Lest Anyone Forget So Close To Election Time...

[Kodiak]

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

[DavidJames]

I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes of a person I want running the country.

[Eleatic Stranger]

So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

[DaChew]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kodiak
[b]"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


That's odd. Having missed the vast majority of the intelligence briefings on this subject, I would have thought that if Kerry was an honest man he'd have declined to state a specific position.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

me too

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes I want running the country.

Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".

Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".

Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.

Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Luke T.
They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Luke T.
They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently. No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

Be careful you will get the die hard Kerry fanatics in here saying how you can't read the thread correctly and don't understand English.

[merphie]

Originally posted by wollery
No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

Wow! You mean Congress is a puppet of who ever the current administration is?

I guess I will have to stop writing my congressmen and just convince the president of my opinion so he can skew the facts however he wants and mislead everyone in Congress!

Why do we have a legislative branch again?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by wollery
No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

You may simply be ignorant of how the U.S. Federal government and its bureaucracy is composed, but Bush WAS NOT privy to any "raw data". The intelligence heads and NSA chiefs are given finalized threat assessments, status reports, and evidence conclusion summaries, which they pass on to the President at regular national security meetings.

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

[zenith-nadir]

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Ironic...don't ya think?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

I guess you have never heard of the "Senate Intelligence Committee".

Bush doesn't have special permissions when it comes to the departments. It's called Checks and Balances.

The Kerry position that he was mislead is just a political spin to make himself look good.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Like he did with the Medicare budget?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by gnome
Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.


merphie has already addressed this, but if you have evidence to support your position that intel was withheld from Congress, please present it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Like he did with the Medicare budget?

Nice fallacy. :nope:

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Nice fallacy. :nope:

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

I'm not interested in the question; I was just pointing out that sometimes Bush doesn't give all the information to Congress. Which makes sense--they should know to get their own research done.

Edit to add:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2004312815.html

[Brown]

Originally posted by Kodiak
For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time? Yes. I think it's pretty clear that Bush pretty much told what he wanted people to believe, and he ignored the advice of some of his staffers that some of the information was technically and factually incorrect. He spoke as an advocate.

According to John Dean, a lawyer for Nixon and a key figure who helped expose the Watergate scandal, Bush deliberately misled the Congress, which is (according to Dean) an impeachable offense.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".


So then, you're anti-science and pro-faith.

Science requires that one revises their understanding when new evidence comes about. That makes Kerry and Edwards at least potentially good scientists.

It makes Bush, who wont' revise his mistakes, a "faith based" president.

What you're saying, then, is simple. You want people to stick with their mistakes rather than acknowledge them and adapt to the reality of the situation.

I think that's a very dangerous attitude, both for a person and a country.


Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".


Holding to a position in the face of mountains of contrary evidence is a "resolve to not admit a mistake" and "determination to not admit a mistake".

That's a characteristic of dictators, isnt' it?


Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.


So why won't he admit that his actions were a mistake, based on the mistaken intel? It would be a credit to him.


Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

Oh, stuff and nonsense. That's not bear excrement, that's bull excrement, Kodiak. Kerry and Edwards, acting in a reasonable fashion, adjusted their opinion as evidence came forward. Bush has remained in denial, and as far as is evident from actions, remains set on a mistaken course that was established by mistaken evidence.

On top of that, he's given us another huge Repugnican deficit, started another round of stagflation that is now showing up quite clearly, and refusing to deal with that, while making his deficit, and the resulting stagflation, even worse.

That's what his stubbornness and failure to acknowledge his own mistakes is doing, Kodiak, it's hurting everyone except the ultra-rich. He's trying to turn the USA into Brazil, and in more than one way.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
According to John Dean, a lawyer for Nixon and a key figure who helped expose the Watergate scandal, Bush deliberately misled the Congress, which is (according to Dean) an impeachable offense.

I don't think he did mislead them deliberately. I see Bush as making up his mind first, then seizing on any evidence that seems to support his position and ignoring the rest. His own wife remarked once that he doesn't "overthink things"....I think he's just one of those people who doesn't gather evidence and weigh it, analyze it, and then draw conclusions.

But I'm sure he thought he was right.

[jj]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But I'm sure he thought he was right.

Does thinking he was right justify his action?

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm not interested in the question; I was just pointing out that sometimes Bush doesn't give all the information to Congress. Which makes sense--they should know to get their own research done.

Edit to add:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2004312815.html

You're talking apples and oranges. Budget is not the same as intelligence.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jj
Does thinking he was right justify his action?

No, but it means he's guilty of negligence and gullibility and sloppy thinking, which are different things than deliberate deception.

Heck, I'd prefer it if he had merely lied, because at least then it means he knew what was really going on.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
You're talking apples and oranges. Budget is not the same as intelligence.


Never said it was. Just pointing out similarity between:

Situation A: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

Situation B: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

And: apples and oranges are both fruit.

[merphie]

Originally posted by jj
So then, you're anti-science and pro-faith.

Science requires that one revises their understanding when new evidence comes about. That makes Kerry and Edwards at least potentially good scientists.

It makes Bush, who wont' revise his mistakes, a "faith based" president.

You mean Clinton's Faith based ideas? Don't kid yourself.

Kerry believes in God too. Bush isn't in denile. He stands by his decision. Kerry changes his mind and claims someone lied to him. That makes them politicians who won't stand behind any desicion.

What you're saying, then, is simple. You want people to stick with their mistakes rather than acknowledge them and adapt to the reality of the situation.

I think that's a very dangerous attitude, both for a person and a country.

I want a president to stand behind the desicion they make and not blame someone other than theirself for the mistake.

Holding to a position in the face of mountains of contrary evidence is a "resolve to not admit a mistake" and "determination to not admit a mistake".

That's a characteristic of dictators, isnt' it?


Where's your evidence?

So why won't he admit that his actions were a mistake, based on the mistaken intel? It would be a credit to him.


Because he doesn't believe they were. Iraq is something Clinton wouldn't do and Bush would. Even Kerry said he probably would have gone to war by now.

Oh, stuff and nonsense. That's not bear excrement, that's bull excrement, Kodiak. Kerry and Edwards, acting in a reasonable fashion, adjusted their opinion as evidence came forward. Bush has remained in denial, and as far as is evident from actions, remains set on a mistaken course that was established by mistaken evidence.

Where's the denile come in?

On top of that, he's given us another huge Repugnican deficit, started another round of stagflation that is now showing up quite clearly, and refusing to deal with that, while making his deficit, and the resulting stagflation, even worse.

Check your histories. This country stays in debt and it isn't always a bad thing. Bush didn't cause the Economy problems.

That's what his stubbornness and failure to acknowledge his own mistakes is doing, Kodiak, it's hurting everyone except the ultra-rich. He's trying to turn the USA into Brazil, and in more than one way.

You're Repeating again. Read statements above.

[evildave]

Don't forget torture at Guantanamo, Afghanistan and (of course) Iraq. Winning hearts and minds everywhere.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Never said it was. Just pointing out similarity between:

Situation A: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

Situation B: President doesn't give the correct information to Congress.

And: apples and oranges are both fruit.

Guilt by association is not fact. You also quote an article with an assumption. Nothing is proven in that article.

You are missing the picture. Prove congress didn't have access to all the information.

Apples and oranges are both fruit but they don't look, feel, smell or taste the same.

[jj]

Originally posted by merphie
You mean Clinton's

denile.

Clinton

denile


Obviously you're really grasping if you have to raise the Clinton spectre in order to argue back.

And it's denial. De Nile is a river in Egypt. :p

It's simple to me, Bush won't admit to mistakes, allows more mistakes to happen, war crimes, torture, etc, abrogates parts of the constitution, etc, and justifies that by referring back to the original mistake as fact.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Saddamn, mind you, as far as I'm concerned he's a candidate for reactor shielding.

What bothers me is that Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.

He's a failure. A miserable, disastrous, huge, utter failure, Kodiak, and he should resign, not run for office.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Guilt by association is not fact. You also quote an article with an assumption. Nothing is proven in that article.

You are missing the picture. Prove congress didn't have access to all the information.

Apples and oranges are both fruit but they don't look, feel, smell or taste the same.

It wasn't an article, it was Daschle's speech on the matter. Verbatim. Which, since he is a member of Congress, can be considered someone in Congress is claiming he didn't hear all the information. Is witness testimony not evidence? He might be mistaken or lying, but his statement is still evidence and may be evaluated.

As for apples and oranges, to follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, any comparison between any two things is completely invalid because by being two things there must, necessarily be differences. I guess you will never compare anything to anything again, then?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
No, but it means he's guilty of negligence and gullibility and sloppy thinking, which are different things than deliberate deception.

Heck, I'd prefer it if he had merely lied, because at least then it means he knew what was really going on.

Whether "deliberate deception" or "negligence, gullibility, and sloppy thinking"...

If its true for President Bush and the GOP, then its true for Clinton, the Senate, the House of Representatives, Blair, the British Parliament, the U.N., Jacques Chirac, and Inspector Scott Ritter, among others.


Lest anyone incorrectly thinks that only Kerry and Edwards were in complete agreement with President Bush:




"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[merphie]

Originally posted by jj
Obviously you're really grasping if you have to raise the Clinton spectre in order to argue back.

And it's denial. De Nile is a river in Egypt. :p


Check your facts. Bush just repackaged a Clinton Idea.

It's simple to me, Bush won't admit to mistakes, allows more mistakes to happen, war crimes, torture, etc, abrogates parts of the constitution, etc, and justifies that by referring back to the original mistake as fact.

