old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.
But..... isn't there another point to it: the responsibility to present information that is not verified or disputed as such? For example, if I rely on a single source of information - let's say a defector from somewhere - and subsequently use the information from that source in order to make my point, isn't it my responsibility to say "Well, look, there is some information about this and that" - instead of saying something like "We know for a fact that this is true."
I think that the public, when listening to the president speak, assumes that he wouldn't be saying something if it had not been verified.
Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.
But..... isn't there another point to it: the responsibility to present information that is not verified or disputed as such? For example, if I rely on a single source of information - let's say a defector from somewhere - and subsequently use the information from that source in order to make my point, isn't it my responsibility to say "Well, look, there is some information about this and that" - instead of saying something like "We know for a fact that this is true."
Sometimes on very important issues, one only has evidence which presents a range of probabilities.
So no responsibilities to verify information?
For example, if I state something like that:
Quote:We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
source
Should I mouth something like that without actually verfying it? You know, as President of the United States? Yes? No?
Did the press lie when news of the miners were found alive in West Virginia?
Now this news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195546,00.html
Did they know it wasn't true?
Did they know it was true?
It was an unconfirmed report.
In case this hasn't sunken in with you Brandon, "the truth" is a complex thing, and subject to a good deal of manipulation. So, in fact, McNamara did not willfully lie to the President by making a false statement (he didn't actually say that the destroyers were in international waters when they were fired on on August 4th). He told the President that the destroyers were fired upon in international waters on August 2nd (true), and that they were fired upon again on August 4th (not true, but mistakenly believed by McNamara, as well as the other Naval authorities at Defense). But he did not mention to Johnson that the destroyers were operating in North Vietnamese waters on August 4th. That is what the Catholics call "a sin of omission." He neglected to point out that little detail to the President.
To take the example of the yellow cake story: Bush could in good faith assert that there had been a report that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium in Africa. In that he would have been mistaken, but still telling the truth as he knew it--sort of. But the story was discounted as unreliable before he told it, and his omission of that information could be described as intent to deceive because it was convenient to the agenda upon which he had already determined. The entire Wilson/Plame affair grows out of the assertion by Wilson that Central Intelligence had already discounted the story as being an unreliable report by Italian intelligence sources, which had been shot down by regional experts--Wilson was one of those experts, who had been consulted upon the matter.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.
But..... isn't there another point to it: the responsibility to present information that is not verified or disputed as such? For example, if I rely on a single source of information - let's say a defector from somewhere - and subsequently use the information from that source in order to make my point, isn't it my responsibility to say "Well, look, there is some information about this and that" - instead of saying something like "We know for a fact that this is true."
Sometimes on very important issues, one only has evidence which presents a range of probabilities.
So no responsibilities to verify information?
For example, if I state something like that:
Quote:We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
source
Should I mouth something like that without actually verfying it? You know, as President of the United States? Yes? No?
I am saying that the real world isn't always that neat and precise. On extremely vital questions, it may be, at a given moment in time, impossible to say exactly what is right. You seem to believe that it is always possible to decide an issue to a certainty. In the real world it isn't. The president may have little choice but to act on a potential danger, or else ignore it at our peril.
I am very much afraid that the master Historian, Setanta, is not aware of another presentation concerning the "Uranium" controversy, but he is so erudite and reliable that I am sure that with one or two chosen sentences he will utterly destroy the information below:
I would like an answer from Brandon, McGentrix, Bernard, Foxfyre, Ticomaya, et. al. regarding the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union speech.
Was it or was it not a lie, and why?
Wow, he did destroy it. I can't even see it anymore.
Hook
Bait . . .
Did anything rise?
Oops, no . . . too bad, so sad.
When you copy and paste, have the decency to cite your source, Italgato.
So, three separate inquiries that drew the same conclusion, and the director of the CIA sends a memo to the National Security Advisor about it.
Still think Bush didn't intentionally mislead the American people?
DrewDad wrote:I would like an answer from Brandon, McGentrix, Bernard, Foxfyre, Ticomaya, et. al. regarding the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union speech.
Was it or was it not a lie, and why?
I already gave an answer on this thread. Was it not satisfactory for you, or did you not see it?
When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.
DrewDad- I am very much afraid that you l. did not read my entry about the British Intelligence Uranium report and 2. You did not read Ticomaya's post. Would you be so good to go back to read those entries? Thank you?
You do know, of course, that the Wikipedia source has been criticized for innaccuracies.
