Iraq: WMDs, Imminent Threat, 9-11, Nukes, etc. Simply Put: We Were Lied To.

What if you're wrong and there really are no WMD's? Like the Czech intelligence story that has turned out to be a fraud.

If that is the case, would you at least concede Bush bears some culpability, either for lying, or for being badly mistaken, or for appointing advisers that misled him?

And similarly, don't you see a difference in kind between the actions (or inactions) of Mongolian Prime Minister N. Enkhbanar and President Bush with respect to Iraq? T

 

There's considerable debate still about the Czech story. It's my impression that the Czech's are standing by their story that the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intelligence agent took place. The demuring is coming from the CIA, arguably because they don't want to admit they missed it.

I'm not sure I get the Mongolian connection to Iraq. what are you referring to?

 

If there turns out to have been no WMDs in Iraq i would concede that Bush was lied to- by Saddam Hussein and the UN, since they're the ones who said they were there in the first place.

 

No, the demurring is coming from the CIA, FBI, Czech intelligence Service, Czech president, and pretty much anybody ever associated with it.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64820

Referring to treemans statement, here:

"No matter that even under any possible circumstances where Bush lied, virtually every single other world leader, to include the UN as a body, lied about the same topic as well, since they all agreed with Bush on the WMD"

 

from the WSJ on Monday :

"- About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. "

As to the Mongolian government's lack of action over the presence of WMDs in Iraq, i guess i missed the story about Saddam making payments to, and providing housing for, the mastermind behind the World Yurt Center bombing in 1993.

 

re: "Imminent Threat"

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." - President George Bush, State of the Union, 2003

 

and from yesterday's speech at the UN:

“The deadly combination of outlaw regimes and terror networks and weapons of mass murder is a peril that cannot be ignored or wished away. If such a danger is allowed to fully materialize, all words, all protests, will come too late...We're determined to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from all our shores, and out of the hands of our common enemies.”

 

Shockingly enough, Mongolia actually WAS part of the coalition of the willing, although I had the occasion to go there in July and most mongolians didn't seem too willing, but that's neither here nor there.

As illlustrated in that other thread (that article is cited), the cabinet level officials thing is a farcical argument. President B has said there's no evidence of a 9-11 connection, the FBI and CIA have also dismissed this story, the Czech President has disavowed the story, the czech intel service has disavowed the story; each saying it was likely a fabrication; why must we wait for unnamed czech cabinent officials (who? the foreign minister? labor minister?) to also provide verification before calling a spade a spade? Face it, this lead is DOA.

 

Didn't Saddam claim that they weren't there anymore, pretty much every single day of the year? The UN lied? Didn't Hans Blix just say they didn't find anything?

THis takes us off on a pretty bizarre tangent that I'm not sure I understand?

 

sorry, i misspoke (or maybe i lied ), on the Saddam angle. Blix did just say he thinks Saddam destroyed his WMDs. however, the UN, and by extension France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the axis-of-weasels, up until the end of the war, maintained that Iraq had WMDs. that included hans blix.

 

the UN, and by extension France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the axis-of-weasels, up until the end of the war, maintained that Iraq had WMDs. that included hans blix.

It was never the argument that Iraq did not have WMDs; it was a question of how much did it still have after the UN inspections did its thing. Bush made the case that the UN inspection teams had hardly put a dent in Iraq's WMD supply.

 

Yes, you do appear to be fond of saying "I voted for Bush, but I really wish I had a time machine now", or something along those lines. Whoopedy-friggen-doo. Don't we all.

I voted for Gore. Yes, I actually did. I have avoided admitting that for quite a while... out of embarassment. But it's about time I came out of the closet. I thought Bush was an idiot. And much like you, I believe that I was duped in the 2000 election. The friggen shame.

(I have often tried to explain to you that I am not a Republican, but you never listen. As I have said before, you have an image of me that prevents you from seeing who I actually am... But as you Democrats like to say - 'perception is reality'...)

I am quite sure that the intelligence services of both France and Germany in particular, as well as those of Russia, China, the UK, and every second-tier power would be insulted by those words.

It is no secret that the US intel community is not omnipotent, and that other nations glean information from time to time that we are not privy to. And that Iraq's WMD programs and capabilities were universally agreed upon by all of the major intel agencies of the globe. A fact which you are free to continue to ignore.

Unless, that is, Guinea-Bisseau's intel service had some sort of major breakthrough???

A little further right than you dared go?

As a matter of fact I did. The truth is out now.

And yes, I feel like I was duped.

You by name because it is so obvious, and you are a good example. You even stated it in this post. Thanks.

You clearly do not. Any idiot with half a brain can see that surrendering or losing Iraq means losing the terror war, a conflict that we cannot afford to lose. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you do not actually have a strategy for Iraq (you have offered none at all, only criticism - which in itself is fine, but absent alternatives is just garbage), you have nothing more than insults for the CINC. You have nothing constructive to offer, which tells me that you either do not care, or have not thought sufficiently about the issue.

