One too many Fosters?
 

Though I understand he was not drunk....I actually find myself wishing he was.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newthre...newthread&f=38

It is kind of funny that our President can't handle the same stupid shit that countless beauty pageant contestants pull off every year.

no "nuculer?"

I find it interesting. Bush is perceived as a bumbling, unintelligent person, but on the other hand he has been able fool the world and specifically Congress pretty much getting everything he has asked for regarding a war, a war where everyone on the left believes was based on lies. Last night as I was channel surfing various news shows, some have already come to the conclusion that Bush is going to be responsible for again lying to the world and more specifically Congress regarding the progress or lack of progress in Iraq. I even heard that some believe that he had already made up his mind regarding his strategy and the September reporting was simply a rouse to gain more time, and that he has been playing a that game since our military occupation of Iraq.

So, I wonder, which is it? Is Bush a bumbling, unintelligent boob, or is he some kind of mastermind who masterfully manipulates those who disagree with what he wants?

Ace, George W. Bush the man is not the Bush administration. People do things in his name constantly.

The man is bumbling. The administration is created the war. They are completely separate.

Who is left from the beginning of his administration? Chaney ,Rove, Rice? Are the they the masterminds and Bush just the mouth piece?

Every president is a mouthpiece to some extent. In think in our current administration this is particularly so.

And I'm not one to call GWB stupid. Bumbling, yes, but I don't think he's stupid.

I don't see why the "who's left" question is relevant. Sure, folks are gone. The administration is a huge beast, and I think you're falling into the trap that many folks do. There are dozens of folks that make these important decisions with the complicity of the "faces" of the administration. Just like you can't blame just Bush for the war, you can't blame just Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rice. There are dozens of others.

And the conventional wisdom is that Bush has been a figurehead at times.

not to mention the fact that just because someone isn't officially part of the administration that their phone doesn't work. i agree with mixed and jazz on this...i don't think bush is stupid, but i'd have to say rather inept. he leaves much to be desired in what i would like from a presidential candidate; ironically, it frequently seems that the very qualities which i dislike in him are those which resonate most strongly with voters. then again, our country is falling behind in education levels, but perhaps that's another story.

point being that much of what this administration has tried to pull off has been in the works in thinktanks for years...the guiding philosophy of this administration didn't materialize on a ranch down in texas or a frathouse at yale, or connetticutt, or wherever bush is really from.

and specifically to the op - things like this situation, or when he started rubbing merkel's shoulders a few years ago, or etc etc etc..why does the image of the idiot resonate so strongly with 'conservative' voters? i thought 'conservatives' believed that by hard work and education, you could raise yourself up. how do poor uneducated people consider themselves to be the same 'conservatives' that super-rich 'conservatives' are? it never ceases to amaze me. so having someone like bush is the natural choice. white collar, good family, old money....and the appearance of a farmer so stupid he'd be made fun of by the other farmers. sells like hotcakes!

I hope he goes home to the United Arab Emirates on accident. And stays.

I think it goes back to about 1939 and the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" staring James Stewart.

I think (speculation on my part - some have a problem with that) many modern Republican political leaders see the James Stewart characterization of an affable, sincere, boy scout, wanting to change the world in a naive way...Mr Smith...act is the key to gaining political power.

It has worked in many cases, and smart politicians know the power of a "Mr. Smith" persona even when it is not who they are. For example - The Nixon, and his Peaches speech (show, act, or whatever it was) and then you had Ford and even Ronald Reagan who had it nailed. Most Republican political leaders don't want to come across as too polished or too far removed from "Mr. Smith" values - if it is real or not. Savy voters know when it is real. I doubt Romney has a real shot at getting the nomination, he is too polished. On the other hand Thompson will be able to nail the "Mr. Smith" role to a tee, and has the most realistic shot at this time. I support Huckabee, who happens to be a real "Mr. Smith".

It's not just Republicans, ace. Barak Obama is textbook Mr Smith. People are attacking him on the thing you attack Mr Smith on--inexperience. But except for those already predisposed against him, that's a HUGE selling point.

