I can't believe that you consider this a minor issue giddyup. When the President said that we had to go to war b/c Sadaam posed a grave threat to the United States... many of us said, "how is he a threat to us"... "where's your evidence". The President started throwing out blurbs about intelligence to quiet the objectors. Many of the objectors bit their tongues, and the country went to war. Now those same objectors are finding out that they were correct in the first place. This isn't a minor issue. Not only do people like me get to say "ooh burn court adjourned. phaser burn. sideways burn". But we also get to say, "oh yeah I was right you were wrong". Oh and then I get to say "ooh burn. court adjourned". Oh wait, I seem to be stuck on this whole gloating thing, what was I saying... ummm, oh yeah you're wrong! Loser. Loouuuuloser. Oh wait, what was the important thing? Oh yeah, it's not an unimportant issue (trying to focus here) when you launch a friggin' preemptive war (a doctrine which Rice said would have been carried out against the Soviet Union in if Bush the son had been in office; hello! whacko!!) against the objections of the entire world. If you're going to piss 92% of the world off (not including us, the UK, Israel and the oh so impt country Gabon), if you're going to invite attacks against the US (Bring it on!) then at least do so with methods that aren't immoral. At least don't ****ing lie.
I think more importantly than lying to the public, he lied to the US Congress. It doesn't appear that many remember the slow march to war began a long time before the State of the Union. It began in the Congress with them being given this completely bogus intel and them voting to give Bush the green light for war. Bush intentionally went to Congress far before the war to limit and diffuse discussion and dissent. While other nations were debating the merits leading right up to war, the Congress was talking about the freakin budget because they'd given away their power several months beforehand without being able to look at this supposed "evidence" with more scrutiny. This was a dangerous precedent being set here.
1) What if Saddam DID disarm? On what grounds would Bush attack then? It works both ways. If the disarmament did happen, Bush knows he couldn't have gone to war. Your point actually helps Bush. 2) Well, I'd like to hear it. Or are you exaggerating the evidence? Are you relying on shoddy information perhaps? 3) You give a false alternative. There is no reason to think Bush is inept if he relied on false CIA data.
I agree with your bottomline. I think the Administration should have relied on the "real" reasons for war instead of hyping the WMD threat. It would have been better because we would have had a real debate about America's role and we would have been more prepared for the setbacks in rebiuilding. Now, I'm not sure how much the administration was being honest vs. exaggerating, but I have felt for a while that they did cross the line into being dishonest. However, I can sympathize with the situation. They felt the Middle East was a huge threat. Imagine being President after 9/11. 3,000 civilians are murdered on your watch. Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again? Why take half- steps? Why not reform the Middle East if it is the right thing to do? Isn't a war in the ME inevitable anyways? I do think Bush did what he felt was best for the safety of the country. And maybe made a Machiavellian decision to use a convenient "legal" reason. After all, FDR did the same thing. He used Pearl Harbor as a pretext to go to war, but he wanted to do enter WWII long before then. Minor point- the oil in Iraq was the least of our incentives. It's going to the rebuilding project anyways, and it isn't that much compared to the global oil market.
1) Mr. C...I think maybe you're missing the point. Saddam DID say he dissarmed...our intel said he didn't...so we went to war...and so far, who looks right? So we said that was the reason, the only reason, and please, I would love to hear a way of explaining this that refutes that. 2) Gotcha. I could probably find it if I really needed to, but it will be a lot more work for me than for those who are good at it...please someone who is, do so. 3) Again, MC, you seem to be overlooking a fact that doesn't agree with your hypothesis...Bush, or at least the administration, WAS told by the CIA, over a month before the SOTUA, that the intel was suspect at best. That has been confirmed and admitted. So, yeah, if he knowingly relied on false intel because it agreed with what he wanted, yeah, he's either dishinest or inept.
