A little reminder for those who were "lied to" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

matthew330 · 02-03-2004, 02:05 PM

The pot calling the kettle black...

http://www.talkingproud.us/Government092103.html

Quote:

President Bush and his administration have told us in the king’s English why our sons and daughters are fighting in Iraq, and why we are rebuilding Iraq to be a free nation amidst multiple tyrannies. So we all should be fairly well educated on the Bush administration’s rationale. Now the time has come to understand what Democratic Party leaders have told us about this same issue, most especially those from the former Clinton administration. You’ll see plainly that we have unanimity about the intervention in Iraq, regardless of what you might be hearing right now.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL, ) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Scipio · 02-03-2004, 02:11 PM

The problem goes back to intelligence. Carter's NSA was on the radio the other day, and he raised an interesting point. "Everybody" thought Saddam had weapons, which is an excuse for the CIA's contention that Saddam had weapons. He pointed out that the main reason that "Everybody" thought this was because the CIA said it, not the othe way around. On top of this, even the bad CIA intel (which overstated the threat) wasn't enough to justify war. Cheney and Wolfowitz had to devise an independent intelligence group to analyze raw intelligence with the goal of rationalizing war.

Lied? Mabye, mabye not, but it seems pretty clear that a lot of people got duped. Every quote you have except one is from 2002 or earlier. How long has it been since we have conclusively decided there were no weapons? What, 1-3 months? Are you saying people can't change their minds?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2004, 02:14 PM

It doesn't matter what they said. The fact remains Bush is an evil baby killing puppy kicker.

matthew330 · 02-03-2004, 02:15 PM

The problem is that we had to rely on "intelligence" (i.e. - saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections he had agreed to). Which was from what i remember why we went to war. Why we had to go to war.

prb · 02-03-2004, 02:20 PM

Question: If the intelligence was as bad as this administration now claims, why haven't heads rolled? After all, the Director of the CIA and of the FBI serve at the pleasure of the President.

[Could it be that their silence against accusations of failure is purchased by allowing them to continue to hold their jobs?]

Tomservo · 02-03-2004, 02:52 PM

Hoo boy.

Clinton never took us into WAR. The skirmishes we were involved in under Clinton (Including bombing Iraq) were enough to challenge the American sense of "world well-being". It was obvious most Americans could care less what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sarajevo... so on. Until 9/11, Americans gave a collective finger to the rest of the world and seemed delighted to do it. That, without doubt, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Superbelt · 02-03-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
The problem is that we had to rely on "intelligence" (i.e. - saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections he had agreed to). Which was from what i remember why we went to war. Why we had to go to war.

What are you smoking? The weapons inspectors were in there the entire time. They had unfettered access to everything. They were surprising scientists and seizing their documents and roaming around Iraq at will. How can you justify saying "Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections."?

Scipio · 02-03-2004, 07:39 PM

Begging the question, if the president's hand was so tied by limitations on intelligence, why jump the gun on the war before the inspectors finish their job?

If any intelligence heads need to roll, they're in the white house. A separate group was set up by Paul Wolfowitz, and under Douglas Feith to analyze intelligence with the goal of rationalizing a war in Iraq. Why? Because the CIA's intelligence estimates didn't see Iraq as a big enough threat.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2004, 08:11 PM

There was an intelligence build up for years on this. He wasn't jumping the gun on anything.

maximusveritas · 02-03-2004, 08:48 PM

Tomservo touched on an important point.
Regardless of what was said by Clinton or any other Democrat, they never took us to war over this. This is a whole different ballgame. The President bears an extraordinary responsibility when deciding to send our young men and women overseas to fight and die. Before the war, I and many other Americans trusted him when he said Iraq harbored WMD and was a threat to our nation. It turns out he was wrong and he needs to take responsibility, instead of shifting the blame to the intelligence. If the intelligence was so bad, why wasn't a thorough investigation made BEFORE we chose to send our troops over there. And turning it around on the Democrats and saying they were wrong also seems incredibly irresponsible on his part. Nevertheless, I do think the Democrats deserve a large part of the blame for this debacle for failing to be a true opposition party and stand up and ask the tough questions. Instead, they mostly seemed to be concerned about the polls and looking patriotic post-9/11. In the end though, the ultimate responsibility falls on the President and if Bush wants to be a true leader, he needs to accept that resonsibility for his mistakes as well as his triumphs.

filtherton · 02-03-2004, 08:57 PM

Thanks, now i trust the bush administration completely.

Especially considering how reluctant they were to investigate why our intelligence failed so miserably.

