Bitchfest....unfortunately
 

Did Bush lie about the intelligence he used to make the case for war against Iraq? Were the Democratic Senators duped into voting to authorize the use of force... many of them in both 2002 and 1998? This is a pretty commonly held position, on TFP and elsewhere. It also doesn't make any sense.

The number of intelligence agencies reporting the same information as the CIA is staggering, thus rendering the national intelligence conspiracy into an even more moonbat global conspiracy in which even France and Germany were helping to confuse the Senate into authorizing the war. In addition to being historical revisionism at its most sinister, the "Bush lied" argument is also so implausable as to be impossible.

I happened upon this Christopher Hitchens (hardly a Republican) article in which the "Bush lied" theory is thoroughly debunked. It is difficult, after having read it, to understand why so many otherwise credible liberals have been duped into supporting an argument that is so obviously untrue.

A selection:

Link

Probably not, because "lie" assumes that the liar actually is aware that what he is saying is untrue. It's unclear what bush is aware of at any given time. His handlers could probably convince him that Santa Ana's forces are back at the Texan border lobbing cannonballs at the Alamo again.

I think you'll find that the force used was different in 1998 from 2002. There is a difference between a surgical strike and a protracted, full scale invasion. The intelligence that is necessary to justify one is considerably more substantial and convincing than the intelligence necessary to justify the other.

I don't recall anybody proposing a worldwide intelligence conspiracy. That would be crazy. What people are saying is that the intelligence that was presented to Congress was chosen selectively and selectively redacted in order to bolster the case for a long-term, full-scale invasion of the country. That charge is certainly very plausible given the way things work in Washington. In fact it would be naive to think that wasn't done, given the way the Administration works in general.

I believe that the above statements are probably true and that those claiming that they were duped are just playing politics. In no way do I think that they are idiots, just hypocrites, like most polititians.

I think they're both. Regardless of whether the Right, the Left, France and Germany said it was the right thing is kind of irrelevant to me. The bottom line is that there were no WMDs and the people who are responsible for sending us to Iraq either need to make heads spin at the intelligence agencies and/or need to be voted out due to their incompetence or lieing.

Yes they are all liars and hypocrites, but this shouldn't be used to vindicate the bad decisions of Iraq.

I don't think that Bush lied because as was said above that would imply some sort of awareness of what is actually true. I also think that this isn't going as far as you believe people are taking it. However, there is one criticism from the left with which i would agree, the fact that he acted on wrong information shows clear lack of good judgment. I say this even though i believe that he was probably mislead by intelligence, no matter what intelligence you have, unless you have a clear and immediate threat, you shouldn't go to war. It is not good judgment to act on supposition no matter from how many people you hear it from. Perhaps, a counter argument is that they truly believed it to be fact, maybe, but i am reminded of a phrase, "The buck stops here", so whether or not it was Bush’s fault he will have to take the blame because ultimately it is his decision and his responsibility.

I think that in our desperation to distract attention from the fact that republicans have screwed this country we're forgetting what that vote actually was.

The vote was to give Bush the authority to invade IF (this is the important part) if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions

Well Mr. Hussein couldn't very well refuse to give up weapons he didn't have now could he? In fact, he finally even said fine, come in and look, you won't find any here. And he was right. So the conditions for war were not met, yet we went to war anyway.

Sorry, but the blame lies squarely on the war's architects. The only thing the democrats did wrong was to trust the white house not to put us into a war we shouldn't be in. And I'll hand you that one - that should have been a no-brainer not to trust in that.

It's simple why so many Dems now claim to have been "duped": it's politically beneficial. The war and police action are largely unpopular now (due largely to the efforts of liberals, and the horrendous mishandling of the police action portion), so political capital is to be gained by being against it. Now, saying "In retrospect, it was a bad idea" might work when dealing with logical people, but that's not the case here. You have to make it look like it wasn't your fault that you supported an unpopular military action. And the best way of doing that is to claim you were misled. And bonus points are to be had by making the opposition look bad by being the ones who were misleading the poor, naive democratic senators.

The title of this thread is just asking for a flame war.....

Now we know what the true democrat objective is...Surrender
The democrats would rather the US lose in Iraq so that bush loses than to have victory in iraq. We make progress everyday. Everyday we are another step closer. but democrats want us to pull out now. At least they are comming clean with their true agenda. Finally.

You know it's funny. I was born in 1983, but I know that a great deal of the 60s happened because of not only hatered towards the republicans, but dissapointment and anger towards the democrats for playing republican's games. I know at least some of the people in the TFP comunity were actually involved in the civil rights movement of the 60s. I invite them to share their opinions about the democrats during the civil rights movement.

Well, it's not as reprehensible as the act of misleading is in the first place. SO if it turns out to be true, then I expect Cheney to lead the charge for impeachment.

politicophile, I appreciated your candid/personal comments in response to my post concerning your thoughts about military service as a priority of those who voted for another four years of Bush-Cheney.

My point, which you did not specifically respond to, (and the theme of the majority of my posts on this forum) is that they would not still be doing what is described, (lie to, and mislead the American people in critical, national security matters, and much, much, more, unfortunately) in the following compilation of excerpts from Cheney's statements, if not for your vote, and the votes of other, likeminded folks.

My father served in the USMC and was of the opinion, in the late '60's that Vietnam was a "great training exercise" for our troops. I've never had a concern, in matters of war, anyway, whether I am too much, "my father's son". My gut feeling about the legitimacy and the outcome of the Vietnam war was dead on, and it was the same when it came to my early sense of Nixon's integrity and fate. I've had the same sense of Bush-Cheney and their policy of pre-emption.

My political, social, and moral leanings are decidedly my own. The best advice that I can offer anyone is to make sure that theirs are, too.

Your motivation for starting this thread is an indication that you still don't "get" it. Bush-Cheney reflect badly on you, politicophile, on your judgment, your sense of right and wrong. By your endorsement, you acted, and appear to still be acting, against your own best interests, and against mine....and those of all other Americans, and countless others in the world.

What is it that you think that you are doing? How do your justify your vote and your continuing, vocal support? If you are behind these guys and what they are doing, why have you not posted on the "Can You Tell Me Some Bush Positives?" thread?