You're wrong on all accounts.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Saddamn, mind you, as far as I'm concerned he's a candidate for reactor shielding.

No argument there.

What bothers me is that Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.

Isolation interesting idea. Britian and Italy are with us. Saudia Arabia and Kuwait obivously are and not to mention the other allies. (Don't know them by heart)

He's a failure. A miserable, disastrous, huge, utter failure, Kodiak, and he should resign, not run for office.

Your opinion based on faulty logic.

[Brown]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't think he did mislead them deliberately. I see Bush as making up his mind first, then seizing on any evidence that seems to support his position and ignoring the rest. This may be correct, and it is consistent with what I said about his speaking as an advocate. An advocate is interested in achieving a result, and will present a case so as to try to convince others that such a result should be realized. An advocate does not--and cannot be expected to--present a complete or balanced presentation.

Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
...Bush has isolated the USA, damaged our reputation, economy, and ability to rebuild ourselves, and set up a situation where we are perilously close to having the entire world united against us, and you're still arguing that he's good.


"THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!" :nope:

Isolated from who?

How has our reputation changed? and with who is it now damaged?

How is our economy damaged?

How is our ability to rebuild damaged?

Evidence, please, of this so-called "perilous closeness" that the world is uniting against us... (I especially LOVED this doozy... :D )

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It wasn't an article, it was Daschle's speech on the matter. Verbatim. Which, since he is a member of Congress, can be considered someone in Congress is claiming he didn't hear all the information. Is witness testimony not evidence? He might be mistaken or lying, but his statement is still evidence and may be evaluated.

As for apples and oranges, to follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, any comparison between any two things is completely invalid because by being two things there must, necessarily be differences. I guess you will never compare anything to anything again, then?

So? What does that prove? Dashle reads the newspaper? If I watched CBS for a while I might have thought the memos were authentic.

Mistaken? That's the same as lying on this board.

Compare all you want. You used a rumor to show some association. Show me the proof!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

Which then raises the question: what do you do when you get conflicting evidence? You have to take time to weigh it....but in some situations, you might not have time. If Bush had been right, and Saddam really did have lots of nukes and chemical warheads and was about to fire them at Israel or something....

It would really suck to be responsible for that kind of decision if you chose wrong.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Brown
Bush had intelligence, which turned out to be wrong, that Iraq was preparing to strike the US. Bush also had intelligence, which turned out to be correct, that Iraq did not have the capability for such a strike. The White House essentially ignored the latter type of intelligence when setting policy.

Powell's UN speech on talked about the threat he was.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
You used a rumor to show some association. Show me the proof!

Since I do not possess a video tape of Bush cackling madly to himself while explaining his plans to deliberately underestimate the cost of the Medicare changes, I guess I do not have proof. Even if I did have such a video, those things are possible to fake.

Therefore, there is no proof. So we must assume that Bush is always completely truthful.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Evidence, please, of this so-called "perilous closeness" that the world is uniting against us... (I especially LOVED this doozy... :D )

It's the standard understanding everywhere but in the USA.

(I work in international standards committees and international professional societies a lot. I hear the hostility every time I got to a meeting. It's getting worse and worse.)

Your claim otherwise is an extraordinary claim, stop trying to shift the burden.

Geeze, louise.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

top 5 reasons why Im not voting for John Kerry :

1. He has severely neglected his senatoriol duties while campaigning.

2. His wife and what she funds.

3. He pushes popular and false conspiracy theory memes.

4. His policies will fail, but the media will portray it as success. (I'd rather have it the other way around, llike now)

5. He has absolutely no compassion or determination even when he pretends to.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
It's the standard understanding everywhere but in the USA.

(I work in international standards committees and international professional societies a lot. I hear the hostility every time I got to a meeting. It's getting worse and worse.)

Your claim otherwise is an extraordinary claim, stop trying to shift the burden.

Geeze, louise.

"Standard understanding"?!? That's it?!? And to lend credence to that drivel, you offer the fact that you work with people from all over the earth?!?

Well, I've been outside the U.S. (Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Central America) more than I've been in it over the last month and a half, so everyone I've met must've been purposely hiding this so-called "standard understanding", because I didn't get that sense at all.

Also, I made no claim, "extraordinary" or otherwise. I simply asked for evidence, you goof. The only burden that anyone attempted to shift was your own, and at your own hand, I might add.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
top 5 reasons why Im not voting for John Kerry :

1. He has severely neglected his senatoriol duties while campaigning.

2. His wife and what she funds.

3. He pushes popular and false conspiracy theory memes.

4. His policies will fail, but the media will portray it as success. (I'd rather have it the other way around, llike now)

5. He has absolutely no compassion or determination even when he pretends to.

Unh, except for #1, where you'd have to say "presidential", doesn't this just about perfectly describe Bush? (cough)

And which is worse, abrogating duties as a senator or as a president?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Also, I made no claim, "extraordinary" or otherwise. I simply asked for evidence, you goof. The only burden that anyone attempted to shift was your own, and at your own hand, I might add.

You said, very simply, "doozy", which amounts to a claim about the veracity of the fact I recited.

Game, set, match.

Get out some day, Kodiak, it will do you good.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj
Unh, except for #1, where you'd have to say "presidential", doesn't this just about perfectly describe Bush? (cough)

And which is worse, abrogating duties as a senator or as a president?

please demonstrate factually how Bush has neglected his duties as president during his campaign.

Kerry has about a 80% ABSENT record for senatorial voting during his.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
You said, very simply, "doozy", which amounts to a claim about the veracity of the fact I recited.

Game, set, match.

Get out some day, Kodiak, it will do you good.

Are you playing tennis, jj? It definitely cannot be this argument that you think you're winning...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :nope:

"Doozy" is an extraordinary claim?!? The fact that I do not believe your unsupported claim shifts the burden to me?!?

OK, laughing won out...

:dl:

I indeed AM doubtful of your claim, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR EVIDENCE!!! The anecdotal variety doesn't cut it, as I've already and so brilliantly pointed out.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Since I do not possess a video tape of Bush cackling madly to himself while explaining his plans to deliberately underestimate the cost of the Medicare changes, I guess I do not have proof. Even if I did have such a video, those things are possible to fake.

Therefore, there is no proof. So we must assume that Bush is always completely truthful.

So what you are saying you can not proof Bush is lying. So it is all your opinion and assumptions in both cases?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
So what you are saying you can not proof Bush is lying. So it is all your opinion and assumptions in both cases?

Yep. Just my assumption, based on what happened. Thirteen members of his own party had previously publicly stated they'd vote against any such bill costing over a particular figure. Without their votes, the bill would not pass. Bush's plan was presented as costing under that figure. It passed. It is then revealed that the actual cost is considerably over the threshold figure. Subsequent investigation reveals several officials in the HHS department and the Medicare office who say there was pressure applied to lie. Other officials deny this.

It sounds likely to me, that the administration withheld information to Congress in order to get the bill passed. Since everyone isn't omnicognizant, I don't expect to a) know absolutely that I am correct in my assumption, or b) expect everyone else to draw the same conclusions I did.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Yep. Just my assumption, based on what happened. Thirteen members of his own party had previously publicly stated they'd vote against any such bill costing over a particular figure. Without their votes, the bill would not pass. Bush's plan was presented as costing under that figure. It passed. It is then revealed that the actual cost is considerably over the threshold figure. Subsequent investigation reveals several officials in the HHS department and the Medicare office who say there was pressure applied to lie. Other officials deny this.

It sounds likely to me, that the administration withheld information to Congress in order to get the bill passed. Since everyone isn't omnicognizant, I don't expect to a) know absolutely that I am correct in my assumption, or b) expect everyone else to draw the same conclusions I did.

Your article is based on a news paper story of an anonymous rumor. You are trying change the subject.

[AtheistArchon]

If its true for President Bush and the GOP, then its true for Clinton, the Senate, the House of Representatives, Blair, the British Parliament, the U.N., Jacques Chirac, and Inspector Scott Ritter, among others.


Lest anyone incorrectly thinks that only Kerry and Edwards were in complete agreement with President Bush:

- The difference being: these people have all "flip-flopped". Bush has not.

- Hmmmmmm. Was your intention to compare their opinions to those of Bush?

[Crossbow]

There is one point in this thread that I would like address if I may paraphrase:

Congress and Bush had the same Intelligence.

In the strictest sense, this is true, Bush and the Congress did have the same intelligence. Any member of Congress who really, really, really wanted to, could have become a total expert on Iraq and would have access to all of the data that Bush had.

But in practice, it is all but impossible for any individual member of Congress (or the Congress as a whole) to have the same Intelligence as the President. In the Iraq case (as is usual dealing with foreign affairs dealing that involve a hostile power), the President did have much, much better Intelligence than the Congress ever did.

Specifically, the Bush Administration furnished the Congress with two documents one was an intelligence summary which showed that Saddam had WMDs, was sponsoring terrorists, was planning to attack the USA, etc.
This document was great justification for the war, but it turned out that this document was almost completely wrong as well. However, since it was a summary, did not go into too many details (i.e., reveal sources and/or methods), and had the approval of the Bush Administration, made it a highly respected document that could be studied by Congress in their offices, discussed with their staff, and so on.

The other document on Iraq that the Bush Administration made available to Congress was very different. It ran hundreds of pages, was kept in a locked room, under armed guard, and since it did reveal very sensitive data, only serving Members of Congress could look at it provided that they would not take any notes on it, not discuss the document with anyone, promise not to divulge anything from it, only study the document in its secure location, and so on.
Now then, before the War Resolution was passed not one Member of Congress reviewed this document since it was so sensitive, and they did not want to risk being called a “leak� if it turned out that any unauthorized people learned of its contents.

