White House retreating from WMD Claims...

[headscratcher4]

Yet again...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20040126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons

Hmmm...and last week the V.P. was saying the evidence was "overwhelming..." Overwhelmingly bad, apparently....

But don't worry, they'll resurect the claims next week and people will have forgotten again...

[a_unique_person]

So, what was the war all about then?

[Clancie]

Posted by A Unique Person

So, what was the war all about then?

a). Getting rid of a dangerous man who might attack other countries in the Middle East again someday, with or without the WMD.....

b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")

c) To debut the new "Bush Doctrine"...namely, that there's only one superpower in the world now, the "Balance of Power" is a thing of the past, and the US will do whatever the h*ll it wants to, wherever it wants to, and the rest of the world's opinions and ideas don't matter at all.....

d) Getting rid of some of our huge, unused military stockpile so that we can stimulate new military spending, contracts and weapons R&D....

e) All of the above. :(

[Zep]

Clancie, I agree with all your points on this.

And in which case, I'm pretty sure that, with even a modicum of careful thought, point (a) could have been achieved with a completely different strategy that would have been way lower cost in all respects, and would have had every neighbour and ally and the UN cheering the USA along.

What a pity...

[Mr Manifesto]

Human Rights Watch: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention (http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952)

So, the United States had to drop everything and go to war with Iraq, without UN support, because of some things the Iraqi government did in the past?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, what was the war all about then?

For fear of agreeing with Rikzilla :), there are plenty of potentially good reasons to go to war with Iraq.

However, the war was justified and sold to the public based on seemingly spurious claims of WMD. That's the shame of this administration - Rik's done a better job of selling the war than they have.

[SRW]

What will come out of this is the fact that U.S. intelligence has got become dependant on satellite and other electronic techniques. And do not have the human intelligence on the ground to correctly evaluate the situation.

The message coming from Kay is that Saddam was being deceived by his own people and was led to believe that the WMD did exist, but that they were doing a great Job of hiding it. In the Last few Years Saddam was much like Hitler at the end of WW2, ordering attacks by non-existent army and the use of super weapons that did not exist.

[a_unique_person]

IIRC, it was the intelligence community that was saying they had no proof, and they are over-ridden by the White House that manipulated the information to be regarded as proof.

No wonder Colin Powell has already decided not to continue in his role.

[Zep]

To be honest, GWB himself seems to be but a mindless puppet of more sinister forces behind him. I know, I know, it sounds like some 3rd-rate conspiracy theory, but the opinion of the majority of us here in the rest of the world is that GWB hasn't a brain to bless himself with. Truly, he's a dummy in all senses of the word.

Which begs the question: If GWB didn't understand, decide and plan to take the USA into the Middle East, who did?

[sorgoth]

Zep, I agree.

It just seems like there were some really inteligent things done during the Bush administration, and it doesn't seem like they were done by Bush.

Edited to clarify: I don't think what they did was intelligent, I think what they did was done intelligently. There, that states my opinion a bit better. Swaying the majority of the american public to their side was one amazing feat.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

That's the shame of this administration - Rik's done a better job of selling the war than they have.

Yep. That's about my 2-bit opinion on the matter. It isn't so much the larger issue of whether Iraq should be invaded, it's just that the administration has been so inept at doing it, from justification to it seems sofar, execution.

They seem like a bunch of amateurs that have gotten into something they don't understand, counting on some unseen force or support to make everything alright.

I have a feeling if in 1000 years the human race survives this current madness and outgrows the need for gods and so forth, the Bush administration will be another example of the harmful effects of blind faith.

They invaded a country with not enough of an army for an overwhelming occupation, and without bothering to master the intricacies of the culture of the people we are helping. Like God will make everything work because he loves America or something. Just amazing.

(Now that's a rant. Notice the lack of footnotes(1).)


(1) Except this one.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Clancie


a). Getting rid of a dangerous man who might attack other countries in the Middle East again someday, with or without the WMD.....

