Powell Not Sure Iraq Trailers Were Labs - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mrbuck12000 · 04-03-2004, 09:27 AM

He is saying that his story is not solid. the only thing solid is the crap this administration is dishing out to the american public. why does this stuff always come out on the weekends when the american public is not watching the news:
found this at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_weapons_5

Quote:

BY BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) conceded Friday evidence he presented to the United Nations (news - web sites) that two trailers in Iraq (news - web sites) were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong.

In an airborne news conference on the way home from NATO (news - web sites) talks in Brussels, Belgium, Powell said he had been given solid information about the trailers that he told the Security Council in February 2003 were designed for making biological weapons.
But now, Powell said, "it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."
He said he hoped the intelligence commission appointed by President Bush (news - web sites) to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq "will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time."
Powell's dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.
As it turned out, U.N. inspectors were unable to uncover the weapons, but administration officials have insisted they still might be uncovered.
David Kay, who led the hunt for the weapons, showed off a pair of trailers for news cameras last summer and argued that the two metal flatbeds were designed for making biological weapons.
But faced with mounting challenges to that theory, Kay conceded in October he could have been wrong. He said he did not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons program.
Powell told reporters that as he worked on the Bush administration's case against Iraq U.S. intelligence "indicated to me" that the intelligence was solid.
"I'm not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced" allegations, Powell said.
The trailers were the most dramatic claims, "and I made sure that it was multi-sourced," he said.
"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.
"I have discussions with the CIA (news - web sites) about it," Powell said, without providing further details.
The trailers were the only discovery the administration had cited as evidence of an illicit Iraqi weapons program.
In six months of searches, no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were found to bolster the administration's central case for going to war: to disarm Saddam of suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Strange Famous · 04-03-2004, 09:43 AM

In other words, they knew there were no weapons, they always knew there were none, the WMD were lies, and now the CIA are going to be blamed rather than the liars.

maximusveritas · 04-03-2004, 11:07 AM

Its not that they knew there were no weapons. That's simply not the issue here. They probably did believe that weapons would be found, just as many others in Washington, including Democrats, believed.

But as the President of the United States, it was Bush's responsibility to make damn sure that he knew Iraq had WMD and was a threat to our nation; sure enough to justify the deaths of each and every soldier who has died in this war.
Powell now says our evidence might not have been solid. He should have found that out before we decided to put our troops in harm's way. He says he made sure they were "multi-sourced", but he never made sure they were 100% accurate. He and the administration are going to try to unfairly shift their responsibility onto the intelligence community, which was repeatedly pressured by the administration to provide evidence to justify the war. As Richard Clarke has revealed, the Bush administration reaction to unfavorable intelligence was "try again".

Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? After Clinton spent most of his term ducking from responsibility, I thought perhaps President Bush would change the tone in Washington and begin to accept responsibility for his actions. Instead, he has refused to even look into his mistakes, initially opposing both this commission and the 9-11 commission.

President Bush says he would do it again if he had the chance, but I'd like to see him say that to all the soldiers who have died in this war, to the guys who were senselessly mutilated this week, to their families who will never see them again. Taking the country to war is a great responsibility. Unfortunately, President Bush has abused this responsibility and in my opinion has proven himself to be incapable of leading this nation.

tecoyah · 04-03-2004, 04:55 PM

Oh My.....what a suprise.
Maybe the Powell I used to respect is shining through.

HarmlessRabbit · 04-03-2004, 07:32 PM

Here's a good read. Sorry for the long paste, but it's worth it. As you read it, keep in mind that every single bit of information in it turned out to be false, and that Colin Powell is now retracting his statements. How can this be anything other than a delibrate misinformation campaign? How do we get from this report in May of 2003 to "oops, forget all that" less than a year later.

The CIA works for President Bush. The buck stops at Bush.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03052801.htm

Quote:

28 May 2003

CIA Report Details Iraqi Mobile Biological Weapons Labs

Says three mobile labs were outfitted for BW production

A new Central Intelligence Agency report says the three mobile laboratory facilities uncovered by coalition forces in Iraq provide "the strongest evidence to date" that Iraq had a biological warfare program and made substantial efforts to hide it.

The report, issued by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) May 28, recounts the discoveries of the mobile laboratory facilities, which were designed to be used in the manufacture of biological weapons (BW) for the now defunct regime of Saddam Hussein.

In April, Kurdish forces seized a specialized tractor-trailer near Mosul, which was subsequently turned over to U.S. military control. The CIA report said the design, equipment, and layout of the trailer was "strikingly similar to descriptions" provided by an Iraqi chemical engineer who had managed one of the mobile plants that was used for the production of biological weapons.

The report also said that in May, a second mobile facility was discovered by U.S. forces at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul.

"Although this second trailer appears to have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermenter, is in a configuration similar to the first plant," the report said.

In addition, U.S. forces found a mobile laboratory truck in Baghdad in late April, which the report described as a toxicology laboratory from the 1980s that could be used to support BW production or legitimate research."

