"Faith-based policies leading to war" - or: the antithesis of Skepticism

[blackpriester]

As reported in
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20030710/D7S6GKE00.html?PG=home&SEC=news

Experts Accuse U.S. of Misrepresentation


Jul 10, 2:39 AM (ET)

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) - As President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended their invasion of Iraq, a group of arms control experts accused the administration of misrepresenting intelligence information to justify the war.

When the war began in March, Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to its neighbors, a former senior State Department intelligence official said Wednesday.

Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a "faith-based" policy on Iraq and took the approach that "we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers."


Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."

....


----
Does anybody need any further comments?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by blackpriester
As reported in
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20030710/D7S6GKE00.html?PG=home&SEC=news
In Washington, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration decided to use military force in Iraq because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."Holy cow. Is he saying that we went to war, not because we had new information (which I seem to remember them saying at the time) but because we felt differently? We got hurt so, by God, we're going to hurt someone else?

I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a horrible person, but how can we justify a pre-emptive strike based on zero evidence before or since the stike?
"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."Meaning he guessed, he didn't know.

We have met the monster and he is us.

edited to add:
I meant to say, "I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a horrible person" Rather a critical typo there.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by blackpriester
"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth,"

Yes indeed. But the real truth, not his version of the truth.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Holy cow. Is he saying that we went to war, not because we had new information (which I seem to remember them saying at the time) but because we felt differently? We got hurt so, by God, we're going to hurt someone else?

I'm not arguing that Saddam was a horrible person, but how can we justify a pre-emptive strike based on zero evidence before or since the stike?
Meaning he guessed, he didn't know.

We have met the monster and he is us.


Iraq War (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709)

You remember correctly Upchurch.

And not too many people would argue Saddam was not horrible. I am pleased he has been deposed myself.

The "imminent threat that required a 1st strike reponse" as claimed in Bush's address to the nation is being reworked by Rumsfeld and others.

The United States didn't declare war on Iraq because of new evidence of banned weapons, U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people accuse the people that request evidence ( for the Administration's claims ), as "Saddam Lovers" and feel they have to respond with "you want Saddam back in power to kill thousands of people?"

to use an over-used cliche
Do the ends justify the means? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23166)
Sure we deposed a murderous despot, but was it done ethically

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Does Christian fundamentalist certainty influence the Bush admin's policies, and make them more prone to make "faith based policies"?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes indeed. But the real truth, not his version of the truth.
The econonic version of the truth, or the plausibly deniable version? :D

Upchurch, like your post, but do you think you could squeeze a B5 comparison out of it? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Upchurch, like your post, but do you think you could squeeze a B5 comparison out of it? ;) Watch me. :D

This is exactly like when President Clark used his propoganda machine to make the people of Earth paranoid about a potential alien invasion (note how which alien government was never specified. huh? huh?) first, to build up military defense, second, to crack down on criticism of the President at home, and third to crack down tothe Mars Colony (let's call it "Iraq"), even though the Mars Colony was not directly affiliated with any hostile alien government (let's call it "Al-Queda").

How's that, Billy?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Watch me. :D

This is exactly like when President Clark used his propoganda machine to make the people of Earth paranoid about a potential alien invasion (note how which alien government was never specified. huh? huh?) first, to build up military defense, second, to crack down on criticism of the President at home, and third to crack down tothe Mars Colony (let's call it "Iraq"), even though the Mars Colony was not directly affiliated with any hostile alien government (let's call it "Al-Queda").

How's that, Billy?

:two thumbs up: You're a star!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillyTK


:two thumbs up: You're a star! Maybe I could get a book deal targeting sci-fi fanboys trying to get a handle on current events? Explain them in terms they understand? hmmm...

[blackpriester]

I find this most fascinating...
but although I have a history of Fantasy Roleplaying and Science Fiction reading (more of the Stanislaw Lem sort, however...), i do NOT know what B5 is... is it Babylon5?

- m.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by blackpriester
i do NOT know what B5 is... is it Babylon5?
It is. Sorry for the confusion.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It is. Sorry for the confusion.

