An important point is that Moore's definition of a lie (to be wrong) is how Democrats will be judged. They had their chance and it was their obligation as public figures to denounce Moore if they didn't agree with his standard. Embrace Moore and you embrace his standards. Now lets see if the Democrats can live up to them.

Repealing the AUMF means we never invaded Iraq and no soldiers died fighting there right? If not, then repealing the AUMF is just another level of stupidity aspired to by Democrats.

Doesn't matter Jay.

If the wingnuts want to believe the "Bush Lied" meme, all the facts in the world won't change their mind. "Bush Lied" is their alpha and omega. It is the lodestone of their universe. It is the ultimate truth on which everything else exists. It is the ultimate confession of faith and truth. It is their religion and they are its priests.

To quote H. Beam Piper, "you cannot argue religion with a priest."

A key to understanding this is to understand the effectiveness of Desert Fox and the reasons the Bush administration chose to disregard the intel on it. Why they chose to disregard their own inspectors, their own State Department. The easy answer was ABC, anything but Clinton, if a report or intel came from a Clinton era person it was thrown out.

To get the full depravity of this you have to read Thomas Ricks book "Fiasco" and Peter Galbraiths, "The End of Iraq"

also

"Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" by Rajiv Chandrasekara

These guys were all there as it happened.

If there was no lying then why the desperate measures to conceal.

A third possibility is that Bush was not lying because he was not wrong.

We know from satelite that many trucks left Iraq for Syria prior to the US going in.

We have heard the former #2 in the Iraq air force tell us that many yellow barrels were flown to Syria in commercial planes with the seats removed.

We have heard from a Syrian defector and journalists where the Iraqi WMD are hidden.

We know that Saddam had lots of WMD - indeed Clinton tried to bomb them - and no evidence that they were destroyed.

Moved to Syria is the best explaination so far.

Wow, lava, that explains so much. Why Bush didn't keep a single Clinton administration official on as a holdover. Why he fired every single US attorney as soon as he got into office. Why he spent so much time blaming Clinton for everything that went wrong.

At least, that's what happened in your little fantasy world, isn't it?

J.

A key to understanding this is to understand the effectiveness of Desert Fox and the reasons the Bush administration chose to disregard the intel on it. Why they chose to disregard their own inspectors, their own State Department. The easy answer was ABC, anything but Clinton, if a report or intel came from a Clinton era person it was thrown out.

Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD and said so while in office and after. If your "anything but Clinton" theory was correct then Bush would have claimed there were no WMD regardless of all the evidence and consensus for WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq. To this day stockpiles of WMD known to exist after GW1 have never been accounted for. Did Saddam destroy them, move them out of Iraq, or are they still hidden in Iraq? The answer that they never existed is known to be false.

I would add the whole "should have listened to the generals" argument to that this subject.

There is no business in the world that will launch a new initiative with absolutely every person in perfect agreement. For PR purposes, staff may "say" they are in agreement, but they aren't. Inevitably people of good faith can look at the same information and can come to different interpretations. Then, you have those staff who - angry at being passed over for the leadership role will take a contrary view and and engage in "I told you so" at the first opportunity.

The Kuwait invasion was in 1991 - technology has changed greatly since then everywhere including the battlefield. The military itself had undergone an extreme change in the intervening years due to Clinton era cost cutting measures. (A nephew took twice as long as expected around 1999 & 2000 to finish flight training because the facility lacked the equipment to do the whole class at once.)

Added to the mix was the issue was the reluctance to "look" like an invasion force.

So, at the beginning of the war, the generals DID make a decision based on technology, equipment availability, and mission goals. Not all the generals agreed but no one could logially expect that they would.

Hindsight being 20/20, I would hope and expect some lessons were learned by the military that will be incorporated into future ventures.

One thing not demonstrated, however, was that anyone else's plan would have been the "perfect one". Nonetheless, we were treated to the myth that "Bush didn't listen to his generals" for several years.

