff had reported on his consultations with the Senior Commander in Afghanistan about whether there was a causal relationship between the Newsweek story and the riots thusly: "[h]e thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine." The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is that, in contrast to career military officers, political operatives sought to
Mr. Scott McClellan
Page Two
May 17, 2005

score cheap political points by spreading falsehoods about Newsweek. The appropriate course of action is clear: you and Mr. DiRita should immediately retract your exploitative comments.

Second, there is - of course - a sad irony in this White House claiming that someone else's errors or misjudgments led to the loss of innocent lives. Over 1,600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in the Iraq war, a war which your Administration justified by falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. To date, your Administration has consistently blocked Congressional inquiries into whether such claims were the result of intentional manipulation of intelligence or, as you assert, a mere "failure."

Moreover, your loquacious response to this matter stands in stark contrast to your response to a recently released classified memo comprising the minutes of a July 22 meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet which calls into question the credibility of assertions made by your Administration in its drive to war. Among other things the memo indicates that Administration officials were working to ensure that "the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy," implying that intelligence was deliberately manipulated to prop up the case for war. The memo also indicates, contrary to contemporaneous statements to the American people and the Congress that the President had already "made up his mind to take military action." When asked about this memo, you claimed that you "don't know about the specific memo" - two and one half weeks after its release and ten days after receiving a letter detailing its contents from 89 Members of Congress (which has still not been answered).

Third, the public deserves to know what precisely the White House is asserting with respect to the mistreatment of the Koran by interrogators: are such reports categorically false or are they, in the words of one publication, "manifold?" For example, a May1st New York Times report indicated that a Koran was thrown into a pile and stepped on at the Guantanamo detention facility and "[a] former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans." The incident where a Koran was allegedly thrown in a toilet was also recounted by a former detainee in a March 26, 2003 article in the Washington Post, and corroborated by another detainee in a August 4, 2003 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The question is: are you categorically denying that the mistreatment of the Koran occurred, or are you simply denying the Newsweek report is accurate on hyper technical grounds?

Mr. McClellan, the American people have grown tired of the venomous partisanship and lack of candor on the part of this Administration. When taken to task for wrongdoing, a pattern has emerged of this Administration viciously attacking its accusers. The cornerstone of our democracy is an open and accountable government, and the American people deserve answers - not distractions -- today.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

On May 12th, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff had reported on his consultations with the Senior Commander in Afghanistan about whether there was a causal relationship between the Newsweek story and the riots thusly: "[h]e thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

parados wrote:

President Bush wrote:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations

White House transcript of the speech The statement was factually false and continues to be factually false. Is a factually false statement a lie or not?

Your question isn't very intelligent, since the answer to it is completely obvious, and not what you say it is. A factually false statement may or may not be a lie. If I go to lunch with friends and say, "Joe will be coming too," but Joe doesn't come. It might be a lie, or it might be my incorrect opinion based on the best sources of information I had.

I would guess that Bush was looking at a lot of intelligence reports from various sources and stating what he believed to be true. It's not as though Iraq has not developed missiles. In 1991 Iraq had 24 Scud launchers and 48 'Al-Hussein' launchers-20 mobile and 28 stationary-and about 400 missiles for these. They had other missiles too. Clearly they did have a development program.

And what was Newsweeks intent if it wasn't an intense desire to publish a story that would embarrass the Bush Administration? I don't think they lied any more than Bush lied. If they knew the story was false, however, then they lied. If they just weren't sure, and were only relying on an unnamed "senior government official, it was just sloppy reporting, which calls into question their journalistic standards.

My god, you Republicans are dense.

If you look at the actual statement made by Newsweek, they said that their source can't remember which document he read about the abuse in. That's not the same as lying, that's not the same as saying it didn't happen. There are several different reports of Koran abuse that have come out from different sources; Newsweek just printed a story about it, is all!

You people need to realize that it isn't Newsweek who is responsible for the violence over there, but our Draconian prisoner practices! But hush up, noone should talk about anything that might make people mad at America, oh no.

You people are absolutely amazing me. You'd rather supress free speech than find out the truth; this is truly a dangerous time for our country.

Cycloptichorn

woiyo wrote:

Very weak argument if the only thing the Bushwackers can say is "Well, since Bush lied, it's OK that Newsweek lied."

The publisher of Newsweek stated that they should not have gone forward with the article, knowing what they know now.

[/b]

Perhaps this is what George Bush should have done when he was proven wrong about the WMD's