Re the Australian gaffes: it could be worse. He could vomit on somebody... :rolleyes:

I tend to agree that Obama is at this point a textbook "Mr. Smith" and he has that tall guy, Lincoln big ears and head thing from Illinois thing working, but I think he needs to distance himself from Hollywood if he wants heartland votes. Also I have not seen him doing "down home" stuff yet. You know, like Reagan on the ranch chopping wood, Clinton jogging to McDonald's for biggie sized fries, Chaney shooting his hunting buddies. All of that is great "Mr. Smith" stuff.

sorry ace, i didn't mean the 'idiot' as in W being an idiot, i meant The Idiot, as in a theoretical form. it seems that people enjoy his apparent idiocy...and i'm not saying that he's stupid. what i meant is that he does something that people would ream someone else over, i think...but when bush does it is because he's 'plain spoken and from the heart...just a good ole' boy straightshootin and trying to his best for god and country.' i think you're definitely right that people like the image of the simple man...what i don't understand is why they like the simpleton...i mean, obama is very well spoken, even if he does have the 'mr. smith' angle working for him. reagan didn't bumble his speeches, you know?

Relating ignorance and naivete with sincerity and affability is dangerous. Just ask Iraq.

Yes, Reagan was a true craftsman when it came to language and choosing the right words to communicate his message. I think his having acting experience helped him develop those skills. Ironically, many at the time of his presidency thought Reagan was a simpleton and just talking head.

Even though Bush bumbles his speeches, I measure great communicators by their ability to communicate their message to the most people in an understandable manner, Bush does that. Even when he creates new words, we all right away know what the words mean. On the other hand when a guy like Kerry speaks, his mouth moves but I often don't have a clue about what he is trying to say.

So, you measure his communication skill by the way he uses deception? While I completely understand what he is saying, just as you do, my interpretation of his style of speech is not at all favorable. Not only does he fail to use his native language properly, he remains the most deceptive person I have ever seen in office. I am simply not sure if he does so on purpose, or out of ignorance. I can't grasp how anyone capable of critical though finds something to admire in this man.

Would Dubya have used the wrong "too" in the subject of this thread, or would Rove/Cheney have corrected it for him before he posted? :)

ouch....thats what I get for being critical....heh

No. Using one word, the word I would use is, clarity. Some people naturally have the skill, some don't. A "craftsmen" works to perfect the skill. Reagan was a "craftsman" when it came to his ability to communicate. He carefully chose each word in his speeches and often made changes to speeches he gave that had been written by others. In my mind there was no intent to deceive.

I have carefully listened to Bush and I have read many transcripts of his speeches, he does not deceive. The problem comes when his political opponents fail to understand that they are dealing with a person who will actually do what he says. For example, when Bush said he wanted authorization from Congress to use military force against Iraq, he meant it. Some people thought he was asking for authorization to send a message and for negotiation leverage. Who is being deceptive? I think it is those who voted for an unpopular war and want an excuse.

I too have carefully listened to Bush, and compared the transcripts to the speeches. Claiming the confusion of his message falls to the opposition is not making sense in the context of your claims of clarity. Furthermore, trying to claim he "Does what he says", while completely ignoring the general trend to not only fail to do what he says, but at times never even say what he is doing or do something completely different than what was said seems a bit disingenuous. It seems you prefer to take one issue (granted a very big one) and generalize it as the whole package, rather than spending the time to look at the complexity, I find it likely that you do so to avoid seeing something you obviously do not want to see.

To be completely honest Ace, I am confused. I find you to be a bright individual with excellent input into most things. But, when it comes to understanding the downsides of GWB, its almost as if you simply go blind.

This one line, all by itself should explain what I am saying...there is a mountain of documentation available that clearly shows otherwise, but you choose to ignore it.

Bush has weaknesses and he has made many mistakes regarding the Iraq war but to say he is decieving is a stretch. He says he going to invade and he does. He says he is going to stay the course during his reelection and he does. He says he wants to listen to his military (understanding that military people will see military solutions), they suggest a surge and he asks for a surge and get it. He says he wants funding for the occupation, he gets it, etc, etc, etc.

So you call me blind, all I can say is that I am confused by that. Again, I think Bush's political opponents vote one way and then say Bush deceives them because they need an excuse for their participation in an unpopular war. Hence you have the famous Kerry line about voting for the war and against it at the same time.



What I tend to ignore are the editorials about Bush lying. I read and listen to what he actually says and I make up my own mind.

This view you have about me reminds me of an exchange I recently had with DC. He talked about an NIE report, I asked if he had read it or just read what others said about the report, I asked some specific questions about the contents and I got nothing but silence. In another exchange with Will I said if Tenant says that he told Bush with greater degree of certainty that Iraq did not have WMD compared to the then general view that they did, that I would totally change my view and agree that Bush lied. Again, I got nothing. Contrary to your view, I am open to new information and I am willing to change my views.