Until the most recent election ..... Now, we are in the midst of the surge. Before the surge was authorized, I had a major news magazine delivered to my home with a cover story headline of "Why the surge won't work". Despite virtually no opposition to his appointment and some concrete evidence that the surge is working, the general who was the architect of the surge has seen nothing but criticism from those who claim that "we should listen to the generals".

Apparently, what they really mean is that we should listen to the "other generals" - the one who have no authority to implement their plan nor accountability for anything going wrong.

Those people aren't making a good faith effort to make this situation work - they are more concerned about maintaining their "rightness" option.

Unfortunately the left and most of the lefty commenters here are a one trick pony. "Bush Lied." It is a bore. Their hatred is immense. I have said before, Iraq has nothing to do with it. The 2000 election does. That is the genesis of their hatred and inablility to discuss or debate. Tragic. So many potential good minds going to waste. ww

paying the price for the Clintons and their Criminal team "Clintonista" for failed attempt to steal an election. Democrats have ran on hate and lies ever since. They will never run just by being honest or by merit. Mrs. BJ Clinton proves that once again by redefining the word liberal and reinventing herself as a "PROGRESSIVE". They just cannot be honest about what they are , lying criminal frauds.

Moore's assertion that you can lie unintentionally is utterly ridiculous and contrary to the primary definition of the word -- which raises the question of whether Moore himself is lying when he makes the claim -- or whether he is simply a bullshitter, which is arguably worse, as Professor Frankfurt explains at the link.

Don't forget that most democratic leaders were asking for more troops. We just sent them in and now they say we lost. The left keeps changing the goal posts. They keep changing the rules. NO core values. Unfortunately at this stage, I totally disregard anything they say, because next week they will have a new plan that they will be equally convinced is the best one. Oh, and I wouldn't pay any mind to Jim, he is a one trick pony. ww

Jay:

And their refusal to actually do the one thing that would put some teeth to their words speaks volumes: they don't want to actually take a stand to end this "illegal, immoral, based-on-lies, fraudulent war," but just want to look like they're doing something.

They don't want to 'own' the war, niether do they want to 'own' the consequences if they end the war and hundreds of thousands die as a direct result.

So they're trying to maneuver and swerve and snipe to achieve what they're too afraid to stand for.

If any credence is to be given to Congress' poll numbers, I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

wavemaker:

Moore's assertion that you can lie unintentionally is utterly ridiculous and contrary to the primary definition of the word -- which raises the question of whether Moore himself is lying when he makes the claim --

This is despite the fact that his "documentaries" are replete with inaccuracies, misinformation and deliberate distortions. He's essentially discrediting himself (as if that was necessary).

No one learns anything by always being right, and Moore would have us believe that not being right makes you a liar. This skewed theory on lying incriminates everyone who can, or ever has spoken.

I love how all you guys forget that inspecters were on the ground. They had conducted hundreds of inspections and submitted a handful of reports with the last ones indicating almost no violations and cooperation by the Iraqis. Therefore there was no need:
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq (because there were none)

And
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq. (because the Iraqis were not violating the resolutions at the time of the invasion)

You can argue that what the Bushies said in the summer and fall of 2001 to be in good faith or you can say they cherry picked the information, but there is no doubt that Bush rushed us into war when there was no imminent danger and no signs of stock piles or weapon programs.

"there is no doubt that Bush rushed us into war"

This is another great lefty talking point. How exactly does 12 plus years of putting up with stonewalling and sanction busting equal a "rush" to war?

BG, I do not remember a rush. I remember a very slow presentation to the UN and a long wait for another (19) resolution. Then the congress debated the issue to approve the Iraq war and I recall a number of democrats giving a very hardy yea vote.
I also guess the many attempts at getting our fighting jets in the no fly zone was just Saddam "playing around." Admit it, our representative government approved this war. We own it. All of us. That is the way it works. Oh! I know. GW Bush is not your president because you didn't vote for him. You are the pre 9/11, 2000 election hating liberal that I talked about earlier. Your opinion for the most part is irrelevent. Sorry. ww

I got nothing, Jay. You're right on all counts. The first time I even looked at the John Doe provision issue was prompted by kim's comment on this thread, and I read the text of the amendment. My thoughts on the Senate Democrats' actions on the provision were brief:

Yeah, that was dumb. The good faith & reasonable suspicion provision was in there.