C'mon matthew, mojo, aren't you fellas even just a little bit let down that we went to war largely based on info that wasn't accurate? Regardless of whether bush knew or not?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2004, 09:01 PM

I'm not going to front. The fact that the intelligence was so off is just terrible.

Scipio · 02-03-2004, 09:51 PM

The question we get to now is this: what is worse?

Despite the fact that the CIA urged caution and patience in dealing with Iraq, they got it wrong.

Or, a rogue intelligence outfit in the White House bypasses the CIA experts in order to produce an overly pessimistic view of Iraq.

I don't know. Sure, the CIA failed to put enough people on the ground, and failed to correctly assay Iraq's unconventional weapons capability. However, the policy that would have resulted from their recommendations was one of caution, and hindsight vindicates that. Although their resources on the ground might have been lacking, their analysis was sound.

One fundamental problem with the task the intelligence agencies were given is the difficulty of proving a negative. This is doubly true when we knew for a fact that he possessed, at a minimum, some chemical weapons in the past. Why would he get rid of them? We don't know. Figuring out if he ever did get rid of them (which seems to have happened) is even harder.

So it makes sense that we thought he had some weapons, but the CIA was absolutely right to conclude that the threat they posed was questionable at best.

On the other hand, when critics of the CIA got their hands on the raw intel, they made it fit into their own view of the world. This approach turned out not only to misinterpret the intelligence, but also to produce terrible policy.

What gets lost in all of this is that what weapons Saddam had might have been stolen by or transferred to terrorists as we invaded. Mabye that's why there are no weapons to find.

matthew330 · 02-04-2004, 07:47 AM

Quote:

What are you smoking? The weapons inspectors were in there the entire time. They had unfettered access to everything. They were surprising scientists and seizing their documents and roaming around Iraq at will. How can you justify saying "Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections."?

Unfettered? Suprising scientists? We were kicked out in 1998, how's that unfettered access? I can't find any documentation but from what i remember we were not allowed to interview nuclear scientists, unless approved and accompanied by armed guards. We had an inventory of what we found in the 7 or 8 years we were there, and Saddam's final report couldn't account for a significant percentage of it.

All of the people quoted above agreed with what Bush said in 2003. From 1998 NOTHING was done, except superficial support to opposition groups in Iraq. Bush single handedly got the weapons inspectors back in, with the UN and liberals kicking and screaming the entire time. If Gore had been in office, this would have never happened. Now you all agree this was necessary.

What am i smoking? Man, get off your high horse. Unfortunately I couldn't find the letter from congress to Clinton which describes why Iraq is a threat, and encourages military force (which was signed by some 10-20 democrats), but from this point untill Bush got in Saddadm had unfettered freedom to do whatever he wanted. These same people that signed this letter are now saying they were lied to by the "Bush Regime."

Superbelt · 02-04-2004, 08:26 AM

You said this:

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
The problem is that we had to rely on "intelligence" (i.e. - saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections he had agreed to). Which was from what i remember why we went to war. Why we had to go to war.

What you said is why we had to go to war is that Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections when the fact is in 2003, (not 1998, the current inspections) weapon inspections were ongoing were actually being successful (obtained documents and dismantling illegal rockets) and there is no good argument for going in because weapons inspections were failing. Because they weren't.

Also, the UN and Liberals were not kicking and screaming about weapons inspectors going back in. Care to support this notion with ANYTHING substantial?

matthew330 · 02-04-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

I can't find any documentation but from what i remember we were not allowed to interview nuclear scientists, unless approved and accompanied by armed guards. We had an inventory of what we found in the 7 or 8 years we were there, and Saddam's final report couldn't account for a significant percentage of it.

These things occurred in 2003.

Quote:

Also, the UN and Liberals were not kicking and screaming about weapons inspectors going back in. Care to support this notion with ANYTHING substantial?

Admittedly I can't. I just can't remember George Bush EVER making a move without a backlash of liberal opposition.

filtherton · 02-04-2004, 08:53 AM

Damn liberals.

