Can yall imagine what all of the Bush backers would be saying if Clinton had gone to war with Iraq in the same way Bush Jr did? The politics of this war are really amazing. Years from now, I bet that not a few of the Bush backers will shake their head in disbelief of what they supported for The Cause.
The problem is that the Bush Admin knew that the intel was questionable, but they use it anyway. And you are obviously ok with that?
The problem with that theory is that they wouldn't have known that their intel was faulty until they actually got boots on the ground inside Iraq. Do you think that they have searched the two-hundred and forty plus sites inside Iraq, each time thinking "OK, we know our intel about this place was faulty, but lets search it anyway"? No, they wouldn't know it was faulty until they could test it on the ground. Your theory doesn't make sense.
Treeman is right again, why would we be seaching for WMD if we knew all along they weren't there? Also, they still may be there, it is fairly easy to hide a biotoxin in someone's house for future use..... DD
You are assuming that by knowledge of faulty intel, what we are saying is that Bush and co. received intel confirming that Absolutely For Certain there wasn't a shred of WMD in Iraq, and they went ahead anyways. That is not at all what we are saying, or at least not what I am saying. Here's what I am and have always been saying: Like most of us, including myself, the admin figured it was probable that Hussein had WMD's, if for no other reason than the fact that you can trust the guy about as far as you can chuck him with your pinkie. And, for various other reasons, they had already decided that war/invasion was the way to go. But most of the other stuff wasn't selling so well, and if you will recall, it was the Nuke/WMD talk that saw a shift in the approval polls for the war, not the original 9-11 connections, or the he's a really really bad guy talk...either way, they decided that WMD was the argument to stress, and did so. Intel was sorted into the " Meets what we want to hear." and "Doesn't meet what we want to hear." piles, and only rhe first need apply, as per several intel sources...And when the first stuff came in, largely from sources we now know had huge investment in Hussein's ousting, they were...shall we say...less than diligant about checking it; case in point the uranium scam. That one case alone should tell you what you need to know about the level of scrutiny the pro-war intel was getting tree. Or was it an isolated incident that somehow made it's way into being the primary thrust of our Secratary of State's address before the United Nations? So, in order to convince the QAmerican people and the world, they went with whatever intel they could get which supported the WMD argument, with most of them probably thinking that they were likely to find it when they got there...But uranium scam, tubes, Bush's address that their soldiers were being armed with WMD and their commanders given the green light to use them, et endless cetera shows you that, at the very least, they were not at all stressing confirming the intel, or giving it negative checks, ie. testing it for flaws...which is standard operating procedure in intel...(there is no way on earth the Uranium thing gets by even remotely standard checks, and this was stuff we were using upon which to base/justify a war.) and as the intel depts in question were at least as aware as we are of the conflict of interest present in the sources of much of the intel, it would normally be subject to an extremely skeptical review. At best you can say that it was a combination of very low grade intel coupled with a very very poor level of scrutiny, which resulted in reaching conclusions already expressed as desirable on the part of the admin...and as yet proving almost entirely inaccurate.
You know if Bush came out and said that US intel sources believe that there is a 10% chance that Saddam has ready to fire WMD, then Bush could make the argument that that was a percentage he could not live with. Bush did not do this. He said in certain terms that Iraq had nuclear, biological and chemical WMDs. By overstating his case, his credibility now is at stake. It is as simple as that.
Oh please, here we go rewriting history again. Replace the word "probable" with the word "certain", and we have a game. Well, again, the administration never said that they believed that Saddam was behind 9/11... but nice try. The argument was made that after 9/11 we could not allow dictators such as Saddam who possessed WMD to have alliance with terrorists... But I will concede that the message that polls indicated really worked with the public was the WMD issue. On that we agree. I love it how everyone now simply "knows" what our intel was and what it was not. Suddenly everyone's the expert. The hacks who have been writing on the "intelligence failure" don't have a clue what our intelligence says. They are merely operating based upon leaked indormation from sources inside the CIA, information which may or may not be correct. All that we *know* about our intelligence is what was presented in Powell's speech at the UN. Aside from that, we only know that this intelligence has been accumulated over a period of decades, and that much of it has proven correct (and some incorrect) in the past. Beyond that you're speculating. In short, you don't know jack. But to be fair, neither do the rest of us. Intelligence is frequently incorrect, MacBeth. The trick is to catch it before it matters, and to try to have more accurate than inaccurate data. Obviously, as the BW trailer and Powell's speech show, not all of our intel was faulty. Some of it was right on the mark. Incidentally, we would not have been able to prosecute such a successful war without an abundance of accurate intelligence. Modern wars are won by the side that knows the most about the other side. They went with what *all* of the available intelligence said - that the WMD program was active and there. I'm sure that based upon that they did believe that it wouldn't be such a trial finding them... Of that they are probably guilty - they didn't think too much about the aftermath and how difficult it would be to find hidden weapons... You can't do that until you get boots on the ground. That is the nature of intelligence - it can usually only be confirmed first-hand. Why would it be subject to a skeptical review? Let's not rewrite history here - before the war there was no argument on this subject. Everyone agreed that the Iraqis had WMD and their associated programs. The notion that our intel was wrong did not arise until after the WMD hunt had already started. It was always taken as a given that the WMD would be there. We just didn't think through the actual search process; that is about the only area we were negligent in as far as I can see. Nice spin, but as the BW trailer case shows our intel was decidedly *not* entirely inaccurate. It was incomplete.