And it is. If someone reports suspicious activities in bad faith, they can still be sued. The Democrats were pandering to the "we see race in everything" constituency.

On the other hand, I don't think it will make much difference one way or the other regarding whether people will report suspicious activity, so I didn't pay much attention to it. I'm always annoyed with myself when I get into a protracted back and forth with other commenters and after a while I realize the issue we're debating doesn't matter to me anyway.

Regarding the war votes, I agree again. I have much more respect for those who opposed it from the beginning, as I did. I have even more respect for them if they were against it not for reasons of illegality or immorality, but because it was a bad idea. Sure Saddam's regime needed to end, and sure there was plenty of justification to end it, but it was just an impractical proposition, and in the end I think it set us back in the fight against terrorism, instead of moving it forward. Sure the administration were pretty full of shit regarding nuclear activities in Iraq, but that's not exactly Gulf of Tonkin stuff, and Saddam had pursued nukes in the past. I remember before the inspectors went in and people started talking about removing Saddam; my first thought was "then what?" Too bad we had to find out.

Oh wait, one thing. I'm pretty sure I saw the interview Synova did, and I'm pretty sure that Moore said it's a lie if you don't believe it's the truth when you say it, and that even a 7 year old would know that.

Ok, found the interview with Moore. I was wrong, Synova, but he didn't really say what you put forth either. He really seems to be saying that the "bad information" excuse is a lie as well (a lie like a seven year old would tell).

MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don't know a worse...

O'REILLY: It wasn't a lie.

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that...

O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question...

MOORE: "Mom and Dad it was just bad information..."

O'REILLY: I'm not going to get you to admit it wasn't a lie. Go ahead.

MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question.

"Rushing us into war" would mean missiles launched on 9/12.

Let's not kid ourselves. Many Americans wanted it ... more would have understood it .... and some were even furious that they weren't launched the next day.

Afghanistan is generally considered to the be 'just war' ... even many of those who oppose Iraq say that they can support Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, there was no massive airstrike launched on 9/12. We had two aircraft carriers in the region and could have launched an impressive and deadly attack on Afghanistan within hours. (Why two aircraft carriers? The Carl Vinson relieved the Enterprise on 9/10 in their previouls scheduled rotation.)

Certain processes were begun in case they were needed, obviously, but President Bush still gave the Taliban the option to cooperate first. I don't particularly like the guy, but his restraint under those circumstances (when he probably would have had greater public support) is one of the things he's done that I admire.

As to Iraq, I am constantly amused at the "adjusted" memory that it requires to call that war "rushed". In addition to the points already covered, people seem to 'forget' that Hussein hadn't 'embraced' the inspectors nor was he in the mood to repent. Only after 100,000 or so troops were parked on his border did he suddenly get in the mood to come clean ... or so he said. Even then, he was given a window of opportunity to put up or shut up and missed it.

"I believe that Bush acted in good faith,"

That's your perogative, Jay.

I had been of that opinion, but subsequent
events and WH behaviors have convinced me
that just like the "Gut Feeling' of Cherthoff
regarding future attacks on the US, gut feeling is not enough, because when you have such instincts, all you do is look for
evidence supporting that feeling.

There was a drive to go 'five-by-five' and
no one was going to convince the WH of anything
they had not already predetermined on Iraq.

And if 'good intentions' is the best thing you can say in defense of this President remember,
it's the cheapest of the virtues.