"Analysis of the trailers reveals that they probably are second or possibly third-generation designs of the plants described by the source," the report said. "The newer version includes system improvements, such as cooling units, apparently engineered to solve production problems described by the source that were encountered with the older design."

The manufacturer's plates on the fermenters list production dates of 2002 and 2003, indicating Iraq produced these units as late as this year, the report said.

"We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment -- a fermenter, refrigeration, and a gas capture system -- and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles," the CIA report concluded.

The CIA report can be seen in its entirety on the Internet at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ts/index.html.

Following is the text of the report:

Central Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
28 May 2003
Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants

Overview

Coalition forces have uncovered the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.

* Kurdish forces in late April 2003 took into custody a specialized tractor-trailer near Mosul and subsequently turned it over to U.S. military control.

* The U.S. military discovered a second mobile facility equipped to produce BW agent in early May at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul. Although this second trailer appears to have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermentor, is in a configuration similar to the first plant.

* U.S. forces in late April also discovered a mobile laboratory truck in Baghdad. The truck is a toxicology laboratory from the 1980s that could be used to support BW or legitimate research.

The design, equipment, and layout of the trailer found in late April is strikingly similar to descriptions provided by a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile plants. Secretary of State Powell's description of the mobile plants in his speech in February 2003 to the United Nations (see inset below) was based primarily on reporting from this source.

Secretary Powell's Speech to the U.N.

Secretary Powell's speech to the U.N. in February 2003 detailed Iraq's mobile BW program, and was primarily based on information from a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile plants.

* Iraq's mobile BW program began in the mid-1990s-this is reportedly when the units were being designed.

* Iraq manufactured mobile trailers and railcars to produce biological agents, which were designed to evade U.N. weapons inspectors. Agent production reportedly occurred Thursday night through Friday when the U.N. did not conduct inspections in observance of the Muslim holy day.

* An accident occurred in 1998 during a production run, which killed 12 technicians-an indication that Iraq was producing a BW agent at that time.

Analysis of the trailers reveals that they probably are second- or possibly third-generation designs of the plants described by the source. The newer version includes system improvements, such as cooling units, apparently engineered to solve production problems described by the source that were encountered with the older design.

* The manufacturer's plates on the fermenters list production dates of 2002 and 2003-suggesting Iraq continued to produce these units as late as this year.

Prewar Assessment

The source reported to us that Iraq in 1995 planned to construct seven sets of mobile production plants-six on semi-trailers and one on railroad cars-to conceal BW agent production while appearing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Some of this information was corroborated by another source.

* One of the semi-trailer plants reportedly produced BW agents as early as July 1997.

* The design for a more concealable and efficient two-trailer system was reportedly completed in May 1998 to compensate for difficulties in operating the original, three-trailer plant.

* Iraq employed extensive denial and deception in this program, including disguising from its own workers the production process, equipment, and BW agents produced in the trailers.

Plants Consistent With Intelligence Reporting

Examination of the trailers reveals that all of the equipment is permanently installed and interconnected, creating an ingeniously simple, self-contained bioprocessing system. Although the equipment on the trailer found in April 2003 was partially damaged by looters, it includes a fermentor capable of producing biological agents and support equipment such as water supply tanks, an air compressor, a water chiller, and a system for collecting exhaust gases.

The trailers probably are part of a two- or possibly three-trailer unit. Both trailers we have found probably are designed to produce BW agent in unconcentrated liquid slurry. The missing trailer or trailers from one complete unit would be equipped for growth media preparation and post-harvest processing and, we would expect, have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers.

* These other units that we have not yet found would be needed to prepare and sterilize the media and to concentrate and possibly dry the agent, before the agent is ready for introduction into a delivery system, such as bulk-filled munitions. Before the Gulf war, Iraq bulk filled missile and rocket warheads, aerial bombs, artillery shells, and spray tanks.

Prewar Iraqi Mobile Program Sources

The majority of our information on Iraq's mobile program was obtained from a chemical engineer that managed one of the plants. Three other sources, however, corroborated information related to the mobile BW project.

* The second source was a civil engineer who reported on the existence of at least one truck-transportable facility in December 2000 at the Karbala ammunition depot.

* The third source reported in 2002 that Iraq had manufactured mobile systems for the production of single-cell protein on trailers and railcars but admitted that they could be used for BW agent production.

* The fourth source, a defector from the Iraq Intelligence Service, reported that Baghdad manufactured mobile facilities that we assess could be used for the research of BW agents, vice production.

Our analysis of the mobile production plant found in April indicates the layout and equipment are consistent with information provided by the chemical engineer, who has direct knowledge of Iraq's mobile BW program.

* The source recognized pictures of this trailer, among photographs of unrelated equipment, as a mobile BW production plant similar to the one that he managed, even pointing out specific pieces of equipment that were installed on his unit.

Common elements between the source's description and the trailers include a control panel, fermentor, water tank, holding tank, and two sets of gas cylinders. One set of gas cylinders was reported to provide clean gases-oxygen and nitrogen-for production, and the other set captured exhaust gases, concealing signatures of BW agent production.

* The discovered trailers also incorporate air-stirred fermenters, which the source reported were part of the second-generation plant design.

