I do apologize for that, giddyup. But seriously, what do you expect? Three years now of presenting clear cases against this war, including repeated virtually proven and absolutely proven cases in which the president of the US has misled us to garner support for a war it is now clear was in no way necessary and the stubborn, vocal few on this board just shrug. In this thread, in fact, after the latest in a series of threads I've started outlining the president's lies re: the war, another to which you and basso and Jorge and the like had zero response, you're back repeating the repeatedly discredited line about Congress having been given the same intel. That is flatly untrue, it's been proven to be untrue, I've posted that proof and you just keep repeating it. You're damn right I'm petulant.
The Congress authorized the use of military force once the President promised them it was to be used to keep the peace. Let's look at that lie he told congress. Is that really what Bush did once he had the authorization? Was that really what the Bush administration believed that resolution was all about? He lied to congress not only about the evidence, but about the real reason for the authorization to begin with.
I've run through the article you posted in the other thread. Let me get this clear: your idea of proof is dissenting evidence? This from your story: "Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb." So we have The State Department and the Energy Department versus the CIA... how do we choose?
They didn't authorize a war either. They authorized use of military force. Yes a war involves military force but its not quite the same as an official declaration. If you notice in my post I say "Congress dropped the ball on this one."
<b>Sishir Chang hey didn't authorize a war either. They authorized use of military force. Yes a war involves military force but its not quite the same as an official declaration.</b> So it's not a war then... in spite of the headlines? I don't think it really matters what we call it, does it? <b>If you notice in my post I say "Congress dropped the ball on this one."</b> Could they have been "lied to" and "dropped the ball" both?
Proof of cherry-picking. In every instance when the administration could choose the most outrageous, unfounded, unreliable information that invoked fear of worst-case scenarios, they did. Only the "evidence" which served their goal of war was allowed, the rest was unused or discredited. Congress never saw the whole picture that they did. They saw what the WH presented: a very distorted, totally incomplete picture. And anyone who dared question was attacked and labelled unpatriotic and weak on terror. There were several in the CIA, including some of the highest in the organization, who doubted that, and specifically warned the administration not to include the words about nuclear arms into the SOTU. The conflict between the admin (Cheney in particular) vs the CIA in this and other matters is now well documented. Despite the warning not to refer to the tubes because the evidence was shaky (or non-existant), they went with it. Why? Because they're cherry-picking and hyping the worst stuff they can find, no matter how weak it is. [edited for unnecessary frothing.]
Actually it does. Everything that has been happened, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and etc.. has all happened technically under a state of peace. What that means is that the precedent has been established that the government can curtail our rights and subvert the law even during e peacetime. The DOJ's letter defending warrantless wiretaps is premised that under a state of war the Executive can do all practically anything. Well we're officially not under a state of war. While yes there is are authorizations to use force which they argue are the same thing as war declarations but since they aren't officially called that this or current Admins could turn around and say that even under a state of peace the Executive branch can do pretty much whatever it wants. Its opens a loophole for a permanent subversion of individual liberties and the separation of powers. Of course they could have and blame goes both to the Admin. and to Congress for not doing adequate oversight. You seem to feel that those who criticize the Admin are giving Congress a pass. I can't speak for others but I hold Congress responsible for the mess in Iraq too.
They affirmed it based on evidence provided by the White House. Evidence which later turned out to be slanted and full of holes.
Much of the affirmations I've seen pre-dated GWB. When you say "White House" do you mean GWB or White House?
The present administration saw plenty of conflicting evidence and received many warnings from the CIA, State Dept, and others not to use evidence from unreliable sources. All warnings were ignored and all conflicting evidence was swept under the rug. Your excuse is insufficient. You seem to be willfully ignorant on this subject.
Can anyone deny that the Bush presidency, Iraq and the general state of world affairs gets more and more depressing each morning?
So when they see conflicting evidence are they just supposed to be paralyzed into inaction? The "warnings" you cite were nothing but trumpetings for half of the conflicting evidence. Were there not "trumpeters" for the other side, too? I'm not sure how you see me as being "willfullly ignorant." Just because something is not heeded does not mean that it was ignored. How was any evidence "swept under the rug?" Evidence set aside instead of other evidence is not swept under the rug. It has just lost favor.
Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen? In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence. What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856
That's called "selective reading." The Admin. selective read the evidence to frame a pre-determined case for war rather than trying to take the evidence as a whole and see where that led them. I will never deny that there was plenty of evidence to say that Saddam had WMD and will shy away from saying that the Admin. flat out lied but what I will say is that they failed to exercise caution and instead created and got caught up in their hype and paranoia where invasion was the only option. As all of us should know war should never be taken lightly and in this case the Admin did.
I figured that would be how you would respond. But the article does show that information was "swept under the rug." Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is your prerogative.
Yet the Administration listened to Chalabi and believed everything that came out of his mouth. Perhaps it was because he was saying what they wanted to hear in the first place. Go figure.
From the story: "For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. <b>Sabri was right</b>. After the war, it became clear that there was no program. Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. <b>Sabri was more accurate</b>. On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. <b>Both Sabri and the agency were wrong</b>." So the guy they paid $100,000 to was correct in contradicting the other dominating intelligence position on Bio Weapons, had a longer timeline that the other dominating intelligence on Nuclear Weapons (but did affirm Saddam's passion for the project) and was equallly wrong on the issue of Chemical Weapons? Sorry if I am underwhelmed...