1. I don't think I am missing the point. Bush allowed the weapons inspectors back in Iraq. He allowed Saddam to disclose the weapons he had. Saddam simpy refused to present the weapons and destroy them. He was clearly lying, the UN even said so. And if he had complied fully, Bush would have been stuck and would have been forced to abandon the war. Why would Bush put himself in that situation if he wanted war no matter what? 2. Well, maybe someone can find an article or poll results, but I haven't read anywhere that Bush's hyping of the "immminent" threat turned things around. Didn't Congress, including most Democrats, approve military action in late 2002? Why would they without public support? 3. Wait, was the intel false or suspect? There is a difference, especially pertaining to the uranium issue. The British reported that Iraq was purchasing Uranium. Many in the CIA did not trust it, but they did not know it was false either. Now, I do agree that Bush should not have used such data, but it's not exactly the same as putting out false info.
I'm curious...because it kinda got skipped over...does the fact the British (who were ultimately the source of this intelligence, as I understand it) still stand behind the report as accurate affect anybody's views on this at all?? Second question...if this is the ONLY lie there is....then it's not right...and it's not good...and it's a huge mistake...but it's not like there was NO evidence at any time that this guy was running a program to develop WMD. We know he had them at one point...he was supposed to account for where they went...and he couldn't do it. What am I missing?? I'm hoping MacBeth answers this question because he 1. doesn't usually try to put someone else down to make himself feel smarter, and 2. answers objectively and honestly. I acknowledge I may not have read all of the details behind this...
JeffB, thanks for the links. That does seem to support Macbeth's contention. However, there was 50%+ support prior to the Bush speech- and did Colin Powell's speeches contain any innaccuracies?
Powell's speeches mentioned the Al Qaeda connection, and the aluminum tubing. Though Powell did qualify his tubing coments by admitting there was some controversy about them. Powell's Al Qaeda argument didn't prove an actual alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda, so it wasn't inaccurate, but it help build the connection in people's mind. Powell is nowhere near as inaccurate or misleading as Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Rice.
This morning I found an old Newsweek which covered Powell' speech to the UN. I've looked at it briefly.
1) MM...Re: the British... At one point it did, for me. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak. However recent revelations have made it apparent, to me at least, that this is most likely a political survival move. I don't know how much BBC you watch, but I watch it quite a bit, and we have no concept of the kind of heat Balir is under...there is nothing in the US to compare. He hs had to appear before investigative panels, he is under an amazing amount of media attention, and it is almost all pretty frenzied. But the relvelations which make me think that this continuation of support for the report are these: * The British have said that they were never even informed by the US about the CIA/poltical reports which refuted theri claims...and are pretty pissed about it. Their response has been to suggest that the US investigation of the uranium link was just going over, and asking people if it was true, and taking their wod that it wasn't.. From what I have heard, that is hardly accurate, and as the British are coming late to this discussion, and as their stance precedes knowing about the CIA report, it seems like siege mentality. * Yesterday was a terrible day for the UK's war credibility. They had previously claimed that Dr. David Kelly was the 'source' that the BBC reporter had cited, erroneously, in his report unveiling UK intel mishaps and manipulation. The BBC reporter had deneied that Kelly was the source, and stood by the report, but the Government persisted, and on the grounds that Kelly disagreed with some of the BBC report, claimed that they had been exonnerated. Yesterday Kelly himself, while testifying, claimed that he was not, in fact, the source in question, although some of the information was in agreement with his position. This was a huge blow to Blair et al. Now the dogs are howling, claiming government incompetence and/or dishonesty in terms of attempting to cover up original incomptence/dishonesty re: intel. * Another point which makes the UK's 'standing behind' their claim appear to be on hakey ground is that they have already begun to alter the verbiage, and now they are claiming, as I said elsewhere, that there is proof of 'intent' or a 'program', as opposed to physical evidence, which is itself a departure form original claims. Also Balir is under fire because he responds to every request to support his claims by saying that the evidence is 'unfolding'...the impression most in the Uk have is that Blair is in siege mentality, and if he backs down on this issue, he's done, so he's 'standing by' his claims, altering the verbiage to broaden the scope, and crossing his fingers that furhter evidence will be found in the future which will satisfy some of the less entrenched critics. 