Yes.

Originally posted by Clancie
b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")

Ridiculously false. a, 2003 was not an election year. b, Failed policy in Afghanistan? By who's definition, other than yours? BTW, note this news today?

President Bush praised U.S. intelligence agencies Monday for their role in the capture of a key al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

"Hasan Ghul reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks," Bush told an audience of health care workers at Baptist Hospital.

Source: al queda capture in iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/sprj.nirq.bush.qaeda/index.html)

Originally posted by Clancie
c) To debut the new "Bush Doctrine"...namely, that there's only one superpower in the world now, the "Balance of Power" is a thing of the past, and the US will do whatever the h*ll it wants to, wherever it wants to, and the rest of the world's opinions and ideas don't matter at all.....

Perhaps.

Originally posted by Clancie
d) Getting rid of some of our huge, unused military stockpile so that we can stimulate new military spending, contracts and weapons R&D....

Wrong again.

[Zep]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Zep, I agree.

It just seems like there were some really inteligent things done during the Bush administration, and it doesn't seem like they were done by Bush.

Edited to clarify: I don't think what they did was intelligent, I think what they did was done intelligently. There, that states my opinion a bit better. Swaying the majority of the american public to their side was one amazing feat.
And it's just so frustrating to see a good friend doing silly things too.

I'll state my position again here: Saddam was a VERY BAD guy and needed to be gotten rid of ASAP. However I would suggest that there were many much more "intelligent" ways of getting rid of him that would have had the world cheering the USA instead of rolling their eyes in exasperation. And the US forces were well capable of achieving them too. It would have been a piece of cake...but it would NOT have been good TV or publicity for GWB.

There's no doubt that US intelligence services are good, and they had most of it spot-on (no WMD's, etc, etc) well beforehand. After all, they had had about 10 years to get all the satellite photos and stuff they would ever need. The problem is that it seemed just so obvious that the "intelligence" did not filter to the commander-in-chief. The impression is that his entourage was the blockage point, and that the data were actually altered significantly in a clear effort to create a different "intelligence" that would allow an excuse to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway.

Yes, the American public was swayed to some extent, but that's because they usually believe their own media implicitly (Australians are usually much more cynical of news media - it's a tough game here!). And if the US media wanted to survive, they needed the "big" stories like Iraq. And if they wanted access to those, they had to play ball with the playground bully by HIS rules... In other words, it was your basic propaganda routine.

Perhaps the best example of all this was the laff-a-minute "Christmas turkey" routine. Here, that was seen as a preposterous bit of political re-election strutting by the Reps at the expense of the troops sent to do the dirty work. Truly gag-making, no "glory" in it at all.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by BTox
President Bush praised U.S. intelligence agencies Monday for their role in the capture of a key al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

"Hasan Ghul reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks," Bush told an audience of health care workers at Baptist Hospital.

Source: al queda capture in iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/sprj.nirq.bush.qaeda/index.html)


Nice one, BTox. Way to not mention this: "The U.S. official continues: "He’s very high up in the al-Qaeda food chain ... He was just coming into the country, we think probably to foment trouble—but he didn’t quite get the opportunity. The Kurds got him and turned him over us.""

So the war was justified because months after "Mission Accomplished," an Al-Qaeda operative came into Iraq to cause trouble? Five hundred Coalition servicemembers killed, five thousand wounded, and nearly ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead just so we can catch someone coming into Iraq after the fact?

[Ladewig]

It might be more accurate to say White House press secretary retreating from WMD claims. It was only last week that Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Saddam would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question by saying "So what's the difference?"

As for reasons for the war, I might add the need to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia yet still have a permanent base in the region.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Nice one, BTox. Way to not mention this: "The U.S. official continues: "He’s very high up in the al-Qaeda food chain ... He was just coming into the country, we think probably to foment trouble—but he didn’t quite get the opportunity. The Kurds got him and turned him over us.""