You read the article and then essentially asked me to go out (in the real world) and buy the book. That's a little ridiculous. I'm sure there are book stores near where you are, and that's a popular book. Go thumb through it in a Barnes and Noble for like 10 minutes. It's there. He's not the only one to have had a conversation like that with Bush. Several FBI and CIA people have come forward in the past 3-4 years with similar stories.

Of course its ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as ace's response ("Speculation is speculation regardless if it comes from me or NIE") to my pointing out an NIE from last year and a national security report from several months ago (both readily available if ace really wanted to read them) that concluded, among the findings, that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in a propaganda tool for al Queda and more terrorist worldwide.

Bush is being deceitful in every public speech where he mentions al Queda dozens of times (over 90 times in one recent speech) in the context of the Iraq invasion/occupation and proclaims we have to fight them there so we dont fight them here....when the evidence from DoD, CIA and other sources is overwhelming that the majority of insurgents are Sunni Sadamists and Shiia militias and that the relatively small al Queda in Iraq has no capacity to bring their fight to the US.

Bush is being deceitful when he tells the public that he listens to the commanders in the field. He only listens to those whose recommendations support his pre-determined objectives. In deciding on the surge in Jan, he ignore the advice and recommendations of the head of Central Command, the top US general in Iraq and most commanders in Iraq at the time. In the coming days, he is likely to ignore the recommendation of Petreus's boss, Admiral Fallon, head of Central Command, who has recommended a substantial drawdown in the number of US troops in Iraq.

Bush is being deceitful when he shows up in Anbar Province last week and proclaims the "success" in Anbar is a result of the surge, counter to what Petreus said and not sharing the fact that we are making deals with one of the worst Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, Sheikh Sattar, who has no interest in, or commitment to, a central government and who is building, with tacit US approval, a personal militia of thugs and highway bandits that will only have loyalty to him.

And Bush is deceiving the American public when he claims the surge in working.

I have looked. I have not found the actual report, all I found was commentary or second hand reporting on the report. Nor have I found the methodology used to reach the conclusion reached. I don't give special credibility simply based on "title", I prefer raw data and understanding the assumptions and the methodology others use to reach their conclusions.

You referred to the report as if you had specific knowledge that may have been of interest to me. My question was a simple one.

{added}

I just clicked on the link you provided. If anyone clicks the link, they see one post and no context. Why didn't you give a link to all of the directly related posts?

If I were a cynic, I would think that was a nice trick, an attempt to deceive. I would say it was impressive. Wait, I am a cynic, and I am rarely disappointed. Never mind.

You made a claim, and I simply stated that if Tenant actually confirmed that claim that I would agree that Bush lied. I had not found anything supporting that Tenant actually confirmed the claim made. I stated clearly that I had not read his book nor have I heard or read everything he has said or written. You reading his book or not is your choice. I have been pretty clear and thought my position on this is pretty simple, I am not sure why it has gotten so complicated.

Perhaps as of yet unconfirmed, but still worth taking into the debate. Those of us who can no longer trust the administration will naturally be far more likely to believe this.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...9/06/bush_wmd/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html

I asked Will if he had a source from Tenet confirming that Tenet believed the claim above and if he communicated that to Bush. I don't doubt that there were sources and information supporting that there were no WMD, however, given conflicting data, determinations still have to be made.

To say Bush lied when making a determination from opinions and on data where the certainty is in question is wrong in my opinion. Questioning his judgment is one thing, questioning his honesty is something else.

If I were asked to make a judgment on if you owned a gun, I would use clues from your posts, I may even get information from people who claim to know you, I may check public records, if I had the authority I might send inspectors to your home, etc, etc. If I came to an incorrect conclusion, wouldn't we say my conclusion was incorrect rather than saying my conclusion was a lie?

If you had a history of gun ownership, criminal convictions, and people saying you owned guns and had plans on getting more, and I concluded that you owned guns in spite of a source or more showing that you don't, wouldn't my attempt to come to the correct conclusion at least be respected even it it was wrong?

Ace, you want to believe he's honest so nothing any of us could point out will make you feel otherwise.
I don't think Bush is even smart enough to lie, but he says what he's told to say. His speeches do sound like a school kid in a play that forgot his lines and has the teacher whispering them from backstage. What do you think the earpiece is for?