I think you care. Just not about the right things. You are far more concerned with changing the leadership of this country than you are about this country actually winning this war. I do, in fact, think that you would put that political agenda ahead of us winning. Read that however you'd like.

If you want to understand me, understand this: I care more about winning this war than anything else. Bush can tank for all I care, as long as we win this war. But of course, a Democratic victory means automatic surrender, so...

Please respond. This post should provide adequate fuel for the ego.

 

treeman, Bush is an idiot.
And why do you assume a Democratic victory means surrender in Iraq? Most of them are saying they wouldn't have gone there in the first place, not for the "reasons laid out by Bush" and not at that time... maybe at another time with a more intelligent run-up before action. You think they would all cut and run, now that we are committed?

And we are committed now, whether it was the smart thing to do or not. Leaving now would be unthinkable, in my opinion. We shouldn't have gone in the first place. Not when we did. But we sure as hell are there now.

I disagree that a Democratic victory means we pull out.
I do think a Democratic victory might bring our friends off the sidelines and bring some serious help. Because Bush has seriously pissed off a whole raft of them.

 

Deckard,

You must not have seen the Democratic debate the other night (yes, I sometimes scout the enemy). Over half of them said that they would withdraw from Iraq. Those who did not offered no new ideas whatsoever, only criticism of the administration, which is not exactly productive.

And yes, withdrawing at this point is unthinkable. To a normal person, that is. Shoulda seen the debate...

And yes, I do think that having a Democrat in that office would spell defeat in the war on terror. Had Al Gore been in the White House, I'm sure that Osama would still be sending videos showing himself having tea with Omar in Kandahar right now. Thank God my vote didn't count.

Most of them also said that they would reject the Prez's proposed spending bill to reconstruct Iraq, offering nothing in its place. So you have a bunch of people running for president who think that the correct course of action would be to pull out and leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself... Can we agree that that idea does not deserve serious thought? That such policy would be disastrous in the extreme, and ultimately spell defeat for us? These guys would create another Afghanistan, except this time in an oil rich state...

 

I don't think Clark or Kerry would cut and run. I wouldn't vote for a Democrat that would in the primaries. And no, I didn't see the debate. I read that Clark did pretty well for someone just getting his feet wet.

He's going to be in Austin Monday raising money and he's going to have a rally at Wooldridge Park at 1:30. (no Democrat thinks they can carry Texas... not now. Someday that'll change)

 

But as I said, they offer absolutely nothing new in the way of policy for Iraq. Nothing. They have no ideas, just criticism, and criticism without alternative suggestions/ideas is worse than useless. It is counterproductive..

And Clark still doesn't appear to have any beliefs or opinions about anything. I have to say that while he's appealing now (hell, just look at his competition, anything is appealing compared to them), having no ideas about anything will probably hurt him after the primaries, when he has to broaden his message from just "Bush lied".

 

another reason why Bush's rating has dropped so low. you've got 10 candidates attacking him each and everyday. I really think once Bush goes on the offensive it's a whole different ball game.

 

Come on, these guys aren't getting a lot of play yet... I haven't seen a recent poll, but I would be surprised if half the people in the US could name more than three of the Dems. The main reason Bush is going downhill is because he has failed policeis enacted by inflexible people that have led to much worse economy and a waste of blood and treasure abroad.

 

Ridiculous, this is extremely disingenuous of you to say, when "half" of those candidates are fringe voices like Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinch, and Carol Mosely Braun, people who have literally NO shot at winning the nomination. Especially given the fact that the Republican party made denouncement of Nation-buliding part of their campaign platform for the last 10 years, and the fact GWB campaigned on such a policy.

Somebody's been watching that video of George W. Bush in his flight suit too much. As impressive as Georgie's bulge is, to think that the identity of the US president makes a difference in the calculus of fanatics like bin laden is hopelessly naive. He's not Lord Metternich at the COngress of Vienna; he has no plans to regain Nice and Savoy by diplomatic manipulation. Rather, hs plans are to kill as many Americans as possible regardless of who is in office and preserve himself.

BTW, I note that Tough Guy George W. Bush ACCEDED to Osama's root demands, to withdraw American forces from the Saudi Arabia. I have no doubt that if Al Gore did that, you and/or other conservative voices would be ranting and raving about Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement and Munich, so save it.

Again, you attempt to tar and feather people with the brush of Al Sharpton. Did Clark say this? Did Kerry say this? Once again, as republicans are wont to do, you construct a bogeyman based on conjecture (welfare queens, willie horton, the myth of big government and high taxes), and proceed to do battle with it.

In a nutshell, the same formula that was used in Iraq.

BTW, funny you mention Afghanistan, failed nationbuilding exhibit A. Yes, I know, it's the liberal media that's telling us that Afghanistan's sliding back into anarchy, I mean who would know better than some guy sitting in the Heritage Foundation office in DC?