Yes there is for the millionth time. The report that Bush said he had from the IAEA that Iraq was six months from a nuke was a lie. JH's article tries to save the day on that, but I showed that the defense they give is in itself flawed if no dishonest. Bush lied! He said he had a document which didn't exist. In an effort to cover that, they said he misspoke, and was referring to a 1991 report from the IAEA. It turns out that the 1991 report didn't exist either. It also turns out that in 1991 even Powell said Iraq wasn't a nuclear threat. You might have skipped the article about that, but the proof is there. Bush lied.
I know, I remember those arguments myself. That's where I learned them. It's just that now a lot of people don't seem to care that Bush lied. In this case it's somehow ok. If people do believe that character isn't an issue, that would make sense. I just wanted to know if people believed that.
An article about Al Qaeda and state supporters, with some goodies thrown in relevant to this thread: Al Qaeda seen as not driven by ideology By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES A two-person Pentagon intelligence team conducted an analysis that found al Qaeda terrorists are not bound by ideology and will cooperate with state sponsors of terrorism. The finding was disclosed at a briefing by Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, to dispel what he said were erroneous news reports that the Pentagon sought to skew intelligence to fit policy. The team began working shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks and reviewed intelligence from the CIA and other agencies to help draw up a national strategy for the war on terrorism, Mr. Feith said at the Pentagon. "It looked at these interrelationships among terrorist organizations and their state sponsors," he said. "Its main conclusion was that groups and states were willing to cooperate across philosophical, ideological lines." Mr. Feith said the group succeeded in highlighting "a number of interesting connections" showing that "Sunni and Shi'a groups cooperated, or religious-based groups cooperated with secular groups or states." "And so it showed that we cannot simply assume that the only cooperation that existed in the world among terrorist groups and their sponsors was on some kind of pure ideological or philosophical lines," he said. Mr. Feith said such connections are not unprecedented. He noted that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany collaborated during the early years of World War II. The group also found links between the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda network, and provided the information to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The Iraq-al Qaeda connection was an "incidental" finding of the group. "The main thing that the team produced was it helped educate a lot of people about the fact that there was more cooperation and interconnection among these terrorist organizations and state sponsors across ideological lines than many people had appreciated before," Mr. Feith said. The unit was headed by Abraham Shulsky, an intelligence specialist who — like Mr. Tenet — gained intelligence experience as a staff member in Congress. Its existence was first disclosed in The Washington Times on Jan. 14. On questions about intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs, Mr. Feith said the Bush administration's major case against Saddam was presented by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the United Nations on Feb. 5. "And these judgments were based on ... intelligence reports and intelligence analysis that not only went back years but predated this administration," Mr. Feith said. "From our perspective, it's pretty clear that the intelligence community's judgments concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not undergo a major change between the Clinton and Bush administrations," he said. On a related issue, Mr. Feith disputed a report in the London Financial Times that claimed Mr. Rumsfeld was working within the administration to oust the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. "It is true that the United States government wants Iran to turn over all al Qaeda members currently in Iran and to comply with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said. "But as for the future of the Iranian government, that's a matter to be decided by the Iranian people." Mr. Feith denied a report by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that the special unit became a "conduit" to the intelligence community for defector reports from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam opposition group. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030605-011655-2131r.htm
and now i'm finding a lot of those people who told me that "every president lies" and "every president cheats" and "character isn't as important as being a good leader", etc. are taking a whole different approach. if it's sincere, that's a good thing. if it's just political harpooning, then it's not as encouraging.
They certainly did float this gem in the press. For their credit?, they only lied this lie for a short while in the buildup to the war with Iraq. Tell me you do remember that a majority of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thus, this Bush lie did serve its purpose.