ROFL

excellent point mm.

When I was a kid, nothing (outside of food, sleep, etc) gave me more satisfaction than playing in dirt. I am very familiar with digging holes, but I don't get your point.

Yes, your opinion would deserve to be respected, unless you purposefully ignored the sources claiming I had no guns or hid the information from view during your investigation. If however, the Dept of Tobacco and Fire arms presented you with information showing I was indeed no threat , and that the guns you thought I had were non existent, I would expect you to consider heavily the Data coming from the very people you pay to know these things.
If , in the course of my trial it became clear you had charged me and ruined my life because of your ignorance, I would then file Civil charges against you to have you removed from a position that would allow you to do this to anyone else. I would also seek Damages far and above my own financial losses as a means of retribution for your failure to do your job properly.

Perhaps you want to rephrase the rhetorical question in hopes of a less damaging answer?

When I use information to come to a conclusion by definition it mean that I don't use information that contradicts the conclusion. I think you would say I "ignored" those sources, I would simply cite the sources used.

I have a 10 year old son. If I told him that you owned guns and I don't want him ever to step foot in your home. Without sharing with him all of my "intelligence" you would say I hid information. I would say, I shared the information he needed to know.


I been through this several times. I would not give more credibility to the Dept. of Tobacco and Fire Arms over my own research or any other government agency. I would need to know how they came to their conclusion, and then I would use their information in addition to the information I already had. Just like Saddam can hide WMD, people can easily hide guns from the authorities. Many people have died after thinking that the authorities would protect and keep them from harm.

If I caused you damages, it would be my obligation to make you whole again, including punitive damages against me. I have no problem with that, it is just.

What sort of punishment is just for this administration, then?

Well now that depends doesn't it. If you gather all the information and have no concrete evidence that I have a gun, and then you send inspectors to my house to check for guns and they don't find any, and then you go on television telling the whole city that I do in fact have a gun, and you're going to come get me, and then you come attack me, kick me out of my house, and hang me, all the while not finding any guns. And THEN you go around changing your story saying that you actually went in because I was mean to my dog and you were liberating him, then yes, I'd say your conclusion was absolutely a lie.

And if it's in the best interest of your big-business cronies to prove that tecoyah has a gun? And you find that to be the case despite your most reliable intelligence telling you otherwise? And you then fabricate connections between tecoyah and other propped-up boogiemen in tecoyah's neighborhood to justify bashing his door in and dragging him off to the gallows? And then your dear friends in oil and logistics move into tecoyah's house and start making quite literally BILLIONS of dollars off the ensuing tragedy?

What do you call that, exactly? Can we please go ahead and call that a lie?

In the context of the Iraq war I think we had justification for the invasion even without the WMD. However, if the war was proved to be unjust, I think we have an obligation to repair Iraq. Like Powell said - if you break it you fix it.

This is one reason why I am confused by members of the Democratic Party - as a policy decision going forward, if you think the war was unjust, why would you want to leave before fixing what we created. They seem to want to blame Bush without taking any responsibility, even though they voted for the use of military force and have continually authorized funding and endorsed Bush's plans.

Families of the fallen have paid a very high price for this war. I cannot think of anything that can repay their loss. However, if we fight and are willing to die for the principles of freedom and the rights of all, there is no greater way to serve mankind and this nation.

I would agree with you. In the context of Iraq, if the above mirrored reality, I would agree that the war was unjust and Bush lied.

If you say it was all done in the interest of big business, and in-fact that is wrong and there is no connection between the decisions made and big-business and that in fact the concept of big-business is nothing more that a trow away phrase to describe those who believe in the ability to buy and sell good and service in a free market, isn't that a lie?

ace.....you continue to perpetuate two false characterizations about the Democrats.

One, that they voted for the resolution authorizing use of force and subsequent bills for continued funding. In fact, the majority of Democrats voted for neither.

Two, that the Democrats want to leave without fixing what we created. Every Democratic alternative to the failed Bush policy and surge has components that include an Arab "stabilization force" to replace our troops as we drawn down, a real emphasis on diplomacy to address the political stalemate - with the active participation of Saudi Arabia and Egypt (who have influence with the Sunnis) and Iran (who as influence with the Shiias) as well as neighbors Syria and Jordan . Can you point to any diplomatic effort by Bush to deal with the failed political system or to involve the Arab powers in the Middle East?

