Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I just dont understand how anyone can accept less than the full truth, including the dissenting intelligence, from this or any president when he is asking to take the country to war.

And I dont understand why this lack of candor with the American should not be investigated futher (since the Repub Congress did virtually nothing), with the hope of preventing it from happening again.

I can across an interesting article ( from a diplomacy school, given my views of text book diplomats, go figure). He talks about the flaws in dealing with intelligence, it seems that the standard you are setting with Bush, if applied to historical figures/settings and their faulty use of intelligence it would mean no one would get the benefit of the doubt for an error an judgement ( not that I am saying the Iraq invasion was an error). I could possibly conceed an error in judgement, but not a lie given what I know. And like I have posted many times, leaders need people who can stand up and ask questions when they need to be asked and that we should never blindly accept a "sales pitch" for war without doing our homework and being compfortable with the "whys". I did my homework and I was comfortable with the "whys" and I did not rely on speeches at the UN, to Congress, or interviews on NBC. Hopefully there will not be a next time, but if there is... Here is a quote and link.

Quote:

Follies and errors have their genesis in both individual and organizational failures or inadequacies. Individual deficiencies lay the groundwork for organizational problems and thus need to be dealt with first. Rational theories of policy/decision making emphasize complete and extensive fact-gathering and perception. In fact, we know this is not the case. Individuals perceive events according to their own makeup and biases.
U.S. Army and Navy commanders in Hawaii were convinced that Japan would not attack Pearl Harbor. In the face of mounting evidence that something was afoot, they interpreted each new piece of evidence according to their own preconceptions: The Japanese carriers could not be located because of radio silence--they were headed for Malaysia. Small two-man submarines surfaced off Oahu very early Sunday December 7--simply reconnaissance.
An entire group of men were so certain that Japan would not attack Pearl Harbor that they even decided not to alter the fleet and naval base training exercises in any way to increase readiness and reconnaissance, disregarding entirely the possibility that they could be wrong. Similarly, Allied commanders in Europe in December, 1944 were so certain that the Germans would adopt a defensive deployment that they did not even look for signals that Hitler might not take a fully rational approach to the problem of defending Germany, and hence missed the German buildup. In the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Shah deluded himself up to and beyond the last moment that a serious challenge to him and his regime was growing.
Individuals are frequently in error, but more often than not they realize their mistakes when matters begin to go wrong and events turn out differently than anticipated. But there are cases, however, more numerous than one would like to think, where persistence in error leads to folly because self-correcting mechanisms do not come into play for various reasons. An individual's ego is simply too tied up in a fixed position to permit change. His or her arrogance simply will not admit a wrong view.
Hard-line British statesmen and politicians in the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary period of the American Revolution --extending over 20 years --fall neatly into this category. From the time of the Stamp Acts forward, British prime ministers and lord chancellors were outraged at the colonies' reaction to governance from London without representation.
As matters grew worse and led to war, the willful blindness of Frederick, Lord North and Lord George Germain brought on the unity of the American colonies and the military defeats at Saratoga and Yorktown which brought down the British Government. Statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic, most notably Edmund Burke in England and Benjamin Franklin in America as well as most historians in the years since, believed that absent the stubborn, willful blindness of British statesmen, America would have maintained some sort of a political relationship with Great Britain.

http://www.uky.edu/~stempel/error.htm

There was no doubt Bush's ego was tied up into aggressive action. Everyone knew it. Given his singular focus that makes the lack of conviction by those now saying it is Bush's war even more shameful. I think by saying he lied, it is just an excuse since the war turned south.

Here is another quote, I am sure many will enjoy.

Quote:

In this brief observation, the astute Will Rogers captures the essence of today's problem. In the context of governments and nations, the history of intelligence-gathering goes hand-in-glove throughout recorded history. People don't like surprises and both individuals and organizations believe the more information they have, the better off they will be. A corollary is that, given the laws of human nature, people will try to hide information when they believe it is to their advantage. Hence the creation of intelligence organizations to obtain such information, as well as counterintelligence units to protect it from others.

This is not brain surgery and I know I have been called a cynic, but I never accept someone else's research or intelligence on blind faith. So, the folks that have been "lied" to seem to be in a catch 22 in my view. You either believed the intelligence and now are making an excuse or you did not do your homework up front. I am not sure what is worse, but Bush did what every decision maker does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I believe that Colin Powell was similarly steered.

Powell was directly reviewing the intelligence. Tenet was right there by his side. Powell had control of his words. Tenet could have said something to Powell, but did not.

Quote:

Ace, you have been put in the unfortunate position of trying to defend something that I think that you don't agree with completely. As such, you've become the sounding board upon which all questions on this topic are tested. It seems that you still support the ideals behind the initial invasion, you are starting to doubt some things with the rest of us. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but it's just an observation from the last few months of these conversations and not meant to be taken negatively at all. With it in mind, I basically want to acknowledge your service as the counter-point to all the anti-invasion arguments.

I think the intelligence was our best shot at what we thought. There was intelligence pointing to going to war, and Bush made his case on that information as well as information that was common knowledge. I think our error has been in our occupation.

pig · 05-01-2007, 12:34 PM

ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for?

dc_dux · 05-01-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

....the flaws in dealing with intelligence, it seems that the standard you are setting with Bush, if applied to historical figures/settings and their faulty use of intelligence it would mean no one would get the benefit of the doubt for an error an judgement

ace...you are either intentionally or ignorantly misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said and the factual information I provided in my last few posts.

I know that there are flaws in dealing with intelligence. I am not faulting Bush's judgement for selecting one set of intelligence date over another, even though I believe, like others have said here, that he was looking for the intel that would support his pre-determined objective to invade Iraq, rather than assessing the intel objectively.

I am faulting him for not diisclosing that there was conflicting intelligence when he made his case to the public (your earlier point that it would taken too much time in his short speeches is a ridiculous rationalization....it would have taken 2 more minutes each time he talked about the Saddams's nuclear capabilities and the threat he posed to the US). The American people had a right to know that there was conflicting intel to which very few members of Congress (and no one in the public) had access.