Therefore, in practice the President always has better intelligence than the Congress ever will.

I hope this helps!

[merphie]

Originally posted by Crossbow
There is one point in this thread that I would like address if I may paraphrase:

Congress and Bush had the same Intelligence.

In the strictest sense, this is true, Bush and the Congress did have the same intelligence. Any member of Congress who really, really, really wanted to, could have become a total expert on Iraq and would have access to all of the data that Bush had.

But in practice, it is all but impossible for any individual member of Congress (or the Congress as a whole) to have the same Intelligence as the President. In the Iraq case (as is usual dealing with foreign affairs dealing that involve a hostile power), the President did have much, much better Intelligence than the Congress ever did.

Specifically, the Bush Administration furnished the Congress with two documents one was an intelligence summary which showed that Saddam had WMDs, was sponsoring terrorists, was planning to attack the USA, etc.
This document was great justification for the war, but it turned out that this document was almost completely wrong as well. However, since it was a summary, did not go into too many details (i.e., reveal sources and/or methods), and had the approval of the Bush Administration, made it a highly respected document that could be studied by Congress in their offices, discussed with their staff, and so on.

The other document on Iraq that the Bush Administration made available to Congress was very different. It ran hundreds of pages, was kept in a locked room, under armed guard, and since it did reveal very sensitive data, only serving Members of Congress could look at it provided that they would not take any notes on it, not discuss the document with anyone, promise not to divulge anything from it, only study the document in its secure location, and so on.
Now then, before the War Resolution was passed not one Member of Congress reviewed this document since it was so sensitive, and they did not want to risk being called a “leak� if it turned out that any unauthorized people learned of its contents.

Therefore, in practice the President always has better intelligence than the Congress ever will.

I hope this helps!

Then it could be said that the information was available and they chose not to look at it?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by merphie
Then it could be said that the information was available and they chose not to look at it?

You may want to take a second look at my post.

It was bit more like choosing not to pick up the rattle snake in order to avoid getting bit.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Your article is based on a news paper story of an anonymous rumor. You are trying change the subject.

No, I'm stating that the event occurred, and several of the people intimately involved are claiming it happened in a particular way for a particular purpose. You can believe or disbelieve them, but it hardly makes it a rumor. Unless there is no such person as Daschle (and many wish that were the case).

And it's not an "article" for the last time. The link provided takes you to the text of Daschle's speech on the matter. He references the article containing the allegations, which in turn identifies the people involved and some of their conflicting statements. Again, you can believe or disbelieve that article, but that doesn't mean this entire affair of the bill, the result, the allegation, and the fallout is fictitious.

Anyway, the whole point of this absurd digression was to point out that the administration sometimes doesn't present all the information to Congress. If you are arguing that it does, and that it did in the instance of the Medicare bill, they why don't you provide some evidence? You could start by explaining why the cost of the bill jumped up by billions after passage, and why the thirteen Republicans are saying they wouldn't have voted for it had they known. But remember, by your standards everything is rumor, including the testimony of the people involved.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Crossbow
You may want to take a second look at my post.

It was bit more like choosing not to pick up the rattle snake in order to avoid getting bit.

I understand that. It seems to me that such an important idea such as that would be worth the risk.

Even looking at the UN speech Powell made, the information seemed accurate. Just some of it appears to be wrong

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I indeed AM doubtful of your claim, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR EVIDENCE!!! The anecdotal variety doesn't cut it, as I've already and so brilliantly pointed out.

Tsk, tsk. Get out some.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
No, I'm stating that the event occurred, and several of the people intimately involved are claiming it happened in a particular way for a particular purpose. You can believe or disbelieve them, but it hardly makes it a rumor. Unless there is no such person as Daschle (and many wish that were the case).

Not quite. He was quoting a news story. He as asking if it was true. He suggested launching an investigation. I did not see any mention that it was fact.

The whole idea was that you claimed Bush lied to Congress and the American people. You brought this wild tangent into dicsussion to prove your point. You have not been able to show that.

I did not make any claims so I do not have burden of proof.

[crimresearch]

Quote Crossbow
"...Therefore, in practice the President always has better intelligence than the Congress ever will."

Maybe not *always*...

Congress in the Clinton administration had threat assessments that told them the WTC was a target for having airplanes crashed into it by a group like Al Qaeda...

Is there some documentation that would show Bush was informed of the time of the attacks, or flight numbers, or identity of the attackers, prior to 9/11?

Because with Congress already knowing the method and target, it is hard to imagine how Bush had better information, even if the previous administration *had* heeded and passed on the earlier reports.

[crimresearch]

Quote Kodiak
"Doozy" is an extraordinary claim?!? The fact that I do not believe your unsupported claim shifts the burden to me?!?

You are dealing with the JREF Axis of Intolerance...of course you have to prove that you have a right to ask for evidence.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by merphie
I understand that. It seems to me that such an important idea such as that would be worth the risk.

Even looking at the UN speech Powell made, the information seemed accurate. Just some of it appears to be wrong

Well, I am sure that more people in Congress would get involved with such issues if they were really trusted to do so. However, the very strict limits on what they can do and the very real possibility that they will get blamed for any leaks makes a Congessional intelligence assessment to be a rather difficult task.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Quote Crossbow
"...Therefore, in practice the President always has better intelligence than the Congress ever will."

Maybe not *always*...

Congress in the Clinton administration had threat assessments that told them the WTC was a target for having airplanes crashed into it by a group like Al Qaeda...

Is there some documentation that would show Bush was informed of the time of the attacks, or flight numbers, or identity of the attackers, prior to 9/11?

Because with Congress already knowing the method and target, it is hard to imagine how Bush had better information, even if the previous administration *had* heeded and passed on the earlier reports.

I am sorry sir, but I do not follow.

Since when did the Congress have substantive intelligence about something as bad as the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks before the President did?

I know of no case in all of American history where such a thing has happened. However, if you can name such an event (especially anything in recent history), then please do so because I sure would like to hear about it.

Thanks much!

[fishbob]

Merphie:Where's the denile come in? De Nile? You are out standing in it.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well, I am sure that more people in Congress would get involved with such issues if they were really trusted to do so. However, the very strict limits on what they can do and the very real possibility that they will get blamed for any leaks makes a Congessional intelligence assessment to be a rather difficult task.

I get your point. I might add that there are leaks anyway so it is probably a good policy.

I don't believe the current administration lied to anyone.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Merphie: De Nile? You are out standing in it.

I doubt it. I've never been to Egypt.

I am not the one spouting half truths and refusing to consider facts.

[circuit slave]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


wait, Kodiak, you forgot to include another favorite:

“I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a great opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.� --John Kerry, ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, May 30, 2003

[merphie]

Originally posted by circuit slave
wait, Kodiak, you forgot to include another favorite:

“I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a great opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.� --John Kerry, ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, May 30, 2003

Got sources?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I am sorry sir, but I do not follow.

Since when did the Congress have substantive intelligence about something as bad as the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks before the President did?

I know of no case in all of American history where such a thing has happened. However, if you can name such an event (especially anything in recent history), then please do so because I sure would like to hear about it.

Thanks much!

Longevity has its advantages...

You are aware that George Bush was not President in 1999, while more than a few members of Congress held office both before and after the analysis regarding vulnerabilities and the WTC?

That makes it entirely possible that such a report could be old news to any number of veteran members of Congress, and remain unknown to a newbie President.

And hindsight shows that the report was more prescient than any of its recipients believed possible.

[DavidJames]

I don't believe Bush would have received the level of support domestically and would have received even less internationally had he not played the WMD card.

But I think he felt he had nothing to lose. He knew he'd get the support. He knows party faithful like Kodiak and Merphie will follow him no matter what. Additionally, American's are very supportive of our govt when we go to war. He knew when the truth finally came out he could bait those that turned against the war with the trusty old anti-American brush. It kept us in Vietnam for years and will work long enough for Bush. He's got Hastert and Cheney telling people that the terrorist want Kerry to win and the U.S. will be attacked if Kerry is elected. The faithful eat that up, and it makes the undecided ones think.

We got people who favor "Resolve and determination" regardless of facts. "revisionist history"? Without WMD, the Iraq attack was a non-starter. But now all the party faithful are singing a different tune, or at the very least, ignoring the original chorus. Bush sent Powell to the UN, talk of mushroom clouds, tons of chemical weapons..."revisionist history", claiming that wasn't the main talking point, the primary justification...there's your "revisionist history"?

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I don't believe Bush would have received the level of support domestically and would have received even less internationally had he not played the WMD card.

There is no WMD card. The facts were correct as we knew them at the time of Powell's speech at the UN. Every person thought something had to be done in the 12 years Iraq was under UN sanctions. No one debated that fact. Now we have done something and so far have not found any WMD. Now the other side cries wolf.

But I think he felt he had nothing to lose. He knew he'd get the support. He knows party faithful like Kodiak and Merphie will follow him no matter what. Additionally, American's are very supportive of our govt when we go to war. He knew when the truth finally came out he could bait those that turned against the war with the trusty old anti-American brush. It kept us in Vietnam for years and will work long enough for Bush. He's got Hastert and Cheney telling people that the terrorist want Kerry to win and the U.S. will be attacked if Kerry is elected. The faithful eat that up, and it makes the undecided ones think.