Right on then, Revenrend of the Church of Funk...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Maybe I could get a book deal targeting sci-fi fanboys trying to get a handle on current events? Explain them in terms they understand? hmmm...

Do it man, do it!

Every reply in a mirror: signifying current events with the realm of Babylon 5
or
G'kar and Londo explain it all!

:roll:

[Upchurch]

A Lurker's Guide to World Events :roll:

Seriously, and back on topic, while I think this is incredibly poor decision making based on what the administration would like to be true rather than on what it knew to be true, where does the implication come in that this was a "faith-based" decision?

I'm assuming that the "faith" part is refering to GWB's Christian faith rather than his faith in his ill-advised advisors?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A Lurker's Guide to World Events :roll:

Seriously, and back on topic, while I think this is incredibly poor decision making based on what the administration would like to be true rather than on what it knew to be true, where does the implication come in that this was a "faith-based" decision?

I'm assuming that the "faith" part is refering to GWB's Christian faith rather than his faith in his ill-advised advisors?
"Faith" is accepting something as true without evidence. Bush et. al. apparently decided that Iraq was a the bad guy, and d_mn the evidence. In order to convince others, they then had to deliberately misinterpret or fabricate evidence.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

"Faith" is accepting something as true without evidence. Bush et. al. apparently decided that Iraq was a the bad guy, and d_mn the evidence. In order to convince others, they then had to deliberately misinterpret or fabricate evidence. Unusual usage given the recent emphesis on "faith-based" measures that were in the news a little while ago, but in looking back at the quote, I think you're right.

[RandFan]

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

Originally posted by Upchurch
Holy cow. Is he saying that we went to war, not because we had new information (which I seem to remember them saying at the time) but because we felt differently? We got hurt so, by God, we're going to hurt someone else? No, I don't think that is what he is saying.

We worked for years trying to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the end he refused to cooperate and the inspectors had no choice but to leave Iraq with the job undone. We knew based on his history that he was a potential for great harm. After 911 that potential was magnified. Suddenly there was new impetus to solve this ongoing problem. So we did what was in mind and many others as the correct thing and invaded Iraq.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I don't think that is what he is saying.You'll have to excuse a touch of hyperbole on my part. However, he is saying that attack on Iraq came about, not because of new information (as was said), but because our priorities changed by events unrelated to Iraq. At least as far as we know at the moment.

The only reason I would have considered supporting this war was because those who are in charge of such things said they had new information that necessitated. I didn't mind not know what it was at the time because I assumed that we would know eventually and sometimes it's important to keep secrets. However, they really didn't have any more information than we, the general public, had and knowing what I knew, I couldn't have justified tearing down another country's government for it, even after being upset about 9/11.

In the end, maybe I should have been a little more skeptical. I don't know.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by RandFan
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

No, I don't think that is what he is saying.

We worked for years trying to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the end he refused to cooperate and the inspectors had no choice but to leave Iraq with the job undone. We knew based on his history that he was a potential for great harm. After 911 that potential was magnified. Suddenly there was new impetus to solve this ongoing problem. So we did what was in mind and many others as the correct thing and invaded Iraq.



Yes, all well and good. The outcome has been advantageous for:

the US interests - good
Saddam and his party faithful are not in a position do do the amount of harm they could while in power -good
Saddam and his sons can not use the country's resources to develop weapons to kill Kurds. -good
revenge, sweet emotionally satisfying revenge has been achieved, for the death of 3000+ Americans, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs/ and or life savings, and for an assasination attempt of Daddy Bush. The only loose end: the status of Saddam can not be accounted for.


To attain these goals the Bush Administration, with Christian Fundamentalist certainty, declared a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

The Bush administration could always claim moral equivalency, The US is not the 1st political / militarty entity to manufacture or embellish "facts" to justify going to war.

