Have your views changed on WMD?

[ceptimus]

I'm not asking in which direction they've changed - just whether they have.

ceptimus.

[Tricky]

Yes, my views changed. I was pretty much convinced they would find some WMDs because I trusted the information gathering capabilities of the CIA et. al. In fact, I feared that WMDs would be used during the war. I have had somewhat of a rude awakening with regard to our "intelligence", but it is quite obvious that the Bush administration misled us, by twisting figures, only selecting information that fit their agenda, and even using obviously forged documents to support their point.

I still do not write off the possibility that we may find some WMDs eventually, but certainly nothing like we had been led to expect.

(I must say though, ceptimus, that I am amused by your display of impartiality. Who do you think is going to say they are more certain of WMDs than they were before the war?;))

[shanek]

I was right all the time. Sure, it's possible that there are WMDs, but I regard that possibility about the same as I did at the beginning. I was always skeptical of the claim and was chastised and even insulted by many because of it.

I think the Bush Administration thought that there almost certainly were many WMDs there, and they figured that if they could just do an end-run around the proper methods of gaining evidence and just leap to any old excuse, they would be justified when the WMDs were found, which they believed was inevitable.

So it turns out they were quite obviously wrong. Even if WMDs are eventually found, it's obvious that the Bush Administration had no direct knowledge of them, that their "evidence" (whatever it was) was bogus, and that the program was nowhere near as advanced as we were led to believe.

This is exactly why skeptical thinking should apply in all areas, no matter how confident you are of what reality is.

[Ian Osborne]

What Tricky said. I wasn't expecting a significant arsenal to be found in Iraq, but we really do seem to have been shafted by our glorious leaders. As a result, I (staunch Labour) will never vote for the party while Bliar's still the leader.

[Drifterman]

Ian Osborne originally posted:
What Tricky said. I wasn't expecting a significant arsenal to be found in Iraq, but we really do seem to have been shafted by our glorious leaders. As a result, I (staunch Labour) will never vote for the party while Bliar's still the leader.

Who else is there to vote for? I trust the Tories even less than the Labour Party. They were salivating over the prospect of war without even the figleaf of WMD (from what I could observe in the media available in Taiwan). The prospect of IDS and his ilk gaining any sort of power fills me with dread.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Drifterman
Who else is there to vote for?

Lib-Dems. They're closer to traditional Labour values than New Labour anyway.

I trust the Tories even less than the Labour Party. They were salivating over the prospect of war without even the figleaf of WMD (from what I could observe in the media available in Taiwan). The prospect of IDS and his ilk gaining any sort of power fills me with dread.

Seconded. The tories supported the war completely, and must bear their share of the blame for it.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

At this time

There is no robust evidence of the existance of WMDs, a nuclear weapons program, of suspect chemical weapons.

If robust and confirmed evidence is found and presented I will consider the new evidence and use that information to decide if the evidence warrants stating :

There is evidence that Saddam's regime recently had WMDs, chemical weapons, and a Nuclear Weapons program.

[Drifterman]

Ian Osborne originally posted:
Lib-Dems. They're closer to traditional Labour values than New Labour anyway.

As someone who has been out of the UK since June 2001, when Tony Blair's poularity was riding high, I am a little out of touch with UK politics.

Is your shift from New-Labour to the Lib-Dems representative of many traditional Labour supporters? The recent polls I have seen indicate a rise in support for the Tories, and a decline in support for Labour, with no real movement on the Lib-Dem front. If true, this would indicate to me that it is the more right-wing floating voters that are abandoning Tony in his (self-inflicted) time of trouble, which seems to make little sense to me.

My personal preference has always been for the Lib-Dems - their ideological baggage seems to be far lighter than either of the other 2 parties. I would be heartened by any news of swelling support for them.

As an aside, I had always considered Alex Salmond of the SNP to be a bit of a buffoon (I do not like "nationalist" parties of any description), but his comments in opposition to the war without UN backing gave me a great deal of new respect for him. I particularly enjoyed "The prime minister believes in whatever the White House believes in - and the emptiness of that position is evident."

[fhios]

I questioned the evidence from the very beginning. Anyone with overwhelming evidence of the existence of WMDs would've been a fool to keep it to himself when all he had to do was present one good source and he would've been able to ride the greatest wave of popular support for a war since FDR.
So, I'll ask again: has the death of our own uniformed countrymen been anything other than a pointless distraction from the necessary effort to hunt down real terrorists (who seem to improvise their weapons from, say, 747s, rather than going to all the trouble of developping nuclear bombs or killer bugs)? Did our very possibly unelected president let more Americans die in a pointless excursion while completely ignoring the murderer of over two thousand of his own countrymen? It looks to be so.

[a_unique_person]

Like Tricky said, I thought they would have found something by now. That's about the only chang.

[crocodile deathroll]

I was one of the mislead ones as I fully expected at least few chemical and bio ordinates to be found either hidden in a bunker or buried in the desert by now, even though I was highly skepical of them existing in the numbers that was claimed

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Ian Osbourne
What Tricky said. I wasn't expecting a significant arsenal to be found in Iraq, but we really do seem to have been shafted by our glorious leaders. As a result, I (staunch Labour) will never vote for the party while Bliar's still the leader.

Way to go Ian. This is so similar to my own thoughts you must be psychic. Is that allowable on the site?

[corplinx]

The only thing that has surprised me was the backyard uranium enrichment equipment. It made me wonder how many other buried caches of WMD related materials are out there that Saddam was waiting to unearth after inspectors had declared Iraq WMD-free and thus ended sanctions.

[ImpyTimpy]

I didn't expect any WMD's to be found in Iraq after going through the reports issued by Hans Blix. However, I still am open to the possibility of there being some WMD programs that were active, as I am open to the possibility of a psychic coming forth and claiming the million dollar prize.

Show me the evidence, I'll analyze it and draw my conclusions from there.

[ceptimus]

Bump.

I wonder if peoples views have changed again since this poll. Maybe we should have a fresh poll?

[Crossbow]

Before the war started, the big question for me (which I never get answered, although I looked, and looked, and looked some more) was:

Where is the objective evidence that shows Saddam has WMDs right now?

I expected him to have at least a few chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war, but none of these have been found. So, I guess my original opinion was actually valid; Iraq had little to no WMDs in the months prior to the war. If it were not for the tens of thousands who have been hur and killed, as well as the billions that could have been spent on far more productive purposes, I would be glad that I my opinion was so throughly validated.

Oh well, if anyone says in the future that “sanctions don’t work!” I can now able to provide an excellent example of how well they did work.

[plindboe]

Well, I didn't believe any of the heavy US propaganda up to the war at all. I found it to be obvious baloney, especially the 'Threat to world peace' & '45 minutes' claims was laughable in my eyes. But despite of this, I thought it quite possible that he still possessed such weapons, because; 'why would such a madman get rid of such efficient weapons in the first place?'. But I never really cared much about those kinds of weapons anyway, since countries around the world has them, and since conventional weapons can do just as grotesque things to a human body anyway.

Now I believe he probably did get rid of them because he had realized how important the battle in the media was. The US government looks pretty foolish today, and I guess that's the only real victory Saddam has achieved.