Consider the possibility that your parents' and other's opinions you hold in high regard, are faulty, insofar as their support of Bush-Cheney. Try to sort out how you come by your politics and principles. Have you truly questioned everything that you have embraced as doctrine? Is it not a concern that, in political and social issues, your personal views might mesh too neatly with those who have had the greatest influence on you, up until now?

Consider that, being of optimum age for the physical rigors and pliability of will that military service demands, you have an obligation, because you voted for more of Bush-Cheney's version of "war-time leadership", and their version of "integrity", to join and to serve in America's armed forces ASAP.
Don't make the mistake of postponing your decision to serve proudly, only to regret it for the rest of your life, as ustwo related to us.
If not you.....who? If not now....when?
The evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice made intentionally misleading statements in the "run-up" to the invasion of Iraq. The record above, of Cheney's own statements, strongly indicated that he made a false denial, regarding the critical matter of a statement that he had made earlier; that is still displayed on the white house website, that affirmed a link between an Iraqi under Saddam's control and the man accused by our government of leading the 9/11 suicide airliner attacks.

Cheney disgraces himself every day that he continues to "serve". Cheney and Bush hold power by the simple technique of repeating the same lies, "often enough". If you believe that it is permissible for them to lie about the reassons for invading Iraq, how do you discern when they've stopped lying.
politicophile, your premise and the content of your thread starter speak for themselves. You cannot see that they've lied and betrayed our trust. Now they attempt to impugn the testimony, and by inference, the reputations of good men who challenge them. You champion their betrayal on this page.

Cheney's "speech" last night, preceded by the exchange above with news reporter, Gloria Borger, the recent indictment of his COS and NS advisor, Libby, and Bush's shameful and unprecedented use of troops at two military bases as "prop" audiences for his partisan, political attacks, disguised as "speeches", ought to be enough to at least give you pause, politicophile....
but they haven't!

Oh, not if he has anything to do with it, he won't! The new talking point is: Everything that's going wrong is the fault of Democrats in Congress. Looks like politicophile has swallowed the bait whole, too. Look out, p'phile! Bush is reeling you in!

Yessir, those eeevil Senate Democrats, rewriting history like that! Not like the administration ever did that!

Sorry, no: the administration didn't rewrite history. They rewrote the present over and over and over again. Their justification for the war shifted every month, and it was like, "WMDs? What WMDs. We never said we were there because of WMDs. WM what, now?"

A) Classic right-wing argumentation tactics. You're putting words in their mouth. Nobody said "surrender". You said that. And notice that Cheney pulls out the Cheney-style Cheneyisms and jumps straight to ad hominem about these no good wimpy, weak jerks who disagree with him. He doesn't actually discuss the points they raise at all, he just goes to name-calling. In case you're not familiar with it, ad hominem is what's known as a "logical fallacy". Look it up. If that article you quoted were a high school debate, he'd lose.

B) At this point, it looks like our options are to leave or to lose. Which do you prefer? Did you read the article you quoted? If so, are you advising keeping our troops in Iraq even though their presence is actually a destabilizing influence? We don't need a "surrender" or a humiliating loss in Iraq to make it look bad for Bush. News flash: IT ALREADY LOOKS BAD FOR BUSH. Now the more sensible members of congress are trying to keep it from becoming a bigger disaster than it already is. They're actually trying hard to save his ass. Where's the gratitude, I ask you?

jesus--so now every thread posted by a conservative here has to work from deep within the vacuum created by conservative talking points on a given issue?

feel your politics crumbling, support leaking away, the sense of coherence imploding, the quasi-divien status of the Leader tarnished?
had a bad year at the political office?

well, pretend it isnt happening----try to control damage in the tiny spaces where you imagine it possible by working to frame problems away at the level of terms of debate. maybe if you repeat conservative talking points often enough you might even be able to convince yourself that there is some degree of legitimacy--intellectual, political, ethical--in them.
but, of course, you'd be wrong.

the explanations for this kind of thing are more obviously psychological than anything else.

the new move, trotted out over the weekend by both cowboy george and his vp. is so thoroughly bankrupt, even by the low standards one would normally apply to rightwing ideology, as to almost defy belief. the administration "shapes" or "structures" intel in a directions wholly consistent with neocon political aspirations articulated repeatedly since the first gulf war and not in a direction consistent with actual facts---they give this information to a wholly spineless congress (our "representatives" in this farce of a pseudo-democracy) which, as a body, chooses to not interrogate the material but rather to go along with the bush agenda. this in direct contradiction of the clinton administrations general view of the situation in iraq--that sanctions were working--and despite the unsc rejection of the pile of falsehoods that colin powell had to elaborate before them---there is plenty of blame to go around in this one--the iraq war could engdanger the entire political class, both rightwing parties, etc.

but whatever, at this point, there is no doubt about how this happened. the distortions of information that was assumed to provide an adequate view of the situation in iraq by a bizarrely credulous congress--these distortions were generated within the administration, by the administration--congress fell for it in a context that even in 2001 provided that body with no excuse to do so--now the administration is trying to argue that the fault lay not with the information but with congress and that critics of this entire charade are simply trying to undermine troop morale. this line is so wholly based in denial that it is hard to know where to even start taking it apart--that is is seen as compelling by anyone, anywhere is a sad sad commentary on the ways in which the folk who swim about in conservativeland deal with the conflict between reality and their preferred fantasies about reality.

if the american system were anything like a democracy, the bush administration would undoubtedly already have fallen to a vote of no confidence. but this is amurica and so all of us are stuck with these people for another 3 years. i am not sure how they are going to manage to undo the damage that their actions have inflicted upon themselves, upon the american state, upon the country. i am not sure how they plan to actually govern from such a position. i frankly do not see how it is possible. which is not good.

but let's assume that somehow, through the various layers of denial, that some kind of problems are actually registering in bushworld--what could be the function of attacking the legislature? what is being defended--the integrity of executive as over against representative power? the positing of a "strong Leader" that has no need for the messiness of actual democratic process? how else to even begin to make sense, from the tactical viewpoint, of the administration's new line on the war in iraq?

since this tack cannot be understood as rational on its own terms, maybe the way to think about it is as a tactic. what are the bushpeople doing?