And I am faulting him for his public comments that Congress had access to the same intelligence he had when they clearly did not. On this issue,the facts are indisputable no matter how you try to spin it... he lied to the American people.

Lying to the American people, or even cherry-picking the intel,are not an impeachable offense....but it is dishonorable and unethical when you are asking for support to take the country to war.

aceventura3 · 05-01-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I am faulting him for not diisclosing that there was conflicting intelligence when he made his case to the public (your earlier point that it would taken too much time in his short speeches is a ridiculous rationalization....it would have taken 2 more minutes each time he talked about the Saddams's nuclear capabilities and the threat he posed to the US). IMO, this was less than honorable.

I got that. My counter point is that there is always conflicting intelligence in any analysis of a complex decision. One can not rely on a single source, Bush or whoever, to buy into going to war.

Personally I have never experienced making a tough decision where I Had 100% certainty. when I make decsions on complex issues, I create a short list of the major reasons why I made the decision and use that list to sell my decision. In your book I lie all the time. In my book, I come to my decision and present it to others with confidence and certainty. Perhaps, you can follow a leader who waffles, I can't or won't. I need a guy who believes in his decision and "sells" it that way. People who focus on the reasons not to do something after they have made the decision to do it are not going to be effective. You are either all in or you are not (if you need more cliches, let me know).

It becomes more clear the more time I spend here the difference between a mind like yours and a mind like mine (I am not passing judgement, but there are differences).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And I am faulting him for his public comments that Congress had access to the same intelligence he had when they clearly did not. On this issue,the facts are indisputable no matter how you try to spin it... he lied to the American people.

Congress had the same intelligence I had and I supported the war. For this point to stick you have to understand when Bush made his decision and what information he used. I think he used the information that everyone knew. I think he clearly stated what information he used. Your position assumes he used information that was highly classified, where is the evidence of that?

dc_dux · 05-01-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

I got that. My counter point is that there is always conflicting intelligence in any analysis of a complex decision. One can not rely on a single source, Bush or whoever, to buy into going to war.

Then tell the people that there was conflicting intelligence and why you believe in one set of intel over another if you are asking them to sacrifice. Why would that have been so hard for Bush to do?

This decision was not like any decision you or I make...it affected the lives of thousands of American citizens (and millions of Iraqis) and Bush "sold it" iin speeches that were less than completely candid with the American people.

We agree on one thing.....we have different outlooks and perspectives on many things

Quote:

Congress had the same intelligence I had and I supported the war.

You dont have the responsiblity for making the most informed decisions you can on behalf of thousands of people who entrust you as their voice in government.

aceventura3 · 05-01-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for?

I hope we are a people that stand behind the decisions we make and admit when we have made an error rather than make excuses (I supported the war, but now I don't, I was lied to - I don't support the war, but I will fund it - I don't support sending more troops, but I will confirm the General who wants more troops - Sadaam was a threat, but he wasn't a threat - I am tough on terrorism, but I don't want to fight them unless it is in Afganastan, etc.) At this point Bush does not believe we have made an error, and is acting accordingly. If we think this is an error, we need to end it, and stop playing political games and trying to re-write history so we don't look bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Then tell the people that there was conflicting intelligence and why you believe in one set of intel over another if you are asking them to sacrifice. Why would that have been so hard for Bush to do?

On an issue like this I always look to the way Churchill lead. When things looked there worst, he "lied" for the good of the nation and with those "lies" he lifted the spirits of his people and they gained strength and over came adversity. Forget the b.s. about making public statements about this and that and what if's and doubts.

P.s. - If I am ever your President be advised. You will know what to do when I want to go to war. I hope.

dc_dux · 05-01-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

On an issue like this I always look to the way Churchill lead. When things looked there worst, he "lied" for the good of the nation and with those "lies" he lifted the spirits of his people and they gained strength and over came adversity. Forget the b.s. about making public statements about this and that and what if's and doubts.

Do you really equate the threat posed to the Brits with Germany rolling across Europe and bombs falling on London to the "threat" posed by Saddam to the US?

aceventura3 · 05-01-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you really equate the threat posed to the Brits with Germany rolling across Europe and bombs falling on London to the "threat" posed by Saddam to the US?

No. I like Churchill's leadership style. I expect leaders to lead with confidence and certainty using his style as a model. I also like Reagan's easy going/hardline style. I think Bush approached the Iraq problem with confidence and certainty, however I think his "cowboy" attitude was a bit over the top and lacked the "easy going" level of class that Reagan would have used, while taking a hardline stance. If Bush were a better leader we would have had a better out come to this point.

ubertuber · 05-01-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I got that. My counter point is that there is always conflicting intelligence in any analysis of a complex decision. One can not rely on a single source, Bush or whoever, to buy into going to war.

...

I think he used the information that everyone knew. I think he clearly stated what information he used. Your position assumes he used information that was highly classified, where is the evidence of that?

I guess this is what it comes down to here. Only one set of people had unfettered access to ALL of the information. That set of people misrepresented the certainty of their claims and failed to acknowledge or communicate to anyone else the doubt and opposing points of view within the intelligence community. In fact, as dc_dux so succinctly pointed out, they actively prevented responsible parties from having access to a spectrum of views.

My position (and I assume that of dc_dux) holds that Bush ignored/discounted/misrepresented/covered up information that was highly classified. This is not the same as "he used information that was highly classified" (your words, not mine). Several people have said this in many ways in this thread. If that isn't deception or false pretenses, what is it?

pig · 05-01-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I hope we are a people that stand behind the decisions we make and admit when we have made an error rather than make excuses.

i hope we're a people who bust someone's ass out when it is shown they blatantly either lied or strongly manipulated the presentation of evidence/data to "sell" a given direction in something as important as whether or not we would violate international law and pre-emptively attack a sovereign nation. don't get wrong, i thought sadaam was a fucker. fuck him! if i heard that trolls had risen from the sands of the iraqi desert and killed his ass with sticks after feeding his own testicles to him, i don't think i would have given a shit. what i do care about is that the information we do receive from our dear leaders is correct. i also care that we seem to have taken some pretty drastic action, and we're not talking about in terms that make sense to me. i don't understand how a nation of people who like straight talk can put with all the horseshit we are fed everyday. i just don't get it. that's not directed at you ace, i'll also say that i appreciate you sticking to the thread, even if i obviously disagree with you on this point. i suspect i would be ok with you in real life, as long as we didn't talk too much politics. i'd like to see all the people in tfp politics drinking together. now, that's a dream i can get behind.