Some Democratic proposals also include greater humanitarian and financial assistance to respond to the devastation caused by the sectarian violence and displacement that our invasion unleashed and most maintain a US presence to focus on al Queda and border security.

The "declassified key judgments" of the NIEs are readily available on the Director of National Intelligence website (dni.gov). Among the findings from the one I referenced in previous posts:
Unlike the NIE on pre-war WMDs in which there were dissenting opinions, there are no such dissenting opinions presented in the declassified key judgments of this NIE. One can reasonably conclude that our invasion of Iraq has contributed to the spread of the jihadist movement worldwide.

I am sorry the level of detail on the methodology and the raw data of the NIE is classified. If you dont want to accept these conclusions as any better than your own judgments, then there is nothing more I can add.

I did say I was confused on the issue. I am never really sure what Democrats think compared to what they say and do. Am I to understand that Democrats have been against the war from the beginning, have been against continued funding, and against the surge, but they have failed in all of their attempts to prevent, stop, and de-fund the war?

They are up against the least popular President in modern history. They have the benefit of saying they want to end a war of choice. They have the benefit of saying bring our over-extended troops home. They have the benefit of saying we should stop wasting money in a country that is in its own civil war. They have the luxury of saying our real enemy is in a different country. They have the luxury of having the majority in this country wanting to end the war. They have the luxury of saying the war was based on lies. They have the luxury of saying the war is making us less safe. Yet, they can not succeed in clearly communicating their message to the American people to bring the war to an end? I am sure I have again, mis characterized something, but I guess that is why i need you. Please help me.

Here is a quote from the declassified key judgments:

On one hand one can read this to mean that the Iraq conflict is breeding more terrorists. On the other hand one can read this to mean that given terrorists exist, if they fail in Iraq fewer, not more, will be inspired to carry on the fight. I agree with Bush - take the fight to the terrorists - fight the fight in Iraq not here. We can fight them now or fight them later, but either way there is going to be a fight. If the fight is now or later, the fight is going to inspire and be a “cause celebre”.

On the one hand? :confused:
I dunno, i think it states it pretty clearly and unless you have preconcieved opinions it should be interpreted as it reads. That is there are more terrorists, your friend Mister Bush is not protecting you, he's making you a target.

Bush has always talked about a multifaceted approach. The war against terrorists is a war with real opponents, they adapt and develop new strategy based on the conditions they face. No one can say what might have been, people can only speculate on that. Here is another quote from the report, supporting current actions:

Political stability in Iraq is important. The Bush strategy is to give political stability an opportunity to take hold.

I'm trying HARD to get the logic of this, because this has been your answer to "Bush Lied" for the last six months or so.

You're saying that if I tell a lie in order to get something, and you want me to have that thing anyway, for reasons other than the ones I lied about, that means I didn't lie?

No, it means if the person lies, but someone says he didn't lie, but someone else says he did, the other someone has to lie about the lie that the first one made to cover the lie he made himself, about the Non-Lie that started the second person saying he lied, even though the fist lie wasn't actually a lie to the third person who didn't believe the second persons lie in the first place.

Its really that simple.

The thread title finally makes sense.

^^ But the best response I've seen yet. :)

Many people including Bush thought Saddam had WMD. There was some evidence suggesting that he did not, and there were some people who believed he did not have WMD. To my knowledge, other than a handful of Iraqis at the time no one knew with certainty. In spite of the WMD question, there were other reasons to use military force to remove Saddam.

I repeat this, because I don't understand why many don't want to accept this, and I find it interesting how in the end the response ends up being something like - well he just lied, and he has you (meaning me) fooled.

DC has used a NIE report to substantiate the view that the war in Iraq has caused the number of terrorist to increase. He criticized me for suggesting that conclusions in the report and those drawn from the report are speculation, he further stated that the NIE is credible even without knowing how they arrived at their key judgements.

This is the same NIE that did a report supporting the view that Iraq had WMD.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

I ask you to revisit the simplicity of your description on the series of lies because either it ain't so simple or the first "lie" was not a lie.

Also, please continue ignoring serious review of real data supporting or disputing the preconceived notions we all bring to the table. The refusal to see the possibility that Bush has not lied tells us a lot at this point about the agenda of the Bush detractors.