THE INCIDENT which triggered the Second World War was the simulated attack by the Germans on their own radio station near Gleiwitz on the Polish border. To make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles, prisoners from a nearby concentration camp were dressed in Polish uniforms then shot and their bodies placed in strategic positions around the radio station. A Polish speaking German then did a broadcast from the station to make it appear that Poland had attacked first. This was the excuse Hitler needed to invade Poland on September 1st. 1939.
Gleiwicz (http://www.thirdreichpages.org/war.htm) - just an example, not comparing political structures or leaders here.

The ends justify the means.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

—Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism." I feel all dirty and used. :mad:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
We worked for years trying to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the end he refused to cooperate and the inspectors had no choice but to leave Iraq with the job undone.

How much undone? According to Ritter: (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/)
As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years.
Have we any evidence to suggest that Ritter is un/intentionally misrepresenting the situation?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I feel all dirty and used. :mad:

I had that Goering quote in my Signature for a while - thought it was fitting for a German living and working in America these days...

BTW, that's what Europeans mean when they say America can learn from them - not from their greatness, but from the mistakes that have already happened here...

- m.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by blackpriester


I had that Goering quote in my Signature for a while - thought it was fitting for a German living and working in America these days... For the life of me, I can't remember who said it, and I will probably get it wrong, but there is a quote that goes,

"Americans will never fail to do the right thing ...after having exhausted all other options."

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

"Not quite Soviet-style airbrushing" (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/whwebscrub.html)



After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.


another faith based initiative?

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer.


remember this statement? (quoted in origional post of this thread)
"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. - the Bush Administration's propaganda branch is busy busy busy. Yeah, well when you rewrite and edit what was said and done will the world see the truth?


"There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made." In this assertion, Bush was correct.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush explains to the press after a White House visit of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (July 2003), why he invaded Iraq:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

CNN Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/wbr.wmds.question/)

Whitehouse link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html)

emphasis mine; I could be mistaken, but I do recall UN inspectors in Iraq up to the point they had to be withdrawn from Iraq for their safety as the U.S. was intent on invading Iraq.

Bush carries on about historical revisionism, about those that would rewrite history:

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made." In this assertion Bush was correct.

[gnome]

Originally posted by BillyTK

The econonic version of the truth, or the plausibly deniable version? :D

Upchurch, like your post, but do you think you could squeeze a B5 comparison out of it? ;)

Upchurch, you TOTALLY missed a chance to throw in something about the truth being a "Three-edged sword"...

Other than that, brilliant :)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." -a translation of a translation of a translation of Bush's words to Palestinian PM, 06/25/2003

God and Bush only knows (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm)

Orders from the Highest Authority? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer)



''Events aren't moved by blind change and chance''..., but by ''the hand of a just and faithful God.'' -Bush
Whitehouse Link to Prayer Breaky address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-1.html) , Sunday, February 6, 2003







Origionally posted by PPG
Does Christian fundamentalist certainty influence the Bush admin's policies, and make them more prone to make "faith based policies"?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

"Faith" is accepting something as true without evidence.


correct:

from Paul's letter to the Hebrews:

11:1

..faith is being sure of what we hope for, the evidence of things we do not see


and then he goes on to give some examples of faith in Hebrews 11.


The Bush administration is punch-drunk on faith and hope; faith is all that the admistration requires for evidence.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The campaign slogan --:clap: "Faith. The Anti-Drug" :clap:


"Pathways to Prevention: Guiding Youth to Wise Decisions."

premises in "Marijuana and Kids: Faith" fact sheet;

1) "Religion plays a major role in the lives of American teens;"



2) "Religion and religiosity repeatedly correlate with lower teen and adult marijuana and substance use rates and buffer the impact of life stress which can lead to marijuana and substance use;" and



3) "Youth turn to faith communities… [but] most faith institutions [with]… youth ministries [do not]… incorporate significant teen substance abuse prevention activities."

"Faith plays an important role when it comes to teen marijuana prevention," said John P. Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy.


This faith-based approach compliments the arresting of 750,000 people for marijuana violations in 2001; nearly 90% of those were for simple possession.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Bush explains to the press after a White House visit of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (July 2003), why he invaded Iraq:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

CNN Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/wbr.wmds.question/)

Whitehouse link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html)

emphasis mine; .....






Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work. Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.

I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security. [/B] -Jan. 27, 2004

President Bush / President Kwasniewski (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html)

regarding the 3 parts I emphasized

It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in....

this statement parallels a previous statement by Bush:

And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in I could be mistaken, but I do recall UN inspectors in Iraq up to the point they had to be withdrawn from Iraq for their safety as the U.S. was intent on invading Iraq.



Once again Bush declares his belief, and what he knows, but the evidence is not there to back up his belief or what he knew and what he now knows

..faith is being sure of what we hope for, the evidence of things we do not see - Hebrews 11.1

And where Bush states

given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security

he once again illustrates that because of 9/11 that the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was necessary to protect the United States.

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."

In this assertion, Bush was correct.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The challenge is presented to the nations. President G. W. Bush has made his choice: to defend good; to combat evil. Bush awaits the nations’ responses to that challenge. According to Bush, in several wonderfully stated false dilemmas:


there is no neutral ground between good or evil

The terrorists were described in the days and weeks following the September 11, 2001, attacks as the "evil-doers".

Bush declared on September 21, 2001, "Every nation and every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Then, on January 29, 2002, he made his much publicized speech when he lumped Iraq, North Korea and Iran in the phrase "axis of evil".


"... between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame. Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html)"


Bush's faith-based administration sees the world in a simple, extreme perspective: good v evil. Terrorists are evil: if you are not with the U.S. you are with the terrorists : If you are with the terrorists you are evil.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I also have this belief, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html) strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.


Amen, convert them brother!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe





...from Paul's letter to the Hebrews:
[QUOTE]11:1

..faith is being sure of what we hope for, the evidence of things we do not see


faith is all that the admistration requires for evidence.

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/17/world/bush040617) is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda -G.W. BUSH Thurs. June 18, 2004

[zultr]

Originally posted by RandFan
We worked for years trying to disarm Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi army was effectively disarmed at the end of the Gulf War when it was blown up on that road while retreating.

Originally posted by RandFan
In the end he refused to cooperate and the inspectors had no choice but to leave Iraq with the job undone.

The inspectors said they couldn't find any WMD. That's apparently because there weren't any, not because the job was undone.

Originally posted by RandFan
We knew based on his history that he was a potential for great harm.

When left to his own devices and provided assistance by the US, sure, he had potential. With his army in smoke and no effective control over half his country (northern and southern no fly zones), no, there wasn't much potential there.

Originally posted by RandFan
After 911 that potential was magnified.

How? Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and Saddam was still contained.

Originally posted by RandFan
Suddenly there was new impetus to solve this ongoing problem. So we did what was in mind and many others as the correct thing and invaded Iraq.

Rather than an impetus, in my mind and many others, we used 9/11 as an excuse to do the incorrect thing and invade Iraq. The problem with building up a military after years of cold war is finding out that you can fight traditional wars but you are ill prepared to fight terrorism and anonymous isolated cells. Iraq was an easy target and we had to do something. In effect, we got mad at the wife, but kicked the dog instead. The correct thing would have been to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. I hear he's still at large.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Is it possible to post?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

'It's true that much attention is being placed on the war in Iraq, but there's also another war that's going on... It's a culture war that really gets to the heart of the questions about what is the role of faith in the public square

Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, during a conference promoting the funding of religious groups engaged in social service activities.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Message from the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,

Jim Towey (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/message.html) All too often, however, these worthy organizations are excluded from delivering services for which the federal government commits substantial resources. Many are prohibited from applying simply because they have a religious name or identity, even though their programs may be turning lives around.



...Why would I want to interface with a group of people that want to try to get me to not practice my faith? It's hard to be a faith-based program if you can't practice faith. And the message to you is we're changing the culture here in America.
G.W. Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040601-10.html) 01/06/2004



edited to add more links for perspectives

Americans United (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer) for Seperation of Church and State

The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p20s04-usmb.html)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Faith and its Signifigance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3335623.stm)

(note: the piece is quite dated by now, from Jan 2004)

Faith is a key part of American society in general, with about 60% of citizens saying religion is "very important" in their lives according to a Gallup poll in November.