* Externally, the trailers have a ribbed superstructure to support a canvas covering that matches the source's description.

* Data plates on the fermenters indicate that they were manufactured at the same plant the source said manufactured equipment for the first generation of mobile plants. The plant also was involved in the production of equipment used in Iraq's pre-Gulf war BW program.

Employees of the facility that produced the mobile production plants' fermentor revealed that seven fermenters were produced in 1997, one in 2002 and one in 2003.

* The seven fermenters appear to corroborate the source's reporting that Iraq in the mid-1990s planned to produce seven mobile production plants.

* The two fermenters produced in 2002 and 2003 reportedly were sent to the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul-the site where the second trailer was found-and probably are the fermenters found on the trailers in U.S. custody.

There are a few inconsistencies between the source's reporting and the trailers, which probably reflect design improvements.

* The original plants were reported to be mounted on flatbed trailers reinforced by nickel-plate flooring and equipped with hydraulic support legs. The discovered plants are mounted on heavy equipment transporters intended to carry army tanks, obviating the need for reinforced floors and hydraulic legs.

* The trailers have a cooling unit not included in the original plant design, probably to solve overheating problems during the summer months as described by the source.

* The original design had 18 pumps, but the source mentioned an effort to reduce the number to four in the new design. The trailer discovered in late April has three pumps.

Legitimate Uses Unlikely

Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use-such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production-that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability. We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment-a fermentor, refrigeration, and a gas capture system-and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles.

* The capability of the system to capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation is not required for legitimate biological processes and strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity.

* The presence of caustic in the fermentor combined with the recent painting of the plant may indicate an attempt to decontaminate and conceal the plant's purpose.

* Finally, the data plate on the fermentor indicates that this system was manufactured in 2002 and yet it was not declared to the United Nations, as required by Security Council Resolutions.

Some coalition analysts assess that the trailer found in late April could be used for bioproduction but believe it may be a newer prototype because the layout is not entirely identical to what the source described.

A New York Times article on 13 May 2003 reported that an agricultural expert suggests the trailers might have been intended to produce biopesticides near agricultural areas in order to avoid degradation problems. The same article also reported that a former weapons inspector suggests that the trailers may be chemical-processing units intended to refurbish Iraq's antiaircraft missiles.

* Biopesticide production requires the same equipment and technology used for BW agent production; however, the off-gas collection system and the size of the equipment are unnecessary for biopesticide production. There is no need to produce biopesticides near the point of use because biopesticides do not degrade as quickly as most BW agents and would be more economically produced at a large fixed facility. In addition, the color of the trailer found in mid-April is indicative of military rather than civilian use.

* Our missile experts have no explanation for how such a trailer could function to refurbish antiaircraft missiles and judge that such a use is unlikely based on the scale, configuration, and assessed function of the equipment.

* The experts cited in the editorial are not on the scene and probably do not have complete access to information about the trailers.

Hydrogen Production Cover Story

Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.

* The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailer-a gas collection system and the presence of caustic-are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.

The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable.

Sample Collection and Analysis

We continue to examine the trailer found in mid-April and are using advanced sample analysis techniques to determine whether BW agent is present, although we do not expect samples to show the presence of BW agent. We suspect that the Iraqis thoroughly decontaminated the vehicle to remove evidence of BW agent production. Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant because of the source's description, equipment, and design.

* The initial set of samples, now in the United States, was taken from sludge from inside the fermentor, liquid that was in the system and wipes from the equipment. A sample set also was provided to a coalition partner for detailed laboratory analysis.

* As we expected, preliminary sample analysis results are negative for five standard BW agents, including Bacillus anthracis, and for growth media for those agents. In addition, the preliminary results indicate the presence of sodium azide and urea, which do not support Iraqi claims that the trailer was for hydrogen production.

* Additional sample analysis is being conducted to identify growth media, agent degradation products, and decontamination chemicals that could be specific for BW agents, as well as to identify a chemical associated with hydrogen production.

Mobile Production Plant Versus Mobile Laboratory?

Although individuals often interchangeably use the terms production plant and laboratory, they have distinct meanings. The mobile production plants are designed for batch production of biological material and not for laboratory analysis of samples. A truck-mounted mobile laboratory would be equipped for analysis and small-scale laboratory activities. U.S. forces discovered one such laboratory in late April.

* The mobile laboratory-installed in a box-bodied truck-is equipped with standard, dual-use laboratory equipment, including autoclaves, an incubator, centrifuges, and laboratory test tubes and glassware.

* These laboratories could be used to support a mobile BW production plant but serve legitimate functions that are applicable to public heath and environmental monitoring, such as water-quality sampling.

HarmlessRabbit · 04-03-2004, 07:35 PM

Quote:

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
May 29, 2003

The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
May 29, 2003

We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories.

Donald Rumsfeld
Infinity Radio Interview
May 31, 2003

Q: The fact that there hasn’t been substantial cache of weapons of mass destruction -- is that an embarrassment?

Wolfowitz: No. Is it an embarrassment to people on the other side that we’ve discovered these biological production vans, which the defector told us about?