So the war was justified because months after "Mission Accomplished," an Al-Qaeda operative came into Iraq to cause trouble? Five hundred Coalition servicemembers killed, five thousand wounded, and nearly ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead just so we can catch someone coming into Iraq after the fact?

Well, one thing is for sure. Hasan Ghul wasn't being harbored by Saddam when he was captured. Come to think of it, he was being harbored by the coalition forces. Since pro-war folks have previously liked to use the presence of any Al Qaeda people in the country prior to the war as evidence of Saddam supporting terrorism, then by the same logic, the coalitions forces are guilty of supporting terrorism. After all, they control the country now, so it's their fault.

[Tmy]

I think alot of people owe Hans blix an apology (Bill Oreilly comes to mind) Everyone used to goof on him cause he couldnt find any WMD, even though we all knew they were under every rock in Iraq.

I guess he wasnt so incompetent. He who laughs last.....

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ladewig
It might be more accurate to say White House press secretary retreating from WMD claims. It was only last week that Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Saddam would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question by saying "So what's the difference?"


Ah, someone else caught this as well.

Is he seriously suggesting that there isn't a difference between a leader who has a supply chemical or nuclear weapons capable of use and someone who would like to get them? If that is the case, doesn't that make pretty much every ruler in the world a threat? Except maybe the one from New Zealand, I guess.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ladewig

As for reasons for the war, I might add the need to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia yet still have a permanent base in the region.
We have a winner here. A pipeline to Turkey via Iraq has actual realworld significance. That, and the Afghan-Pakistan pipeline route to the Arabian Ocean, make good geopolitical and economic sense for the US.-- and for everyone else except the Arab oil baron/states.

Ras Tanura, and the Straits, are too problematical to bet ones life on with no oil supply backup.

Just my 2cts ....

[headscratcher4]

IT seems to me, the more I reflect upon this, that a couple of issues emerge.

First, I actually don't blame the President to the extent that the inteligence was wrong or faulty. If the CIA tells the President something is a threat, the President must respond. I may disagree with the response -- but to the extent they had better information than I do, obviously they are better able to assess it an act in the national interest.

However, to the extent that the information is wrong and shown to be wrong, than the President owes it to the country to take action. One, admit it was wrong. Two, explain why it was wrong -- i.e. mistakes happen, it was done with the best intentions; the bums at the CIA mislead me.

This later one requires that people be fired. THat CIA information be considered in a new light, and that our intelegence gathering methods be re-assessed and potentially changed.

However, if it is the CIA's fault, they left the Presiedent, Powell, Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc. as sitting ducks before global opinion, and they will never be trusted again (if they ever were...not to mention what it has done to our ally Tony BLair's credibilty). We will have a much harder time on the world stage now making our anti-terror case, if our inteligence is so faulty, and if no one pays a price for misleading the leadership.

On the other hand, if --and this seems more likely to me -- the Administration deliberately forced the inteligence to fit their own ends, silenced credible analysis that conflicted with their pre-conceived ideas and intentions -- the Bay of Pigs Group-think syndrom -- than they deserve to be booted from office.

Yes, Saddam is a bad man, but that isn't the reason we told the world we were invading...we told the world we had to go now because he posed an immenent threat. He didn't...save to his own people.

My point is that 500+ American service men are now dead acting as part of a force used to forstall an attack on the US...an allegation premised on an error or worse a lie. Where is the accountability?

Who is going to be held responsible not for the mistake in the information, but for letting our President go before the Congress and the world in perpetuating a lie?

Methinks there is no honor left. Those who allowed this to happen should stop spinning about how Saddam is evil and trying to figure out new reasons that were sub-rosa but never really talked about -- and resign.

Or, the US people should throw the bums out.

[Crossbow]

Within the last few days here at JREF it seemed like the thing for some of the pro-war types to was blame the staffers for lying to Bush, who in turn, lied to everyone else.

However, there was an item on NPR on their last news break where David Kay flat out said that they had no evidence of Iraqi WMDs prior to the war.