I dont know why we even allow threads like this. Even the title is nothing more then flamebait

This thread, your article, is nothing more then an attept to polarize the board once again into partisan bickering. Don't we have enough threads with the implied title "democrats and replublicans fight here"?

Might I suggest that they can be neither hypocrites NOR idiots?

A senator can approach the facts presented and say yes.. If those facts are true, then we must act. A senator should not have to second guess the govenment and have those facts proved. (And I dont care what the rest of the world thought, and neither did the senators, they wanted proof from thier govenment). Once the facts were proved false, and the methods for getting those facts were questioned, it is a senator's job to question the actions after those facts.

Therefore they are not hypocrites, nor idiots.. They are serving thier people, and thier country

You know, if I were a country wanting to weaken the US economy, the credibility of the country not just around the world but at home and I wanted to weaken them militarily....... I'd just use counter espionage and show them anything they wanted to cause them to war with a country.

In otherwords..... say country "A" knows that we are watching Iraq for WMD's. They plant all kinds of evidence that says the WMD's are there. The first president just bombs and doesn't do much, the second president, who is looking for reasons, is more compliant and accepting to the false information I am giving out.

So seemingly to Congress, the President and everyone the evidence and cause is there on the surface. The President just chose not to dig deep enough to see what the truth was.

The US goes to war, the deficit skyrockets and I am sitting on a pile of US dollars waiting for the right minute to dump them onto the market and demand payment of their trade debts to me.

Not to mention I have created all kinds of domestic unrest and finger pointing. Of course, I had my good friends who cared far more about power than the people and the truth blindly going down the maze I loaded.

Sound absurd? As I have been studying the deficit (both national and trade) I am running across all kinds of info about the Chinese, Japanese, European Central Bank, Gates, Buffett and so on already leaving the Dollar for the Euro.

The debt is coming due and IMHO, the scenario I just gave you as paranoid as it sounds.... maybe more realistic than you care or want to believe......

Time will tell. I pray I am wrong.

I'm switching some of my savings over to Euro. I'm tired of seeing my hard earned money lose value.

We know that very few high ranking US politicains are innocent in all of this mess. Trying to imply that the democrats need to be put under a microscope over this is a waste of time. Let's put our priorities straight. Where did this misinformation come from? Well, Host was kind enough to share links that proved that Cheny lied about Iraq having connections to 9/11. That is solid proof. Cheny said yes, then Cheny said no. Bush continues to use "9/11" in his speaches about Iraq. Did Democrats make them say those things? Are John Kerry and severl democratic members of congress standing just out of camera range with guns and teleprompters?

No, this thread is not flamebait, nor is it intended as such.

The dichotomy is clear: either Bush intentionally lied or he didn't.

Possibility 1: If Bush didn't know that the intelligence was false, then the Democrats are hypocritically faulting Bush for being misled for intelligence that also misled (at the very least) the vast majority of Senate Democrats, not to mention France, Germany, and the United Nations. It wouldn't make any sense to hold the President accountable in this situation because EVERYONE was misled.

Possibility 2: The President did know the intelligence was false. He intentionally misled the Senate into believing that Saddam had WMD's even though Bush knew that there were no WMD's. If this is the case, the Democrats, along with every employee of the intelligence agencies in a half dozen countries, are idiots because they were duped by Bush into believing that their intelligence showed something that it did not. Are we really willing to allege that Bush fabricated the NSA intelligence, the CIA intelligence, the French intelligence, the German intelligence, etc. etc?

It is obvious at this juncture that Bush didn't know that the intelligence was flawed. There simply is no conceivable was in which he could have fooled all those agencies. For this reason, one must conclude that Bush didn't know, couldn't have known, that the intelligence was flawed. Thus, the Democrats' recent complaints about being misled by the intelligence cannot in any way be used to fault Bush, who clearly was equally misled.

I just think both sides need to let it go. The war was fucked up, the reason we went was wrong, and it is becoming a money pit and a serious albatross hanging around the neck of the country choking us all.

There would be no loss of "face" asking other countries and the U.N. to help us stabilize the country and get out of there.

In fact that would be the wisest of choices.

What we need to ask is how our intelligence got so fucked up that we believed false information given to us.

The finger pointing continues, the debts mount and China, Japan, Euro and everyone else holding our debt are waiting...... biding their time, making sure that other markets are open ........

The debt and who owns it and what they are going to do with it should be our biggest concern.

Sad but true. Its about party, not country.

Obviously, neither one of you bothered to actually read Murtha's speech. It is so much simpler to condemn the man based only on his party identification.

For those that would wish to form their own opinion, the following is a transcript of his speech. Stevo, please point out where he recommends surrender. Ustwo, where do you find that this man puts party before our soldiers.

Progress every day

Same amount of US soldiers killed in attacks.. No less resistance from insurgents.. oh, and now we're finding that the new Iraqi govenment is torturing prisoners themselves! Great. At least they're not beheading them (as if thats a valid excuse).

Leaving a quagmire is one of the only valid options. Its like quicksand.. Or vietnam.. you get out before it turns even worse.

ustwo.....I am not asking that you post anything earthshattering...such as Cheney vehemently denying to a reporter....his own prior quote related to a key intelligence matter....related to his rationale for going to war....his denial of his own words....a declaration that is attributed to him on the white house website.....buy I so feel that it is not unreasonable to request that you raise the bar as to the substance...the level of quality of your posts on politics threads.

this thread is a complete troll and i hate feeding the trolls but I have to say something.

The 2nd premise that dems are idiots if their were duped and it is their fault that they didn't check the evidences validity is very similar to saying well that girl deserved to get raped because she was wearing skimpy clothes and got drunk at a frat party.

We should be very careful about making arguments/points that blame victims for someone else taking advantage of them.

I think a more fitting analogy is a girl who falls for a man's lines, sleeps with him willingly, and afterwards cries rape when she realizes what she did.