Paul Wolfowitz
CNN Interview
May 31, 2003

We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.

George W. Bush
Speech to the Troops
June 5, 2003

I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, "Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?" Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment.

Colin Powell
Fox News Interview
June 8, 2003

The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory.

Colin Powell
Associated Press Interview
June 12, 2003

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs . . . a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."

Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
June 15, 2003

j8ear · 04-03-2004, 07:59 PM

Heres some other great quotes kindly compiled by Walter Williams in this piece here:

Quote:

President Clinton (1998): "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."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 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."

In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 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."

In January 2003, Kerry added, "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."

Just because they were ALL wrong, doesn't mean they lied.

They fucked up. They've been fucking up for years, and they will continue to fuck up for years to come. The first changes to our bloated, ineffective, turf battling, secretive federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering entities have happened only recently and after many years of being ignored.

Come to grasp with reality. Being wrong is NOT LYING.

As for General Powell. I don't doubt that he will have more egg to wipe off his face, and I am confident that he will once again step up to the plate. More evidence to me of the cut of his jib, the mettle of his moxy. A true warrior, and statesmen.

imho,

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 04-03-2004, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Come to grasp with reality. Being wrong is NOT LYING.
-bear

I don't see how any of your quotes come to bear on the fact that the administration continued to maintain that Iraq had "mobile biological weapons labs" for many years, a claim which they are now retracting completely.

The general claim of Iraq having WMD is irrelevant to the specific claim here that Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs.

Quote:

As for General Powell. I don't doubt that he will have more egg to wipe off his face, and I am confident that he will once again step up to the plate. More evidence to me of the cut of his jib, the mettle of his moxy. A true warrior, and statesmen.

By that standard, Bill Clinton must be your hero! Look at all poor Bill had to endure after lying to the american public. What a statesman!!!

j8ear · 04-03-2004, 09:40 PM

The specific claim is and always has been lies.

Continuing to point out 'mistakes' or lack of substantiation of the governments claims, whether bush, cheney, powell, clinton, albright, or other and calling them lies, especially when someone comes forward again, and fesses up to the mistake or failures is disengenous at best.

They might have been lies, who knows. The trail goes back so far. A cabinet member confessing that he was mistaken (or misled or misinformed, possibly even misguided), is not proof of lies. It supports mistakes, and only proves the quality of the man owning up to the mistakes.

If it's simply a mistake, it seems the only way we found out about it was to go and look for ourselves.

Wouldn't you agree?

I still maintain they will turn up in Syria, and in time for the election. Time will tell. I will be humbled to admit as much should I be mistaken. It won't make me a liar.

To keep to the light hearted nature of the ribbing presented:

Hero indeed

If I measured statesmen by the perjuries committed, impeachments imposed, and disbarrments assest.

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 04-03-2004, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Continuing to point out 'mistakes' or lack of substantiation of the governments claims, whether bush, cheney, powell, clinton, albright, or other and calling them lies, especially when someone comes forward again, and fesses up to the mistake or failures is disengenous at best.

Well, for me, enough proof is there to call it a lie. It appears from what I have gathered so far is that the Bush Administration allowed itself to be misled by a single set of misinformation created by Iraqi expats who had a vested interest in the USA invading Iraq.

here's a transcript from June of 2003:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03062706.htm

Quote:

Question: Mr. Secretary, are those analysts in INR Bureau now as confident as the CIA was that the mobile vans are, in fact, for biological warfare?

Secretary Powell: Their confidence level is increasing. They still have some questions, and those questions are well known to the CIA. But I have confidence in the judgment of the CIA that they are for the purpose of developing biological weapons. It's been studied very thoroughly. But we're -- there are still some questions that are being looked at and analyzed. And Carl Ford has been out to the CIA to share all of the ideas and judgments and different alternative considerations that should be applied to the analysis.

And so we have been in complete open analysis with, you know, having a complete open analysis with the CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence remains confident of his judgment. And frankly, I haven't seen anything to suggest that that judgment is wrong. And so we are sticking with the judgment of the DCI. He is the one who has the best position to analyze all of the information and to make this judgment. And INR participates in the work of the intelligence community, but ultimately, it is the DCI who makes the judgment.

Frankly, to get from that statement to an "oops, it wasn't a weapons trailer, and by the way, our intelligence was wrong and we should have never thought they had mobile weapons trailers in the first place" requires, for me, an assumption of an evil purpose on the part of the Bush Administration.

Your mileage may vary. Also, I have some land in florida you might be interested in, and this bridge here.

j8ear · 04-03-2004, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Well, for me, enough proof is there to call it a lie. It appears from what I have gathered so far is that the Bush Administration allowed itself to be misled by a single set of misinformation created by Iraqi expats who had a vested interest in the USA invading Iraq.

You could be right. No doubt about it.

Lie and all.

Even still, it has been years of iraqi ex-pats. I wonder who was the director of the cia when Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand? GHWB? Not sure on that actually. Worth investigating.

What other intelligence gathering technique would have yielded different results? More reliable ones?