So again, it gets back to Bush being a liar.

[Michael Redman]

The administration told the CIA exactly what they wanted, even going so far as to send the VP down to CIA to personally intimidate analysts. Now they're pretending that the CIA gave then an honest opinion, but screwed up.

This adminstation also outed a CIA agent because they were mad at her husband.

This administration is doing terrible damage to our intelligence infrastructure. We're going to pay dearly in the future, I'm afraid.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow

So again, it gets back to Bush being a liar.
Yup. Damn politicians.

I'm glad Saddam The Madman no longer receives oil-bidness size revenues. AgitProp will always be part of the arsenal in the old public opinion game. (Especially useful for democrats who need to sample the wind every few moments to find out what their opinion is.)

I also like the fact that US troops are boots-on-the-ground next to our "buddies" -- Saudis in particular -- and Syria, Yemen, etal please take note as Libya already has.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Within the last few days here at JREF it seemed like the thing for some of the pro-war types to was blame the staffers for lying to Bush, who in turn, lied to everyone else.

However, there was an item on NPR on their last news break where David Kay flat out said that they had no evidence of Iraqi WMDs prior to the war.

So again, it gets back to Bush being a liar.


Funny thing, I saw Kay this morning on Today, say that he believed that there were WMD, prior to the war. (He thought they were there prior to the war)

I would wonder where NPR got that statement.

After seeing the entire interview this morning I would say that Kay would disagree with your assessment that Bush lied.


(edited for clarification)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by SRW



Funny thing, I saw Kay this morning on Today, say that he believed that there were WMD prior to the war.

I would wonder where NPR got that statement.

After seeing the entire interview this morning I would say that Kay would disagree with your assessment that Bush lied.

Well I am sure that Kay would not call Bush a liar, but then again I do not have worry about Bush giving me a job reference either.

And yes, Iraq did have WMDs prior to the war: that is provided one is prepared to the call the things they had over ten years prior to war as WMDs.

However, if you will take a peek at the NPR report, then I think you will see my point.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1615880

Iraq Arms Inspector Casts Doubt on WMD Claims
Kay's Stance Differs with White House View of Situation in Iraq

Jan. 25, 2004 -- David Kay, who recently resigned as head of the U.S. group searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, now says he doesn't think stockpiles of such weapons existed. He no longer believes that Iraq had a large-scale production program in the 1990s.

The Bush administration disagrees, and stands by its previous assessments.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
IT seems to me, the more I reflect upon this, that a couple of issues emerge.

First, I actually don't blame the President to the extent that the inteligence was wrong or faulty. If the CIA tells the President something is a threat, the President must respond. I may disagree with the response -- but to the extent they had better information than I do, obviously they are better able to assess it an act in the national interest.

Ah,...life in a perfect world! :) This is how it's supposed to work. I'm even willing to bet it works this way 90% of the time. The problem comes in when we have a failure. Failures get alot of notice. The successes aren't very news worthy. After all, this is the same CIA that mistook the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for a command and control structure. The same CIA that told Clinton to bomb the Sudanese supply of asprin.

However, to the extent that the information is wrong and shown to be wrong, than the President owes it to the country to take action. One, admit it was wrong. Two, explain why it was wrong -- i.e. mistakes happen, it was done with the best intentions; the bums at the CIA mislead me.

Sounds reasonable,...Kennedy fired the CIA director and several deputy directors after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Nowadays the military runs covert military ops, just like they should. I would support such a re-ordering of CIA, if it made sense like the response to the Bay of Pigs failure. That's a big if though. I would never support reform if it's based on nothing more than some knee-jerk reaction to the WMD debacle. Besides, CIA isn't alone in this. We also should wonder what No Such Agency was up to prior to the Iraq invasion. But don't hold your breath. Clinton never removed anyone over the Sudan mis-information. Also, if heads did roll @ CIA, would the replacement heads be more or less willing to give advice? It could have a chilling effect on information....the last thing we need right now.