[Monketey Ghost]

I guess the only change is how frightened I am that, to all appearances, US intel has their collective heads up their collective asses.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
The only thing that has surprised me was the backyard uranium enrichment equipment. It made me wonder how many other buried caches of WMD related materials are out there that Saddam was waiting to unearth after inspectors had declared Iraq WMD-free and thus ended sanctions.

I realise this is a bump, but what backyard uranium enrichment equipment?

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Drifterman


Who else is there to vote for? I

You can vote for that page 3 sort out of the Sun who's up against Claire Short in the Birmingham Ladywood constituency.

I like the concept of page three on the psycho-social-sexual level, i.e. it teaches men maximum respect for birds and all the essential work they do in the kitchen.

She hasn't got them out yet, but it's only a matter of time lads.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I realise this is a bump, but what backyard uranium enrichment equipment?

The ones corplinx made up.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx
The only thing that has surprised me was the backyard uranium enrichment equipment. It made me wonder how many other buried caches of WMD related materials are out there that Saddam was waiting to unearth after inspectors had declared Iraq WMD-free and thus ended sanctions.

Ah, so Saddam buried all of those weapons and then he was going to dig out those weapons once sanctions ended, huh? Surely Saddam made documents that showed where all of these WMDs were hidden, right? Surely people had to bury these WMDs, and they would know where they were, right? Where are all of these people and documents? Maybe Saddam burned all the documents and killed all the people, so he is the only one who knows where the weapons are :rolleyes:

[fishbob]

I realise this is a bump, but what backyard uranium enrichment equipment? I seem to recall that a specialized centrifuge was found buried in the garden of an Iraqi scientist. In the news photo it looked sort of like a rusty blender.

[shecky]

I was pretty skeptical of the US claims all along, but wouldn't be surprised is some small quantities of WMDs had been found. My biggest surprise really has been that it's been such a bust.

[davefoc]

Right now, except for the backyard nuclear enrichment equipment I don't know of any unequivocal evidence of WMD or their means of production.

And the backyard nuclear enrichment equipment is arguably equivocal evidence. Supposedly of the three types of WMD, (nudlear, biological and chemical) nuclear is the most difficult to hide because it requires large industrial sized production equipment and large numbers of people to produce. So the fact that there hasn't been anything resembling nuclear weapon production facilities found suggests strongly that they didn't exist.

At this point, it looks highly likely that intentionally or not the Bush administration grossly misrepresented the facts concerning WMD in Iraq. This is very sad. We have lost credibility throughout the world and may or may not have made Iraq a better place to live for its citizens. Certainly we didn't do much for the ones killed and injured in the war.

One thing that is not clear is in the end will the world be better off because of the war. Just because the administration's main justification was false does not necessarily prove that the war will do more harm than good.

As to my own views before and after concerning the WMD this is one generally conservative fellow that thinks the liberal posters here have it exactly right. I expected that there would be some evidence of WMD or WMD production facilities that could serve to provide at least plausible deniability for the administration. It now appears that their WMD story stands as completely and unarguably false and that surprises me.

[Dorian Gray]

I thought they would find WMDs in the same way that John Edward gets 'hits' while cold reading - claiming that anything close counted as a WMD.

I was right. They found practically nothing.

[The Don]

Trouble is that there looks to be no fall-out from the WMD fiasco. GWB will probably be re-elected because he's the presidunce and because (from this distance) invading Iraq for whatever reason is retrospectively applied seems very popular.

Because of the effective propoganda, in many people's minds September 11th, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are irrevocably linked. There is a feeling that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile just to depose Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, we're not likely to give him the country back now going "Oops, sorry about that".

I'm still suprised we didn't plant a large cache of WMD somewhere in Iraq though.

[Darat]

Originally posted by The Don
...snip...

I'm still suprised we didn't plant a large cache of WMD somewhere in Iraq though.

You are too cynical. They aren't due to found until the end of October.



Seriously I never believed that Iraq had huge piles of "WDM" sitting around, however given what we knew of his history for chemical weapons etc. I am however surprised so little evidence has been found.

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them".

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Darat

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them". I think this is most likely. The regime says to the scientists and engineers, "Make us nukes! Make us chem and bio weapons!" So the engineers and scientists go and draw up plans that they can't do anything with because they have no materials.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Darat

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them".

But remember, the case for WMD was not really based on anything that was happening at the present time. With the weapons inspectors' work, it was pretty unlikely that there wasn't anything active. The only case for WMD came from the fact they had at one time X amount of WMD, and we have only accounted for Y, so they must have X - Y left. That's it.

The minions that we did interview claimed that the remaining stuff had been destroyed right after Gulf War I, but that it basically had not been documented. Of course, the admin didn't like that answer and insisted that we export Iraqi scientists and their families so that they could interview them under conditions where they didn't feel threatened.

This was all pretty much known before we attacked, and I think it was the widespread sentiment. Of course, we staked our case on the word of a defector, who clearly had no love for Saddam. So we accepted his info and discounted everything contrary to it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


But remember, the case for WMD was not really based on anything that was happening at the present time. With the weapons inspectors' work, it was pretty unlikely that there wasn't anything active. The only case for WMD came from the fact they had at one time X amount of WMD, and we have only accounted for Y, so they must have X - Y left. That's it.

The minions that we did interview claimed that the remaining stuff had been destroyed right after Gulf War I, but that it basically had not been documented. Of course, the admin didn't like that answer and insisted that we export Iraqi scientists and their families so that they could interview them under conditions where they didn't feel threatened.

This was all pretty much known before we attacked, and I think it was the widespread sentiment. Of course, we staked our case on the word of a defector, who clearly had no love for Saddam. So we accepted his info and discounted everything contrary to it.

Not going to disagree with you on the above.

But suppose, for instance, that the USA intelligence services had someone like the Iraqi PM feeding them information as well. And if he was being told along with Saddam that they did have WMDs being produced then the intelligence agencies could have been reporting back saying "there are reports on Saddam's desks stating that they are producing WMD".

Granted with many of the revelations that are coming out it seems unlikely this was the case.

I personally never understood why they used WMD as the reason for the attack.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Darat

But suppose, for instance, that the USA intelligence services had someone like the Iraqi PM feeding them information as well. And if he was being told along with Saddam that they did have WMDs being produced then the intelligence agencies could have been reporting back saying "there are reports on Saddam's desks stating that they are producing WMD".


But if that were the case, why didn't Cheney go to the UN Sec Council and say, "We have information from a source inside the admininstration who has confirmed that they are currently producing WMDs," instead of showing us pictures of "buried WMDs" and making arguments based on what they had before Gulf War I?

Granted, it would have compromised the source somewhat, but it would have been far more convincing to the rest of the world.

[Darat]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


But if that were the case, why didn't Cheney go to the UN Sec Council and say, "We have information from a source inside the admininstration who has confirmed that they are currently producing WMDs," instead of showing us pictures of "buried WMDs" and making arguments based on what they had before Gulf War I?

Granted, it would have compromised the source somewhat, but it would have been far more convincing to the rest of the world.

Well I suppose they could have presented this intelligence but "behind closed doors" and it still wasn't enough to persuade others. Plus we can't forget that not only the USA intelligence agencies would have been getting (or attempting to get) intelligence from Iraq. Perhaps the French intelligence services where saying "No the USA & UK have got it wrong" and the French government were telling the Russians and Chinese this.