You know though, right after GHWB (his general actually, stormin norman, under Powell's (JCS) command) took a piss in the south of Iraq then packed up his toys and went home. He had them then, and used them. All the while always kicking himself that he couldn't get nuclear on anyone's ass. Who knows what mumbo jumbo, russian and french complicite, UN blind-eyed nonsense happened between then and just before the US took that fucker out. That piece of shit had been so lazy, he only put the word out that he had WMD, and built palaces. Or did he?

I've read that only the Russians have ever publically acknowledge a possibility that Iraq was not WMD capable.

I'm certain Bush II didn't need much provocation into heading to Iraq during his presidency. I'll bet he had a pretty good idea how he would do it too....long before 9-11. Hell, even I did.

Whatcha gonna do?

-bear

tecoyah · 04-04-2004, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear

Hero indeed If I measured statesmen by the perjuries committed, impeachments imposed, and disbarrments assest.

-bear

Gotta wonder what level of perjury we would get from GWB, if there was an impeachment trial for his "blunders" thus far. If indeed he and his, are lying, there are over seven hundred dead soldiers who have paid the price for it. Seems a bit more severe than the reputation of an intern, and a quickie.
We will likely never know the number of Iraqis killed, as the administration thinks it is unimportant to track.

onetime2 · 04-04-2004, 06:25 AM

Once again, unless you know what each individual was thinking and what they knew to be the truth when they made those statements, they can't be called lies.

HarmlessRabbit · 04-04-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Once again, unless you know what each individual was thinking and what they knew to be the truth when they made those statements, they can't be called lies.

Sure they can. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I think Powell is lying.

I think George Bush is lying.

I think Condoleeza Rice is lying.

There, I said it.

Here's a few facts you can check.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=40520

Quote:

* CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
* FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
* CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
* FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
* CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]
* CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]
* CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Sure they can. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I think Powell is lying.

I think George Bush is lying.

I think Condoleeza Rice is lying.

There, I said it.

Here's a few facts you can check.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=40520

What then do you say to the fact that every Democrat, including Clinton and Gore, was saying the same thing, i.e. that Saddam had WMD's?

Were they "lying" too?

HarmlessRabbit · 04-04-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
What then do you say to the fact that every Democrat, including Clinton and Gore, was saying the same thing, i.e. that Saddam had WMD's?

Were they "lying" too?

Again, I'm talking about the specific claim about the trailers. Of course Iraq had WMD's once, they used them. But, the Bush Administration consistently pumped up the threat that Iraq posed, including the ridiculous claim that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. The Bush Administration also consistently linked Iraq with 9/11, when no such link existed.

This weapons trailer issue is just one example.

If you'd prefer to not call it "lying" and instead call it "criminal negligence" or "crimes of omission" or "a watergate-level campaign of deception," I'm fine with all those terms too. We don't have to get all caught up in this "lying" term.

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Again, I'm talking about the specific claim about the trailers. Of course Iraq had WMD's once, they used them. But, the Bush Administration consistently pumped up the threat that Iraq posed, including the ridiculous claim that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. The Bush Administration also consistently linked Iraq with 9/11, when no such link existed.

This weapons trailer issue is just one example.

If you'd prefer to not call it "lying" and instead call it "criminal negligence" or "crimes of omission" or "a watergate-level campaign of deception," I'm fine with all those terms too. We don't have to get all caught up in this "lying" term.

It is not the term "lying" or the other terms you put forth, it is the intent of deception that I disagree with and the point of my post.

In otherwords, the US intelligence community (under Democrats and Republicans) made many mistakes which resulted in their drawing erroneous conclusions which were passed on to the politicians (Democrat and Republican) above them.

Honestly, I see this continual charge of "lying" as ignoring of these basic facts.

Dragonlich · 04-04-2004, 12:05 PM

HarmlessRabbit, one of the problems I have with your position, is that you present possibilities as fact.

For example, you state that Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program, even though this is *not* a fact. After all, given the uncertainties, it is not unlikely that we will one day learn that Iraq was indeed working on nukes. You *think* that the claim is rediculous, even though it's not at all unreasonable to suspect such a thing from a man known to like WMDs.

Hell, you said it yourself:

Quote:

I think Powell is lying.

I think George Bush is lying.

I think Condoleeza Rice is lying.

Just because you think something does not mean it's true. I'd suggest you stop confusing what you think with what you actually know.

Going back to the topic title: we know for a fact that Powell is unsure *now* about the validity of his statements about the trailers (fact). Some people then extrapolate from this uncertainty, and claim that Powell was lying (possibility, not a fact), and that the whole Bush administration was lying about the WMDs (possibility, not a fact).

I'd suggest the following scenario: Powell and the rest of the Bush administration were convinced that Iraq had WMDs, and were constantly being fed intelligence that appeared to support that position. Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would). Given their knowledge of the background of Iraq's leader, the administration then tried to get the US public and the UN to support them in their quest to end the reign of this (in their eyes) still dangerous individual. Only afterwards do they learn that the information given to them appears to be factually incorrect.