The people are not always supportive of the government or troups. Everything there is assumptions. The problem is the people arguing for Kerry have done the same thing Kerry does. He comes out and calls everyone a liar. Kerry doesn't provide any proof anything. His fanatical supporters have done the same thing. They come in excepting everyone else to do their research and call everyone a liar and debate the meaning of every little word and paragraph.

Back up your Claims. Provide any proof at all.

We got people who favor "Resolve and determination" regardless of facts. "revisionist history"? Without WMD, the Iraq attack was a non-starter. But now all the party faithful are singing a different tune, or at the very least, ignoring the original chorus. Bush sent Powell to the UN, talk of mushroom clouds, tons of chemical weapons..."revisionist history", claiming that wasn't the main talking point, the primary justification...there's your "revisionist history"?

Apparently you didn't listen or read Powell's speech. There was nothing in that speech that was not backed by facts we had available at the time. It wasn't all about WMD.

Clinton even considered striking Iraq. Kerry said he probably would have gone to war by now. They haven't found WMD in Iraq and you claim victory. At least Bush has stayed consistent in his opinion and doesn't change with the wind.

[fishbob]

Apparently you didn't listen or read Powell's speech. There was nothing in that speech that was not backed by facts we had available at the time. It wasn't all about WMD.

What Powell had at the time of his speech were not facts. Powell had a Power Point presentation filled with photos and interpretations of the photos, bits of intercepted conversations and interpretations of those conversations, and interpretations of other data. Turns out the interpretations were wrong. Turns out that many in the intelligence community disagreed with those interpretations at the time, but those disagreements were ignored in the Bush push to scare Americans with WMDs. Everything in Powell's speech was backed by these interpretations.

This was the WMD card. The facts (data) were filtered and interpreted incorrectly, and many feel that the incorrect filtering was deliberate.

[fishbob]

Clinton, and others including Kerry, rightly considered pre-2001 strikes in Iraq. These strikes did not occur. Why? Maybe because there was NOT enough legitimate information to justify a strike. Maybe because a mistaken strike would kill a bunch of innocents. Maybe because the US leadership at that time had a conscience instead of an agenda. (A horny conscience, no doubt, but still a conscience).

[wollery]

Sorry, I had to go early yesterday so I'm a tad behind on this thread, although I have read it all through.
Originally posted by Kodiak
You may simply be ignorant of how the U.S. Federal government and its bureaucracy is composed, but Bush WAS NOT privy to any "raw data". The intelligence heads and NSA chiefs are given finalized threat assessments, status reports, and evidence conclusion summaries, which they pass on to the President at regular national security meetings.Are you telling me that the President of of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the most potent army ever assembled, the single most powerful person on the planet, a man with the ability to destroy the world a hundred times over (at least) gets only the facts and interpretations that the security chiefs choose to give him? :eek:

Until now I was hacked off that we were taken to war on false premises, now I'm scared sh!tless! :(

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time? I believe it's possible, Blair certainly presented information as fact that he had been told was, at best, doubtful. He and Bush were in constant communication, as were the US and UK intelligence services. If Bush didn't know, then either the US intelligence services are really crap at their jobs or there's something seriously wrong with the way the US intelligence services communicate with the President.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
What Powell had at the time of his speech were not facts. Powell had a Power Point presentation filled with photos and interpretations of the photos, bits of intercepted conversations and interpretations of those conversations, and interpretations of other data. Turns out the interpretations were wrong. Turns out that many in the intelligence community disagreed with those interpretations at the time, but those disagreements were ignored in the Bush push to scare Americans with WMDs. Everything in Powell's speech was backed by these interpretations.

This was the WMD card. The facts (data) were filtered and interpreted incorrectly, and many feel that the incorrect filtering was deliberate.

No quite. The information was also analysed by the CIA. What do you think the intelligence is? I don't think anyone would put a large sign outside that says "WMD Are Located Here"

Some of the interpretations were wrong as far as we know. The main evidence supporting is we have not found any WMD as of today.

The CIA doesn't agree with your scare theory. That's a spin by the democrats.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Clinton, and others including Kerry, rightly considered pre-2001 strikes in Iraq. These strikes did not occur. Why? Maybe because there was NOT enough legitimate information to justify a strike. Maybe because a mistaken strike would kill a bunch of innocents. Maybe because the US leadership at that time had a conscience instead of an agenda. (A horny conscience, no doubt, but still a conscience).

That's funny. Read the 9/11 commission. They didn't strike afghanistan because Clinton didn't want to had a war over to the Bush administration.

They didn't strike Iraq because of political reasons involving the sex scandel.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

You don't even try to look for answers do you? All you have is conspiracy theories.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by wollery
Are you telling me that the President of of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the most potent army ever assembled, the single most powerful person on the planet, a man with the ability to destroy the world a hundred times over (at least) gets only the facts and interpretations that the security chiefs choose to give him? :eek:

Until now I was hacked off that we were taken to war on false premises, now I'm scared sh!tless! :(

Well, yes. In any large country with a big population and a big government, it's impossible for one individual to do everything himself. That's why bureacracies exist. The top guy is supposed to be in charge, but he can hardly oversee every detail. If the people surrounding him don't tell him, how will he know? He has to delegate the work, and the workers brief him (or not) on the results.

Which leaves open the possibility that a good leader might be surrounded by bad people. The president is largely at the mercy of his advisors, so he had better choose them carefully.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by wollery
Are you telling me that the President of of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the most potent army ever assembled, the single most powerful person on the planet, a man with the ability to destroy the world a hundred times over (at least) gets only the facts and interpretations that the security chiefs choose to give him? :eek:

Bush doesn't even read newspapers. He rarely reads the memos given to him.

Originally posted by wollery
Until now I was hacked off that we were taken to war on false premises, now I'm scared sh!tless! :(

Why do you think Europeans would much rather like Kerry?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by wollery
Until now I was hacked off that we were taken to war on false premises, now I'm scared sh!tless! :(

That's OK, I'll take good care of you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do you think Europeans would much rather like Kerry?

Because he caters to Old Europe and his wife is a Euro-elitist?


(as long as you keep pitchin' underhand, I'll keep knockin' em out...) :D

[wollery]

Originally posted by Kodiak
That's OK, I'll take good care of you. Somehow that doesn't comfort me in the least!
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do you think Europeans would much rather like Kerry?Kodiak
Because he caters to Old Europe and his wife is a Euro-elitist?Or maybe anything is preferable to a religious zealot who can't even string a coherent sentence together unless he's reading from a script (and even then he sometimes fu@ks it up).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by wollery
Or maybe anything is preferable to a religious zealot who can't even string a coherent sentence together unless he's reading from a script (and even then he sometimes fu@ks it up).

Now, now, don't misunderestimate his ability to put food on your family.

[wollery]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Now, now, don't misunderestimate his ability to put food on your family. :dl:

[merphie]

Originally posted by wollery
Or maybe anything is preferable to a religious zealot who can't even string a coherent sentence together unless he's reading from a script (and even then he sometimes fu@ks it up).

Kerry is religious too.

So you make fun of his acsent?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
So you make fun of his acsent?

Kerry's problem isn't his accent, it's his voice. Like the tolling of a boring bell, or a distant foghorn where you don't care if the ship hits the rocks or not. It puts me to sleep if he talks for more than a minute, and he always does.

[fishbob]

So you make fun of his acsent? Don't know about his ascent, but it is my duty to make fun of religious zealots who can't even string a coherent sentence together.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Don't know about his ascent, but it is my duty to make fun of religious zealots who can't even string a coherent sentence together.

Why then aren't you making fun of Kerry?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Why then aren't you making fun of Kerry?

His sentences are coherent. Very long and dull, but coherent.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Longevity has its advantages...

You are aware that George Bush was not President in 1999, while more than a few members of Congress held office both before and after the analysis regarding vulnerabilities and the WTC?

That makes it entirely possible that such a report could be old news to any number of veteran members of Congress, and remain unknown to a newbie President.

And hindsight shows that the report was more prescient than any of its recipients believed possible.

OK, I think that I see what you are saying now.

Thank you for clarifying the matter for me.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You may simply be ignorant of how the U.S. Federal government and its bureaucracy is composed, but Bush WAS NOT privy to any "raw data". The intelligence heads and NSA chiefs are given finalized threat assessments, status reports, and evidence conclusion summaries, which they pass on to the President at regular national security meetings.

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Excuse me sir, but you may want to reconsider what you think about Presidents (including the current one) not being privy to raw data.

Kennedy met with the KGB double-agent Penkosvky, and personally studied the U2 photos of Cuba.
Johnson poured over thousands air photos, and personally approved target lists during the Vietnam bombing.
Nixon listened to the Watergate tapes before turning them in.
Carter loved to read the intercepted messages sent to and from Breshnev.

And so on.

In short, any President can get, and does get, any raw data that he may want.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Excuse me sir, but you may want to reconsider what you think about Presidents (including the current one) not being privy to raw data.

Kennedy met with the KGB double-agent Penkosvky, and personally studied the U2 photos of Cuba.
Johnson poured over thousands air photos, and personally approved target lists during the Vietnam bombing.
Nixon listened to the Watergate tapes before turning them in.
Carter loved to read the intercepted messages sent to and from Breshnev.

And so on.

In short, any President can get, and does get, any raw data that he may want.

Good point...sort of. Even in the examples you provided, the president in question wasn't viewing all available raw data, but specific items already determined to be of value.

Also, that kind of micromanagement might've been possible (though rare even then...) in the 1960's and 70's, but the level of tech in 2004 makes it virtually impossible, unless, of course, you are again referring to specific items already viewed by experts and selected by them as worthy of further scrutiny.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".

Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".

Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.

Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

It didn't just 'turn out to be inaccurate'. It was engineered to be that way. Even if you accept that an honest mistake was made, it is such an act of gross incompetence, Bush should resign.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Even if you accept that an honest mistake was made, it is such an act of gross incompetence, Bush should resign.

If presidents resigned for gross incompetence, few of them would serve a full four years.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Good point...sort of. Even in the examples you provided, the president in question wasn't viewing all available raw data, but specific items already determined to be of value.

Also, that kind of micromanagement might've been possible (though rare even then...) in the 1960's and 70's, but the level of tech in 2004 makes it virtually impossible, unless, of course, you are again referring to specific items already viewed by experts and selected by them as worthy of further scrutiny.

The problem was wilful ignorance. As has been made clear already, the decision to go to war was made, then the justification of WMD was manufactured.

In Australia, at least two members of the intelligence community had told our Prime Minister that the WMD intelligence that was used to justify the war was worthless. One said so publicly, the other privately. The one who told the PM privately had a great deal of trouble just getting that message through to the PM. He did not want to know.

The PM then had the utter hypocrisy to blame the intelligence community for the intelligence failures. By a strange co-incidence, the intelligence communities in the US and UK were also the fall guys.

In the US, Powell was deliberately kept out of the loop for those planning the war, to the point that the Saudi ambassador knew about the war plans first.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If presidents resigned for gross incompetence, few of them would serve a full four years.

General incompetence and mistakes are to be expected. If you are talking about a war, then I think a different level of standard is required. This is not just a matter of tax breaks, domestic squabbles, etc. This is an act of war executed on a sovereign country on the other side of the globe. The idea that the US can just commit such an act just say 'whoopsies' is crazy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by wollery
Sorry, I had to go early yesterday so I'm a tad behind on this thread, although I have read it all through.
Are you telling me that the President of of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the most potent army ever assembled, the single most powerful person on the planet, a man with the ability to destroy the world a hundred times over (at least) gets only the facts and interpretations that the security chiefs choose to give him? :eek:

Until now I was hacked off that we were taken to war on false premises, now I'm scared sh!tless! :(

I believe it's possible, Blair certainly presented information as fact that he had been told was, at best, doubtful. He and Bush were in constant communication, as were the US and UK intelligence services. If Bush didn't know, then either the US intelligence services are really crap at their jobs or there's something seriously wrong with the way the US intelligence services communicate with the President.

At least two members of the Australian Intelligence community broke ranks and told the Australian PM that the whole WMD case was a blatant fraud and and a sham. The fact is, these guys didn't want to know. The US, GB and Australia were committed to a war in 2002. The whole act of making such a huge mobilisation of the necessary armed forces was happening then. The idea that once all this was done, that the war would not go ahead, is absurd.

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/25/1095961893868.html



Australia's leading expert on weapons of mass destruction reportedly warned Prime Minister John Howard that going to war with Iraq would make Australia a bigger terrorist target.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Bob Mathews, a 35-year veteran of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, also told the PM his case for war was based on falsehoods.

Mr Mathews wrote to Mr Howard as a private citizen three days before the Prime Minister committed the nation to war.

The report says Mr Mathews' action was a last, desperate act after his superiors repeatedly blocked him from expressing his views.



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html

this from may 31 last year.

both these people knew before the war that the intelligence was cr@p, and time has proven them right.




A lack of intelligence

May 31 2003

Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes.

'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement.

Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq.

It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky".

So it was no surprise in some of the more mysterious corridors of Canberra last week when news broke about the CIA investigation into the US intelligence failure over Iraq. In fact, there was probably some relief, given the importance to Australian security of having the US intelligence system work properly.

After all, the Australia-US intelligence relationship is supposed to be one of the main reasons for the broader alliance between the two countries.

The CIA had clearly lost the plot if its October 2002 report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was anything to go by. Either that, or the agency was party to a disinformation campaign designed to encourage support for a war. How else to explain the excerpt quoted by the Prime Minister in early February: "All key aspects ... of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."

The CIA's public acknowledgement of a review smells more like early positioning for its day of reckoning than a genuine interest in continuous improvement. The CIA can't afford another serious blunder so soon after its failure to pick up the September 11 attacks.

Condoleezza Rice was smart enough to attempt her U-turn weeks ago. According to the US National Security Adviser, WMD bombs, missiles and drones are out. Dual-use technology and just-in-time manufacturing are in. Find a pesticide factory, for instance, and you find a chemical warfare facility. And don't be concerned about looters. The more the place is trashed, the more difficult will be any dispute about the evidence. More recently, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has said publicly that Iraq may have destroyed its WMDs prior to the war.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is an act of war executed on a sovereign country on the other side of the globe. The idea that the US can just commit such an act just say 'whoopsies' is crazy.

Nah. We'd have to say "Whoopsie-poopsie!" to give it the necessary gravitas.

[gnome]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Nah. We'd have to say "Whoopsie-poopsie!" to give it the necessary gravitas.

But Saddam triple dog-dared us!

[crimresearch]

It was just pure jealousy because unlike Bush, Saddam was voted in as the people's overwhelming choice...and not just in one country, he was also the legitimate ruler of Kuwait.

All of these stories about dead Kurds, and 12 years of flaunting non-compliance with international sanctions, and invading Kuwait, and torturing and murdering people, and embezzling Food for Oil money... these are just lies cooked up by the:

vastrightwingmediaconspiracySkull'n'BonesTrilatera lSwiftBoatvetsEldersofZionBushfamilyHiltleritesand KarlRove'ssubliminalbraincontrolmanipulators...
:rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Blah, blah, blah...Yadda, yadda, yadda...

:tr:

[Ed]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't think he did mislead them deliberately. I see Bush as making up his mind first, then seizing on any evidence that seems to support his position and ignoring the rest. His own wife remarked once that he doesn't "overthink things"....I think he's just one of those people who doesn't gather evidence and weigh it, analyze it, and then draw conclusions.

But I'm sure he thought he was right.


So then you do not believe that GW is a puppet of those around him?

[Ed]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Kerry's problem isn't his accent, it's his voice. Like the tolling of a boring bell, or a distant foghorn where you don't care if the ship hits the rocks or not. It puts me to sleep if he talks for more than a minute, and he always does.

hmmmm.......

he does remind me of Eeyore

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
:tr:

That's the best you can come up with. You obviously have no rebuttal. I have referred to reputable news sources, not just my opinion.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Good point...sort of. Even in the examples you provided, the president in question wasn't viewing all available raw data, but specific items already determined to be of value.

Also, that kind of micromanagement might've been possible (though rare even then...) in the 1960's and 70's, but the level of tech in 2004 makes it virtually impossible, unless, of course, you are again referring to specific items already viewed by experts and selected by them as worthy of further scrutiny.

OK, I think that even given your pro-war views you are beginning to see the point.

Originally, you strongly asserted that a President is not privy to raw data so furnished a few examples to show that Presidents can, and are, privy to raw data. I was not trying to say that the President micro-manages the intelligence services; there are already people to do that and the President has better things anyway. Heck, not even the first Bush who was a former head of the CIA tried to directly manage the organization he once manged.

However, one of the real powers that a President has is that he is the head of a very large, very powerful, and very well funded bureaucracy which means that he can get as much, or as little, of the "raw data" that he wants with basically a phone call.

And that is where this Bush screwed up!

He did not have any conclusive data showing that Iraq had WMDs, however that did not stop him from from "assuming" that Iraq did have WMDs and using that assumption as a pre-text for the war.

Of course, Bush does not even read the newspapers so one should not be surprised to find that some of his assumptions are based on poor data.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Crossbow
And that is where this Bush screwed up!

He did not have any conclusive data showing that Iraq had WMDs, however that did not stop him from from "assuming" that Iraq did have WMDs and using that assumption as a pre-text for the war.

Of course, Bush does not even read the newspapers so one should not be surprised to find that some of his assumptions are based on poor data.

The UN could learn a lesson too. They were just as convinced Saddam has WMD.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Because he caters to Old Europe and his wife is a Euro-elitist?


(as long as you keep pitchin' underhand, I'll keep knockin' em out...) :D Maybe because he won't keep poisoning the goose that lays their golden egg (our economy) and simultaneously making a giant mess in their backyard? You might have a different opinion of the Iraq situation if it were geographically located where Mexico is right now.

[CapelDodger]

from Kodiak:Also, that kind of micromanagement might've been possible (though rare even then...) in the 1960's and 70's, but the level of tech in 2004 makes it virtually impossible, unless, of course, you are again referring to specific items already viewed by experts and selected by them as worthy of further scrutiny.The amount of intelligence emanating from Iraq was no more than Kennedy was coping with. U2 photos or satellite photos, what the heck? Soviet intercepts, Iraqi intercepts, much the same. The difference is not that Bush wouldn't be expected to look at raw data, Bush wouldn't expect to look at raw data. It isn't Bush that matters, it's the Bush administration. Bush is simply the front-man. There's no sign that Bush has ever had any input into policy, before or after his election. He's a puppet. The only time he makes a contribution is when he backs Constitutional Amendments that aren't going to happen. Previous recent administrations - except Reagan's, of course - have reflected the ideas and policies of the President; Reagan was the front-man for George I and his coterie, and look how George I fared out in the public eye. George II has no ideas or policies, and people should not get side-tracked into arguments such as "Bush lied/didn't lie." He just repeated what he was told. It's like blaming the presenter with good hair and teeth for a bad weather forecast.