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I guess this is what it comes down to here. Only one set of people had unfettered access to ALL of the information. That set of people misrepresented the certainty of their claims and failed to acknowledge or communicate to anyone else the doubt and opposing points of view within the intelligence community. In fact, as dc_dux so succinctly pointed out, they actively prevented responsible parties from having access to a spectrum of views.

My position (and I assume that of dc_dux) holds that Bush ignored/discounted/misrepresented/covered up information that was highly classified. This is not the same as "he used information that was highly classified" (your words, not mine). Several people have said this in many ways in this thread. If that isn't deception or false pretenses, what is it?

Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.

Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.

Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 08:47 AM

I suppose it's an impasse. Thanks for your post.

host · 05-02-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I suppose it's an impasse. Thanks for your post.

No, it's not an impasse. ace has been complimented, even praised in some posts here, for participating....for coming back again, and again, with his argument. The problem I have, is that ace is an enabler of Bush, especially if he voted for members of congress who will not vote to override Bush's veto yesterday, of the supplemental spending bill that contains a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

As long as there are people with similar opinions to ace's, there will be no impeachment of Cheney or Bush, and US troops will continue to die and be maimed in Iraq.....(for what ????)....$100 billion "supplemental" will continue to eb appropriated (so Bush can continue to point to the budget, instead of the Fed. treasury debt increases that continue at a $500 billion annual rate, and boast in the 2008 SOTU, on how he's reducing budget deficits...)....and what is "praiseworthy", about thinking like that.....when ace cannot make a coherent argument to support his position.

Take his last post, and contrast it to the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.

Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.

Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

.....I can make a coherent, airtight case that supports the opposite of what ace posted. He posted earlier that the opposite of attacking Iraq was for the US to continue "taking it up the @ss....". "Taking it", from whom.....ace??? You "feel" what you believe, but I see that you have nothing to post that makes your argument rational or coherent, if it is to compete with this:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002

<h3>............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe.</h3> Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/22/...omacy-started/
................As David Gregory (of "Meet the Press") notes, this runs completely counter to how President Bush describes the decision to invade Iraq:

“I want to share something with you. Committing troops into harm’s way is — in harm’s way is the most difficult decision a President can make. That decision must always be last resort. That decision must be done when our vital interests are at stake, but after we’ve tried everything else.” [President Bush, 8/5/04]

“The use of force has been — and remains — our last resort.” [President Bush, 5/1/03]

“But a President must always be willing to use troops…as a last resort… I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq… So we use diplomacy every chance we get — believe me.” [President Bush, 10/1/04]

“As a last resort, we have turned to our military.” [President Bush, 4/16/03]

“As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us… this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.” [President Bush, 10/28/03]

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. <b>Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase......</b>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ium-usat_x.htm
Posted 7/8/2003 9:46 PM Updated 7/9/2003 10:07 PM

.............Back home, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the administration decided to use military force in Iraq because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

<b>"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.</b> "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."...............

<b>Between Feb. 2001, and Sept. 16, 2001, Tenet, Powell, Rice, and Cheney, are all on record, document in the following citations (with links....) telling us that Saddam needed to be "watched", but that he had not rebuilt his military or his WMD capacity, after the 1991 Gulf war....and Rumsfeld, above, said after the US invasion of Iraq, that "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder,". Furthermore....when Tim Russert challenges Cheney about his 9/16/01, "We have Saddam bottled up", statement, Cheney said the following.

I think that it is especially revealing that all Cheney had to defend the attack on and occupation of Iraq, was the long discredited "Zarqawi was present, before we got there", and the "poison camp" BS. Russert pointed out that the senate intel. committee report had finally been released, discrediting Cheney's justifications for the Iraq invasion. Cheney responded that he "hadn't read it. Cheney had access to the senate intel committee conclusions, in classified form, for at least 2 years before he told Russert that he was unfamiliar with the conclusions. All intel findings.....in official Iraqi records and in post Iraq invasion interviews with Iraqi officials, proved that Saddam and his government had no control over Zarqawi or a relationship with him...the record shows that they wanted to capture him....and post invasion news reporting clearly shows that the "poison camp" was located near the Iran border, in an area controlled by land and air access, by Kurdish militia and their US allies, not by Saddam's government....</b>
<h3>....But there was Cheney, on 9/10/2006, telling Russert about Zarqawi and the Poison Camp....because that was all he had....flimsy....untrue....pathetic reasons to justify a preemptive invasion and occupation of a sovereign, foreign country....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.

.......THE VICE PRESIDENT: But let's go back to the beginning here. Five years ago, Tim, you and I did this show, the Sunday after 9/11. And we learned a lot from 9/11. We saw in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars we'd spent on national security in the years up until 9/11, on that morning, 19 men with box cutters and airline tickets came in the country and killed 3,000 people. We had to take that and also the fact of their interest in weapons of mass destruction and recognize at that time -- it was the threat then and it's the threat today that drives much of our thinking -- that the real threat is the possibility of a cell of al Qaeda in the midst of one of our cities with a nuclear weapons, or a biological agent. In that case, you'd be dealing -- for example, if on 9/11 they had a nuke instead of airplanes, you'd have been looking at a casualty toll that would rival all the deaths in all the wars fought by America in 230 years. That's the threat we have to deal with, and that drove our thinking in the aftermath of 9/11, and does today.

Now, what Saddam represented was somebody who had for 12 years defied the International Community, violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, started two wars, produced and used weapons of mass destruction, and was deemed by the intelligence community to have resumed his WMD programs when he kicked out the inspectors. Everybody believed it. Bill Clinton believed it. The CIA clearly believed it. And without question that was a major proposition.