2) Re: The only one lie...I see your point. But I think it's indicative of an endemic problem in the mentality behind the war; that the conclusion to go to war came before, not after, the facts were in, and the facts were then taken piecemeal, with those supporting the position given less than due diligence in terms of confirmation/support, while the facts which countered the position being buried, dismissed, or ignored altogether. I think that accepting this sequence of events paints the administrations actions, re: the UN, re speaking to the people, re: negotiating with Iraq etc. in a very bad light. Think back to before the war...think to the then ridiculed stances of war critics, and even Iraq themselves, claiming that Bush wanted the war, and was doing everything he could do to get it...Saddam's claim that the US had decided on war, and that completely opening his books would merely make his defeat easier for the US, rather than in any way satisfy the US and prevent war, as the war was already determined. Think of the oil arguments, all the others which largely you and I, and others, dismissed at the time. If, as it is becoming increasingly obvious, war was a given, then it gives me pause when reviewing the way the US went about 'making their case' for the war. So this one lie...and we have yet to see if it is only one, as many would claim the tubing was another, the almost activated nuke program was another, the thousands of tons of chem weapons etc...I myself am unsure whether these were lies, misevaluations, selective reading of intel, or ( still possible, though increasingly unlikely) accurate intel. But as the facts become more and more apparent, it would appear to be at least selective reading of the facts, and from a governmental point of view, with the weight of a war riding on it, this would be as unforgivable as outright lies. But this one lie, coupled with the crap being thrown out to cover up this one lie...it certainly makes me more and more skeptical towards taking the administrations claims at face value, and increasingly engenders some sympathy for some of the pre-war positions, like Iraq's claim that they had basically disarmed, but that the US wouldn't listen, etc... Iraq also claimed that much of the unaccounted for WMDs were merely 'lost' dumped, or degenerated. I used to disbelieve much of this, but reports of the numbers we lose, dump, or degenerate every year, the insight into how 'unprofessional' for lack of a better word, the Iraqi WMD effort was to begin with, and the lack of alternate explanations for us finding nothing also makes me wonder if Iraq wasn't being more forthright than we thought, if for no other reason than they had nothing to lose. I have reached no real conclusions other than that about the sequence of events in terms of conclusion on war and reasons for war. Maybe many of the 'secondary' reasons...ie US wanting to demonstrate resolve in the face of terrorism, to engender respect/fear among potential supporters of Anti-US terrorists, a presence in the ME aside from unwlecome in S.S, and the percieved partisan one with Israel, the human rights issues, etc. are and were legit reasons...amybe even defensible ones from some perspectives, but it's pretty clear that they aren't ones you could sell to the world or the US population, and it would appear more and more likely that the 'big' reasons came afterwards, probably mostly believed to be true by those propogating them, and sold to us without proper evaluation because we weren't as concerned with their accuracy as with the effect they would have re: support.
Thanks, M.C, for being open minded. There is more, as I am pretty sure that support was even below 50% before Rice et al floated the nuke thing at all. But I am glad that you can see what these numbers themselves show, as many on your 'side' would deny or duck it. Appreciated.
Thanks for the answer MacBeth. I already mentioned that if what Bush did was seek to ignore the facts on the other side, that would be of grave concern to me. But I just don't think that tells the entire story...we've been hearing about WMD's in Iraq since the very early 90's...perhaps before then. The man could not make an accounting of what he had...even Blix said the Iraqis were uncooperative...that he felt they were hiding things. We have inspectors who were in Iraq saying the same. We have a huge accumulation of circumstantial evidence pointing towards the development of many different types of WMD's. If Bush specifically knew he was being less than truthful about this one claim, that's a problem...but I still don't think it tears down the credibility of the coalition. There was clearly enough evidence to suggest that we would find WMD's once we got over there and started turning over rocks. So far we haven't. But I don't think that necessarily means we were deliberately lied to...particularly related to this information that came from British intelligence sources.
You're welcome Macbeth. I'm pretty much interested in finding the truth here. I don't see the value of defending my "side" with shady reasoning and justification.