This later one requires that people be fired. THat CIA information be considered in a new light, and that our intelegence gathering methods be re-assessed and potentially changed.
Agreed

However, if it is the CIA's fault, they left the Presiedent, Powell, Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc. as sitting ducks before global opinion, and they will never be trusted again (if they ever were...not to mention what it has done to our ally Tony BLair's credibilty). We will have a much harder time on the world stage now making our anti-terror case, if our inteligence is so faulty, and if no one pays a price for misleading the leadership.

Maybe. No doubt this bad intel was harmful to our credibility. If it could all be laid at the feet of CIA then our buddy Tony'd be off the hook. However, I doubt it was as simple as that. Saddam was considered WMD armed and dangerous by a large number of credible experts, Iraqi defectors, and a bipartisan majority of politicians. Saddam's constant harrassment and blockage of UNSCOM inspections seemed to bolster the WMD case.

On the other hand, if --and this seems more likely to me -- the Administration deliberately forced the inteligence to fit their own ends, silenced credible analysis that conflicted with their pre-conceived ideas and intentions -- the Bay of Pigs Group-think syndrom -- than they deserve to be booted from office.
Well, unless they demonstrablly broke the law, "booted from office" isn't an option. Except at the polls of course ;) It's possible they had a little bit of good old conformation bias going on,...but they're people. People will always make those kinds of mistakes.

Yes, Saddam is a bad man, but that isn't the reason we told the world we were invading...we told the world we had to go now because he posed an immenent threat. He didn't...save to his own people.

Maybe not, but I feel better now that he's gone. I bet the Iraqi people do to, not to mention the Kurds, Israelis, Kuwaitis, Iranians, and Saudis.

My point is that 500+ American service men are now dead acting as part of a force used to forstall an attack on the US...an allegation premised on an error or worse a lie. Where is the accountability?
Well, I think we can all agree that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Therefore a good deed....and we all know that good deeds never go unpunished. :rolleyes: But what you are really saying here is more awful, that 512 soldiers, so far, have died in vain. If this were really true there'd be a groundswell of support for the removal of GWB. So far I don't see it. If this is how the Dems think they'll regain the White House, they're going to have to be a whole lot more convincing.

Who is going to be held responsible not for the mistake in the information, but for letting our President go before the Congress and the world in perpetuating a lie?
Good question. If such a person exists then they should be hung out to dry, however I doubt it's just one person. I also doubt that the hunt for a scapegoat will have any real meaning.

Methinks there is no honor left. Those who allowed this to happen should stop spinning about how Saddam is evil and trying to figure out new reasons that were sub-rosa but never really talked about -- and resign.

Or, the US people should throw the bums out.

Honor means different things to different people. The 9/11 hijackers and OBL are certainly honored by many in the Arab world. The conservatives honor Ollie North, liberals honor Jane Fonda....but are any of these people really honorable?? There's plenty of honor left in the world, just depends on your perspective.

-z

PS: The Camelot rocked last night. You should've come out with us! :D

[pgwenthold]

I don't know what David Kay is talking about when he says there was "no evidence" for WMD before the war. For example, some might consider the fact that we know he had X at one point but have only accounting for Y to be evidence there were WMD. Considering that it is indisputably true, then from that view there certainly was evidence. Similarly, there might have been testimony from defectors claiming the existence of WMD. That could also be considered evidence. If we consider these things, then there was evidence for WMD.

OTOH, he may be talking about material evidence for the current existence of WMD, such as pictures of ammo dumps or other such detectables that clearly indicate the presence of WMD. However, if that is the case, then it seems fairly obvious, otherwise Powell wouldn't have had to go to the UN with pictures of dirt parking lots and semi-trailers.

So I would argue that what probably is going on is that there was probably evidence, but nothing we could call solid evidence, things that could not have been readily explained with some non-WMD answer (like the "mobile weapons labs" that turned out to be likely weather instrumentation). IOW, we probably knew of lots of things that _could_ be WMD or WMD related, but we didn't know they actually were.