But I also emphasize while they found no stock piles, there was no question in the minds of Mr. Duelfer and other in that survey group that Saddam did, in fact, have the capability, and that as soon as the sanctions were ended -- and they were badly eroded, he'd be back in business again.

Q But let's look at what you told me on that morning of September 16, 2001, when I asked you about Saddam Hussein. Let's watch.

(Video clip is played.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: At this stage, the focus is over here on al Qaeda and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up at this point.

(Video clip concludes.)

<b>Q Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.

Q You said Saddam Hussein was bottled up, and he was not linked in any way to September 11th.</b>

THE VICE PRESIDENT: To 9/11.

Q And now we have the select committee on intelligence coming out with a report on Friday that says here:

"A declassified report released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq."

You said here it was pretty well confirmed that Atta may have had a meeting in Prague -- that, that was credible. All the while, according to the Senate intelligence committee, in January and in June and in September, the CIA was saying that wasn't the case. And then the President --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me on that. Well, go ahead.

Q Go ahead.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I want a chance to jump on that.

Q Okay, but you said it was pretty well confirmed that it was credible. And now the Senate intelligence committee says, not true. The CIA was waving you off --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.

Q -- any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers with officials Iraqi officials.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, the sequence, Tim, was when you and I talked that morning we had not received any reporting with respect for Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA -- the CIA -- produced an intelligence report from the Czech intelligence service that said Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of '01 and had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he'd been to Prague and met with Iraqis.

Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claimed 70 percent probability was Mohamed Atta on another occasion. This was the reporting we received from the CIA When I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed he had been in Prague. Later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on they backed off of it. But what I told you was exactly what we were seeing at the time -- it never said -- and I don't believe I ever said specifically that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague. We didn't know --

Q Well, I asked you. I said, is there a connection between Saddam and 9/11 on September '03, and you said, we don't know.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's right.

Q So you raised that possibility.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was raised by the CIA who passed on from the report from the Czech intelligence service.

Q All right, now the President was asked what did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. And he said nothing. Do you agree with that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do.

Q So it's case closed?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Q And the meeting with Atta did not occur?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We don't know. We've never been able to link it. And the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say at this point nobody has been able to confirm --

Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.

So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection.<b> You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --

Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --</b>

Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --

<b>THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq. ........</b>

...and here is Cheney, denying what he said earlier...when it is still located on a white house web page, today:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
....RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, <b>was that report that's been pretty well confirmed,</b> that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue. ....

.....he was responding to the 2004 conclusions in the 9/11 commission report.....spewing the same examples about Zarqawit that were dismissed by the 9/11 commission, doubted in many news articles when Powell presented them to the UN in Feb., 2005, and totally debunked when Cheney was stilling using the "Zarqawi and his poison camp BS", and Bush, too..... in Aug., 2006, through Cheney's interview with Rush, just 4 weeks ago:

Quote:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...202_flash3.htm
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET

In an EXCLUSIVE interview with CNBC's 'Capital Report':

....BORGER: Well, my reading of the report is that it says that, yes, contacts were made between al-Qaida and Iraq, but they could find no evidence that any relationship, in fact, had been forged between al-Qaida and Iraq.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: And you're talking generally now, not just 9/11.

BORGER: Not just 9/11. And let's talk generally and then we'll get to 9/11.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Talk generally.

BORGER: Generally.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: That's not true.

BORGER: So you disagree?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely. Look at the Zarqawi case. Here's a man who's Jordanian by birth. He's described as an al-Qaida associate. He ran training camps in Afghanistan back before we went to war in Afghanistan. After we went in and hit his training camp, he fled to Baghdad. Found safe harbor and sanctuary in Baghdad in May of 2002. He arrived with about two dozen other supporters of his, members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was Zawahiri's organization. He's the number two to bin Laden, which was merged with al-Qaida interchangeably. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida, same-same. They're all now part of one organization. They merged some years ago. So Zarqawi living in Baghdad. We arranged for information to be passed on his presence in Baghdad to the Iraqis through a third-party intelligence service. They did that twice. There's no question but what Saddam Hussein really was there. He was allowed to operate out of Baghdad. He ran the poisons fact ory in northern Iraq out of Baghdad, which became a safe harbor for Ansar al-Islam??? as well as al-Qaida fleeing Afghanistan. There clearly was a relationship there that stretched back over that period of time to at least May of '02, a year before we launched into Iraq. He is the worst offender. He's probably killed more Iraqis than any other man in Iraq today. He is probably the leading terrorist still operating in Iraq today.

BORGER: Now some say that he corresponded with al-Qaida only after Saddam was deposed.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: That's not true. He had been involved working side by side, as described by the CIA, with al-Qaida over the years. This is an old established relationship. He's the man who killed our man Foley in Jordan, an AID official, during this period of time. To suggest that there's no connection between Zarqawi, no relationship if you will, and Iraq just simply is not true.

<h3>BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.</h3>

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.

BORGER: That it happened.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.

BORGER: So does this put it to rest for you or not on Atta?......

I posted this on 11/14/2005

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=34

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration. Therefore, if he is coming out and saying that there are WMDs in Iraq, then that shows that Bush didn't "lie", like the accusations say.

Just like many on the right post quotes from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others who are now coming after Bush for starting a war "under false pretenses". If they saw the intellegence and believed it, how can they go after the president for it?

Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, refuted some of your points, just three weeks after Bush took office in 2002. Powell and Rice made statments in 2001 that were identical to what Tenet said:

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

The article linked here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...er=rssuserland

and other links displayed in my post earlier today, persuasively indicate that congress did not have access to the comprehensive, and contradictory intelligence information that the Bush administration had access to before congress had to make the decision to vote for authorization for a possible war in Iraq..... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...05&postcount=3

It does take time to examine these details. The alternative is to listen to Bush's Nov. 11 speech or Ken Mehlman's statements on Russert's "Meet the Press", yesterday. Bush and Mehlman are both "on message" concerning the intelligence information that congress was privy to....the problem is that what those two are saying is not backed up by news reporting, including the WaPo reporting on Nov. 11:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111101832.html
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate...........

<b>If I am mistaken about the deficiencies in your arguments, show me ace....</b>

ratbastid · 05-02-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.

Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.

Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

The difference is, you and Bush are in the minority on that opinion, and you always have been. This was, at the time, a representative democracy. It actually takes something called the will of the people, which is what Bush was out to muster.

I never thought Saddam was a threat. I believed and still believe that he was contained and isolated both by the lingering US presence in the area, and by his political and religious opposition in surrounding states--a balance we tromped all over.

Not many people remember it, but there was a lot of skepticism in the air even when the WMD talk was being slung around. I personally never believed it. The whole Nigerian Uranium thing read like a Robert Ludlum sub-plot. I've never in my life been afraid of an aluminum tube. My believing the lie is not a necessary condition to say that it is a lie.

My opinion is that you and Bush had the wrong opinion. The majority of Americans (70% or so) agree with me, for whatever that's worth. The opinion of Dennis Kucinich, among many others, is that Cheney and Bush cherry-picked the intelligence that fit their already-formed opinion, including intelligence they already knew had been falsified. That's called a lie.

It turns out that America and I were right about Saddam not being a threat to the US, having connections to Al Qaida, or having WMDs. So... do you just shrug your shoulders about that? Gee, sorry about the thousands of dead Americans, and the tens of thousands of wounded. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead brown people--they don't count, so why count them? We wanted to cowboy in there, so we did and damn the consequences.

I can only hope that in the end, it'll be the opinion of Congress that determines whether these in-my-opinion lying scumbag murderers deserve to keep their jobs.

The_Jazz · 05-02-2007, 11:40 AM

host, I'm having trouble reading your post #93 as an attack on aceventura3 for holding his opinions. You're welcome to disagree with those opinions, but the entire "preamble" of your post aims it squarely at ace and not at the actual subject matter. You've moved from debating the topic to attacking the individual. Calling him an "enabler" and saying he's not praiseworthy when he's returned time and again to allow you the opportunity to expound on your points is not acceptable. Up to now this debate has been civil and even friendly at times, and you're trying to steer it away from that.

As per the restated Politics rules in the sticky, I'm posting this in the thread in the spirit of transparent moderation. At this point, I'm not raising anyone's warning levels or triggering the 3-day suspension rule because I don't think that's warranted. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

host · 05-02-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

host, I'm having trouble reading your post #93 as an attack on aceventura3 for holding his opinions. You're welcome to disagree with those opinions, but the entire "preamble" of your post aims it squarely at ace and not at the actual subject matter. You've moved from debating the topic to attacking the individual. Calling him an "enabler" and saying he's not praiseworthy when he's returned time and again to allow you the opportunity to expound on your points is not acceptable. Up to now this debate has been civil and even friendly at times, and you're trying to steer it away from that.

As per the restated Politics rules in the sticky, I'm posting this in the thread in the spirit of transparent moderation. At this point, I'm not raising anyone's warning levels or triggering the 3-day suspension rule because I don't think that's warranted. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

How else would I take issue with the posts that "gave credit" to ace, seemingly for simply continuing to post unsubstantiated opinions to counter intensely and thoroughly documented opinions that assert that the opposite is true, than in the way that I went about it. This occurs in the context of a Bush veto of the supplemental appropriations bill, just after the month of April, when it is reported that 104 more US soldiers were killed in Iraq, in April.

I'm not saying it's an excuse not to be polite, but Bush could not block legislation that mandates a time table for US withdrawal, without the support of people who need no real reasons for going Iraq and staying there, and who need no honest justification, even now. Who is stopping the impeachment process by criticizing Kucinich and his reasoning?

Elphaba · 05-02-2007, 01:38 PM

Edit: I had a question, but sent it via pm instead.

Pen

dc_dux · 05-02-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.

Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.

Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.

Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.

ace...if Bush tooks us to war and invaded Iraq based solely on the information you had (which I think is highly doubtful) or based on what he "thought" and did not rely on intel from the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc..., it would be unconscionable and very likely an act of malfeasance in office and would justify an impeachment inquiry.

And if he did rely on classified intel (and cherry-picked it - which is supported by the facts and not just your or my opinion) and did not provide access to the same intel to members of Congress (also supported by facts not opinion) when asking them to authorize what amounted to a war resolution, it is equally unconscionable and unethical, although probably not impeachable in and of itself.

Either way (he didnt rely on the best and latest intel available or he withheld portions of it from the other branch of govt responsible for sending us to war), your position has no moral standing.

loquitur · 05-03-2007, 06:30 AM

precisely how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public so they can evaluate it? There are two problems with that proposition, even laying aside the fact that it simply isn't done, and no president has ever done it, of either party. (There are good reasons for that.)

1. If you have any experience analyzing data, you know there are always outliers, data points that diverge from the overall pattern. Sometimes they are meaningful, most of the time they are noise. You guys who are saying you would have assigned higher reliablity to the outlying data points now are being totally disingenuous - back in 2002-2003 <i>everyone</i>, including the intelligence services of pretty much every foreign country including many who opposed the war, thought Saddam had active WMD programs and WMDs. The people here who think they would have known better are just blowing smoke - you're not trained or able to make those judgments (neither am I), and the idea that you would have been able to if only you had seen the facts is silly. What you have now is hindsight. But we all have that. If you're so smart, tell me today what will happen in, say, Kazakhstan's furtures markets in April 2009. Not so ready to to do it? I'm not surprised.

Raw data is pretty much useless. It needs to be analyzed by people who know what they're doing. That excludes the people here. It also excludes most members of Congress.

2. Intelligence data don't get released because that would compromise sources and methods. This one is so obvious it shouldn't need to be mentioned.

There might be many good arguments about whether we should have gone into Iraq, but the idea that the raw data should have been released to the public so that the "truth" could have been discerned is both ill-advised and not consonant with reality.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

precisely how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public so they can evaluate it? There are two problems with that proposition, even laying aside the fact that it simply isn't done, and no president has ever done it, of either party. (There are good reasons for that.)

I did not suggest that a president should make intel or raw data generally available to the public....we are talking about a summary of an NIE. Although Bush had declassified and made public another NIE for political purpose to refute Joe Wilson's charges.