Of course all this is just speculation; I suspect it will be decades at least before all the information is revealed of who, why and when.

[Jon_in_london]

I always thought that the intell services had loads of hidden info that they couldnt disclose as they had to protect their sources...

Umm... no. They knew just as little, or as much, as any old joe.

[Ed]

I honestly think that GWB lied all along on this.

However, I find it odd that nothing at all has been found. Nothing at all? It is almost as though there were a very careful housecleaning.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ed
I honestly think that GWB lied all along on this.

However, I find it odd that nothing at all has been found. Nothing at all? It is almost as though there were a very careful housecleaning.

I also find it odd that so little has been found considering the testimony of Dr. Al Hamza, and the revelations of Hussein Kamal. Obviously there was a vigorous and well documented effort by Saddam Hussein to obtain all kinds of N, B and C weapons.

Back in the 80's the French and Germans were busy building Saddam Hussein a breeder reactor at Tulwaitha. Had it not been for the Israeli airstrike in '81 Saddam would have had his bomb long before Gulf War I.

Remember how the UN (including the USA) deplored that Israeli action?

How about Iraq's gassing of the Kurds?
"The world did nothing when Halabja took place. Saddam is still there. Who says he is not going to do it again?" said a Kurdish journalist.


GWB says he's not going to do it again. Without such a leader the above quoted Kurdish journalist's cynicism is more than justified.

The WMD issue has become the only way that the left can argue against such a successful war of liberation. Saddam is removed. His regime is dismembered. His victims are freed. In the beginning even the most optimistic of us thought that the casualty totals among coalition forces would be in the several thousands. Yet the total dead among US forces has been only 500 so far. While any dead at all constitutes a tragedy, the tragedy has been a very small one.

To those who predicted that Iraq would be Vietnam with sand this has come as an unpleasant surprise. But hey, they've got the WMD controversy don't they?

I suppose that if there had to be something that the coalition was wrong about in Iraq, the existence of WMD was the most fortuitous mistake to have made. Other than WMD the left has no issue. Saddam was a menace. His people are better off. The middle east is a bit safer and more stable. The terrorists have lost a sponsor-state.

-z

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The WMD issue has become the only way that the left can argue against such a successful war of liberation.You really are a champion at missing the bleeding obvious. The reason we keep bringing it up is that it was GWB's primary justification for the war.

[DavidJames]

"they've got the WMD controversy don't they?"

That's strawman and get's, within these brackets [], the response it deserves.

Would you care, at all, if the Bush administration purposely used the WMD issue as a smokescreen?

FWIW, that's the issue. Not your strawman.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla




GWB says he's not going to do it again. Without such a leader the above quoted Kurdish journalist's cynicism is more than justified.


-z

Bush's administration is getting quite cozy with a couple of regimes in Asia that have been criticized for alleged Human Rights violations. (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan).

of particular note:

Uzbekistan (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/europe16.html)

[ceptimus]

Don't forget Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Remember where the bulk of the 911 hijackers came from.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ceptimus
You really are a champion at missing the bleeding obvious. The reason we keep bringing it up is that it was GWB's primary justification for the war.

You are the one missing the obvious.

I don't care!

There were lots and lots of great reasons to go get Saddam. I am concerned over the lack of WMD, but only because the intel was so wrong. That bad intel needs to be addressed. Other than that I have no problem if nothing is ever found.

Now can we move on? If you have more than one issue (WMD).. which I'm coming to doubt...then spit it out. Otherwise any more talk directed to me about WMD is wasting your time and mine.

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. ;) Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by rikzilla




President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. ;) Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

But in both cases...(Bush Jr. and Reagan) why did they need to lie, and or obfuscate the case?

Plenty of different players in both the FBI and the CIA have said the intel was NOT faulty, that they has suggested all along it was not a convincing case for weapons in Iraq, that no one EVER led Bush to believe they had weapons that could reach the US even though such was claimed at the congressional briefing and that in fact the intel was "sexed up" by politicians, not the actual intelligence agency.

So if there were other reasons to go to war with Iraq, and I'm sure there are, why not use those, mention the "possibility" of WMDs as another item in a laundry list and be honest with the constituency?

Likewise, if the Iran Contra arms deals really were the best way to accomplish Reagan's end goals, then why not be out with it? Why not say, "look, the crap hit the fan and we're running up against a law this time but it's a special case and we want to make an exception to save American lives."

In both cases don't you think both men would have enjoyed far less fall-out then when the truth came out, not from their own lips?


(And no I'm not following you around today responding to your posts, it just worked out that way.)

[ceptimus]

Wow rik, what do you want to talk about in a thread called "Have your views changed on WMD?" ?

I realize the issue is kind of embarassing for you. Perhaps we ought to just let it drop.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Andonyx

Plenty of different players in both the FBI and the CIA have said the intel was NOT faulty, that they has suggested all along it was not a convincing case for weapons in Iraq, that no one EVER led Bush to believe they had weapons that could reach the US even though such was claimed at the congressional briefing and that in fact the intel was "sexed up" by politicians, not the actual intelligence agency.


Supporters like to make a big deal of the fact that it was the same intel that had been given to Clinton. Clinton even says it is. So what's the difference? Well, Clinton concluded that the information we had was not sufficient to indicate that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US. Bush took the same information and decided it meant that he was (and had decided so before 9/11 and his staff had decided so before even taking office).

So I agree, it had nothing to do with the intelligence we had. It had to do with what one does with that intelligence.

[DavidJames]

I think Rik's point is simple, Saddam had to go, so he supports taking him out. To that end he doesn't care how many lies, deceptive, and or misleading things are said and by whom. To quote Rik "Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.". Rik should be given credit for being consistent as he volunteered his support for the Iran Contra thing as well. He believes lying to the American people doesn't matter if the cause (he believes in) is right.

That's a different vision then I have for our leaders. IMHO, I also think it's inconsistent with the ideals and values of our country.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Bush was warned three times NOT to use the supposed "information" because it was faulty or inflated. This by the same person, CIA director George Tenet, who tried ( and failed ) to fall on his own sword as to take the blame away from George II.

I thought there might be some weapons that weren't accounted for after Desert Storm, but my constant and continuing question is where is the proof? Kennedy went to the UN with detailed pictures and direct evidence...Actually it was Adli Stevenson. on the question of offensive weapons in Cuba ,Quote : "Answer the question Mr Ambassidor, yes or no, don't' wait for the translation, Kosegyan " I am not in an American court of law so I will not answer questions put to me as from a prosecutor.... ,Stevenson "You are in the courtroom of world opinion you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist, and I want to know whether I have understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that's your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room." The evidence was plain and to the point and convinced the world of the correctness of the US's position.

Bush never made a case, the pronouncements still fail to be factual and any post war justification for our unilateral action ( yaya UK and Bosnia sent troops, but the rush to war was our's ) is approximately ********.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1075530,00.html
Quotes from Cuban missile crisis was from memory , but the text should be ~correct.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I think Rik's point is simple, Saddam had to go, so he supports taking him out. To that end he doesn't care how many lies, deceptive, and or misleading things are said and by whom. To quote Rik "Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.". Rik should be given credit for being consistent as he volunteered his support for the Iran Contra thing as well. He believes lying to the American people doesn't matter if the cause (he believes in) is right.