As for the administrations responsibility in the matter, I can imagine some scenerios:

1) The Intel sources told the admin that they had indisputable evidence that there were WMD, and the admin just was parroting their conclusion; in that case, the blame goes to the intel sources.
2) The intel sources gave them the data and told them that they didn't believe there were WMD, but the admin lied and said there were; in this case, the blame goes to the admin. However, all indications are that this was not the case. For example, Clinton has vouched for the intel that the current admin presented.
3) The intel sources gave the admin the info, but did not draw any definitive conclusions about WMD, either because they didn't feel they could reach a conclusion or that they were instructed to only present the data without a conclusion (either by their own agencies or by the administration). The admin then interpreted the information with a preconceived notion of what it wanted the answer to be, taking a worst case view of everything damning, but ignoring all the information to the contrary (for example, every time an Iraqi scientist was questioned and claimed to have no knowledge, their testimony was dismissed because they were afraid for the lives of their family; we know this went on because the administration kept insisting that scientists and their families be allowed to defect the country for questioning, mainly because they weren't getting the answers they wanted; inspectors haven't found anything? They haven't looked hard enough or are incompetent). They completely accepted the testimony of every defector if they said what was wanted (i.e. the idea al queda guy who met with iraqi officials in Prague was based on the testimony of a single person who thinks he might have seen them together; how long did the administration believe it, before the NSA started making press statements about how they can't verify it? How much other intelligence is based on uncorraborated testimony like this?).

I think #3 is closer to what happened. Neither the intelligence agencies nor the admin intentionally lied about anything. We might not have had as much intelligence information as we should have, and that could have been some of the problem. But I think the biggest problem is that somewhere down the line, someone did a very poor job of interpreting the intelligence we did have. Behavior that includes unquestionably accepting data to support your position but ignoring contradictory information is a textbook example of an irrational approach to decision making, and poor cognition. In this scenerio, whoever drew a conclusion regarding the existence of WMD based on what we had would have been well-served to read something like "How We Know What Isn't So" by Gilovich or Shermer's "Why We Believe..."

In the end, the thought that there were WMD turned out to be wrong. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was necessarily a wrong position to hold (something like "They likely do have WMD"), but then, maybe it was. The problem is that you aren't going to come to the correct conclusion if you go about it the wrong way. That's where I think the admin blew it. They did not objectively evaluate all the information regarding WMD, for and against.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well I am sure that Kay would not call Bush a liar, but then again I do not have worry about Bush giving me a job reference either.

And yes, Iraq did have WMDs prior to the war: that is provided one is prepared to the call the things they had over ten years prior to war as WMDs.

However, if you will take a peek at the NPR report, then I think you will see my point.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1615880

Iraq Arms Inspector Casts Doubt on WMD Claims
Kay's Stance Differs with White House View of Situation in Iraq

Jan. 25, 2004 -- David Kay, who recently resigned as head of the U.S. group searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, now says he doesn't think stockpiles of such weapons existed. He no longer believes that Iraq had a large-scale production program in the 1990s.

The Bush administration disagrees, and stands by its previous assessments.

There is nothing here showing Bush deliberately lied.

In fact it shows, quite clearly, that only way, to know what Iraq was doing was to get rid of Saddam.

Prior to the war Iraq was in disarray, and there was at that time no evidence that Iraq, did not have the weapons that we knew it had at one time.

Vetting intelligence is not an easy thing to do. There were after all warnings of 9/11 that were overlooked.

I would think it is much more productive to find out what went wrong with the intelligence, than to start tossing about accusations.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


For fear of agreeing with Rikzilla :), there are plenty of potentially good reasons to go to war with Iraq.

However, the war was justified and sold to the public based on seemingly spurious claims of WMD. That's the shame of this administration - Rik's done a better job of selling the war than they have.