The man might be scum, but the woman is culpable as well.

thanks for the subject edit Tecoyah - I've editted accordingly

i don't think that analgy fits quiet right either. Maybe a better one would be something along the lines of a car salesman pitches a sale with false advertising and makes claims about how good the car is and someone buys it and then finds out it is a lemon. They complain and the salesman says it's your fault that you took everything I said at face value to bad for you. The salesman is scum and many states have laws against such practice (lemon laws).

on no. 18: this dichtomoy is ridiculous. the fact of the matter is quite simple: the administration cooked intel about the situation in iraq. period. as the head of the administration, george w. bush is responsible for the actions of his administration. and don't think for a minute that any other administration would have undertaken the war in iraq--it had nothing to do with 9/11/2001, was and remains a tragic nonsequitor---and because this administration chose to follow this policy, launch and pursue this war, then its chief
must take the fall for it.

the right's new tack--presenting bush as some kind of victim in this--is passive voice taken to a surreal conclusion ("mistakes were made"--remember reagan's heroic use of this phrasing?)--you would think that the political organization that spends so much time blathering about personal responsibility when it suits their purposes would not be falling for this nonsense.

just goes to show an old point: the contemporary far right talks about personal responsibility only when it applies to other people. for themselves--as self-appointed representatives of god, presumably----anything goes.

no-one can possibly take the argument that opened this thread, the title of the thread, of politicophile's attempt to recapitulate the same thing in no. 18 seriously.
there is nothing to take seriously.

the concerns raised by this, however--another 3 years of this horrifying administration--the question of how they intend to govern given the blowback from their previous choices--for which no-one and nothing is responsible but this administration---are real. and i genuinely wonder about the motivation behind the administration's line that it began to trot out over the weekend.

That's the best anaolgy I've seen yet for this situation. The 'car salesperson', a.k.a. those who lied, are ultimatally responsible. It's a shame that the dems were dooped, but let's remember what devious disputant was doing the dooping. Doobie doobie.

Neither statement is true and Bush certainly knows it. Let's begin with "Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war." If you don't wish to read the following article in full, I have highlighted the important points.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705L.shtml

Just to make certain we are all on the same page, let me repeat the most important point of this article: "It was enormously telling, in fact, that the only part of the Senate which did see the un-sanitized National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq-the Republican-led Senate Select Intelligence Committee-shockingly voted in the fall of 2002 against the simple authorization of force demanded by a Republican President. Panicked, the warmongers in the White House and Pentagon pressured CIA Director George Tenet to rush release to the entire Hill a very short "summary" of the careful NIE, which made Hussein seem incalculably more dangerous than the whole report indicated.

Clearly, Bush is lying or, at the very least, intentionally misleading the public. That is "willful misrepresentation" today, but I will first need to dig through my "trash" to address this lie: "Independent commissions have concluded that there was no willful misrepresentation."

Elphaba, can you please go here and tell me how those same Senators voted on the same bill in the full Senate? Also, I can't find an actual record of the vote within the committee.

All I've found is that the current committee, which obviously has slightly different membership than the one back then, approved the bill by a vote of 10-4, with three Democrats voting in favor of it.

If it turns out that the Intelligence Committee members voted against the use of force, I would be inclined to change my mind about my original post.

Politico, that is a great link and all I can give you at the moment is a guess on my part. The president's request for authority was revisited and the admin produced more, but still slanted, data, after the intelligence committee balked. You do realize that the intelligence committee could not share what intelligence they knew with their fellow senate colleagues?

My net research skills are pathetic. Is there anyone else here that can chase this pup, or at least determine whether intelligence committee votes/opinions are public record?

If possible, I'd like to see both the committee vote AND how those committee members voted on the floor of the Senate. My link above goes to the floor vote, but I don't know who the members of the Intelligence Committee were back then...

I appreciate everyone's help with this, as Elphaba's article was (disturbing) news to me.

You might want to check what the Euro's done lately.

That analogy only works if every car lot that competes with yours tells you that the car is a good one.

Then lies about doing so after you buy it.

Ok, Politico...I'm back to address the second statement: "Independent commissions have concluded that there was no willful misrepresentation."

To my knowledge, there has only been one commission, the 9/11 bipartisan report that didn't find willful misrepresentation. Phase II of the senate intelligence investigative committee to determine if there was willful misrepresentation was put on hold until after the 2004 election and needed a kick-start recently. Roberts' has tried another delaying tactic by requesting the Pentagon to investigate, which should take us beyond the 2006 mid-term elections.

The following article speaks to that issue as well as other misrepresentations:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111505G.shtml

I doubt that any information that I am able to post will change your "mind". I've spent more than a year here trying to raise awareness that members here that are far less right leaning than you show yourself to be.....
do not, in fact, "know" what they are adament about assuming that they "know". You have been programmed, as another poster or two to this thread has already pointed out, to you.

But.....here goes:
(In October, 2002, democrats comprised the senate majortity and chaired senate committees, owing to Sen. Jefford's defection from republican party ranks, to an independent party status. The chairman of the senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham of Florida, voted "nay" on resolution H.J. Res. 114, on October 11, 2002, in the 77 to 23, full senate vote, along with four other democrats on that committee........)

Patriots Graham and Levin tried to stop what was essentially a similar, Rovesque, propaganda "Op", to the one
that you appear to have succumbed to, now, politicophile...the "democrats are attempting to re-write history
BS, an "Op" which is a successor to the "Wilson's wife sent him to Niger", "Op", which is a successor of the "Iraqi WMDs/stop Saddam before he can produce a "mushroom cloud" in U.S. skies", "Op".

The difference today is that in October, 2002, Bush was not limited to speaking only to "prop" audiences of troops at secure locations, such as on military bases, where legitimate and vocal protests of outraged citizens can be kept out of the background of the view of TV cameras. Read about the pressure of polling data on democrats in the federal legislature who might have contemplated the mounting of a counter argument to the Bush-Cheney war "Op".
Read about the effort that Senators Graham and Levin expended in the attmept, blunted by the white house, to insure
that all in the house and the senate could read the classified NIE that they had read........
You fell for the propaganda "Op" that snared votes for Bush_Cheney a year ago, politicophile, and you've fallen for this new one.....hook, line, and sinker, it seems from your creation, titling, and the content that you've posted on this thread. You've ignored the hard news reports that I've posted on this same matter, on other threads. (edited out comments related to the objectionable nature of the thread title) Be of your own mind and question everything that they tell you. Learn to think and to act in your own best interest.