That's a different vision then I have for our leaders. IMHO, I also think it's inconsistent with the ideals and values of our country.

That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z
so rik....How are we to know what statements of GWB are not lies? You support his right to lie to his electors as long as the cause is noble...how are you to know if its a noble cause unless the lie is found out? Or are you just willing to give presidents an open ticket? Is getting the "right man" elected a noble cause? Can GWB lie in order to keep a smelly democrat out of office?


Note: GWB used as example...poster suspects other politicians lie too (gasp)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool

so rik....How are we to know what statements of GWB are not lies?
First I'd ask you how you would know if they in fact are? You don't. But this is no different from any other possible president. In the case of politician's lies, we have a completely level playing field.

You support his right to lie to his electors as long as the cause is noble...how are you to know if its a noble cause unless the lie is found out? Or are you just willing to give presidents an open ticket?

Good question. The answer of course is in electing the man who's agenda is in accord with your views. That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issue. Case in point; Bush is a man who, if he must lie, will do so in furtherance of such as the WOT. Whereas Clinton would lie in order to cover up his personal mistakes; Monica, Sudanese asprin factory bombing, various and sundry dirty deals....Whitewater, Hillary's pork belly futures payoff, White house travel office fiasco, illegal use of FBI files, .....ad infinitum.

So you see character is king. Even the Dems should despise Bill Clinton. He was their best chance to promote liberal issues...instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass. He had the right politics, but he was obviously not the right man.

Is getting the "right man" elected a noble cause? Can GWB lie in order to keep a smelly democrat out of office?
Yes indeed it is! Can GWB lie to keep a democrat out of office? Well, I don't see how it would be necessary. The way the dems are going the White House is Bush's to lose. I'd say it's more likely Bush would need to be caught out on a big whopper of a lie for the dems to have a chance. But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught. (I can say this because I'm not running for any office, and I've a terminal case of cynicism)

Note: GWB used as example...poster suspects other politicians lie too (gasp)

Well,....duh! :D

-z

[DavidJames]

That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate.
Thanks, then I was successfull in both efforts :)
That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issu
That has nothing to do with character. It has only to do with tolerating lies by people you agree with.
instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass.
That quote belongs in every skeptics signature line :)
No wait, maybe this one should be there as well...
But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DavidJames


That quote belongs in every skeptics signature line :)
No wait, maybe this one should be there as well...


Feel free my friend, like I said, I'm not running for anything. I am being brutally honest. Why? Because I can. Besides, there are far more outrageous things I've said that live on in the sig lines of others. :D

The more I see myself quoted, the more I know I'm loved and appreciated....just like Howard Stern! ;)

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

This is given the assumption that they are the ends that you desire.

Perhaps this same rationale was in the minds of the 9-11 terrorists. In fact, this seems to be the justification that all terrorists use. I'd prefer that the US not join that club.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You are the one missing the obvious.

There were lots and lots of great reasons to go get Saddam. I am concerned over the lack of WMD, but only because the intel was so wrong. That bad intel needs to be addressed. Other than that I have no problem if nothing is ever found.

Now can we move on? If you have more than one issue (WMD).. which I'm coming to doubt...then spit it out. Otherwise any more talk directed to me about WMD is wasting your time and mine.

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. ;) Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

Later, rikzilla followed it up with:


That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z

And still later, rikzilla posted:

First I'd ask you how you would know if they in fact are? You don't. But this is no different from any other possible president. In the case of politician's lies, we have a completely level playing field.

Good question. The answer of course is in electing the man who's agenda is in accord with your views. That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issue. Case in point; Bush is a man who, if he must lie, will do so in furtherance of such as the WOT. Whereas Clinton would lie in order to cover up his personal mistakes; Monica, Sudanese asprin factory bombing, various and sundry dirty deals....Whitewater, Hillary's pork belly futures payoff, White house travel office fiasco, illegal use of FBI files, .....ad infinitum.

So you see character is king. Even the Dems should despise Bill Clinton. He was their best chance to promote liberal issues...instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass. He had the right politics, but he was obviously not the right man.

Yes indeed it is! Can GWB lie to keep a democrat out of office? Well, I don't see how it would be necessary. The way the dems are going the White House is Bush's to lose. I'd say it's more likely Bush would need to be caught out on a big whopper of a lie for the dems to have a chance. But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught. (I can say this because I'm not running for any office, and I've a terminal case of cynicism)


Well,....duh! :D

-z

So, it is OK with some people if the President lies provided that the lies are used to serve an interest which is supported by those people.

Wow o Wow! I find postings like this to be a fine example of getting the government we deserve.

[davefoc]

Rikzilla I enjoyed your posts and your point,

I think most of us just rationalize the lies our guys tell away while seeing only the other guy's lies. This all seems to be tied up with our need to find comfort in our views by making the evidence better for them than it really is.

Many dems repeat over and over that Clinton didn't lie and come up with some strained parsing of his words together with some selective ignoring of others to justify this idea. Conversely, many republicans will never admit the clear cut lies associated with the Iran contra affair by Reagan and probably George Bush Senior.

I happened to be thinking about this issue because I'm reading Al Franken's book right now. (I'm what might be called a moderate libertarian that usually votes republican, but I like Al Franken). One of the issues that he deals with is Bush's handling of anti-terrorist activities prior to 9/11. He makes the case that the Bush administration made several mistakes with regard to the terrorist threat including being slow to implement a plan that had originated in the Clinton administration.

Assume for a second that Franken is correct and that the Bush administration made several mistakes that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack to succeed. Assume further that Bush and company used lies and other forms of deceit to hide their mistakes and to shift blame to Clinton for the attacks. Assume further that Bush and company actively embarked on a plan to shift blame from more culpable parties like the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the airlines to the baggage inspectors because they were politically weak and couldn't defend themselves even though they bore no responsibility for the success of the attacks.

How would you feel about that? Is this just time for business as usual lying for the purposes of advancing your political agenda? At what point does telling the truth become a moral imperative or is there no such point?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by davefoc
Many dems repeat over and over that Clinton didn't lie and come up with some strained parsing of his words together with some selective ignoring of others to justify this idea.
Minor quibble. I don't know anyone, including Clinton's staunchest defenders, who claim he didn't lie. Many people (including myself) believe that the lie he got caught making was not an important one. I'm sure some of the ones he didn't get caught at were much more important, but probably none so much as the WMD lie.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

This is given the assumption that they are the ends that you desire.

Perhaps this same rationale was in the minds of the 9-11 terrorists. In fact, this seems to be the justification that all terrorists use. I'd prefer that the US not join that club.

It's called realism Tricky. I'm sure the terrorists felt exactly that way. So what? They're only right if their means actually do bring about their ends. I'd agree that if they had to murder 3,000 people in order to re-make the middle east into their own version of Islamic paradise then their ends would indeed have justified their means...at least to them that is. But actually punishing terrorists and the nations that sponsor them has the effect of denying them their ends...and actually diminishing their chances of ever meeting those ends no matter how noble they might be. Only by rewarding (caving in to) terrorism do we help the terrorists to acheive their ends.

