This is hilarious. The report clearly indicates that data contrary to the admin's desired end-goal was marginalized and/or ignored. This has been previously demonstrated REPEATEDLY in MAJOR NEWS REPORTS. And yet, some people *cough* giddyup *cough* are arguing that was not the case. I'm either aghast or flummoxed or laughing. I can't tell which.
Who uses marginalized data to make their case? Nobody. No one is justifying Rafer Alston's starting status by virtue of his 3-point FG percentage. That's not what earned him the job (silly analogy I know but it's a basketball forum). If you are going to marginalize something you have to be aware of it.
That's kinda the point. We had an established plan, since 1998 (possibly earlier) to attack Iraq again. Despite his promises in his campaign to reject that kind of foreign policy, Bush bought into the plan. Instead of using intelligence to evaluate the situation, and determine whether an attack was in our interests or not, Bush used intelligence to support the plan.
The were aware of it - this has been documented, and this is known by us who are familiar with the subject matter being discussed. This does not include you.
If you are trying to imply Bush was not aware that data was being hidden from him that undermined his personal tribute to truthiness - I'd label your argument worthy of disdain. (And a clever tactic to shift the argument away from the "admin", which has been the focus of the thread thus far - they're all guilty) So... 1) Bush intentionally misled/lied to the public. or 2) Bush was not aware that his own administration was using his lax approach to fact-checking against him to promote a case for war. In either case, he's a dip**** not fit to be president, and his administration misled the country into an enormously wasteful and unnecessary war. Willful ignorance is the same as lying. Period.
I, too, have known it. It just doesn't throw me into conniptions like it does you. The president gets elected to do the job as he sees fit and within the powers left to him. What are you supposed to do when you have conflicting intel... never make a decision?
Read the conflicting intel and attempt to make sense of it instead of discarding it, ignoring it, and marginalizing when it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion. I've already said this 45 times....now is the time when you bring up something irrelevant.
What do you think the preponderance of intel indicated? Is that not the proposition that you begin with to make a plan? To decide means to come down on one side. You all make it sound like there was a decision to invade an innocent Iraq (I'm not even referencing 9/11). Saddam had mocked the UN for a decade or more. Am I lying because I don't say that Rafer is our starting PG in spite of his lousy 3-point shooting? Nah, that's just not the nature of things. You decide and move forward.
And he can be held accountable when he effectively makes a bet with billions of dollars and thousands of lives that proves to be a massive mistake. Accountability - it's a novel concept for this admin... I'm disgusted you don't care that people have died for nothing. I'm disgusted you don't care that your great-great-great-grandchildren will still be paying for this idiotic maneuver. Not shocked, mind you - nothing Bush supporters do or say can shock me anymore. The decision was made before the intel was even gathered and subsequently cherry-picked.
How do you know that there was no attempt to make sense of it? You don't; you can't. Were you there? Something can be discarded or ignored for reasons other than not falling in line with one's preconceived notions.
Hey, you said it didn't cause you conniptions. If you'd like to explain what you meant by that, please do so. You admit the admin had intel that their premise for war was faulty. They did it anyway - "preemptively" if you will. It was a mistake. 1000s have died, and billions have been wasted. What, pray tell , causes you to go into "conniptions" if not this?
Because I have read background material on this and you haven't - this is obvious from your posts in this thread. I know you think this is fun and games but really you just tend to embarrass yourself when you act like this. You could at least be funny about it but you're not even that.
Sometimes people have to make tough, close calls. Sometimes they don't work out; sometimes they do... and every place in-between. Those decisions are what do not give me conniptions because I have confidence that they are entered into with the weight of the world on the shoulders of decision-makers rather than having some idea that those people don't care a whit and act impulsively and dishonestly which is what all the critics seem to conclude. For the last time: in any complex situation, the intel is going to conflict with itself. Don't go looking for no-brainers when it comes to anything on this scale. Leaders run the risk of having to make tough decisions and I don't feel emboldened by my 20/20 hindsight.
Not trying to be funny. I guess I have no choice but to believe you since all you can do is make the most broad pronouncements and then mock anyone who disagrees with you.
Somebody nicknamed Curveball says that Sadam had biolabs on wheels. No one in the intell community considered Curveball a quality, trusted source, just the opposite actually. That is the only evidence we have for biolabs on wheels. W ran with it. Powell included it in his UN speech. It was one of the many prominent reasons we went to war. The decision that W needed to make was that the evidence for biolabs on wheels was crap and could not be used as a basis for war. The other evidence Powell spouted in his UN speech was equally as dubious. And we have not even discussed the "imminent threat" angle, which is needed for a "preemptive war". Absence of imminent threat, this war is considered a preventive war, which is a clear violation of international law, making W an international war criminal. W should get impeached and imprisoned.