I have changed the thread title....as it was most definately designed to create a flame war. If Host and Politicophile truly want to get this out of their collective systems....I recommend you two beat each other up in a thread designed specifically for that purpose. Its all good and fine to debate issue, that is what this forum is for, bit when I note things getting personal it becomes difficult to let things go without intervention.

We have two options:

Ignore function
Adult interaction

You dont want to see the third option

*Note:If it would help....I will make a Moderated thread just for you two to Duke it out

The Congress did not have access to the same information that the President did. His daily briefings are *way* more detailed and Congress does not have access to them.

The new thread title I think deserves a little more than my original flip response . . .

Bush is the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Regardless of how ignorant and pliable and biased he is, regardless of his ability to convince himself of the gospel truth of just about anything he wants to believe about "how the world works," regardless of how manipulated he is and has been by his staff and handlers, regardless of how complex the desiderata are on the question of whether to go to war, how impossible it is to make a final calculus that involves the potential great loss of life, including innocent life -- nevertheless he, the leader of the free world, Commander in Chief, must take full, 100% responsibility for anything done in the name of his office.

The truth is, as host, Elphaba, and others have I think convincingly pointed out in this thread and others: his office deliberately attempted to deceive Congress, the American public, and the world about the magnitude of the threat posed by Hussein. And he did so in order to rationalize the launching of a major war of aggression and occupation by U.S. forces that has resulted in the deaths of over 2000 soldiers and the dismemberment of maybe another 40,000.

Now you can say, and you would be right, that this is no surprise, this is the way things work in Washington. Everybody is duping everybody else, baiting and switching, obfuscating, shaming, grandstanding, exaggerating, polemicizing etc. in order to compete for a piece of the political pie. That's how it works, and both sides do it all the time, are doing it as I type, were doing it 200 years ago and will be doing it 200 years after we're gone.

BUT . . . . one would hope, that when the stakes are this high, we would know that we need to come together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, as fathers, sons, daughters with common cause, as a family, as a united nation, and drop the charade and political one-upmanship, drop the duping and granstanding, the politics as usual, and make a decision as momentous as this, with complete honesty, forthrightness, integrity, with everything laid out on the table, with TOTAL respect for everyone's informed point of view regardless of past squabbles, regardless of what side of what issue anyone was on at any other time.

Bush's office was completely incapable of doing this. He, our leader, could not be trusted to be honest and forthright. Any arguments about, technically, whether he "lied" or not, is like Clinton arguing about the definition of "sex". The fact is that this presidency has shown itself, when it matters the most, when lives are at stake, when our international reputation and integrity is on the wire, when we most need to come together as a people, to be not worth our trust.

So yes, the president is responsible. Yes, this is a shameful indictment of both his office and his person. And yes, the vice president is correct, this is "reprehensible".

I think they both (dems and republicans) simply CHOSE to believe questionable data. Given how many other world leaders and intelligence agencies outside the US looked at the same or similar data and said "Ah, that's a little thin there boys", I think this is clear.

~excellent post raveneye~

Bush and Cheney are getting quite shrill these days in their response to criticism, but they have yet to address anything that is not a straw man representation of that critique. That criticism needs to continue until they're willing to give solid answers to the actual questions posed on their office. I'm not holding my breath.

You could not make that statement if you read and considered what is contained in my last two posts. A quick synopsis distills my conclusion to the following....(you hail from Canada, hence you may not have fully considered the contents of my posts...I know that they are lengthy...)

1.) The chairman of the senate intelligence committee in 2002, democrat Bob Graham, along with his colleague, committee member, senator Carl Levin made a concerted and vocal effort to provide access to the ambiguity contained in the secret version of the NIE that members of the committee were privy to reading, but their effort was blocked by the white house.

2.) Graham and Levin, faced off against a blistering, and very successful, propaganda "Op" that was widely and repetitively broadcast by Bush, Cheney, et al, while they were exploiting a post 9/11 level of popular support that, two months after the 77 to 23 senate vote for the war resolution, topped at
91 percent of Americans believing the BS in the "Op" rehtoric.

3.) Graham and Levin, and three other democrats who served on the senate intelligence committee vote nay on the Oct. 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to use force against Iraq, as he saw fit. It is well documented in my posts that they voted nay because the white house blocked their efforts to allow all legislators access to the classified versions of the reports and to the testimony of senior intelligence officials that the chairman and the members of the intelligence committee were privy to.

4.) A core purpose of house of rep. and senate intelligence committees is to restrict who has access to classified material contained in briefings and testimony from intelligence agencies and from the executive branch. There are 535 total senators and congressmen. By restricting access to the most sensitive information to four people in the legislature....the chairmen and ranking members of the house and the senate intelligence committees, and then restricting access of other classified information and testimony to members of the two committees, who, in total, number less than 30 legislators, there can be much more control of leaks, via the less difficult task of tracking and holding just 30 legislators accountable.

5.) One of the strategic hallmarks of Bush-Cheney "Ops" related to deceit about matters of national security is that they control what is classified, and what is not. They have classified more documents during their tenure than they have allowed open access to. During their propaganda "Op", like the one accusing democrats of "re-writing history", that is ongoing now, and during the "Wilson's CIA wife sent him to Niger and that's nepotism" "Op", these thugs rely on the fact that they can make any accusation that they chose and their targets cannot disclose classified details as a means of refuting the propaganda. It works very effectively against Bush-Cheney political opposition.