Note that there is no mention of lying in this scenario, because the people involved are all convinced they're right. Now, can anyone *proof* that my scenario is incorrect, or even very unlikely?

HarmlessRabbit · 04-04-2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
For example, you state that Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program, even though this is *not* a fact. After all, given the uncertainties, it is not unlikely that we will one day learn that Iraq was indeed working on nukes.

Well, we can take a discussion on the meaning of truth to the philosophy board if you'd like. The fact is, unless you are personally experiencing these things, you're taking news reports for their word anyway. Go down that route and you'll soon believe the moon landings were faked.

The fact is, I think Powell is lying. Now, you might have a different conclusion. You think that Iraq might have had an active nuclear program, in the fact of massive evidence that they did not. So, I'm no different than you. In the face of evidence, I have drawn a conclusion and think Powell in lying. You, in the face of evidence, have drawn a conclusion that Iraq had a nuclear program.

I'd be happy to bring of some of your past posts and start contesting what you claimed as "facts". That way lies madness, though!

So, the fact is, I think Powell was lying. On purpose. To acheive a goal of the administration.

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
*snip*

I don't mind at all that you have that opinion, but again, it doesn't address the basic fact that both Democrats and Republicans both believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Also, just as clarification, Saddam DID have a nuclear program at one time.

And you can thank the Israelis for putting a large dent in it.

maximusveritas · 04-04-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
I'd suggest the following scenario: Powell and the rest of the Bush administration were convinced that Iraq had WMDs, and were constantly being fed intelligence that appeared to support that position. Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would). Given their knowledge of the background of Iraq's leader, the administration then tried to get the US public and the UN to support them in their quest to end the reign of this (in their eyes) still dangerous individual. Only afterwards do they learn that the information given to them appears to be factually incorrect.

Note that there is no mention of lying in this scenario, because the people involved are all convinced they're right. Now, can anyone *proof* that my scenario is incorrect, or even very unlikely?

Your scenario is just as unlikely as the "lying" scenario put forth by HarmlessRabbit. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

You say "Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would)." I would strongly dispute this point. If they were being responsible, they would have looked even more closely at the dissenting reports in order to make sure that their position stood up to the scrutiny. You also make the assumption that the intelligence community operates independently of the Bush administration when in fact the Bush administration had considerable influence in shaping what kind of intelligence was actually produced.

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
Your scenario is just as unlikely as the "lying" scenario put forth by HarmlessRabbit. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

You say "Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would)." I would strongly dispute this point. If they were being responsible, they would have looked even more closely at the dissenting reports in order to make sure that their position stood up to the scrutiny. You also make the assumption that the intelligence community operates independently of the Bush administration when in fact the Bush administration had considerable influence in shaping what kind of intelligence was actually produced.

*sigh*

Why do I feel that no one is reading a word of what I've said?

maximusveritas · 04-04-2004, 01:18 PM

I read what you said, but frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed this in my first post.
President Bush is the only President of the United States. Regardless of what anyone else said, Democrat or Republican, it was President Bush who led us into this war. It was his responsibility.
I don't understand why you feel the need to turn this into a partisan political discussion. This is about President Bush. It's time he and his supporters start taking responsibility instead of pushing it onto others and saying "well, Clinton/the Dems did it too". It's irrelevant.

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
I read what you said, but frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed this in my first post.
President Bush is the only President of the United States. Regardless of what anyone else said, Democrat or Republican, it was President Bush who led us into this war. It was his responsibility.
I don't understand why you feel the need to turn this into a partisan political discussion. This is about President Bush. It's time he and his supporters start taking responsibility instead of pushing it onto others and saying "well, Clinton/the Dems did it too". It's irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant.

The charge is specifically that Powell, Bush, etc. were lying.

If anything, yours is the partisan position while I am trying to point out that:

a) nothing happens in a vacuum (i.e. there is always more than a simple black and white answer) and

b) the charge ignores what has been going on for the last 20 years or so in Iraq.

Of course the president is ultimately responsible for what happens during his administration, but the repeated mantra of "Liar Liar Liar" is nothing more than mudslinging.

maximusveritas · 04-04-2004, 01:38 PM

Well, I personally never made the charge that Bush and Co. were lying and neither did the original poster, mrbuck12000. In fact, I made a point of putting down the charge that SF made and later tried to point out that the truth was somewhere in the middle.

Lebell · 04-04-2004, 01:43 PM

I agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it seemed to me that you were refuting Dragonlich when he made that same argument.

And something else that occured to me, it is exceedingly unlikely that they were knowingly lying for one simple reason: if they were lying and knew Saddam didn't have WMD's, once we were in Iraq it would become apparent that they were lying. Hence, I feel very safe in saying that Bush and Blair fully expected to find WMD's because otherwise the political fallout would be overwhelming, as we've seen.

maximusveritas · 04-04-2004, 01:57 PM

well, i thought Dragonlich was trying to endorse a counter-scenario in which the Bush administration acted in completely good faith and did everything right, though on re-reading it, i may have misread it before.
You are definitely right on your second point and that's exactly why i don't believe they lied. Of course, some of the anti-war people will now say they knew all along there were no weapons, but that's BS. They never knew it, they were guessing, based on the info they had. Likewise, the Bush administration gave their best guess. What I question is whether or not they really considered all the information available in developing this best guess, or if they started with a guess and then asked for information to back it up. I don't know which is true, but perhaps this commission will shed some light on it.