I suggested that Bush should provide a declassified summary to members of Congress that is not misleading like the one the CIA provided (with WH approval) prior to the Oct 02 vote....if you had read what I posted earlier in this discussion:

Quote:

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE (provided to the Intel Committees) was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE's expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...630selling.htm

loquitor.....do you think the declassified NIE summary provided to members of Congress as described above was appropriate or acceptable in order for those members to have the additional information requested in order to make a more informed vote?

Both you ("how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public .....and the idea that raw data should have been released to the public") and ace ("you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information") are distorting, or just havent understood, what I and others have said.-- (1) that Bush, in his public speeches, should have said in general terms that there was conflicting intel, (2) Bush should not have lied to the public and said he "went to Congress with the same intel he had" and (3) that members of Congess should have been made aware of the conflicting intel (in summary form) prior to being asked to vote to send the country to war.

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 07:09 AM

loquitur, you are presenting a false choice.

I doubt anyone here would imagine advocating for general/public disclosure of classified materials. It is disingenuous to imply that this has happened, and unrealistic to suggest that the only alternative is a state in which the executive controls all terms of debate without consequence. It's inappropriate for us to believe that we have a system in which there is free debate and real consideration of action when one of the parties can take action, propose legislature, and entirely control the terms of discourse by limiting access to information that doesn't support predetermined outcomes.

What does the power of the Congress mean when their decisions can be influenced, if not determined, by restricting or propagating the information they use to make decisions?

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 08:01 AM

Here is one of Bush's speeches delievered prior to Congress' vote authorizing military action in Iraq. Tell me where the lie is? Tell me what it means when he says "Evidence indicates"? Does that mean he said it with 100% certainty?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Quote:

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 08:04 AM

I'm not saying he lied, unless it's a lie through omission. But I'll turn that around on ya ace.

Find me some quotations where Bush says that there is evidence that contradicts the assumption that Iraq possessed or was seeking WMDs. Find some quotes of him saying that his conclusions were supported by some evidence and refuted by other, substantial, evidence and analyses.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is one of Bush's speeches delievered prior to Congress' vote authorizing military action in Iraq. Tell me where the lie is? Tell me what it means when he says "Evidence indicates"? Does that mean he said it with 100% certainty?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

I also said this was a lie by omission, and IMO, unethical not to add a few words to those public speeches to tell the American people that there was conflicting intel when asking them to go to war"

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program....although some agencies within the intelligence community disagreed".

You dont think that would have been more honest with the American people?

ace..explain to me how this is not a lie?

On Meet the Press, Feb 04:
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence — Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I also said this was a lie by omission, and IMO, unethical not to also take one minute to tell the American people that there was conflicting intel when asking them to go to war.

ace..explain to me how this is not a lie?

On Meet the Press, Feb 04:
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence — Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618

If your criticism of Bush is based on his communication skills, I can not argue that point. However, the way I understand what he said in the quote above, based on the fact that he says "...the same information...my predecessor had..", that he refers to general information that was commonly known. I think that information was the basis of his desire to invade Iraq. That was the basis of my support of the war.

Also, I have no idea what he had that Congress did not see, or that the Clinton administration did not have.

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 08:24 AM

Ace, do you think "what he had that Congress did not see, or that the Clinton administration did not have" is important? I'm just curious - because based on stuff you said earlier, your support for the war is conceived in different terms anyway.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

have no idea what he had that Congress did not see, or that the Clinton administration did not have.

I guess I have to post this article again:

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

full article: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm

That is why I said I believe we have different moral standards for sending our brothers and sons (and sisters and daugthers) to war.

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace, do you think "what he had that Congress did not see, or that the Clinton administration did not have" is important? I'm just curious - because based on stuff you said earlier, your support for the war is conceived in different terms anyway.

I think there was enough information commonly available to come to an informed decision to either support or not support military action against Iraq. Inconclusive intelligence one way or the other would not have changed my view.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

If your criticism of Bush is based on his communication skills,

You characterize it (I went to Congress with the same intel..) as bad communications skills and I characterize it as intended deception.

And I guess I have to post this article again from #73:

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

full article: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm

Quote:

I think there was enough information commonly available to come to an informed decision to either support or not support military action against Iraq.

I think a president has a moral obligation to rely on the best and latest intel and not simply "information commonly available"

For all of the above reasons, that is why I said I believe we have different moral standards for sending our brothers and sons (and sisters and daugthers) to war.

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I'm not saying he lied, unless it's a lie through omission. But I'll turn that around on ya ace.

Find me some quotations where Bush says that there is evidence that contradicts the assumption that Iraq possessed or was seeking WMDs. Find some quotes of him saying that his conclusions were supported by some evidence and refuted by other, substantial, evidence and analyses.

I can't find anything. i primarily looked in the months prior to Congrssional approval to take military action. Generally you get alot of stuff like this.

Quote:

The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20021005.html

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think there was enough information commonly available to come to an informed decision to either support or not support military action against Iraq. Inconclusive intelligence one way or the other would not have changed my view.

Clearly, if by conclusive intelligence you mean that which supported the given reasons for invasion, "conclusive intelligence" consisted of incorrect conclusions.

So you don't think it is material that the president ignored and suppressed information that contradicted his stated positions? I guess I can't understand that point of viwe...

roachboy · 05-03-2007, 08:46 AM

i dont understand where this thread has gotten to: i dont see how it is that the question of the quality of infotainment cooked down and coalated by the administration is resolved in any way by the question of whether ace happened to believe that information or not. the information was itself false. that this false information resonated with ace's political committments is not about anything except ace's political committments.

the question of intent--which is what is at issue in the use or non-use of the category of "lie"--is obviously problematic. it will not be resolved in a space like this simply because we do not have much in the way of relevant information. here, too, the question is information: and not about whether as you watch tv you are inclined to impute motives to george w. one way or another. the question of intent would be best resolved in a proceeding--and given that the integrity of the system is at issue, i would think impeachment a healthy development--because regardless of the obvious problems that intent poses even within such a hearing, it would nonetheless function to elevate system concerns over the partisan and personal politics of this administration.

another way: insofar as ace's personal relation to the case for this debacle in iraq is concerned, it seems to lean entirely on psychological and political committments---- the argument he makes comes down to: "i cannot accept that this happened. i cannot accept that the evidence presented was false. i believed the case and so it must have been true."

that isnt much of an argument.