Also, please continue ignoring serious review of real data supporting or disputing the preconceived notions we all bring to the table. The refusal to see the possibility that Bush has lied tells us a lot at this point about the agenda of the Bush Supporters.

Edited for clarity

I have come around on this point of view. Yes, there was justification to take out Saddam. There was, on one hand, good reason to be optimistic that Iraq could have been just like Germany in post WWII. All it needed to set its people on the straight an narrow was new leadership.

Sadly, Iraq isn't Germany or Japan. Iraq is more like Yugoslavia and it required an iron-fisted Saddam to keep it together. With Saddam out of the way, the US has to be the new Saddam. The US does not have the stomach to be the new Saddam.

Bush should have listened to what Chaney was saying when he was working for Bush Sr.

A case can be made for invading Iraq but the US should never have gone alone. The US really needed to have many more allies going in to both share the cost, share the nation building and share the post-Saddam heat. The Bush administration's Yippie-Kai-Ay attitude prior to the war (you are either with us or against us, thumbing their nose at Kyoto, the stance on the international court, etc.) lead to some of the US's stanchest allies saying, no.

Add to this, the administration did very little to prepare the american public for the long haul. Rumsfeld was all parades and flower stewn streets. This was always going to have to be a nation building exercise. Nations are not built over night.

Yes, it was a good idea to see Saddam go, but at what cost? America experiencing massive and spiraling debt. They are mired in a seemingly impossible war with public opinion collapsing. The latest reports suggest that Al Queda is back and able to strike again.

There are many lessons to be learned and I am not convinced history will be kind to Bush and his Administration.

Quoted for truth.

And I would much more impressed by a Republican party that had the humility to admit to this than I am by the tap-dancing and word-play that currently substitutes for honor and responsibility in DC when it comes to the war. And I think history would be much kinder to them if they did.

Here is what I wrote to Will on 9/6 in the thread "What's all this hub-bub about George Bush".

I am open to all possibilities.

I'm not saying he has you fooled. I'm saying he fooled an awful lot of people and you can't just step over that. The people who believed Saddam had WMD (of whom I was never one, btw) believed that because Bush and his posse told them so. Intelligence didn't support that claim--in fact, quite the opposite. But Bush claimed it, people bought it, and now we're up to our neck in a war we can't win.

I know you think there were other reasons to justify the war. What I'm curious about is why that belief of yours justifies your brushing aside the lies that Bush used to sell everyone in the country BUT you on this war.

Is it that if the rest of the country were only as smart as you, the lies would have been unnecessary? Why didn't he just say that the war was necessary for whatever reason YOU believe it was necessary? Which is....?

I'm just trying to get inside ace-world here. Because from outside ace-world, it looks like complete raving nonsense. I'm interested to see if there's any actual logic to ace-world on the inside, or if it really is the neocon lock-stepping it appears to be.

I think there were errors in judgment by many people regarding WMD. That does not qualify as a lie in my opinion. Many people thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush. There were people in the Saddam government who thought Iraq had WMD.

In my own research, it is clear to me Bush, and the highest levels of the administration were well informed that the WMD issue was in question on multiple fronts. Yet by using this cause as the primary justification, and indeed the reason given to the UN, he was not truthful....period. Added to this is the continuation of withholding information, as well as Using the vacuum of data to create a fear in the population designed to garner support, and the term deception almost seems kind.
Trying to spin this as an error in judgment ( as that is all you have left) does not convince me, nor many others that he was truthful.

Again, it comes to a judgment call.

You would take the risk that he had no WMD, did not have the ability to deploy them, nor the will.

I would error on the other side of the issue. I would error on that side even if I thought there was for example 90% chance he did not have WMD, because of Saddam's history and defiance.

And I would premise my arguement to the American people by saying there is a "chance he has WMD...". I guess you would say I am a lier.

On the other hand what would you say to the American people to justify your inaction, given the possibility that he might of had WMD? What would you say if you turned out being wrong and he used WMD? Oops, my bad?!?:confused:

ace...with such a premise ("there is a chance he had WMD") you would be more honorable and ethical than Bush, who made no such premise in any public statements.

Bush/Cheney et al not only made definitive declarations about WMDs, but also equally definitive statements about about Saddam-al queda connections in order to sell the invasion.