No Worries: Please post a single article or quote from an administration official stating their belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. Until you post one, the only lie floating around here is the one you are floating about that. And I am quite aware that the majority of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with it. I still think it is highly possible, personally, but in no way am I sure about it. The admin might even have believed that, but not once did they indicate so in public. So please, present evidence. Until then, you're blowing smoke.
TM, so you want me to find a source for a public comment made by the Bush Admin that you missed since you were not paying attention?
Suspicion that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was fueled mainly by reports over the past year of a meeting in Prague in April 2001 between apparent hijacker Mohammed Atta (believed to have piloted the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center a year ago) and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir el-Ani.
No Worries, that is a good article. I have read it before, and the evidence is compelling to say the least. Woolsey served under Clinton though, not Bush.
Bush defends against weapons criticism By MICHAEL HEDGES Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau RESOURCES http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1939669 WASHINGTON -- President Bush responded defiantly Thursday to criticisms that his administration had hyped Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, telling U.S. troops in Qatar that searches in Iraq would in time "reveal the truth" about those weapons. "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents," Bush said. "We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth." Bush also emphasized that the world was a safer place with Saddam Hussein vanquished. "One thing is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the Iraqi regime is no more," Bush told the cheering troops. The president has drawn increasing criticism from Democrats, who have accused the administration of exaggerating Saddam's biological and chemical weapons capacity as well as Iraq's willingness to give those weapons to terrorists as a justification for war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said late Thursday that he was confident the weapons would be found eventually. "I believe the presentation made by Secretary (Colin) Powell was accurate, and will be proved to be accurate," he said, referring to a presentation by the secretary of state before the U.N. Security Council in February. Asked why those weapons have not yet been found, Rumsfeld said, "We haven't found Saddam Hussein, and I don't know of anybody who is saying he didn't exist. It takes time." The issue is proving to be a post-Operation Iraqi Freedom battlefield in Washington. At a House hearing on homeland security Thursday, Democrats used the failure to find the weapons to question whether the administration's intelligence on domestic security could be trusted. "The entire premise of this country going to war with Iraq was that we needed to rid this rogue nation of weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological or chemical. Reluctantly, this country sent soldiers into harm's way to achieve this goal," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. Democratic contenders for the White House in 2004 have been staking out positions on the issue of whether the Bush administration was justified to attack Iraq if weapons of mass destruction are not found. On Wednesday, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida told reporters, "The standard that we went to war on was that there were weapons of mass destruction which were able to be used against the neighbors of Iraq and, potentially, against the United States of America." Graham said, "I don't believe that two mobile vans justifies a war to secure (Iraq's) neighbors or the United States." Speaking to the troops Thursday, Bush said the failure to find decisive proof of such weapons so far has stemmed from Saddam's effective efforts to hide his arsenal and the vastness of Iraq. "This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder," Bush said. "He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them." Graham is not the only Democratic presidential contender to attack Bush on the issue. The Rev. Al Sharpton and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have been the most strident. Kucinich said the threat of weapons of mass destruction was a "fraudulent" pretext for war. Democrats who supported the war, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, have been more moderate with their criticism, but have wondered if the failure to find weapons stockpiles indicated either an intelligence failure or a misuse of intelligence. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democratic contender most supportive of the war with Iraq, has said the war was justified whether or not weapons of mass destruction are found. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, another war backer, said it was too early to say if such weapons existed.
They are all politicians aren't they? Of course they are going to mislead, lie, or be lied to (pass on info). To me the issue isn't so much if the politician lies, misleads or fibs--when it comes to votes and constituents they all pretty much in high positions do--it is the severity and the degree it is done to shape/warp public policy and public views, etc, that makes it more or less troubling.
When more people voted for Gore than Bush and congress is split by a few % it is not like the "rest of America" decided to try something different. America is split--even if no question the Republicans have consolidated political power if nothing more than a fluke in Florida (note I am not playing the Gore really won card--what I am saying is last major election was a toss up either side could have won on one day or another) plus like winning the decisive 3-4 senate seats by 1-2%. I do hope the Repb. keep this overestimate of their political capital and connection with the people trend through 11-04 BTW--we are only talking a switch of 1-2% that would decisively turn the tables.
Yes it seems like both sides have swithced their belief on the subject. All of a sudden Clinton backers believe that truth and honesty in politics is very important, and Bush backers seem to take for granted that their is dishonesty in politics. That's I why I asked questions about those who've taken that stance. I just want to know where they stand on the issue. Neither Treeman or Dadakota have answered on where they value character in a politician, and if they would vote for a known liar etc.