The way senior politicians talk so freely about their own faiths can seem strange in other countries - Gallup reports just 28% of Canadians and 17% of Britons say religion is "very important" to them

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush's calling (http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_24_4.htm)

There is an excerpt in the article from

The Faith of George W. Bush (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585423092/102-7574966-7858563?v=glance) about a conversation between Bush and Robison.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zultr
The Iraqi army was effectively disarmed at the end of the Gulf War when it was blown up on that road while retreating.

The inspectors said they couldn't find any WMD. That's apparently because there weren't any, not because the job was undone.

When left to his own devices and provided assistance by the US, sure, he had potential. With his army in smoke and no effective control over half his country (northern and southern no fly zones), no, there wasn't much potential

According to Bill Clinton AND John Kery, Saddam was a threat. We collectively believed that. Now one can argue that world leaders disagreed with how to deal with that threat but it is missleading to suggest that Bush knew that Saddam was not a threat and acted anyway.

Rather than an impetus, in my mind and many others, we used 9/11 as an excuse to do the incorrect thing and invade Iraq. The problem with building up a military after years of cold war is finding out that you can fight traditional wars but you are ill prepared to fight terrorism and anonymous isolated cells. Iraq was an easy target and we had to do something. In effect, we got mad at the wife, but kicked the dog instead. The correct thing would have been to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. I hear he's still at large. No one said capturing Osama would be easy. We have always had troops in Afganastan looking for Osama. We can do two things at once.

[rikzilla]

Damn RF!

Aren't you tired of having this same debate every week for the last year and a half? ;)

I know I am...my hat's off to ya....what stamina!

Here's these...pre-checked by Snopes...for our friend:
Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003]


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"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."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!



(couldn't help bolding that last part... :D )

-z

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Damn RF!

Aren't you tired of having this same debate every week for the last year and a half? ;) Hey rik,

No rest for the weary.

BTW, I like the juxtaposition of the conspiratorial claims made in this thread and its title. It would seem that skepticism is used conveniently by some. I was dreading someone calling me on my claim and I would have to drum up the statements.

I owe you big time.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey rik,

No rest for the weary.

BTW, I like the juxtaposition of the conspiratorial claims made in this thread and its title. It would seem that skepticism is used conveniently by some. I was dreading someone calling me on my claim and I would have to drum up the statements.

I owe you big time. :D :D

glad to be of help...we missed ya around here....don't go away again. We are too few already.

-z

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Here's these...pre-checked by Snopes...for our friend:




-z


here is the link, not that it would be hard to find, as Rikzilla gives enough clues.


Snopes, Statements by Democrats (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

[fishbob]

Aren't you tired of having this same debate every week for the last year and a half? . . . Here's these...pre-checked by Snopes...for our friend: Aren't you tired of getting caught cherry picking - out of context phrases that do not reflect the intent of the speaker? Persistence can be a virtue, or it can be damned annoying. Read the ENTIRE Snopes article, then lets debate.

From Snopes - what Kerry really said:
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Most of your other cherry-picked snippets were equally
misleading as to the intent of the speaker. Jeez.

PS - PygmyPlaidGiraffe - thanks for the link.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
Aren't you tired of getting caught cherry picking - out of context phrases that do not reflect the intent of the speaker? Persistence can be a virtue, or it can be damned annoying. Read the ENTIRE Snopes article, then lets debate.

From Snopes - what Kerry really said:


Most of your other cherry-picked snippets were equally
misleading as to the intent of the speaker. Jeez.

PS - PygmyPlaidGiraffe - thanks for the link. Hey Bob,

The quotes lack context and in and of themselves can be missleading. But what are we talking about? That Bush believed that there were WMD and so did other leaders along with Kerry and Clinton.

Can you show by adding the appropriate context that these leaders did not believe that Saddam had WMD? I should note that after reading the article it would seem that there are questions as to that point.

Thanks in advance. BTW, unless I missed something the quote you provide makes it clear that Kerry believed that Saddam likely had WMD or he would not have voted. And it is this belief that is at the crux of my argument.