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Clearly, if by conclusive intelligence you mean that which supported the given reasons for invasion, "conclusive intelligence" consisted of incorrect conclusions.

So you don't think it is material that the president ignored and suppressed information that contradicted his stated positions? I guess I can't understand that point of viwe...

I am not going to go through everything but...

Sadaam violated U.N. resolutions.
Sadaam had a history of military aggression.
Sadaam had a history of using chemical weapons.
Sadaam had a history of trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Sadaam, while loosing the first Gulf War, for no tactical military reason he targets Isreal with bombs.
Sadaam had a history of killing his own people.
Etc.

After the fact we find Sadaam was diverting billions of dollars from the oil for food program, I have my thoughts on why, what do you think he was going to do with the money?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont understand where this thread has gotten to: i dont see how it is that the question of the quality of infotainment cooked down and coalated by the administration is resolved in any way by the question of whether ace happened to believe that information or not. the information was itself false. that this false information resonated with ace's political committments is not about anything except ace's political committments.

the question of intent--which is what is at issue in the use or non-use of the category of "lie"--is obviously problematic. it will not be resolved in a space like this simply because we do not have much in the way of relevant information. here, too, the question is information: and not about whether as you watch tv you are inclined to impute motives to george w. one way or another. the question of intent would be best resolved in a proceeding--and given that the integrity of the system is at issue, i would think impeachment a healthy development--because regardless of the obvious problems that intent poses even within such a hearing, it would nonetheless function to elevate system concerns over the partisan and personal politics of this administration.

another way: insofar as ace's personal relation to the case for this debacle in iraq is concerned, it seems to lean entirely on psychological and political committments---- the argument he makes comes down to: "i cannot accept that this happened. i cannot accept that the evidence presented was false. i believed the case and so it must have been true."

that isnt much of an argument.

I can accept false information as false information. I did not base my views on the information that was later determined to be false. And, just because the information was false does not prove a lie. I do not accept the "lie" by omission argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I guess I have to post this article again:

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

full article: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm

That is why I said I believe we have different moral standards for sending our brothers and sons (and sisters and daugthers) to war.

The link did not work for me.

mixedmedia · 05-03-2007, 09:03 AM

I can't believe we're still debating whether we were misled and, in some cases, directly lied to about our reasons for going to war.

This war was a strategic move designed to, in my opinion (moreso than the question of oil which was a sideline of a much bigger objective), install a democracy in the heart of the middle east which would be the catalyst for a domino effect of change in the region. Thereby, yes, securing the stable production and distribution of the region's oil and opening up ginormous new world markets and geography for global capitalism to play with.

Like, duh.

Truthfully, I don't think it's a horrible plan, but it went south real quick because, well, they didn't plan it. I guess GOD was gonna take care of all the details like, you know, human nature and happy endings.

Ace, with all due respect, if you still think it was about Saddam and wmd's you really need to read more.

Sorry to interject so little so late in the conversation, but I had to say something.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

The link did not work for me.

If you really want to read it: What Bush Was Told About Iraq

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

But I dont see the point of debating it further.

pig · 05-03-2007, 09:59 AM

i don't think this is a mod-offense, but if it is, mods do your thing or pm me and i'll do it.

this is how i felt listening to the news in the run-up to the war:

host · 05-03-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I can't find anything. i primarily looked in the months prior to Congrssional approval to take military action. Generally you get alot of stuff like this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20021005.html

ace....re: "The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing." You posted that "message" from the white house, in your post #110.....

My question is, why???

In my post,
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2239744&postcount=93">#93</a>
I included Rumsfeld's <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-08-uranium-usat_x.htm">July 2003, assertion</a> that the administration chose to "go to war", without any significant new information concerning the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed.

I also included quotes dating from Feb., 2001, until Sept. 16, 2001, which all conveyed a similar assessment from Tenet, Powell, Rice, and finally, Cheney.
All four statements amounted to, as Rice put it, in late July, 2001:

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

All of that was precedd by this news reporting:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002

............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe.

<b>Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............</b>

They all said words to this effect, ace:

Quote:

........But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt..........

Rumsfeld said:

Quote:

......"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."........

....and his words are your entire argument to justify a war against a country that was assessed as not posing a significant threat....and even Rumsfeld said, <b>"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder"</b>

.....so why bother to post "things" like,
<b>"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing."</b>,

.....why, ace....even you don't believe that.....the record shows that there was no basis for that statement....it's rhetoric......and hundreds of thousands have died.....why, ace?

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you really want to read it: What Bush Was Told About Iraq

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

But I dont see the point of debating it further.

This is from the article

Quote:

The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.

Bush and Cheney cited other reasons as well for evidence of a potential Iraqi nuclear program. Actually, what I have read Bush stated that Sadaam was seeking to or is reinstating its nuclear program. The author, is lieing based on ommision and lieing based on what Bush actually said about Iraq having a nuclear program compared to reinstating one.

Here is the second.

Quote:

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

This is not justification for Bush lieing by omission in my opinion. You would want Bush to say - ...and there is evidence or actually an opinion about what Sadaam might do if his regime's demise is imminent, ah - they say that he is unlikely but could conduct a clandestime attack against us on our soil...

I can see why this debate is over.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

You would want Bush to say - ...and there is evidence or actually an opinion about what Sadaam might do if his regime's demise is imminent, ah - they say that he is unlikely but could conduct a clandestime attack against us on our soil...

Once again, you misrepresented what I said and what I wanted Bush to say

I simply wanted Bush to add a few more words to his public speeches that would have acknowledged there were differences of opinion in the intel community. (from my post #104)

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program....although some agencies within the intelligence community disagree".

and that is why the debate is over

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 10:44 AM

The intelligence in question is about the tubes. The tubes could be used for conventional or nuclear weapons. The report did not question if Sadaam was seeking to reinstate his nuclear program.