Where Kerry and Edwards went wrong is in not realising just how mendacious this administration could be.

[CapelDodger]

from merphie:The UN could learn a lesson too. They were just as convinced Saddam has WMD.They made the same mistake as Kerry/Edwards. I'll go hands-up : so did I. So did Colin Powell.

[merphie]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from merphie:They made the same mistake as Kerry/Edwards. I'll go hands-up : so did I. So did Colin Powell.

What exactly are you trying to say?

[demon]

merphie:
"The UN could learn a lesson too. They were just as convinced Saddam has WMD."

It is is often stated that the UN and the rest of the world thought Saddam had useable WMD. However, this is flatly false.
The UN never did; only that Iraq had possessed certain amounts of weapons or material, prior to 1991, for which it had failed to account satisfactorily. Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council." (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002).

[merphie]

Originally posted by demon
merphie:
"The UN could learn a lesson too. They were just as convinced Saddam has WMD."

It is is often stated that the UN and the rest of the world thought Saddam had useable WMD. However, this is flatly false.
The UN never did; only that Iraq had possessed certain amounts of weapons or material, prior to 1991, for which it had failed to account satisfactorily. Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council." (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002).

That's a comfort. I agree with that statement but having 8000 liters of anthrax is close enough to having the weapon. What would stop him from putting them in weapons If he has said things available.

They found some artillery shells around Iraq and some were not accounted for. We also know he has used gas in the past on the Kurds and Iran. So it is not far fetched to think he has WMD. These chemicals can not be used for pesticide.

[demon]

merphie, I`ve debated this topic quite a lot on this forum in the past so forgive me if I repost what I said before on the subject in a previous post. It still represents my positon on this issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the world did NOT think Saddam retained any useable WMD. The UN never did; only that Iraq had possessed certain amounts of weapons or material, prior to 1991, for which it had failed to account satisfactorily. Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council." (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002).
Blix`s predecessor, Scott Ritter, has been even more definite, and has argued for several years that Iraq was "effectively disarmed" and that any attempt to reconstitute programmes would have been "impossible" (Press Association, July 16th 2002).

David Kelly, in his draft article published posthumously by the Observer (31/08/03) did not state that Iraq definitely had WMD, either. Indeed, he concedes that UNSCOM and the IAEA "destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability." The problem, Kelly argued, lay in what was unknown; i.e. for which inspectors could not account. According to Kelly, what was unaccounted for was "8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions." To reiterate Blix`s caution, because we cannot account for these weapons, it does not mean they actually existed. Even if they had, as Ritter and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, they would have all been useless sludge by 1995. Further, Kelly conceded that these figures are based "in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq". The threat from Iraq -which was so "modest" that it was "unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops" or "likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries" was a "long term" one: that they might -one day- be developed to "military maturity". This is hardly the "serious" or "current" threat concocted by Blair, Bush, Powell and Co.

Nor did the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 demonstrate that everyone accepted that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons. The text of 1441 makes clear that Iraq was not complying with inspectors, but it nowhere asserts that Iraq possessed these weapons. Moreover, while it states, as a matter of abstract principle, that proliferation of WMD is a threat to international peace: it did not accuse Iraq of proliferating, because most countries on the Security Council (US and UK excluded) did not believe that Iraq (the most heavily monitored and contained country in history) was engaged in proliferation.

Nor did the US Government believe Iraq was a threat prior to February 24th 2001, when Colin Powell stated on the record and on camera in Cairo- that "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours" (US Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm).

Prior to this, it seems unlikely that the US seriously believed that Iraq had WMD -at least if their behaviour is a guide. In August 1998, The Washington Post reported that the "US has been blocking UNSCOM searches since last November". In August 2000, the same paper reported that the US was urging UNMOVIC not to "force the issue" regarding the return of inspectors and, in September, Madeleine Albright announced that the US would not use force to compel the return of the inspectors.

The Daily Telegraph (17th June 2002) reported that "Senior German and French politicians argue that negotiations and a resumption of United Nations arms inspections are the way forward - a view that provokes exasperation in Washington."
Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker (24th December 2001) reported that the consensus in the Bush administration was that there would be no effort to revive the inspections process and the Washington Post reported on the 11th of January of 2002 that US was refusing to make any efforts to get the inspectors back in.

Nor does it seem that WMD has ever been the US`s real concern. The Washington Post also reported on April 15th 2002 of the concerns of "Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power." Colin Powell, the supposed dove, also affirmed that "US policy is that, regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad. The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." (Quoted in the Guardian, May 6th 2002).
Time magazine made it explicit on the 13th of May 2002, quoting a "top Senate foreign policy aide" who said that "The White House?s biggest fear is that the UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in."

And, if the US and UK`s only motive for war was the threat from Iraqi WMD -and wished to avoid war if possible- why did they reject so many Iraqi offers out of hand? Why did the US not pursue any of the repeated concessions made by Iraq in the final days -including internationally supervised elections within two years, the admittance of FBI agents to search for weapons, and the handover of suspected terrorist Abdul Rahman Yasin? (New York Post 06/11/03), (AFP 07/11/03), (Guardian 07/11/03). True, they may have been a ruse, but we shall never know. The US was in an ideal position to force concessions from Iraq and bring about democratization and "disarmament" without military force -a policy it claims to favour in other instances- yet, in this case, it rejected the option out of hand. Was not the US under a moral duty to test these offers and possibly avoid killing thousands of people?

So, Blix did not say Iraq had WMD, the UN did not say Iraq had WMD, David Kelly did not say Iraq had WMD, and the US either did not think they did and or, if they did, certainly did not consider them a threat worth inspecting.
We also know that credible sources were contending that Iraq was disarmed for months before the attack. So don't attempt to argue that everybody was duped because we weren't. The only people duped were those who believed the US and UK governments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[merphie]

demon, I agree with most of your post. I have read a lot of the same information.

I am not aware of concessions that Iraq made concerning FBI. I think they are plausible because Saddam is a man who would have done anything to retain power.

If Iraq did have the chemicals and other products used in WMD then it is plausible that some time in the future he could use them as weapons. Even if the possibility that he could give some of it to would-be terrorist.

This is also reflected by the problems we now face with N Korea. Negotiations are complicated by China and S Korea. We do not know for sure if they have a nuclear weapon, but we do know that he has the materials to produce at least 8. I know it is rather difficult to make a functional nuclear weapon but the whole Idea behind N Korea is that they could.

Saddam has had links with Al Qaeda in the past and there is no reason to think he might share some materials with them.

I suppose the whole thing comes down to what a WMD is. In my opinion, having the materials is the same thing as having a useable bomb or missle with the anthrax in it. After all not all chemicals or powders need a complicated delivery system. A lot of it could be dumped into water or mailed. Some of the delivery methods would not have mass causualties, but they would definately incite fear.

Ground intelligence and communication intercepts indicated that Saddam may have started programs up again, maybe developing weapons, or at the very least was hiding something. This was further confirmed in satellite photos of the area. I don't believe the UN weapon inspectors had all the information or a clear picture because of the games Saddam played with them.

Reading over Powell's UN speech gave the clear impression that the problem was he did not comply with the UN for 12 years. He has material to make weapons and might be doing it. Worst of all he had contacts with terrorist organizations. This is in addition to the way Saddam ran the country. If you check Powell's speech to the UN a lot of the information they were going on was taken after 2002. A lot of the information was similar to what you quoted from the UN.

Now the major problem people have is we have not found any materials or loaded weapons in Iraq. This certainly doesn't mean they didn't exists. I don't believe we should take the chance and wait till he performs a test.

In hindsight, I believe everyone is glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The human suffering he caused alone was a good enough reason.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie


In hindsight, I believe everyone is glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The human suffering he caused alone was a good enough reason.

Except you can't use that as logical reasoning. Saying after the event that something was worth it for a reason other than the reason you did it does not justify your initial premise if that premise is wrong.

Even assuming it is true, it is still not necessarily justification for the war. The war and the subsequent chaos are, arguably, worse than pre invasion Iraq.

[Jim Lennox]

Isolated from who? How has our reputation changed? and with who is it now damaged? Evidence, please, of this so-called "perilous closeness" that the world is uniting against us...

Discontent with the United States and its policies has intensified in the year following the war in Iraq, according to an annual poll of global attitudes towards the US...The image of the United States is as negative as it was a year before, and even in the UK, arguably the closest ally of the US, approval of the world's lone superpower "tumbled".


From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518412.stm).

In Great Britain, favorable views of the U.S. have declined from 75% to 48% since mid-2002.

In Poland, positive views of the U.S. have fallen to 50% from nearly 80% six months ago; in Italy, the proportion of respondents holding favorable views of the United States has declined by half over the same period (from 70% to 34%). In Spain, fewer than one-in-five (14%) have a favorable opinion of the United States. Views of the U.S. in Russia, which had taken a dramatically positive turn after Sept. 11, 2001, are now more negative than they were prior to the terrorist attacks.

From here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175).

Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.

Generally, Americans think the war helped in the fight against terrorism, illustrated the power of the U.S. military, and revealed America to be trustworthy and supportive of democracy around the world.

These notions are not shared elsewhere. Majorities in Germany, Turkey and France – and half of the British and Russians – believe the conflict in Iraq undermined the war on terrorism. At least half the respondents in the eight other countries view the U.S. as less trustworthy as a consequence of the war. For the most part, even U.S. military prowess is not seen in a better light as a result of the war in Iraq.


From here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206).