6.) Bush-Cheney exploited the 9/11 attacks and the "war president" propaganda to execute an "end run" around the demands of Graham and Levin that an open debate with exposure of all of the ambiguity contained in intelligence analysis, be conducted in the house and the senate. They used the fruit of the success of their well co-ordinated campaign of hysteria that was ramped up to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, as poltical muscle that existed because of the misguided support of deliberately misinformed Americans. <b>Now, they have the unmitigated gall to launch an "Op" that attempts to spread the BS that all senators in 2002 reviewed the "same intelligence that we reviewed".</b>

Convincingly to YOU, not to those of us who don't agree with your assesment.

For an evil neo-con like me, I don't really care, I would have supported the action to remove Saddam reguardless, but I saw no deception. Either the 12 years of intel was wrong or right. You can look back and say 'this guy said different, and this guy said this' etc but intel is never black and white, and the big picture said Saddam was working on WMD's.

If the cronies at the New American Century hadn't laid out this scenario so precisely in advance it just wouldn't smell as fishy to me.


Cheney and Bush are coming out as strong as they are now simply because they are down in the polls. They are spinning as fast a Rove can feed them the spin.

I have posted a record of 'this guy said different, and this guy said this' that includes MSM news reports and a copy of Tenet's letter in response to Bob Graham's Oct. 4, 2002 request for declassification, the membership list of the senate intelligence committee in the 107th congress, and the voting data of five democratice intel committee members on the Oct. 11, 2002 resolution vote.

You have me at a decided disadvantage. I am detail oriented.

I have two questions for you:

1.) What is your evidence to accompany your statement that seems to convey your support for the veracity of the current Bush-Cheney message that "democrats are attempting to re-write history" , and "they saw the same intelligence on the Iraq threat that we saw"?

2.) Do you condone the broadcast of misleading and deceiving statments by members of the administration to achieve legislative approval for the invasion of Iraq, and if so, how do you propose to control the pattern of lies and deception that is now firmly entrenched as a way of "doing business" in this executive branch? You seem to condone "turning it on" to achieve backing for foreign policy goals. It's on.....the current disinformation "Op", the shrill and shameful political rants by the CIC in front of our troops. How do you turn it off. Do you care to turn it off?

So you would rather us leave and the people that go into mosques and weddings on a daily basis, not targetting US troops, but their own countrymen, win? You would rather us withdraw today and leave these people to take over?

Do you think if we leave this will end? I don't. I think if we leave the terrorists will continue their agenda of terrorizing the iraqi people until they give in and allow a taliban-like regime to control iraq. We don't want that now, do we?

Neat. So either way, Bush is spotless? Even if he lied, it's the congressional Democrats' fault for believing it? That's nice. Come here and let me punch you in the nose and then blame you for putting your nose in the way of my fist.

The buck stops nowhere NEAR this administration. And they called Clinton slick!

First, nobody is claiming that the administration fooled the intelligence agencies. Again, you're making up straw man arguments. This is a typical right-wing argumentation practice, but watch out. When somebody calls you on it, all your logical card houses will collapse.

The claim is that the administration manipulated the intelligence, selectively chose the intel to focus on, and arrived at conclusions that weren't borne out by the evidence at hand. The intelligence agencies were screaming their heads off that the conclusions were unwarranted, but anyone who actually spoke out about that had their wife outed as a CIA agent. Cheney was standing in the corner with his hatchet, just waiting to take the head off anybody who criticized too vocally.

It's patently obvious to anyone willing to step outside their party lockstep that the administration had an outcome they were interested in, and shaped their argument to arrive at that outcome. Bush wanted a war. It first came out of his mouth late on the morning of 9/11, when he asked is advisors for a way to pin the attacks on Iraq. He was itching for a fight, and he shoehorned conclusions onto the evidence at hand that got him the fight he wanted.

Because you saw all of it, right? What's your clearance level, Ustwo? Which intelligence agency do you work for?

Unless the answers to those questions are something OTHER than "Well, no,", "I don't have one," and "I don't," then you're a dupe right along with the rest of us. The intel you saw was the intel the administration WANTED you to see, shaped and sculpted to reinforce the conclusion the administration wanted you to draw. It's staggeringly arrogant and naive to think that you, as an ordinary US citizen, you have access to "the big picture". You see what the administration shows you, what the media shows you. You might occasionally get a glimpse behind the curtain when some journalist or blogger does some (rare) investigative work.

You were convinced by what you were shown partly because it WAS convincing, and partly because you're locked into a way of thinking that Bush is Always Right. Fortunately, only 34% to 37% of Americans agree with you at this point.

Personally, I wasn't ever convinced. Nobody seems to remember this, but there was a fair amount of healthy skepticism about the quality of the intelligence and the results of the analysis of it at the time. But that was back when Bush had 70% to 80% approval ratings, so it wasn't politically workable to really raise the objection.

The Democrats are spinning just as strongly on the attack because they sense a political advantage. They want us to believe that the president they tell us is dull and dimwitted was smart enough to snooker them into voting for war. Why should/would he do this? Are we to believe that Bush wanted to put our troops in harm's way for nothing?

This whole thing smacks of political maneuvering and since the war is unpopular now these savy polititians want to distance themselves from their previous support and claim they were duped (yes, re-write history). How convenient for them. They are too embarassed to admit that they like the president based their decision on the best intelligence at the time. They are smart people and not innocent dupes without resources.

I generally don't read your incredibly long posts. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the same take over and over ad infinitum.

I have been against the war from the start, and am glad we stayed out of it. I think Bush and friends have been the worst thing to happen to the US since I don't know when - your economy has suffered, your soldiers are dying, and the world - which post 9/11 had so much sympathy for you, now hates your guts.

Having said that, I think Bush simply chose to believe what he wanted to believe. He knew the data was shaky, but followed the course of war anyway - but, I think, genuinely believed that Saddam was a threat on some level. He was foolish, more than malicious, IMO.

Tecoyah, I think you misunderstand the dialogue between Host and me. While Host is certainly playing hardball with the facts, I would not go so far as to say that things are "getting personal", as I think Host has been very civil in this thread. If you don't think what is occurring here is "adult interaction", then you and I respectfully disagree over what that term means, as I think the content of this thread has been very reasonable.

I am also fine with the fact that you changed the title. Rather than intending to start a flame war, as you allege, it was meant to reflect the contents of Christopher Hitchens' article. However, your new selected title accomplished the same without being as provocative.