05-01-2007, 12:34 PM	#82 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for? __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-02-2007, 08:47 AM	#92 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I suppose it's an impasse. Thanks for your post. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-02-2007, 11:40 AM	#95 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, I'm having trouble reading your post #93 as an attack on aceventura3 for holding his opinions. You're welcome to disagree with those opinions, but the entire "preamble" of your post aims it squarely at ace and not at the actual subject matter. You've moved from debating the topic to attacking the individual. Calling him an "enabler" and saying he's not praiseworthy when he's returned time and again to allow you the opportunity to expound on your points is not acceptable. Up to now this debate has been civil and even friendly at times, and you're trying to steer it away from that. As per the restated Politics rules in the sticky, I'm posting this in the thread in the spirit of transparent moderation. At this point, I'm not raising anyone's warning levels or triggering the 3-day suspension rule because I don't think that's warranted. If anyone has any questions, let me know. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo Last edited by The_Jazz; 05-02-2007 at 11:46 AM..

05-02-2007, 01:38 PM	#97 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Edit: I had a question, but sent it via pm instead. Pen __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 Last edited by Elphaba; 05-02-2007 at 02:31 PM..

05-03-2007, 07:09 AM	#101 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	loquitur, you are presenting a false choice. I doubt anyone here would imagine advocating for general/public disclosure of classified materials. It is disingenuous to imply that this has happened, and unrealistic to suggest that the only alternative is a state in which the executive controls all terms of debate without consequence. It's inappropriate for us to believe that we have a system in which there is free debate and real consideration of action when one of the parties can take action, propose legislature, and entirely control the terms of discourse by limiting access to information that doesn't support predetermined outcomes. What does the power of the Congress mean when their decisions can be influenced, if not determined, by restricting or propagating the information they use to make decisions? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 05-03-2007 at 07:13 AM..

05-03-2007, 06:30 AM	#99 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	precisely how is a president supposed to make intelligence generally available to the public so they can evaluate it? There are two problems with that proposition, even laying aside the fact that it simply isn't done, and no president has ever done it, of either party. (There are good reasons for that.) 1. If you have any experience analyzing data, you know there are always outliers, data points that diverge from the overall pattern. Sometimes they are meaningful, most of the time they are noise. You guys who are saying you would have assigned higher reliablity to the outlying data points now are being totally disingenuous - back in 2002-2003 <i>everyone</i>, including the intelligence services of pretty much every foreign country including many who opposed the war, thought Saddam had active WMD programs and WMDs. The people here who think they would have known better are just blowing smoke - you're not trained or able to make those judgments (neither am I), and the idea that you would have been able to if only you had seen the facts is silly. What you have now is hindsight. But we all have that. If you're so smart, tell me today what will happen in, say, Kazakhstan's furtures markets in April 2009. Not so ready to to do it? I'm not surprised. Raw data is pretty much useless. It needs to be analyzed by people who know what they're doing. That excludes the people here. It also excludes most members of Congress. 2. Intelligence data don't get released because that would compromise sources and methods. This one is so obvious it shouldn't need to be mentioned. There might be many good arguments about whether we should have gone into Iraq, but the idea that the raw data should have been released to the public so that the "truth" could have been discerned is both ill-advised and not consonant with reality.

05-03-2007, 08:04 AM	#103 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I'm not saying he lied, unless it's a lie through omission. But I'll turn that around on ya ace. Find me some quotations where Bush says that there is evidence that contradicts the assumption that Iraq possessed or was seeking WMDs. Find some quotes of him saying that his conclusions were supported by some evidence and refuted by other, substantial, evidence and analyses. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-03-2007, 08:24 AM	#106 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ace, do you think "what he had that Congress did not see, or that the Clinton administration did not have" is important? I'm just curious - because based on stuff you said earlier, your support for the war is conceived in different terms anyway. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-03-2007, 08:46 AM	#112 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont understand where this thread has gotten to: i dont see how it is that the question of the quality of infotainment cooked down and coalated by the administration is resolved in any way by the question of whether ace happened to believe that information or not. the information was itself false. that this false information resonated with ace's political committments is not about anything except ace's political committments. the question of intent--which is what is at issue in the use or non-use of the category of "lie"--is obviously problematic. it will not be resolved in a space like this simply because we do not have much in the way of relevant information. here, too, the question is information: and not about whether as you watch tv you are inclined to impute motives to george w. one way or another. the question of intent would be best resolved in a proceeding--and given that the integrity of the system is at issue, i would think impeachment a healthy development--because regardless of the obvious problems that intent poses even within such a hearing, it would nonetheless function to elevate system concerns over the partisan and personal politics of this administration. another way: insofar as ace's personal relation to the case for this debacle in iraq is concerned, it seems to lean entirely on psychological and political committments---- the argument he makes comes down to: "i cannot accept that this happened. i cannot accept that the evidence presented was false. i believed the case and so it must have been true." that isnt much of an argument. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-03-2007, 09:03 AM	#114 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I can't believe we're still debating whether we were misled and, in some cases, directly lied to about our reasons for going to war. This war was a strategic move designed to, in my opinion (moreso than the question of oil which was a sideline of a much bigger objective), install a democracy in the heart of the middle east which would be the catalyst for a domino effect of change in the region. Thereby, yes, securing the stable production and distribution of the region's oil and opening up ginormous new world markets and geography for global capitalism to play with. Like, duh. Truthfully, I don't think it's a horrible plan, but it went south real quick because, well, they didn't plan it. I guess GOD was gonna take care of all the details like, you know, human nature and happy endings. Ace, with all due respect, if you still think it was about Saddam and wmd's you really need to read more. Sorry to interject so little so late in the conversation, but I had to say something. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-03-2007, 09:59 AM	#116 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i don't think this is a mod-offense, but if it is, mods do your thing or pm me and i'll do it. this is how i felt listening to the news in the run-up to the war: __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-03-2007, 10:44 AM	#120 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	The intelligence in question is about the tubes. The tubes could be used for conventional or nuclear weapons. The report did not question if Sadaam was seeking to reinstate his nuclear program. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."