HarmlessRabbit · 04-04-2004, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
*sigh*

Why do I feel that no one is reading a word of what I've said?

Well, here in San Jose it's 70 degrees and the sky is blue, so for me Weapons Trailers seem a bit irrelevant right now.

Superbelt · 04-05-2004, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
What then do you say to the fact that every Democrat, including Clinton and Gore, was saying the same thing, i.e. that Saddam had WMD's?

Were they "lying" too?

Quote:

President Clinton (1998): "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."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 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."

Said in 1998, months before we engaged in Operation Desert Fox to rid Iraq of WMD. Operation now seen as a success

Quote:

In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 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."

In January 2003, Kerry added, "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."

Going off of the best available intelligence, which was provided to them through Presidential Channels. Why shouldn't they trust what the President says? Why should we believe he would lead us astray.
(except, now we know that Bush had a hardon for attacking Iraq since the day he took office and was going to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading.)

Lebell · 04-05-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Going off of the best available intelligence, which was provided to them through Presidential Channels. Why shouldn't they trust what the President says? Why should we believe he would lead us astray.
(except, now we know that Bush had a hardon for attacking Iraq since the day he took office and was going to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading.)

Well, I confess that's a twist I haven't heard before.

So your contention is that they believed Saddam had WMD's because Bush told them so?

smooth · 04-05-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Well, I confess that's a twist I haven't heard before.

So your contention is that they believed Saddam had WMD's because Bush told them so?

I'm surprised you haven't heard this before. I thought it was made pretty clear that current proclamations, from both parties, were based on information gathered and disseminated by the administration.

This has always been my understanding of the situation.

I can't speak to statements before 2000. I was under the impression that most people felt that containment was working; that is, most weapons were destroyed, much of what was left was unusable, and the remainder was being sorted out by inspectors.

Superbelt · 04-05-2004, 01:00 PM

Yes lebell, that is my contention. None of our congresspeople or Senators have their own intelligence agency. The ones this nation does have fall under direct authority of the President. Bush showed them the information he wanted them to see, and that, of course, was all info that would ascert his beliefs.

Where else would they have got their asertions?

fuzyfuzer · 04-06-2004, 06:38 AM

actions like this make me want powell in 08

he is just looking better and better as a candidate

Dragonlich · 04-06-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Where else would they have got their asertions?

From the various briefings the CIA and FBI would be required to give to congressional groups? The CIA is not directly controlled by the President, they strive to provide independent information. I'd say they have a moral responsibility (at the very least) to provide congress with accurate information.

But then again, I could be wrong. I've only seen the CIA chief talk to the intelligence committees after the war.

Superbelt · 04-06-2004, 09:59 AM

I believe, as commander-in-chief all intelligence agencies serve the President. Bush has the power of appointment to each agency as well.
They strive to provide indepenent info, but I believe the President makes the call on whether info can be released or not, even to Congress.

Additionally Cheney was set up as the head of Iraqi Intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. His creation in the Pentagon, The Office of Special Plans was used to directly collect all other intelligence agencies data so it could be fed to the appropriate outlets, like congress.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...cs/7859310.htm

Quote:

Those efforts bypassed normal channels, used Iraqi exiles and defectors of questionable reliability, and produced findings on former dictator Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaida and his illicit arms programs that were disputed by analysts at the CIA, the State Department and other agencies, the officials said.

Otherwise the Iraq War vote would not have gone smoothly as it did. Tenet had plenty of information, which has been coming out since we went to war, that directly refuted each claim Bush was making about Iraqi wmd.

Lebell · 04-06-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Yes lebell, that is my contention. None of our congresspeople or Senators have their own intelligence agency. The ones this nation does have fall under direct authority of the President. Bush showed them the information he wanted them to see, and that, of course, was all info that would ascert his beliefs.

Where else would they have got their asertions?

Actually, the CIA, NSA, etc. report as much to the Senate and House intelligence committees as much as to the president.

Lebell · 04-06-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I believe, as commander-in-chief all intelligence agencies serve the President. Bush has the power of appointment to each agency as well.
They strive to provide indepenent info, but I believe the President makes the call on whether info can be released or not, even to Congress.

Additionally Cheney was set up as the head of Iraqi Intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. His creation in the Pentagon, The Office of Special Plans was used to directly collect all other intelligence agencies data so it could be fed to the appropriate outlets, like congress.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...cs/7859310.htm

Otherwise the Iraq War vote would not have gone smoothly as it did. Tenet had plenty of information, which has been coming out since we went to war, that directly refuted each claim Bush was making about Iraqi wmd.

Actually that isn't quite true.

As I mentioned above, they also report directly to congress.

Also, the president nominates the heads and seconds for the agencies, but Congress approves them.

Superbelt · 04-06-2004, 02:37 PM

Ok, but still, Cheney was filtering all Iraqi Intelligence through his Office of Special Plans.

