Wish I could take credit for writing it, but I guess I can help by letting all you guys know about it. I have sent my "e-letter" in.
Mulder, Do you think I'll be able to convince my rep, PELOSI, to support an independent investigation? I'll do my best.
b-bob -- actually, pelosi has found WMD's in Iraq..she is currently hiding them in her basement. shhhhhh!!!
You can believe him or not...but I think his argument is certainly credible...I'd hate to have to prove that Bush was intentionally lying in court. that would be quite difficult. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38886-2003Jul10.html Powell: No Apologize on Uranuim Charged By DARLENE SUPERVILLE The Associated Press Thursday, July 10, 2003; 3:56 PM PRETORIA, South Africa - Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration's handling of information about Iraq's weapons programs, saying Thursday that President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for statements that later proved false. "There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people," Powell said. "The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time." Powell's remarks, in Africa where he is traveling with the president, were the administration's strongest defense yet of Bush's decision to include a line in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Africa. As weeks have passed with the American search turning up no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, criticism, especially by Democrats, has been building concerning assertions the administration made as justification for the war. Powell said the issue was "overblown." The president's remarks in January reflected the best available intelligence at the time, Powell said. He said that as he prepared his own Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations, the information on uranium "was not standing the test of time" and he decided not to use it. "I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since," Powell said. "But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union Address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion."
It's not just about simple honesty. It's more complex than that: the Chief Executive of the Land lied to America and the World during the execution of one of his few explicitly defined Constitutional duties. This is a no-no bigtime.
A lot of those Iraqis that Saddam killed were Shiites who rose up against his government, post-Gulf War I, just like George Bush the Elder asked them to do. But on second thought, we didn't really want to back up Shiites, did we? Nope. They run Iran, too. So a lot of those graves were filled by people who we told to fight, and then ignored. We can't be the world's policemen. GWB could give a s**t about Iraqis. He doesn't give a s**t about Americans who have to work for a living; why care about Iraqis? Digging, digging; everybody's digging. We're digging in Iraq for WMD's, for Saddam's victims. Now we're digging in the U.S. for the truth. Do I take the blue pill or the red pill? How far does the rabbithole go?
Okay, we can both toe party lines. giddy, honestly, what do you believe in your heart of hearts? Honest mistake? Bit of fudging to flesh out an argument? Doesn't matter to you?
my belief..not that you asked for it...is that, like his predecessor, he relied on the data presented him.
Politicians lie all the time. It is the nature of the beast. But not all of the lies are the same. Some have dramaticly more consequences, like say starting a preventive war. We should expect the highest standards of truthfulness wrt making war. Bush and his Admin do not share this view, and are probably po-ed that they are getting called on the details.
I believe that he did stretch the truth. I can't say to what extent he lied, but I think on some points he did. I'm a black-and-white type of person, and saying "he exaggerated his case" doesn't cut it. They probably started believing their own worst predictions on Iraq, and they thought they would find all types of weapons and uranium an WMD's. They thought that those few hard-to-prove assertions wouldn't matter in the face of all the evidence after the war. This of course, doesn't excuse it at all. Although, I do believe he did what he felt was best for the security of the country, and I do think the toppling of Saddam will be a great thing in the long run. But if you ask me if he lied, I'd have to say yes.
What if the consequences are good? What if Iraq is stablized and serious reforms begin in the Middle East?
agree wholeheartedly that politicans lie. there is little question of that. agree wholeheartedly that we should expect higher standards of our leaders. i've been arguing that for much longer than this WMD issue has been around. you should have been hanging out with me in 1998/9.
I think he probably lied...but this is what I am sure of: Before the war ...that is important...before any of this came to light...before anyone was looking to ascribe blame to anyone...several sources, many of whom quit, were cited as saying that this administration was making it clear that they only wanted information that backed up their position. Anyone, including this administration knows that when you only ask for thae answers you want, you will only get the answers you want. And no, giddy, it wasn't two or three, it was several...and many of them highly placed, and some of them who had served long under other Republican Presidents... Think about this...Max, you too, think about the ramifications of this. To make it clear that you won't listen to anything but A...to dismiss B, C, and D so much that the CIA themselves make it known that they are covering their asses and making records of all the info provided because the White House is only accpeting A...because A supports their position...This was well documented before the war and intel scam, so it's not political carrion saying this... So them, amazingly, A turns out to be wrong...and this administration throws up their hands and says " It's not our fault...we were told A."?!?!!?!? Max...you're buying this? I think it's clear there was lying at some point...but logic dictates that if before the fact people were complaining that the White House only was interested in intel that supported the war, and was dismissing other intel which didn't support the war, and then it turns out that the intel for the war was incomplete...well, I think it's pretty clear that the intel itself is not the problem, and the responsibility lies with those who tailored it to suit their immediate needs.
Easily the most well-reasoned post on the other side of this issue I've seen so far, MacBeth. I think that's primarily because it's not fueled by some personal venom for the president. I see your point entirely...and I agree. If they intentionally turned the lights out on other information...then they consciously disregarded the truth. And then told the American public that. I would agree...if that's what happened, there should be hell to pay. No excuses for that at all.
Incidentally, I realize that Donnie and George are two different people. However, since Donnie is one of the right wing extremists that has George's ear, I figured that I'd place this here. Raising the other point that I think is in the back of all of our minds... "oh George is just dumb. He can't be responsible for being twisted and turned by the ideologues."
For those saying that it wasn't lying but bad intel, then you realize what this means right? It means the whole notion of unilateral preemptive war is flawed, because the intel can't be trusted. It certainly can't be trusted to the extent necessary to commit human lives to be lost. Now, if you have Rumsfeld claiming that not only does Iraq have WMD, but that he knows where they are, and he wasn't lying but just had bad intel, then that kind of intel is no longer a valid source for committing troops to action. If Rumsfeld was lying then I'm not sure what can be done to him, except possibly to try him for war crimes. Either way the case for the war wasn't based on reliable evidence and preemptive war should be stricken as an option in the future, or the administration lied and should pay serious consequences.
Thank you FB! My main problem with this whole war was this idea of "preemption". just not good for the karma
I don't think I'm being party-loyal here. I couldn't see myself criticizing Al Gore had he been president for doing the same thing. I think he had conflicting reports-- surely that is the case -- and went with one that was equally credible and buttresses his case for compelling a regime change in Iraq. Fudging is more accurate than lying.