Don't fear the reaper.... ;)

Thanks for the one name mention I've ever gotten that wasn't accompanied by alot of %&*#@'s. :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and it seems that justification for Iraq is too. But you're right. The war should have been better sold by the admin...this is exactly why I think that they thought WMD was enough to invade over. They were so sure they'd find it that they went in full bore. Only later did they start getting nervous about not finding the smoking gun stockpile. This speaks volumes about what they expected to find. No WMD's was the one big surprise of the whole invasion.

Now I've been justifying Iraq based on other issues, basically because WMD wasn't panning out. I imagine that the Bush admin would have been doing this all along if they really did know that the intel was cooked. Their actions have all the earmarks of an admin expecting to find WMD's....and lots of them at that.

Speaking of spin though, how 'bout the spin that most liberal dems have been doing. Shouting out that "Bush Lies" and "Misleader" etc.... Truth is they can prove that Bush lied no more than Bush can show us some Iraqi WMD's.

-z

[BTox]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

So the war was justified because months after "Mission Accomplished," an Al-Qaeda operative came into Iraq to cause trouble? Five hundred Coalition servicemembers killed, five thousand wounded, and nearly ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead just so we can catch someone coming into Iraq after the fact?

I guess you didn't notice that my response was to the inane accusation that the war against Al Quaeda/Taliban was a "failure" because Bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead. Well, no surprise...

[fishbob]

Is he (Bush) seriously suggesting that there isn't a difference between a leader who has a supply chemical or nuclear weapons capable of use and someone who would like to get them? Kind of like the police dept in the movie "Minority Report" - arrest the suspect before he does anything criminal, because your psychic tells you that he is going to do something criminal.

For example, some might consider the fact that we know he had X at one point but have only accounting for Y to be evidence there were WMD. Didn't Iraq produce a 12,000 page description of what they did with X? Did anybody ever wade through all that before we invaded Iraq? Did anybody stop to think that maybe it was just poor record keeping that resulted in descrepancies between X and Y?

US - So where are all your WMDs?
Saddam - I got rid of all my WMDs.
US - OK, so prove that you didn't hide some WMDs somewhere.
Saddam - Hah, you are so illogical, you can't prove a negative.
US - OK, then maybe this little INVASION will make you talk.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by SRW


There is nothing here showing Bush deliberately lied.

In fact it shows, quite clearly, that only way, to know what Iraq was doing was to get rid of Saddam.

Prior to the war Iraq was in disarray, and there was at that time no evidence that Iraq, did not have the weapons that we knew it had at one time.

Vetting intelligence is not an easy thing to do. There were after all warnings of 9/11 that were overlooked.

I would think it is much more productive to find out what went wrong with the intelligence, than to start tossing about accusations.

You are right, there is nothing in the Kay report that provides evidence where Bush may or may not have lied. When I call Bush a liar, that is really my opinion based on the facts that have come out.

Of course Bush was not actually under oath when he talked about what an imminent threat Iraq was, how Iraq was trying to illegally buy uranium, how Iraq supported terrorism, and so on, therefore he cannot be termed a liar in the strict sense of the word.

As for me, I find this war to be yet another case where it was made very clear what the President wanted, and the intelligence was changed, altered, slanted, certain parts emphasized, other parts de-empathized, and presented in such way that it supported what the President wanted.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Of course Bush was not actually under oath when he talked about what an imminent threat Iraq was, how Iraq was trying to illegally buy uranium, how Iraq supported terrorism, and so on, therefore he cannot be termed a liar in the strict sense of the word.


He could still be a liar, he just hasn't perjured himself

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by The Don


He could still be a liar, he just hasn't perjured himself

True enough!

But the Bush apologists will just say something like "Well so what? All politicans lie."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Crossbow
True enough!