04-03-2004, 09:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	In other words, they knew there were no weapons, they always knew there were none, the WMD were lies, and now the CIA are going to be blamed rather than the liars. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-03-2004, 04:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Oh My.....what a suprise. Maybe the Powell I used to respect is shining through. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

04-03-2004, 09:40 PM	#9 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	The specific claim is and always has been lies. Continuing to point out 'mistakes' or lack of substantiation of the governments claims, whether bush, cheney, powell, clinton, albright, or other and calling them lies, especially when someone comes forward again, and fesses up to the mistake or failures is disengenous at best. They might have been lies, who knows. The trail goes back so far. A cabinet member confessing that he was mistaken (or misled or misinformed, possibly even misguided), is not proof of lies. It supports mistakes, and only proves the quality of the man owning up to the mistakes. If it's simply a mistake, it seems the only way we found out about it was to go and look for ourselves. Wouldn't you agree? I still maintain they will turn up in Syria, and in time for the election. Time will tell. I will be humbled to admit as much should I be mistaken. It won't make me a liar. To keep to the light hearted nature of the ribbing presented: Hero indeed If I measured statesmen by the perjuries committed, impeachments imposed, and disbarrments assest. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. Last edited by j8ear; 04-03-2004 at 10:07 PM..

04-04-2004, 06:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Once again, unless you know what each individual was thinking and what they knew to be the truth when they made those statements, they can't be called lies. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

04-04-2004, 01:43 PM	#26 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it seemed to me that you were refuting Dragonlich when he made that same argument. And something else that occured to me, it is exceedingly unlikely that they were knowingly lying for one simple reason: if they were lying and knew Saddam didn't have WMD's, once we were in Iraq it would become apparent that they were lying. Hence, I feel very safe in saying that Bush and Blair fully expected to find WMD's because otherwise the political fallout would be overwhelming, as we've seen. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-03-2004, 11:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Its not that they knew there were no weapons. That's simply not the issue here. They probably did believe that weapons would be found, just as many others in Washington, including Democrats, believed. But as the President of the United States, it was Bush's responsibility to make damn sure that he knew Iraq had WMD and was a threat to our nation; sure enough to justify the deaths of each and every soldier who has died in this war. Powell now says our evidence might not have been solid. He should have found that out before we decided to put our troops in harm's way. He says he made sure they were "multi-sourced", but he never made sure they were 100% accurate. He and the administration are going to try to unfairly shift their responsibility onto the intelligence community, which was repeatedly pressured by the administration to provide evidence to justify the war. As Richard Clarke has revealed, the Bush administration reaction to unfavorable intelligence was "try again". Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? After Clinton spent most of his term ducking from responsibility, I thought perhaps President Bush would change the tone in Washington and begin to accept responsibility for his actions. Instead, he has refused to even look into his mistakes, initially opposing both this commission and the 9-11 commission. President Bush says he would do it again if he had the chance, but I'd like to see him say that to all the soldiers who have died in this war, to the guys who were senselessly mutilated this week, to their families who will never see them again. Taking the country to war is a great responsibility. Unfortunately, President Bush has abused this responsibility and in my opinion has proven himself to be incapable of leading this nation.

04-04-2004, 01:18 PM	#23 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I read what you said, but frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed this in my first post. President Bush is the only President of the United States. Regardless of what anyone else said, Democrat or Republican, it was President Bush who led us into this war. It was his responsibility. I don't understand why you feel the need to turn this into a partisan political discussion. This is about President Bush. It's time he and his supporters start taking responsibility instead of pushing it onto others and saying "well, Clinton/the Dems did it too". It's irrelevant.

04-04-2004, 01:38 PM	#25 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Well, I personally never made the charge that Bush and Co. were lying and neither did the original poster, mrbuck12000. In fact, I made a point of putting down the charge that SF made and later tried to point out that the truth was somewhere in the middle.

04-04-2004, 01:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	well, i thought Dragonlich was trying to endorse a counter-scenario in which the Bush administration acted in completely good faith and did everything right, though on re-reading it, i may have misread it before. You are definitely right on your second point and that's exactly why i don't believe they lied. Of course, some of the anti-war people will now say they knew all along there were no weapons, but that's BS. They never knew it, they were guessing, based on the info they had. Likewise, the Bush administration gave their best guess. What I question is whether or not they really considered all the information available in developing this best guess, or if they started with a guess and then asked for information to back it up. I don't know which is true, but perhaps this commission will shed some light on it.

04-05-2004, 01:00 PM	#32 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes lebell, that is my contention. None of our congresspeople or Senators have their own intelligence agency. The ones this nation does have fall under direct authority of the President. Bush showed them the information he wanted them to see, and that, of course, was all info that would ascert his beliefs. Where else would they have got their asertions?

04-06-2004, 06:38 AM	#33 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	actions like this make me want powell in 08 he is just looking better and better as a candidate __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

04-06-2004, 02:37 PM	#38 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ok, but still, Cheney was filtering all Iraqi Intelligence through his Office of Special Plans.