Saddam has had links with Al Qaeda in the past and there is no reason to think he might share some materials with them.

Evidence, please?

[fishbob]

Saddam has had links with Al Qaeda in the past and there is no reason to think he might share some materials with them.He always says that. He never backs it up.

Now the major problem people have is we have not found any materials or loaded weapons in Iraq. This certainly doesn't mean they didn't exists. I don't believe we should take the chance and wait till he performs a test. Another victim of the Bush administration's patented pandering to public paranoia. Note how logic and reason go out the window: We couldn't find any evidence of WMDs but we had better invade.

Logically kind of like:

Well Mr Iraq, we couldn't find any symptoms that your leg was broken, so we cut it off because we couldn't prove it wasn't broken - just to be on the safe side. The pathologist's report shows no breaks, but getting rid of that annoying athelete's foot fungus was worth it.

[Patrick]

Except you can't use that as logical reasoning. Saying after the event that something was worth it for a reason other than the reason you did it does not justify your initial premise if that premise is wrong.

So Bush is guilty of creating a salutory result from an incorrect premise! Gasp! Shudder! hee hee hee

Even assuming it is true, it is still not necessarily justification for the war. The war and the subsequent chaos are, arguably, worse than pre invasion Iraq.

Lemme hear the arguments. This has become one of the standard anti-Bush mantras that nobody supplies reasons for. Here, I'll get you started:

"The post-invasion Iraq is worse, taking into account Saddam's 600,000 political opponents in mass graves, his wars of aggression on three neighboring countries resulting in millions of deaths on all sides, the first IRBM attack on a country since WWII, and a massive system of secret police, political prisons, torture cells, and rape rooms because _____(fill in blank)______."

[fishbob]

So Bush is guilty of creating a salutory result from an incorrect premise! Gasp! Shudder! hee hee hee See above.

The post-invasion Iraq is worse, taking into account Saddam's 600,000 political opponents in mass graves, his wars of aggression on three neighboring countries resulting in millions of deaths on all sides, the first IRBM attack on a country since WWII, and a massive system of secret police, political prisons, torture cells, and rape rooms because _____(fill in blank)______." How many polotical opponents in mass graves? How many deaths on all sides? You got too many zeros in your estimates. Zeros - little circles with holes in the middle. Like your arguments.

[Patrick]

How many polotical opponents in mass graves? How many deaths on all sides? You got too many zeros in your estimates. Zeros - little circles with holes in the middle. Like your arguments.

The little holes are in your head from too many fish hooks! :D
See for example http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's the best you can come up with. You obviously have no rebuttal. I have referred to reputable news sources, not just my opinion.

Myself and others have responded to your propaganda in the past several months Ad Nauseam.

I no longer see the point. You excel at moving goalposts, cherry-picking those debate points you feel you can win, and igoring everything else.

I guess your only comfort might come from the fact that you are not the only left-leaning utopian/elitist on this forum who operates in this manner.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Myself and others have responded to your propaganda in the past several months Ad Nauseam.

I no longer see the point. You excel at moving goalposts, cherry-picking those debate points you feel you can win, and igoring everything else.

I guess your only comfort might come from the fact that you are not the only left-leaning utopian/elitist on this forum who operates in this manner.

which of those errors was I guilty of this time.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
which of those errors was I guilty of this time.

In the specific post in question?

Ad Nauseam propaganda...

The rest eventually surface after someone has taken your bait...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
In the specific post in question?

Ad Nauseam propaganda...

The rest eventually surface after someone has taken your bait...

They were two intelligence officers working for Australia. One resigned to make his views known, one tried repeatedly to tell the Prime Minister that the intelligence on WMD was completely wrong. Both were subsequently shown to be totally correct. Don't believe a left wing ratbag like me, look at what reputable, conservative analysts said before the war started. Subsequent events have shown them to be totally correct. The amazing thing is that, after the intelligence gathering process was so expertly manipulated to produce the answers wanted, the intelligence agencies were blamed for the incorrect information.

BTW, saying the right thing ad nauseum is not a logical fallacy.

[fishbob]

Patrick's link: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million
[These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

Ouch, those fish hooks are sharp, but Pat - you still came up with too many zeros. Yes Saddam was a bad man, but the bottom line is still that the US is currently in Iraq because the President pushed misleading information on the public, and the congress, and our allies.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Patrick's link: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

Ouch, those fish hooks are sharp, but Pat - you still came up with too many zeros. Yes Saddam was a bad man, but the bottom line is still that the US is currently in Iraq because the President pushed misleading information on the public, and the congress, and our allies.

If his numbers are wrong then you provide some.

Are you saying we should have left Saddam alone and just lift the sanctions?

[fishbob]

Pat said 600,000 political opponents in mass graves. The link Pat provided as a reference says something else. Read it.

Read the words I wrote. I called BS. I said that Pat provided erroneous information, and pointed out that the reference he provided does not agree with his statements. I said that Patrick exaggerated.

This close to the election, nobody does any candidate or position any good by stretching the truth.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
If his numbers are wrong then you provide some.

Are you saying we should have left Saddam alone and just lift the sanctions?

Once again, a false dichotomy. There were a whole range of options besides invasion. Look at Gaddafi in Libya, for example. He now fetches Dubya's slippers.

[Patrick]

Ouch, those fish hooks are sharp, but Pat - you still came up with too many zeros

Uh, no I don't. This quotes human rights officials on the post-war scene as saying 500,000 murders instead of what I remembered from a TV source as 600,000, and the millions of deaths of all kinds including war deaths stands. Also the main point remains: it's a wholesale lunatic departure from reality to say it's arguable whether the unfortunate liberation deaths were worth stopping the mass murderer Saddam, from the body counts alone.

[fishbob]

Check your source again. 600,000 of Saddam's political opponents were not found in mass graves. The majority of the reported deaths were during the Iran/Iraq war, prior to 1988. Most of the remaining deaths were right after we bailed out after 1991 - Saddam getting even with groups that might be thinking about overthrowing him. So this leaves somewhere around 60,000 since about 1992, which averages about 5,000 per year since then (pretty similar to the US annual murder rate).

Now this is still bad, but our troops have killed somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Iraqi civilians since we got there, plus an unknown number of Iraqi military. Iraqis have more to fear from the US than they did from Saddam over the last dozen years. Plus the terrorists, Baathists, Iraqi resistance fighters have killed a bunch more Iraqi civilians. Plus more than 1,000 US troops have died.

Yes it was a good idea to try to stop Saddam, but the selected method has not been exactly beneficial to the the Iraqi victim pool. And the civilian casualties continue to rise and our troops continue to die. And we are there because the public was told by our leaders that Saddam had nukes and anthrax. The US public did not give a rat's @ss about the deaths in Iraq prior to getting all worked up about WMDs and anthrax.

Maybe elections will be held in Iraq early next year, and maybe a reasonable government will be established, and maybe the violence will decrease. Maybe some year soon the murders of Iraqi civilians will decrease below the pre-invasion levels. Want to place a bet??

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, a false dichotomy. There were a whole range of options besides invasion. Look at Gaddafi in Libya, for example. He now fetches Dubya's slippers.

And what caused Gaddafi's change of heart?

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Pat said 600,000 political opponents in mass graves. The link Pat provided as a reference says something else. Read it.

Read the words I wrote. I called BS. I said that Pat provided erroneous information, and pointed out that the reference he provided does not agree with his statements. I said that Patrick exaggerated.

This close to the election, nobody does any candidate or position any good by stretching the truth.

I can give you that. They have found many mass graves so an accurate count probably won't be available for many years.

The report he quoted said 500,000 but did not say where or how they were buried. He still killed a bunch of people.

At least Pat did give a source.

[Jim Lennox]

And what caused Gaddafi's change of heart?

Although President George W Bush has sought to portray Libya's willingness to admit inspectors to examine its programmes of weapons of mass destruction as a success for American policy, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi may well feel that the success is really his.

After all, the next stage should be that, soon, the US will renew formal diplomatic relations - and that has been the Libyan objective since 1992, when United Nations sanctions were imposed.

Indeed, the Gaddafi regime has been trying for this since 1986, when US sanctions forced American oil companies to leave the country.


From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3338713.stm).

[merphie]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3338713.stm).

So he finally came to his senses?

[Jim Lennox]

Good comeback, Potsie.

[demon]

The propaganda that the Iraqi invasion somehow made Libya want to "come clean" about its WMD programmes and that therefore this somhow vindicates the illegal invasion is nonsense that the media of course, appears unwilling to refute.
In fact, in 1992, Libya repeatedly tried to negotiate, through the former US Senator Gary Hart, the extradition of the Lockerbie suspects, normalized relations, and the end of their terrorist and WMD activities. These detailed offers were consistently rebuffed by the first Bush Administration and came to nothing. It is only 12 years later that they have been accepted and, in typically Orwellian fashion, that the invasion of Iraq is credited for their success.

UK hypocrisy in this was further demonstrated by our condemnation of Libya for supporting the IRA. The main source of IRA funding was always America and successive US governments frequently refused to extradite suspected IRA terrorists. This hypocrisy is further compounded by the reporting, accurately, but without comment, that the US trained and funded bin Laden and the Mujahadeen`s terrorism against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Apparently, when Libya sponsors terrorism against an occupying force, that it wrong; but when the US does it, we say nothing.

[Patrick]

Yes it was a good idea to try to stop Saddam, but the selected method has not been exactly beneficial to the the Iraqi victim pool.