What surprises me is that you had the impression that Host and I were angrily fighting over this issue when, at least from my perspective, we were engaging in heated, but completely civil, discussion. The discussion about creating a thread for Host and I to fight on is a moderator's reaction to hostility that doesn't exist.

You are correct. Both sides are spinning. The elections are coming and everyone is looking for an edge. With Bush's popularity so low there is blood in the water... and both the Dems and Republicans seem to be eager to feed (almost as eager as Bush is to be pulled back into the saftey of the boat -- to stretch the analogy further).

I don't think Bush sent your troops to Iraq for nothing... I just don't think he and his administration were truthful in their reasons for wanting to go there. Read the policy papers at the New American Century. It is practically a blueprint for what went down in the Middle East post 9/11.

Be fair now, there are some attempts at re-writting history being made on BOTH sides of the issue but the fact remains that Bush and his administration has more information than anyone else in America. They held all the cards rather than just the ones they were allowed to see. Like any savvy politician, the Administration chose the pieces they wanted to be seen and played them up.

Bush stood up and said there were links between Iraq and Al-Qadea. Now, if I hear this and trust this... that's an important problem. But who was the one source of this information? Someone the intelligence community itself did not trust was being honest with them. But the information suited the purposes of the Administration.

Make no mistake, Bush and the Administration wanted this war and were willing to build their case to go to war. There was no foot dragging or reluctance about going to Iraq, it was all damn the torpedos.

The mistake that the Bush administration did is a mistake many young scientists make. That is he formed his conclusions before he looked at th evidence. He was convinced Saddam had involvement in 9/11 and world terrorism. Thus when he looked at the evidence before him he immediatly picked out anything that supported his conclusion while glossing over anything that didn't. Whether or not he intentionally mislead people to go to war is important but even if he didn't do it intentionally he should have been more responsible and looked at the evidence with an unbiased mind. When one forms conclusions before looking at evidence or performing research they will almost always find evidence to support thier direct conclusions but many times will be wrong because they have biased theirselves already.

Alright, Host. This is my conclusion from the information you provided. I appreciate your research:

The Senate Intelligence Committee at that time was comprised of 9 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Below are their votes on the Senate floor, authorizing the use of military force in Iraq:

Graham - D - Nay
Levin - D - Nay
Rockefeller - D - Yea
Feinstein - D - Yea
Wyden - D - Nay
Durbin - D - Nay
Bayh - D - Yea
Edwards - D - Yea
Mikulski - D - Nay
Shelby - R - Yea
Kyl - R - Yea
Inhofe - R - Yea
Hatch - R - Yea
Roberts - R - Yea
DeWine - R - Yea
Thompson - R - Yea
Lugar - R - Yea

The vote count was 4 Democrats in favor, 5 against - and all 8 Republicans in favor. That means that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had full access to the classified intelligence voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq by a margin of 12-5.

What is the difference between the "Select" Intelligence Committee and the normal one? I ask because Host and I have already proven that the Senate Intelligence Committee was, at that time, controlled by Democrats. Additionally, two thirds of the members of that committee ended up voting to authorize military force.

So, who sat on this "Senate Select Intelligence Committee"? If this is actually the same thing as the Senate Intelligence Committee, then we will have proven that 12 of the 17 Senators who saw the full intelligence agreed with the President that military force should be authorized...

seriously, politicophile, i don't see where you have to go with your position.

repeatedly in the thread folk have shot holes in the basic assumptions that underpin your claims--and you do not react. which leads me to wonder if this is a debate at all--a question that would loop around onto the underlying conflict that seperates the right from everyone else on this matter: is there ANY level of information, ANY level of proof that would persuade you to re-examine your position relative to this administration and its war?
if yes, then what might that be?
if no, then how is this a debate?

one thing that i was doing when i posted here more regularly was working out ways to connect conservative ideology in general to particular kinds of moves that you would see here--i was (and still am) particularly interested in how this discourse seems to generate real problems for otherwise reasonable folk in processing dissonant information. it is a strange phenomenon, frankly--i haven't seen another american political formation quite like the contemporary mediaright. you can never really tell how any particular individual who works behind the aliases in a place like this is thinking when he or she posts something, so it seems useless to try to shift into motive--but nonetheless, there is a consistent resistance to dissonant information from conservatives, and real problems that arise on that basis in confronting them with such information. it is as if that information reaches a certain mass and gets repressed. it is most curious.

what appears to me to be happening is a kind of experiment---it looks to me like you are testing out the new administration line and seeing what happens to it--maybe a devil's advocate game, maybe something else, it's impossible to know.

so is there any standard that you have that you apply to this kind of interaction, any amount of information that you would accept as falsifiying your position?

Yes. I would believe that President Bush deliberately misled the public regarding the case for war in Iraq if the majority of people who saw the same intelligence he did opposed authorizing him to use military force. It would be sufficient to convince me if you could show one, or both, of the following two things to be true:

1. The majority of Senators, preferably including at least one Republican, who saw the exact same intelligence report as the President, decided to vote against authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq.

2. The President did not supply any Senators or Congressmen with the full classified report that he used to support his case for war.

That is my standard for falsification of my position.

politicophile....I've already explained that a combination of restrictions that confine who in congress was authorized to view classified information, combined with overwhelming political pressure and administration co-ordinated propaganda, timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, caused the senate October 11, 2002 "vote" to be as skewed toward the authorization for the president to use force, as it was. The chairman of the senate intelligence committee tried to open the consideration of all of the facts that he was privy to....to the rest of the senate. The white house blocked the CIA director from co-operating. Chairman Bob Graham then voted against the resolution.

I've lived through all of this before.....I know how it ends...
It's going to go the same way this time, as it did last time, but unfortunately, not before a lot more American kids, right around your age, are killed or maimed by "foreign shot and shell".

I cannot debate or discuss this with you. You are unresponsive to an informed argument or to any evidence that flies in the face of your assumptions. I agree that our exchanges are not charged with animosity, but my effort is reduced to displaying my POV alongside yours, on the off chance that someone will come along who will consider and then contemplate all of our efforts here, without the influence of any consensus that we might have displayed here, if a point by point debate had been possible.