You might want to read a Congressional report, Iraq on the Record, (pdf) which identifies 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Saddam that were made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice:

Bush:
* The Iraq regime has developed weapons of mass death
* We found the weapons of mass destruction
* The liberation of Iraq removed an ally of al Queda

Cheney:
* We know with absolute certainty ..to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon
* Saddam has an established relationship with al Queda

Bush continues to mislead through fear with the implied threat to the homeland posed by the loosely affiliated al Queda in Iraq.

I would be upset were we attacked by a 20 yr old mustard gas shell lobbed at us from a non existent navy....as I simply would not have found that a likely scenario, and would have been wrong. I would feel terrible for the tens of people who suffered at the hands of such a nasty weapon, and regretted my inaction.
Information is already leaking into the masses however, that is was known the issue of viable weapons of mass destruction had been discounted by the very people we sent to verify the existence of them. Both the CIA and the UN, explained the program was either not there, or incapable of creating a true threat Then we go into a delivery system and realize there was no possible way the Saddam Regime could actually deliver anything to our soil even if they had it.


So that 90% chance they were no threat to me...seems a bit more important in the context of safety, than the 10% you are playing off of.

In the past I said that I believed the Bush administration was guilty of exaggeration and hyperbole. I have also said that I have a problem with those who supported the war who only relied on the statements from the Administration without doing their homework.

I have read Bush and Chaney speeches very carefully. For the most part they talk about his intent, his capacity, his record and his defiance. There has been some discrepancies on what constitutes WMD, timing and Saddam's attempts at deception. Also, the administration has not been vocal relative to the possibility that WMD in Iraq had been relocated prior to the war. Technically, the question has yet to be answered.

I had said before the invasion that Bush needed to tell the truth about Iraq. He needed to say that he was engaging America in a war of choice because it was the right thing to do.

Going to was over non-existent WMDs or some non-existent link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was a mistake. One shouldn't go to war on the pretext of a lie as it will (and has) come back to haunt you.

Bush should have sold regime change on the premise that Saddam was defying the UN and making a mockery of their resolutions. He should have sold it based on removing a destabilizing influence in the Middle East in the hopes of replacing it with a beacon of democracy and modernization. Something that might have tipped the scales in favour of both region wide.

He should have combined this with massive efforts of diplomacy in Israel/Palestine - the Clinton deal needed to be put back on the table, Palestine needed to be told that suicide bombing needed to be scrapped in favour of Israel retreating to its borders of 1967, and Israel needed to be told , in no uncertain terms to stop the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

All of this needed to be combined with a massive attitude shift that would get rid of the arrogant, "you are either with us or against us" that left the US essentially without a coalition going into Iraq.

Bush should have taken more time to bring either NATO or some other larger coalition on board to aid in the nation building that was to happen post invasion. The US would not need any help in conquering Iraq, that was always a done deal that would take weeks. It is the years or decades of nation building that the US was never ready for.

The US public was not ready for the real cost and the real scope of this adventure. Bush never took the time to prepare them for it. There was no exit strategy.

With a real coalition at his side this might have gone differently.

but the invasion of iraq was the neocon's crowning moment--it was a rewind of the first gulf war, a demonstration that the us was now the global military hegemon and was not bound by the rules that constrain mere mortal countries.

no no: the american military hegemon plays according to its own rules, acts in its own interests, some huge muscled pinhead stumbling about bristling with armor, skull full of ayn rand.


the new sherrif is in town fellas.

so a viable coalition was not in the cards. had coalition building been a priority, everything about this farce would have gone differently: the "wolfowitz doctrine" would have been seen as the joke it was and wolfowitz himself would not have been rewarded for developing such a catastrophic "strategy" by being selected to lead the world bank....the rumsfeld school of "just-in-time war" would not have been given a chance to fail...

and a million iraqis would not have had the chance to die in this futile experiment.

an actual coalition would have been desirable, but it would have required a different american administration to have happened.

and i still wonder how things might have gone had the "wolfowitz doctrine" been other than a far right pipe dream---suffice it to say that we would be in a rather different political universe than we presently find ourselves in. but no matter now: there was no plan b.
iraq was supposed to be quick and easy.
it wasnt.
it isnt.

no amount of counterfactuals change that.
the bush administration threw the dice on the wolfowitz doctrine and the iraqi people lost. the administration lost. we all lost.


nb: after i put this up, i found the following in the guardian.
this is the just-in-time war, a tip of it:

http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.med...%2C00.html&d=f