ALL wars cause victims, including civilian casualties. They are fought nonetheless, with full realization that that will be a side effect, because the alternative of doing nothing is much worse, as was and is the case in Iraq. Blink twice if you get it yet, fishbrain.

[fishbob]

ALL wars cause victims, including civilian casualties. They are fought nonetheless, with full realization that that will be a side effect, because the alternative of doing nothing is much worse, as was and is the case in Iraq. Blink twice if you get it yet, fishbrain.

Think about how things look tp an Iraqi guy whose neighbor gets blown to hell minding his own business in his own front yard. A permanent enemy. Or the other Iraqi guy whose neighbor gets swept up and stuck in Abu Ghraib and lost for 10 months. Another permanent enemy.

A war started at the whim of the person with the best security in the entire world smells pretty bad to the people getting shot at. An escalating war, with no end in sight probably looks pretty grim compared with the anonymous security of Saddam's rule.

I have two nephews that have served in Iraq, and made it home safely. One Marine, one Army Reserve. Both could be sent back at any time. What will they be called to do?? The Marine will have to shoot to kill anything and anybody that looks suspicious. Maybe a bystander, maybe a kid, maybe a bad guy. The Army Reservist will have to drive big trucks through a gauntlet of RPGs and home made mines and possible ambushes.

Why??? Because your boy in the White House lied to the public to get US support for invasion of Iraq. And you still support the nimrod - safe on his ranch or in AF1, and you safe and secure in front of your computer. I get it that you just don't get it, winky.

PS; That is Mr Fishbrain to you, bub.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Patrick
Yes it was a good idea to try to stop Saddam, but the selected method has not been exactly beneficial to the the Iraqi victim pool.

ALL wars cause victims, including civilian casualties. They are fought nonetheless, with full realization that that will be a side effect, because the alternative of doing nothing is much worse, as was and is the case in Iraq. Blink twice if you get it yet, fishbrain.

Maybe war was not the best option to use then.......

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3338713.stm).

Exactly. The process with Libya has been going on for years.

[CapelDodger]

from Patrick:So Bush is guilty of creating a salutory result from an incorrect premise! Gasp! Shudder! hee hee heeDo you not have a problem with a leader taking a country to war on the basis of an erroneous judgment? Isn't that an unattractive record to take to the polls? Next time he does it the results might not be salutary, and its a bit soon to be making any final judgements on the outcome of this one. I don't think it at all likely that the US electorate would have endorsed the Iraq war if the stated reason was the well-being of the Iraqi people. If that was the administration's motivation it was subverting US democracy. There are, then, two possibilities : an error of judgment or an act of deception. Neither looks great on the President's record.

[Patrick]

Do you not have a problem with a leader taking a country to war on the basis of an erroneous judgment?

The president should act on what is presumptively the best information available at the time. The president expects to get the facts from the intelligence agencies. Having no training in analyzing, eg., what it means when a satellite sees a particular shape on one day and the dissappearance of a shadow on another day, he must rely on them. If they make an incorrect analysis, he will make incorrect decisions. Two hundred years ago, when "war" meant three months hence, a flotilla would appear off the coast and fire a few cannon balls into a few towns, there was margin for second guessing, delay, etc - no longer in the age of instantaneous communication, suitcase nukes, jet travel, and lack of humint intelligence capability, politically correct lack of control of illegal aliens, lack of profiling, etc. Unfortunately, in this age to delay can mean to die. Obviously, the intelligence agencies need to be reconstructed to meet the current threats, not the cold war, and jettison the PC impediments that is the heritage of democrat administrations. Partly, this is being done - notably with the removal of the PC information wall between the intelligence agencies and domestic agencies like the FBI that if done before would have prevented 9/11.

Isn't that an unattractive record to take to the polls?

For a poll-oriented unprincipled pol like Clinton or Lurch - yes. Principled leaders like Bush focus on what needs to be done.

Next time he does it the results might not be salutary, and its a bit soon to be making any final judgements on the outcome of this one.

Next time he will presumably be acting with the support of competent intelligence agencies.

I don't think it at all likely that the US electorate would have endorsed the Iraq war if the stated reason was the well-being of the Iraqi people. If that was the administration's motivation it was subverting US democracy. There are, then, two possibilities : an error of judgment or an act of deception. Neither looks great on the President's record.

You're pretty much losing focus - Bush never said that was the reason, and he acted on a third posibility - the build up of Iraq as a threat based on his appropriate reliance on the intelligence agencies - that was neither an error of judgment or an act of deception.

[CapelDodger]

from Patrick:The president should act on what is presumptively the best information available at the time.The president should make his decisions based on the best information available, but it's still his call. He should also judge how dependable the information is. What we do know is that Bush's judgement and decisions were not of the best. That's his record.
For a poll-oriented unprincipled pol like Clinton or Lurch - yes. Principled leaders like Bush focus on what needs to be done.I agree that Bush isn't a politician, but the idea that he's principled and not poll-oriented beggars belief. What needs to be done by Bush is get elected - that's his job, policies are another department. When you go to the polls to vote, will you find Bush's record attractive, given that he took the US into a war for invalid reasons? And we're not talking Grenada or Somalia here.
Next time he will presumably be acting with the support of competent intelligence agencies.Why? If he couldn't recognise incompetent advisors before, why should he be able to spot them in the future?
You're pretty much losing focus - Bush never said that was the reason, and he acted on a third posibility - the build up of Iraq as a threat based on his appropriate reliance on the intelligence agencies - that was neither an error of judgment or an act of deception.I haven't been the one to introduce the subject of Iraq being better off without Saddam Hussein. Bush does that, of course, and it does get brought up pretty regularly on threads like this. Let's take such mentions as a loss of focus in future. The Bush administration didn't act on the Iraqi potential, they acted - explicitly - on Iraq's exisitng weapons and immediate threat. Did I misundertand Colin Powell's presentation?

[Patrick]

The president should make his decisions based on the best information available, but it's still his call. He should also judge how dependable the information is. What we do know is that Bush's judgement and decisions were not of the best. That's his record.

You're doing a kind of backwards 20-20 hindsight logic. It's his call, but he can make a call based on only what the intelligence services told him. If the intelligence services told him something bad was going to happen, and he did nothing, not believeing it, and the bad thing DID happen, then the same people who are criticizing him now would be criticizing him in that case. We DON'T know that Bush's judgement was not of the best - there's been no showing that based on the information he was given at the time that any other president would have acted any other way, including Lurch, who saw the same intelligence and made the same decision back then. Your attempt to demand that Bush had your same 20-20 hindsight back then doesn't wash.

When you go to the polls to vote, will you find Bush's record attractive, given that he took the US into a war for invalid reasons?

I don't vote, but if I did, I'd vote for Bush -- at this time it has to be crystal clear to the many groups/countries that are all prepped to see how far they can challenge us, that we have a president who if you even LOOK like you're threatening americans, if you even SMELL like you're threatening americans, you're going to get your ass kicked.

Why? If he couldn't recognise incompetent advisors before, why should he be able to spot them in the future?

How should he recognize competent advisors - give them flash pictures of terrorists and ask them to identify them? Sit them down with satellite photos of uranium reprocessing facilities and see if they can identify them? Dont' be ridiculous - he has to go on what experts say. As I've said a number of times, the intelligence agencies have been thoroughtly revealed as incompetent, and need to be replaced.

The Bush administration didn't act on the Iraqi potential, they acted - explicitly - on Iraq's exisitng weapons and immediate threat. Did I misundertand Colin Powell's presentation?

Uh, this is getting really tiresome ... can you PLEASE pay attention?? They acted on the information of the INTELLIGENCE agencies. And you DID misunderstand Powell's presentation. Powell never claimed an "immediate threat", nor the well-worn "imminent threat" fiction of anti-Bush sites

[fishbob]

Uh, this is getting really tiresome ... can you PLEASE pay attention?? They acted on the information of the INTELLIGENCE agencies. And you DID misunderstand Powell's presentation. Powell never claimed an "immediate threat", nor the well-worn "imminent threat" fiction of anti-Bush sites 1) The Bush administration acted on a skewed interpretation of information from the intelligence agencies, and ignored the analyses provided by the intelligence agencies. They did the skewing themselves.

2) Powell's speech laid out Iraqi attack capabilities - tons of anthrax, etc. Scary stuff and available for use at any time.

3) One of the Bush speeches used the term "immenent threat".

You must not have been paying attention.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
1) The Bush administration acted on a skewed interpretation of information from the intelligence agencies, and ignored the analyses provided by the intelligence agencies. They did the skewing themselves.

2) Powell's speech laid out Iraqi attack capabilities - tons of anthrax, etc. Scary stuff and available for use at any time.

3) One of the Bush speeches used the term "immenent threat".

You must not have been paying attention.

You mean the same information Kerry had and made the same conclusions about Iraq?

One of Kerry's speeches used the term "grave danger"

You must be ignoring information.

[Patrick]

1) The Bush administration acted on a skewed interpretation of information from the intelligence agencies, and ignored the analyses provided by the intelligence agencies. They did the skewing themselves.

This has been endlessly repeated by cowardly defamers like yourself - I've asked them over and over for proof of this, and there never is any.

One of the Bush speeches used the term "immenent threat".

No, he NEVER used that phrase. You're simply repeating a defamtion that has been stuck into your gullible fishbrain.

[fishbob]

Move over Merphie, there is a new queen of Egypt. Patrick is even more outstanding in denial.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Move over Merphie, there is a new queen of Egypt. Patrick is even more outstanding in denial.

More baseless assumptions? I guess that makes you the queen of propaganda!