They decided to make war on us, just as GWB said in the SOTU, and we gave them war. We denied them their ends, therefore their means will never be justifiable. That's the meat of the WOT.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by davefoc
Rikzilla I enjoyed your posts and your point,
Thanks. I try to tell it like I see it.

I happened to be thinking about this issue because I'm reading Al Franken's book right now. (I'm what might be called a moderate libertarian that usually votes republican, but I like Al Franken). One of the issues that he deals with is Bush's handling of anti-terrorist activities prior to 9/11. He makes the case that the Bush administration made several mistakes with regard to the terrorist threat including being slow to implement a plan that had originated in the Clinton administration.

Ok, I'm listening, but I'll tell you straight out that I believe that Clinton's 8 years in office is more relevant to the nation's readiness than GWB's paltry 8 months. As a new president his transition period, coupled with the China spy plane incident would have occupied more of his time than implementing ideas from the old admin. It also begs the question; "Why didn't Clinton implement his plan before he left office?"

Assume for a second that Franken is correct and that the Bush administration made several mistakes that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack to succeed. Assume further that Bush and company used lies and other forms of deceit to hide their mistakes and to shift blame to Clinton for the attacks. Assume further that Bush and company actively embarked on a plan to shift blame from more culpable parties like the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the airlines to the baggage inspectors because they were politically weak and couldn't defend themselves even though they bore no responsibility for the success of the attacks.

How would you feel about that? Is this just time for business as usual lying for the purposes of advancing your political agenda? At what point does telling the truth become a moral imperative or is there no such point?

Well, first, those are alot of assumptions! But if Bush did something like that (and was caught) then yes, he'd lose my support. (If he wasn't caught, then it would be a moot point)

As for moral imperative,...yeah there's a point. When you're busted you need to own up, tell the truth about your lies. If you can't then you just look like a complete a-hole. If the truth shows you lied for the good of your cause, or the good of the nation, perhaps there will be political absolution...one never knows. If the truth shows you lied just to save your own ass, or make yourself look good, you are reprehensible. Unelectable, and useless to your supporters. A millstone. Just like Mr. Clinton became in the end to the Democratic party in general, and Al Gore in particular.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Minor quibble. I don't know anyone, including Clinton's staunchest defenders, who claim he didn't lie. Many people (including myself) believe that the lie he got caught making was not an important one. I'm sure some of the ones he didn't get caught at were much more important, but probably none so much as the WMD lie.

Tricky, Cliinton's lies and his defense of them are part of the historical record. There is nothing to debate. Regardless of any other whopper he told the fact remains that Bill Clinton twice lied under oath. That's perjury, a felony.

Now you can say it was about sex and that's not a big deal, but the truth is it doesn't matter. It's a felony. If you or I did such a thing we'd have gone to jail.

Now you cannot equate Clinton's felony to what you gamely and with straigh face call the "WMD lie". #1. You have no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq. Thus he is mistaken, not lying. #2. Even if GWB knew there were no WMD's and lied outright, he was not under oath. Thus no felony.

You are comparing apples and... well,you know.

-z

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But in both cases...(Bush Jr. and Reagan) why did they need to lie, and or obfuscate the case?



They lied because they knew the people of the US wouldn't go for their schemes otherwise.

Our Presidents aren't meant to be kings.

[DavidJames]

he is mistaken, not lying
he was not under oath
Talk about spin. You are about to torque yourself right up there with King of Spin Bill O'Reilly.

I'm dropping out. Your position is clear and unwavering and can be summarized this way.

Lying is okay with you as long as it supports causes you like, otherwise it's not okay. End of discussion.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DavidJames


Talk about spin. You are about to torque yourself right up there with King of Spin Bill O'Reilly.
How so? Actually I'm spinning nothing, just being very straight -forward and honest. You're having some trouble handling it. I don't know why, I'm just giving you my unadulterated POV.

I'm dropping out. Your position is clear and unwavering and can be summarized this way.

Lying is okay with you as long as it supports causes you like, otherwise it's not okay. End of discussion.

Yes. That is exactly correct. To be more specific, I would not support a bad liar even if I agreed with his reasons for lying. In my book bad liar=bad politician. It is not okay to have as one's leader a bad politician. I'll even go so far as to say an unlucky politician is also unsupportable. Any leader fighting for his political life (as Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon did) is useless in furthering their agenda. They will waste all their political capitol just staying in office.

You have dismissed me rather simply by saying I think lying is okay, so let me ask this of you;
Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?

Be very careful answering that one David. One answer means you're an idealistic idiot, the other answer makes you dismiss yourself along with old rikzilla.

-z

[DavidJames]

.I'm spinning nothing, just being very straight -forward and honest. You're having some trouble handling it. I don't know why, I'm just giving you my unadulterated POV
I have no objection to you stating your "straight -forward and honest...unadulterated POV". However, you are painting the facts in colors drawn from your personal political palette. When you deny that, you are being disingenuous.
Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?
I fully expected that weasel (have you stopped beating your wife) question. Why? because you don't like the corner you're in and are looking for an out. Sorry, but you cannot escape that easily. You need to defend your stated position, not the strawman (straw man :)) you propose

[Lurker]

Originally posted by rikzilla

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. ;) Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Lurker

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Lurker
What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Likewise, Lurker. Rik is not usually a foaming-at-the-mouth type conservative, but every now and then, when his pet theory is attacked or someone has offended his honor, he can as over-the-edge as any. When I saw him trotting out the old "It's a worse lie because he was under oath" position, I realized, this is one of those times. But don't worry. He always recovers.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You have no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq. Thus he is mistaken, not lying.


Totally agree. George Tenet has admitted the blame for the paragraph in question. Whether or not you have your own conspiracy theory on the subject is a different matter. There has been no proof offered that Bush was intentionally lying.

At the time that Dubya made those claims as justification for the war in Iraq, only the African uranium purchase attempt was in question. The world agreed on the rest of the points.

What has been found in Iraq certainly doesn't measure up to what almost the entire world, including the U.N., believed Saddam had at the time ... go figure. Saddam was a dictator in a totally closed society and was not living up to his binding cease-fire commitment of accounting for those weapons. The fault lies with Saddam, and no one else. If anyone truly believes Saddam was behaving himself the last few years, I wish them good luck trying to raise children. The wool can be easily pulled over their eyes.

What we should be worrying about is if there is any truth to the reports that there were WMD and those weapons were smuggled into Syria in ambulances.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker


What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Lurker

Lurker,

Please try and understand. I do not support tyranny. I merely recognise that politicians lie. It's a fact, and one point upon which all politicians are equal. They all lie. Because I'd rather have my particular liar in office does not mean I support tyranny! Besides, if I supported tyranny, then why should I have ever spoken out against Saddam in the first place?

What I support is a leader that I can respect for getting the job I want done, done. Simply that. Personally I disliked Reagan for dealing with the Iranians. To deal with terrorists is to reward terrorism. However, I utterly supported his elegant end-around in sending the untraceable proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras. It made me sick to see the way the Dem controlled Congress fawned over Daniel Ortega. Reagan was a bit of a cynical opportunist, he was also the best most effective president we've had in recent history.