But the Bush apologists will just say something like "Well so what? All politicans lie."
Um... so will some of us who don't like Bush (as I just did in the WMD thread). I agree that the lie isn't important. His actions based on bad intelligence, (the CIA's and his) are what is important.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by BTox

I guess you didn't notice that my response was to the inane accusation that the war against Al Quaeda/Taliban was a "failure" because Bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead. Well, no surprise...

No, you responded to Clancie's quote:

"b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")"

...by posting an item about an Al-Qaeda operative captured in Iraq. You're implying that the War in Iraq was justified, in whole or in part, because we caught - well, not we, the Kurds - a bad guy who was in Iraq and who worked for al-Qaeda.

I pointed out that you're full of crap, and that the capture of one man who wasn't even in Iraq on 9/11/01 or even 9/11/03 can't justify a preemptive war against a third-rate military with no WMD. If that wasn't intended to be your point, I'd like to know precisely what your point was supposed to be.

[SRW]

Originally posted by fishbob
Didn't Iraq produce a 12,000 page description of what they did with X? Did anybody ever wade through all that before we invaded Iraq? Did anybody stop to think that maybe it was just poor record keeping that resulted in descrepancies between X and Y?

US - So where are all your WMDs?
Saddam - I got rid of all my WMDs.
US - OK, so prove that you didn't hide some WMDs somewhere.
Saddam - Hah, you are so illogical, you can't prove a negative.
US - OK, then maybe this little INVASION will make you talk.

So please tell me where in the last 30 years of Saddam's rule, and the last 12 years of his dealings with the UN sanctions do you see the slightest bit of honesty coming from that country?

So he submitted a report saying the weapons were gone, why did he continue to hamper the inspections? The best scenario for him was for the UN to continue sanctions, so he could keep getting rich on black market oil. As long as the world though he had WMD, he would continue to live in his luxurious palaces, and his inner circle would continue to prosper.

[BTox]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


No, you responded to Clancie's quote:

"b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")"

Yes, that's right.

Originally posted by LFTKBS
...by posting an item about an Al-Qaeda operative captured in Iraq. You're implying that the War in Iraq was justified, in whole or in part, because we caught - well, not we, the Kurds - a bad guy who was in Iraq and who worked for al-Qaeda.

I pointed out that you're full of crap, and that the capture of one man who wasn't even in Iraq on 9/11/01 or even 9/11/03 can't justify a preemptive war against a third-rate military with no WMD. If that wasn't intended to be your point, I'd like to know precisely what your point was supposed to be.

What part of the war on Al Quaeda/Taliban do you not understand??

[Monketey Ghost]

What amazes me is my lack of doubt:

I don't doubt that if this were a Democratic administration, same lead-up, same war, same faulty intel/lies... the Republican party would be making the WMD issue into the biggest, worst "stain on the Presidency" ever, even worse than blowjobs in the Oval Office.

I don't doubt that the Democratic party could fail to sell a mouse to a starving cat.

I don't doubt that nobody will care about the faulty intel/lies, and that none of it will matter.

We get the leaders we deserve.

[Silicon]

The question isn't "are we safer now that Saddam's out?"

The question IS and should be:

"Are we $157 Billion safer than we would be?"


Imagine if we spent $157 billion on homeland security! Our city's police and firefighters might be able to talk on the same walkie-talkies! We might be able to effectively screen cargo ships so that THIS

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/sept11_uranium020911.html

doesn't happen for real.

Imagine if we spent 157 billion on things that make AMERICA a more secure place, rather than making the Persian Gulf a more secure place.

[Crossbow]

True enough Silcon!

Remember a few years back to the big Clinton Health Care Plan and the main problem people raised was that it would cost too much.

However, money is no object when it comes to war.

Ugh!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Crossbow
True enough Silcon!

Remember a few years back to the big Clinton Health Care Plan and the main problem people raised was that it would cost too much.

However, money is no object when it comes to war.

Ugh!

Well, be sure to notice the difference. For the Clinton Health Care Plan, they actually provided a plans for generating the revenue to pay for it. War funding? Don't bother, just borrow it and let someone else worry about paying...