Thanks

[fishbob]

Title of this discussion: "Faith-based policies leading to war"

From the first post:Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

I thought we were talking about the decisions that were made. Most of the politicians quoted in Snopes were not in favor of invasion.

Faith can be a dangerous thing. Faith allows you to be certain you are right in spite of evidence. Faith provides a way to ignore the consequences of your decisions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
I thought we were talking about the decisions that were made. Most of the politicians quoted in Snopes were not in favor of invasion. Rik's post was a direct response to my post in which I argue that Bush was not the only leader that believed that Saddam had WMD.

You see, zultr had given the impression that Bush had acted knowing that Saddam did not have WMD when in truth most leaders believed strongly that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Sorry if that was off topic but I was just trying to correct the record.

As far as religion goes, I have yet to see any evidence that demonstrates religion was the sole or even major reason for war. I believe that religion could have played a part but the notion that it was the overriding force behind this simply has not been proven.

I think turning rhetoric into evidence is wrong. I think it is important to put religious propaganda or swagger into its proper context.

[fishbob]

As far as religion goes, I have yet to see any evidence that demonstrates religion was the sole or even major reason for war. I am not saying religion was the reason for the war. I am saying that faith = confidence in what is right and what is true = a bad thing.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."


This whole thread is based on this? The receipt was a fake. Intelligence still hasn't backed off the assertion that he was trying to buy uranium. So how is this "faith based foreign policy". We had humint in africa that confirmed this apparently.

Really, we have seen the monster Upchurch and it is skeptics who are anything but when the target is their least favorite politician.

Sorry, but your news source here presents a skewed vision of this.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx
This whole thread is based on this? The receipt was a fake. Intelligence still hasn't backed off the assertion that he was trying to buy uranium. So how is this "faith based foreign policy". We had humint in africa that confirmed this apparently.
Which is an odd thing; in his address, Bush cited British intelligence about attempts by Iraq to obtain uranium from Africa, but the Butler report (http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp) states that "the UK consulted the US. The CIA [...]agreed that
there was evidence that had been sought." (497); so Bush was citing UK intelligence which had been approved by the CIA :confused:. What was all that about?

There's also that mystery intelligence from a mystery source which was embargoed against US use, but that's another mystery...

Really, [u]we have seen the monster Upchurch and it is skeptics who are anything but when the target is their least favorite politician.

[...]
My underlining–I wouldn't call Upchurch conventionally handsome, but I think you're going a bit too far! ;) :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Holy cow. Is he saying that we went to war, not because we had new information (which I seem to remember them saying at the time) but because we felt differently? We got hurt so, by God, we're going to hurt someone else?

I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a horrible person, but how can we justify a pre-emptive strike based on zero evidence before or since the stike?
Meaning he guessed, he didn't know.

We have met the monster and he is us.

edited to add:
I meant to say, "I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a horrible person" Rather a critical typo there.

He is using the same language the Australian PM is using. Not a word of doubt, or regret.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by corplinx
This whole thread is based on this?


If you believe so, sure. However, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

The receipt was a fake. Intelligence still hasn't backed off the assertion that he was trying to buy uranium. So how is this "faith based foreign policy". We had humint in africa that confirmed this apparently.

Really, we have seen the monster Upchurch and it is skeptics who are anything but when the target is their least favorite politician.

Sorry, but your news source here presents a skewed vision of this.


The news source is skewed? Aren't all news sources skewed? Some are worse than others I suppose, I try and stay away from the extreme ones, and if I do quote extreme sources I have a disclaimer.

Where did the quote you attribute to me come from?




"Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.
There's no doubt in my mind ]that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."
Is it from within this thread, because I can't find it and I have gone back and forth through the thread 3 times now. I apologise in advance for my lack of attention if it is plain as day.


re: the parts I emphasized, are these not statements of faith? How do these statement get reconciled with the new evidence that intelligence cited by Bush and his admin was wrong, that the evidence of WMDs have not surfaced? He claims over and over again that the evidence will show that he was correct.