OTOH, I loved Jimmy Carter. He was a good man. My first ever vote for President went to Mr. Carter. I still admire him. He was perhaps the most honest human being we've ever had as President....and he was also the very worst President whose admin I've had the misfortune to live through.

My conclusion is that great humanitarians and scrupulously honest people should not become President. They tend not to be very effective. Effectiveness with the awesome power of that office is more important than anything else. Period.

So Lurker, I'm sorry if I disappointed you. I've been sorry in the past to disappoint Tricky but just can't help it. ;) I do like you and Tricky and I think I understand you both quite well, and appreciate your honesty...as I appreciate what Mr. Carter stands for. But the real world just isn't so neat and tidy that lies need never be told. My question to David was completely in earnest. It was not a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question.
Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?

He chose not to answer. I never required a yes or no, he is the one who set himself up by suggesting that presidents must not lie. The honest answer to this (and I hope you agree) is that sometimes, for some reasons good or bad, presidents do lie...and that if you were to place this impossible requirement upon the man you would have be president you would wander the world aimlessly like Diogenes, searching the night for that proverbial honest man.

My way of looking at this is to forgive my president his lies if he does so in the best interests of the country. I will not ever forgive lies told by the president that are in the best interest of his own ass. This is the major reason I despise both Clinton and Nixon. If Bush is ever caught in such a self-serving lie then I promise you I will myself denounce him. So far I have no problem with Mr. Bush. I honestly feel he was mistaken about WMD, as were the leading members of the Clinton admin....but even if he actually "sexed up" the evidence, he will be forgiven by me. He was instrumental in removing Saddam....that in my opinion was a major service to the US and the world. No matter how you cut it.

Sure I believe in the rule of law, but strick adherrence does allow small injustices to occur. OJ Simpson comes to mind. As does evidence thrown out of court due to illegal search/seizure. These things have to happen in a court of law to protect the process. However, you cannot fight a war, or conduct national security/foreign policy like that.

Aw well, I'll likely never win a popularity contest with you guys. But I do hope you'll try to understand my position as I understand yours. If we ever meet at TAM X someday I'd hope that we could end up as firends. If you guys seriously think I'm a grand supporter of tyranny though, I doubt we could.

-z

[Tricky]

See? I told you he'd be better soon. :p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
See? I told you he'd be better soon. :p


:halo:

Being bi-polar can be such fun! Ask Howard Dean!

:D

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Being bi-polar can be such fun! Ask Howard Dean!

Next time you are experiencing a personality reversal, get one of those instant cameras and take before and after pictures.

Then you can have bipolaroids.
:bricks:

[Lurker]

Rik:

Thanks for the clarification. To answer your question, I think all presidents lie to us. But I do expect them to obey the law. There is no law against lying, is there? So if a president lies to keep something secret for national security I understand. I would hope he keeps it to a minimum, of course.

But breaking the law seems inappropriate. If Reagan wanted to deal with the Contras then why not bring it up before Congress and see what can be done? That is democracy. Reagan should have pushed to get the Boland amendment repealed. That is my opinion.

Lurker

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker
Rik:

Thanks for the clarification. To answer your question, I think all presidents lie to us. But I do expect them to obey the law. There is no law against lying, is there? So if a president lies to keep something secret for national security I understand. I would hope he keeps it to a minimum, of course.

But breaking the law seems inappropriate. If Reagan wanted to deal with the Contras then why not bring it up before Congress and see what can be done? That is democracy. Reagan should have pushed to get the Boland amendment repealed. That is my opinion.

Lurker

..and you're entitled to it. It's a very reasonable position. Certainly more reasonable than mine. Perhaps it's just that my cynicism has reached a terminal stage? ;)

In my youth I was very idealistic...once that bubble was burst cynicism took over big time. I was also anti-Reagan during most of his two terms...but in the end I could not argue with his results. You ever hear of those "Reagan Democrats" of the 80's?? In the end, I was one of them.

-z

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by No Answers


They lied because they knew the people of the US wouldn't go for their schemes otherwise.

Our Presidents aren't meant to be kings.

No they're not, but what you're suggesting is even worse.

They lied so they could deliberately do something they knew the American public did not want them to.

They lied in order to get away with something that was directly related to the performance of their duties as a leader and without that office would not have been possible, which is of course the worst possible abuse of the highest office.

I was even giving them more credit than that.

[Tricky]

Just want to revisit this for a minute. For Rik and others that believe that the ends justify the means, you should be aware by now how difficult it is to maintain law and order in Iraq. There are crazies of every faction and fairly well armed. One way to do this is to brutally put down every bit of opposition. If your sole aim is maintaining order, then one would have to argue that Saddam was doing a much better job than the coalition forces are doing. He was very much into the "ends justify the means" school of thought.

[clk]

Hey rik,
You claim that there is "no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq." OK, let's assume that you're correct and that GWB actually thought Iraq had WMDs. Now, wouldn't you agree that the 9/11 attacks, coupled with the failure of our intelligence agencies to find out that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war resulted in the two largest intelligence failures in the last several decades? And that these two failures led to 3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers? Why aren't you faulting Bush for not revamping the country's entire intelligence network? Has he done anything at all to insure that these mistakes don't happen again? I think that Bush hasn't done anything because he knew there were no WMDs. He picked selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs while ignoring other intelligence so that he could go to war with Iraq.

[crocodile deathroll]

To come to think of it, it did change a bit, but you do expect that. I was sure they would of at least found a few rusty old neglect shells buried in the middle of the desert or hidden under a pile of junk somewhere in a basement or warehouse. That is what I expected to happen by now and even if they found that, that was no real justification for the war.
Old negected WMDs about the best they can hope for now, as that can now forget about those elleged sophisticated weapons programs, no new WMD stockpiles.


CDR

[a_unique_person]

Looks like Colin Powells views have changed. Maybe that is part of the reason he is bailing out.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/25/1074965419600.html



US Secretary of State Colin Powell said today that it was an "open question" as to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but insisted pre-war intelligence had been correct about Baghdad's intention to develop them.

Powell was responding to comments by David Kay, who stepped down yesterday from leading the US hunt for Iraq's illicit weapons and said that he thought no such arsenal had existed at the start of the US-led war in March 2003.

"What is the open question is how many stocks they had if any, and if they had any where did they go? And if they didn't have any, why wasn't that known beforehand?" Powell told journalists travelling with him from Washington to the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

Responding to criticism of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons, Powell said US analysts were "correct with respect to intention, with respect to capability to develop such weapons, with respect to programs".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Looks like Colin Powells views have changed. Maybe that is part of the reason he is bailing out.


Colin Powell said:
Responding to criticism of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons, Powell said US analysts were "correct with respect to intention, with respect to capability to develop such weapons, with respect to programs".

That is correct, sir. We have satellite photos of their intentions.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tricky We have satellite photos of their intentions. I've been wondering:

If we could show evidence in those satellite photos before the war, how come we didn't keep on taking pictures to keep track of all those stockpiles during the war?

Why was it easier to 'find' the WMDs from space than from the ground? :(

[sorgoth]

Before the war, I thought the reports were vastly exagerated, but Saddam probably did have enough to pose a threat.


Now... There weren't any WMD. It was all a lie.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I've been wondering:

If we could show evidence in those satellite photos before the war, how come we didn't keep on taking pictures to keep track of all those stockpiles during the war?