The United States should hunt down the $10 per month Private that managed to destroy the WMD without leaving any trace evidence. Currently we are spending billions of dollars in an attempt to destroy our own WMD and it has been and will be a long project. Just think how much that Private could save the taxpayers. Enough to pay the democrats welfare for a day of so. Everytime I hear someone say there was not WMD I back off from that person. Insanity is not catching (is it?, it's spread throughout the democrat party, but that could be drug induced insanity) but people suffering long term insanity are truly dangerous.

Regarding the war votes, I agree again. I have much more respect for those who opposed it from the beginning, as I did. I have even more respect for them if they were against it not for reasons of illegality or immorality, but because it was a bad idea. Sure Saddam's regime needed to end, and sure there was plenty of justification to end it, but it was just an impractical proposition, and in the end I think it set us back in the fight against terrorism, instead of moving it forward.

Manits:

I think that you have touched on an issue that probably should be it's own topic.

When should intevention into the internal policies of another country be used for humanitarian purposes? After Rwanda, people said "never again", but did they mean it?

I can respect those who say "Yes, Hussein was a murderous tyrant, but it isn't the US's job to stop murderous tyrants". I would expect those people to also have opposed Bosnia and to oppose intervention in Darfur now.

There are many things that we may want to do for others but we must ask if we can do those things and at what cost.

It's when the same politicians call one such intervention laudable but another a disaster that I start to question their motives. Even some of those who debated last night and think we should be out of Iraq suggested involvement in Darfur last night. Does anyone really think that 2500 troops will "solve" Darfur?

I really do wish that we - as a nation - would have an honest and open debate about our role as the "superpower" and what that means. That debate, should IMO include the same honesty in discussing the United Nations and its role as well.

At an earlier time in the interview, he seems to say Bush believed what he was saying, but still lying:

O'REILLY: [ed]...This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious...

MOORE: Well, that's almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test...

O'REILLY: All right, now you're dancing around a question...

MOORE: No, I'm not. There's no dancing.

O'REILLY: He didn't lie.

MOORE: He said something that wasn't true.

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.

MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn't listen to anybody.

O'Reilly then corners Moore and gets him running in circles over it:

O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, "President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, 'slam dunk.'" If you're the president, you ignore all that?

MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O'REILLY: I agree. Tenet was fired.

MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.

O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...

MOORE: OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a "slam dunk" and your going to go to war.

O'REILLY: You've got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they're all saying the same thing that's why. You're not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

...then the interview continues with what mantis blockquoted, with Moore calling him a liar.

Even despite him being confronted and showing he was wrong in his thinking, he just goes back to saying "Bush Lied".

I guess "Bush was mistaken, people died" just doesn't have the same bumpersticker-y ring to it.

Since Synova summarized what was said altogether, I think the gist remains that Moore mistakenly ended up saying you are lying even if you think you have the truth.

Maybe now instead instead of "LIAR!" we can say "MISINFORMED!" since it's now the same thing.

Notice that jim wanted to distill the entire discussion into accusations of lying. He wanted to be called a liar so that he could act indignant and escape from having to defend his position. And that he would repeat his misrepresentations of the amendment, even in the face of the clear and unambiguous language.

Mantis,

My apologies for screwing up the paragraph above that was your quote.

Can anyone tell me how do you put those in boxes again?

Never mind. I figured out my mistake.

I revisited the thread and noticed that jim reduced his whole argument to once again misrepresenting the amendment and calling us all racists. I reported the comment and will no longer deal with him as an honest commenter.

Of course Robin, jim's entire argument is based on his belief that the immams were targeted because of their RACE and that we are all reactionist racists, instead of the truth, which is that they were targeted based on their ACTIONS.

Not surprising since the demacratic party are the biggist benifactors from these greedy trial lawyers then the demaccrats wonder why their polls are falling

Cheap, maybe, but necessary, Cleo.
======================

Since Synova summarized what was said altogether, I think the gist remains that Moore mistakenly ended up saying you are lying even if you think you have the truth.

Now that I've read more of it (I jumped to the seven year-old part), that does seem to be the