Talk:Deceit

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aulis Eskola (Talk | contribs) at 20:53, 3 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit"

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is your blog, basically, on the issues you hold dear. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the BayGulf of Tonkin lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. Human 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.
Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. Timppeli 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the warning, Timppeli, but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "encyclopedia" that backs up this blog. Human 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

Middle Man

Liberals here protest too much about this entry on deceit. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.
Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --Gulik2 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. Human 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Examples

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --Mtur 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? RobS 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. RobS 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[1], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --Mtur 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Paul Wolfowitz

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003[1] --Mtur 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

What a joke! Click on this one [2] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present this as an example of deceit? A little disengenous, don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of deceit ? RobS 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The Vanity Fair interview transcript shows quite clearly:

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- Hold on one second.
(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --Mtur 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:
Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?
Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.
Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --
Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.
Comments? RobS 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
Wolfowitz then said "The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation." -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read this Newsweek Article
But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”
(a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
Thus, the questions to answer:
  • Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [3]
    • Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
  • Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
  • Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
--Mtur 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, et al, have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.
The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting both Saddam and al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.
As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.
Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. RobS 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,"There have always been three fundamental concerns.

  • One is weapons of mass destruction,
  • the second is support for terrorism,
  • the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [4] RobS 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Jack Abramoff

Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --Mtur 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. Jrssr5 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman

There is growing evidence[5] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --Mtur 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Can deceit be conservative?

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. Flippin 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents, again

What a ridiculous concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. People are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--PalMDtalk 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My viewpoint

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

Andy...?!

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-AmesGyo! 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.
Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of your arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not legal fact with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-AmesGyo! 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Freud

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? AKjeldsen 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? Czolgolz 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

And, of course, the page is locked.

Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --Gulik2 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... Flippin 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-AmesGyo! 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --Aulis Eskola 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

References

  1. U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The writer of the article referenced is "Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online." Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?

-- Rob Pommertalk 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Is it available online? RobS 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as we're listing lies....

How about The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds? Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --Gulik2 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. Flippin 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps we could add Ted Haggard. At least he admitted he was a deceiver. Auld Nick 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, Alger Hiss denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. RobS 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-AmesGyo! 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's In Denial for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by Venona evidence,
"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought. [6]
There is no comparison. RobS 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-AmesGyo! 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --Jtl 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Not that anyone asked

But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. Downing Street Memo Flippin 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)