02-03-2004, 02:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	The problem goes back to intelligence. Carter's NSA was on the radio the other day, and he raised an interesting point. "Everybody" thought Saddam had weapons, which is an excuse for the CIA's contention that Saddam had weapons. He pointed out that the main reason that "Everybody" thought this was because the CIA said it, not the othe way around. On top of this, even the bad CIA intel (which overstated the threat) wasn't enough to justify war. Cheney and Wolfowitz had to devise an independent intelligence group to analyze raw intelligence with the goal of rationalizing war. Lied? Mabye, mabye not, but it seems pretty clear that a lot of people got duped. Every quote you have except one is from 2002 or earlier. How long has it been since we have conclusively decided there were no weapons? What, 1-3 months? Are you saying people can't change their minds? __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

02-03-2004, 02:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It doesn't matter what they said. The fact remains Bush is an evil baby killing puppy kicker. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-03-2004, 07:39 PM	#8 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Begging the question, if the president's hand was so tied by limitations on intelligence, why jump the gun on the war before the inspectors finish their job? If any intelligence heads need to roll, they're in the white house. A separate group was set up by Paul Wolfowitz, and under Douglas Feith to analyze intelligence with the goal of rationalizing a war in Iraq. Why? Because the CIA's intelligence estimates didn't see Iraq as a big enough threat. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

02-03-2004, 08:11 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There was an intelligence build up for years on this. He wasn't jumping the gun on anything. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-03-2004, 09:01 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm not going to front. The fact that the intelligence was so off is just terrible. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-03-2004, 02:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	The problem is that we had to rely on "intelligence" (i.e. - saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections he had agreed to). Which was from what i remember why we went to war. Why we had to go to war.

02-03-2004, 02:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Question: If the intelligence was as bad as this administration now claims, why haven't heads rolled? After all, the Director of the CIA and of the FBI serve at the pleasure of the President. [Could it be that their silence against accusations of failure is purchased by allowing them to continue to hold their jobs?]

02-03-2004, 02:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	Hoo boy. Clinton never took us into WAR. The skirmishes we were involved in under Clinton (Including bombing Iraq) were enough to challenge the American sense of "world well-being". It was obvious most Americans could care less what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sarajevo... so on. Until 9/11, Americans gave a collective finger to the rest of the world and seemed delighted to do it. That, without doubt, is the pot calling the kettle black.

02-03-2004, 08:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Tomservo touched on an important point. Regardless of what was said by Clinton or any other Democrat, they never took us to war over this. This is a whole different ballgame. The President bears an extraordinary responsibility when deciding to send our young men and women overseas to fight and die. Before the war, I and many other Americans trusted him when he said Iraq harbored WMD and was a threat to our nation. It turns out he was wrong and he needs to take responsibility, instead of shifting the blame to the intelligence. If the intelligence was so bad, why wasn't a thorough investigation made BEFORE we chose to send our troops over there. And turning it around on the Democrats and saying they were wrong also seems incredibly irresponsible on his part. Nevertheless, I do think the Democrats deserve a large part of the blame for this debacle for failing to be a true opposition party and stand up and ask the tough questions. Instead, they mostly seemed to be concerned about the polls and looking patriotic post-9/11. In the end though, the ultimate responsibility falls on the President and if Bush wants to be a true leader, he needs to accept that resonsibility for his mistakes as well as his triumphs.

02-03-2004, 08:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Thanks, now i trust the bush administration completely. Especially considering how reluctant they were to investigate why our intelligence failed so miserably. C'mon matthew, mojo, aren't you fellas even just a little bit let down that we went to war largely based on info that wasn't accurate? Regardless of whether bush knew or not?

02-03-2004, 09:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	The question we get to now is this: what is worse? Despite the fact that the CIA urged caution and patience in dealing with Iraq, they got it wrong. Or, a rogue intelligence outfit in the White House bypasses the CIA experts in order to produce an overly pessimistic view of Iraq. I don't know. Sure, the CIA failed to put enough people on the ground, and failed to correctly assay Iraq's unconventional weapons capability. However, the policy that would have resulted from their recommendations was one of caution, and hindsight vindicates that. Although their resources on the ground might have been lacking, their analysis was sound. One fundamental problem with the task the intelligence agencies were given is the difficulty of proving a negative. This is doubly true when we knew for a fact that he possessed, at a minimum, some chemical weapons in the past. Why would he get rid of them? We don't know. Figuring out if he ever did get rid of them (which seems to have happened) is even harder. So it makes sense that we thought he had some weapons, but the CIA was absolutely right to conclude that the threat they posed was questionable at best. On the other hand, when critics of the CIA got their hands on the raw intel, they made it fit into their own view of the world. This approach turned out not only to misinterpret the intelligence, but also to produce terrible policy. What gets lost in all of this is that what weapons Saddam had might have been stolen by or transferred to terrorists as we invaded. Mabye that's why there are no weapons to find. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

02-04-2004, 08:53 AM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Damn liberals.