Why was it easier to 'find' the WMDs from space than from the ground? :(

The reason why they could not track the said stockpiles was because they lied about the said stockpiles in the first place.

There was no evidence (satellite photos or otherwise) that showed Iraq had WMDs prior to the war. It was known however that Iraq did have WMDs in the past, so they simply assumed that Iraq still had WMDs which would be found in short order once Iraq was invaded.

Go figure!

[Bjorn]

How can that be true? Donald Rumsfeld himself said this, 10 months ago:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.Do you mean he was just guessing? Or even ......? :c2:

By the way, as a navigator I appreciate his precise directions: East, west, south and north somewhat .... My captain would have made me walk the plank! :p

[Bjorn]

....... and Colin Powell said this:

Here you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. I saw the pictures on TV. I repeat my question: Couldn't we have kept on taking pictures to keep an eye on these WMDs - if sure signs were visible even from space? :c2:

I mean, of course, if what he said was true.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
Just want to revisit this for a minute. For Rik and others that believe that the ends justify the means, you should be aware by now how difficult it is to maintain law and order in Iraq. There are crazies of every faction and fairly well armed. One way to do this is to brutally put down every bit of opposition. If your sole aim is maintaining order, then one would have to argue that Saddam was doing a much better job than the coalition forces are doing. He was very much into the "ends justify the means" school of thought.

That's a pretty big "if" Tricky. If there was actually a "sole aim" it would surely be easier and neater to accomplish than the complex raft of political, military, economic, and social aims that are being attempted in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I said about the "ends and means". First off; "The ends don't justify the means." is nothing more than a trite saying. A saying that is parrotted by many people without really thinking about what they are saying. It really doesn't take much imagination to come up with a situation in which one can agree that certain ends do justify certain means. Secondly, what I actually said was that sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes even a crime can be a reasonable act. Each circumstance must be judged upon it's own merit. That's why we have courts and judges. If a starving man steals a loaf of bread and is brought before the law, in most cases he would/should be forgiven. In this simple case it's easy to see that the ends do justify the means. How 'bout needle exchanges? The ends; lower rates of HIV infection, are always used as justification for the means; providing drug paraphanalia to people using illegal drugs.

I'm sure you are right about Saddam. I have no doubt that he thought his ends would justify his means. Were the world actually run by the gutless UN, he'd have been right. Tyranny must never be appeased,...it's a lesson that history will teach us over and over again if only we listen. Saddam's means resulted in his end...in a hole in the ground. His ends obviously justify nothing, unless you are saying he meant to end up that way?

Saddam must not have been much of a student of history, if he were perhaps he'd have known that brutal dictators often end up in front of firing squads. "Sic Semper Tyrannis"

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by clk
Hey rik,
You claim that there is "no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq." OK, let's assume that you're correct and that GWB actually thought Iraq had WMDs.

Not just GWB, but the key Democrats and Clinton admin members thought so too.

Also, let's review what many liberals thought about the UN sanctions against Iraq prior to 9/11:
DENIS HALLIDAY, former head of the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq, on why he resigned:
"The sanctions were failing in the purposes they were set up for back in 1990-91. They weren't leading to disarmament and, second, the cost of sanctions was unacceptable, killing 6,000 - 7,000 children a month. Sustaining a level of malnutrition of about 30% for children under five leads to physical and mental problems. It's incompatible with the UN Charter, with the Convention on Human Rights, and probably with many other international agreements. I just i found that impossible to accept as the head of the UN in Iraq; if you've got a i leadership which you can't communicate or have a dialogue with and that doesn't seem to want to conform to the standards that the UN is trying to establish, i does that empower the Security Council to kill a refugee, or to sustain malnutrition? I don't think so. Killing 6,000 kids a month is like a declaration of war. I don't think the Security Council is empowered to do that just because they don't like Saddam; just because he is a son of a bitch does not mean that we have to be the same." [Middle East International, Nov 13, 1998]

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." [the Independent, Oct 15, 1998]

UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION on the effects of sanctions
"For Baghdad, a highly advanced urban society, the prevalence of underweight children (29%) has increased to a level comparable with children from Ghana (27%) and Mali (31%). For stunting, prevalence rates are similar to estimates from Sri Lanka (28%) and the Congo (27%). Furthermore, the prevalence of wasting in Baghdad is comparable with estimates from Madagascar (12%) and Myanmar (11%). The prevalence of severe wasting is comparable to data from northern Sudan (2.3%). In contrast, 1991 estimates of malnutrition from Baghdad were comparable with estimates from Kuwait (12% for stunting, 6% for underweight, and 3% for wasting)."
"The nutritional status of children in southern and northern Iraq is likely to be even worse than reported in Baghdad." [Technical Cooperation Programme: Evaluation of Food and Nutrition Situation in Iraq, 1995]


MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, former US ambassador to the United Nations, in an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes
Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"
Albright: [b]"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."



6 to 7 thousand children a month! It's obvious to me why liberals were arguing against sanctions back then, yet now they argue against the war by saying that the sanctions were working...in the same breath they dare to decry the innocent dead....when the very thing they say was working was also killing 6 to 7 thousand children per month, every month,...for an undefined period of time. 10 years more? 84,000 dead kids. 20 years? 168,000 dead kids. More? When do you suppose Saddam would have died? Would things have really been different when Uday or Qusay took over? Then their kids? How many dead children could be laid upon the altar of the UN sanctions?

Now, wouldn't you agree that the 9/11 attacks, coupled with the failure of our intelligence agencies to find out that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war resulted in the two largest intelligence failures in the last several decades?
Yes.
And that these two failures led to 3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers?

Two very seperate outcomes, but yes those things can be successfully argued.
Why aren't you faulting Bush for not revamping the country's entire intelligence network?
What makes you think that that is an appropriate response? Sounds knee-jerk to me. Have you ever heard the old saying that involves baby and bath water? :rolleyes:

Has he done anything at all to insure that these mistakes don't happen again?
Yes, actually he has. The Patriot Act enables law enforcement to act more aggressively in search of terrorists. The WOT was launched and has resulted in over two thirds of the known Al Qaeda commanders either killed or captured. The creation of the Homeland Security Department ensures the cross-connection of databases of the various state, local, and federal agencies that make up said department. That's without me actually researching your question on the internet. You should know this stuff.

I think that Bush hasn't done anything because he knew there were no WMDs. He picked selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs while ignoring other intelligence so that he could go to war with Iraq.

What you think has been demonstrated to be insufficient. Instead of the word "think", you should start using the word "believe"...because it's obvious to me that you are not thinking. The very sin of "selective evidence" that you accuse Bush of, is one you are comitting yourself.

-z

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Also, let's review what many liberals thought about the UN sanctions against Iraq prior to 9/11: {snip}


I'm not sure why this is relevant, but OK....


What makes you think that that is an appropriate response? Sounds knee-jerk to me.


Really? You yourself agreed that the two intelligence failures resulted in "3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers". Now don't you think something should be done? I don't think the problem will be fixed by "tweaking" the intelligence platform. When there are failures of this magnitude, there exists a very serious problem.


The Patriot Act enables law enforcement to act more aggressively in search of terrorists.


How is the Patriot Act going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is an actual threat to the US?


The creation of the Homeland Security Department ensures the cross-connection of databases of the various state, local, and federal agencies that make up said department.


Again, how is the Homeland Security Dept. going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is a threat to the US?

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department deal with the possibility of terrorists that have infiltrated the US. As I've said before, the two failures were intelligence related. That is why the CIA and other intelligence agencies need to be reformed. If there is a terrorist in Saudi Arabia that is plotting to, say, blow up 12 international airliners simultaneously (they tried to do this before), how is the Patriot Act going to stop him? We need intelligence to stop someone like him. Is there anything that the Homeland Security Department can do? Suppose that we believe Syria to possess WMDs. Who are we going to believe now? The CIA? They were wrong about Iraq.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by clk


I'm not sure why this is relevant, but OK....

It's relevant because without the coalition's action it would still be on-going. You brought up the numbers, 10,000 Iraqis and 500 US soldiers. Those were not 100% innocent Iraqis. It was quite literally a small price to pay to stop a 6 to 7,000 yearly total of innocents killed by UN sanctions. Now listen again closely, not by the Iraqi regime itself, but by UN sanctions! Now the liberal position was demonstrablly to cease sanctions and let Saddam be Saddam. Now however, the liberal chorus says that "sanctions were working"! Well, what is it? Were the sanctions:
"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." [the Independent, Oct 15, 1998]
or was it:
Said Chris Kujawa of Minneapolis: "I don't want to see violence in Iraq. I think it's unnecessary. I think the sanctions are working. I think the war is about oil and not about the weapons inspections."

There was a dichotomy at work here...either we kept sanctions in place in order to reign in the military ambitions of Saddam in the region, or we went in and removed him by force. Liberals have been vocal in opposition to sanctions for good reason, but have no plans to stop Saddam from attacking his neighbors or the Kurds. The only reason some of them began saying "The sanctions are working" was because they found the status quo preferable to hot war. I don't. Because in ending Saddam's regime
you put an end to the need for sanctions, and the ability of his regime to add to those nbrs. Now there is a static number used to describe Saddam's victims. It's high, but it's static. Had we not invaded that number would remain dynamic. The war, as bad as it was, will save many more lives in the end than it will take.





Really? You yourself agreed that the two intelligence failures resulted in "3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers". Now don't you think something should be done? I don't think the problem will be fixed by "tweaking" the intelligence platform. When there are failures of this magnitude, there exists a very serious problem.



Well, you mentioned two different things. One (the dead from 9/11) are in a domestic arena...and the changes brought by the homeland security department will address that particular breakdown.

How is the Patriot Act going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is an actual threat to the US?


You are mixing up domestic and international exigencies. The intelligence breakdown on Iraq has to do more with the CIA reliance on technology than human assets. I don't think CIA needs to be majorly changed, it merely needs more agents recruited that can do more direct and dangerous cloak and dagger stuff.

Again, how is the Homeland Security Dept. going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is a threat to the US?
Again, it has no direct role in telling CIA how to do it's job. These groups are meant to compliment each other in many different ways. Again, more recruitment of talented and well placed agents may be all it takes to get better intel assessments.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department deal with the possibility of terrorists that have infiltrated the US. As I've said before, the two failures were intelligence related. That is why the CIA and other intelligence agencies need to be reformed.
Okay...why don't you spell out what you'd do? Explain to us all how you would make America safe if you were the Prez.

If there is a terrorist in Saudi Arabia that is plotting to, say, blow up 12 international airliners simultaneously (they tried to do this before), how is the Patriot Act going to stop him? We need intelligence to stop someone like him. Is there anything that the Homeland Security Department can do? Suppose that we believe Syria to possess WMDs. Who are we going to believe now? The CIA? They were wrong about Iraq.

So you are saying that if someone is wrong about one thing they are automatically wrong about everything else? That is illogical, and known as the "Poison Well Fallacy". Do you seriously believe we should scrap the strategy of the Patriot Act because it doesn't do 100% of what we need it to do? By the same token, We have a border patrol, but illegal aliens still get in, so let's scrap the porder patrol??

-z

[clk]

Originally posted by rikzilla

It's relevant because without the coalition's action it would still be on-going. You brought up the numbers, 10,000 Iraqis and 500 US soldiers. Those were not 100% innocent Iraqis. It was quite literally a small price to pay to stop a 6 to 7,000 yearly total of innocents killed by UN sanctions. Now listen again closely, not by the Iraqi regime itself, but by UN sanctions! Now the liberal position was demonstrablly to cease sanctions and let Saddam be Saddam. Now however, the liberal chorus says that "sanctions were working"! Well, what is it? Were the sanctions:

There was a dichotomy at work here...either we kept sanctions in place in order to reign in the military ambitions of Saddam in the region, or we went in and removed him by force. Liberals have been vocal in opposition to sanctions for good reason, but have no plans to stop Saddam from attacking his neighbors or the Kurds. The only reason some of them began saying "The sanctions are working" was because they found the status quo preferable to hot war. I don't. Because in ending Saddam's regime
you put an end to the need for sanctions, and the ability of his regime to add to those nbrs. Now there is a static number used to describe Saddam's victims. It's high, but it's static. Had we not invaded that number would remain dynamic. The war, as bad as it was, will save many more lives in the end than it will take.


I still don't see how this is relevant to the US intelligence failures. However, I find it interesting that this war is about the Iraqis, all of a sudden. I thought we went to war because Saddam supposedly had WMDs and he was going to use them against us?


Well, you mentioned two different things. One (the dead from 9/11) are in a domestic arena...and the changes brought by the homeland security department will address that particular breakdown.

You are mixing up domestic and international exigencies. The intelligence breakdown on Iraq has to do more with the CIA reliance on technology than human assets. I don't think CIA needs to be majorly changed, it merely needs more agents recruited that can do more direct and dangerous cloak and dagger stuff.

Again, it has no direct role in telling CIA how to do it's job. These groups are meant to compliment each other in many different ways. Again, more recruitment of talented and well placed agents may be all it takes to get better intel assessments.


I'm not mixing up domestic and international exigencies. All I'm saying is this: 9/11, and the CIA's false assessment of Iraq's WMD programs were two very large failures. The intelligence agencies failed at their job. That is why they need to be reformed. The Homeland Security Act and Patriot Act may have helped on the domestic front. But again, the problem is with intelligence. We need to reform the intelligence agencies.


Okay...why don't you spell out what you'd do? Explain to us all how you would make America safe if you were the Prez.


Remember....this entire debate is functioning on the presumption that GWB really believed that Iraq had WMDs. That was your opinion, if I'm not mistaken. As I said before, I think that Bush took very selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. So if that is the case, then the intelligence community does not need to be reformed, because they did their jobs. Bush only picked out what he needed and used it to build the case against Iraq.


So you are saying that if someone is wrong about one thing they are automatically wrong about everything else?


Nope, never said that.


Do you seriously believe we should scrap the strategy of the Patriot Act because it doesn't do 100% of what we need it to do?

Nope, didn't say that either.
I asked you what Bush had done to reform the intelligence agencies. You pointed to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Dept. I merely stated that those two were not reforms of the intelligence agencies. I never stated that the Patriot Act should be scrapped. I never stated that it should be kept, either.