Then I stand corrected...and apologise to you both. Perhaps I'm just having flashbacks to things we Didnt react to fast enough....again...I am sorry

I'm aware that Senator Graham voted against the resolution, as did four other Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. What I want to know is this:

Did Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards have access to the same intelligence as Senator Graham? If they did not have access to that intelligence, then your statement above is true. However, if these four Democrats, who are some of the President's harshest critics, were pursuaded by the same intelligence that the use of force was at least potentially necessary, how can you continue to hold that the President deliberately misled the country?

I provided you with the grounds on which I would consider my position falsified. You have not yet presented the evidence I would need to see in order to change my position. Thus, your accusation that I am being "unresponsive to an informed argument or to any evidence that flies in the face of [my] assumptions" is a bit disengenuous. I recognize that five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against authorizing the use of force. What you seem to be ignoring, however, is that twelve other members, including four Democrats, voted for the authorization. You have not provided any reason as to why I should disregard the view of twelve Senators who saw the full intelligence in favor of the view of five Senators who drew the opposite conclusion from the same material.

Just under 30% of the Senators on that committee hold you view. Why on earth do you think this is evidence that your position is correct? If anything, I would infer the opposite.

Here are my questions for you (or anyone else) in a simple numbered format:

1. Did all seventeen members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards, have access to the complete intelligence that caused Senator Graham to oppose the resolution?

2. If it turns out that question 1 is answered in the affirmative, how would it be possible to claim that the President was deliberately misleading the nation without also claiming that Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards were willing participants in that lie?

3. Why should a vote of 12-5 in favor of the resolution amongst the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee be taken as a sign that the available evidence did not support the President's position?

Riddle me this.

the evidence that was presented obviously would be geared around the bushposition: that this evidence was itself manipulated, screened, shaped with policy objectives more like those of the project for a new american century than anything to do with what was happening on the ground is evident.
that the bushcase for war was not compelling--that it was contradicted explicitly by materials available to the un, and to the public, for example--also evident. i dont see you doing much of anything here, pliticophile, except (1) dealing with the reality that the case for war was a sham that the rest of us, those not trapped in the tiny world of conservative politics, have known about since the run-up to this war and (2) rather than address the facts of the matter--even after host presented you with a pretty good resume of it--you choose to narrow the matter along lines that seem to me wholly arbitrary. i see no justifiation for your way of framing the question at hand, nor do i see how even the answers you are looking for would in any way either affirm or falsify the larger problems created not just for you but for all of us by the shabby conduct of this administration with reference to this war.

that the democratic party is in a curious position at this point is also evident--most of the sitting memebers of congress allowed themselves to be persuaded by a case for war that turned out to be wholly false. now that the falseness of this case is clear to anyone who looks, and the centrist nimrods who operate under teh rubric of teh democratic party are reconsidering their positions and wondering how they managed to be "duped" (as a function fo working to save their own political skins--the administration has chosen to stand logic on its head and blame those who allowed themselves to be so "duped" for having been "duped"---you tack within this sorry state of affairs is to pitch the question of falsity of the case for war in such arbitrarily narrow terms that there is no way to respond to you---the entire logic of your position makes no sense to me, i see no reason to accept it, no reason to enter into a debate on this question on your terms--you do not get to set them, particularly not when those terms, once detached from the rightwing talking points of the moment, are abritrary.

so that's that then. maybe we can actually have a discussion about this question of what should happen now that it is obvious to almsot everyone that this war was launched on false pretenses. but in that discussion, try to actually take in the information being presented to you, rather than using arbitrary/unnecessary criteria that allow you to pretend to be discussing something when in fact all you are doing is avoiding a mountain of evidence that you do not like.

Host, I am deeply indebted to you for finding all of this material. :)

I don't understand this new tactic of claiming that I can't be argued with. I'm listening very carefully to Host's argument, but it has not yet convinced me because there are some pieces missing. Namely, I have not yet heard a convincing account of why many Democratic Senators, some of whom had clearance to see whatever intelligence existed, voted to authorize the use of force. The replies seem to be along the lines of:

That simply doesn't square up with the four Senators' votes I keep refering to. If it was so very obvious, even to the PUBLIC, that the intelligence didn't support Bush's position, how do you explain those four votes? How stupid do you take those Senators to be?

It is alleged that:

There is nothing arbitrary about the way I framed the discussion. Your position makes sense ONLY IF Edwards, Bayh, Feinstein, and Rockefeller are either amazingly stupid or if they are part of the Bush conspiracy. I don't believe either of those possiblities to be true. If follows that your position, your claim that Bush falsified the case for war, is false.

If Graham received the full evidence and decided that it did not support the authorization of force (this is what Host claimed above), then my four favorite Senators also saw the full evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. I what a credible explanation of why they voted that way. This is an entirely legitimate request, not some weird reframing of the debate, as is alleged.

The continued refusal to explain those four votes indicates that you are My question is simple. My question is reasonable. My question has not been answered.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOUR DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VOTED IN FAVOR OF AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ?

It is very important that Host and Roachboy answer this question because their argument doesn't work unless they can credibly explain those votes.

Could you please provide a source for this accusation?

--

Again, on the Record:

"The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs."

This is the declaration of war , signed and drafted by congress.....I dont see any breach of legality by the administration according to this...never have:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I do however, find the likelyhood of Congress having access to all pertinent information required to make this declaration, slim to none. I dont hold this opinion because I think Bush is dishonest, or because I dont care for him (though I do feel that way), I think this because ANY president who shared ALL the Data would be an Idiot, and likely the only one in the history of the world who ever did so.
Think about it....even now, under the intense pressure placed on them, those in power are trying to keep sensative information from the freakin' people assigned BY CONGRESS to fact find. Does anyone actually believe these people would be forthcoming with information that in any way took away from the positions they required to make an agenda work?

As much as I dislike the professional polititians from both parties, and I may be naive, but I do not believe they would put soldiers in harm's way unless they thought it was necessary. I also don't believe they would willfully try and trick congress on such an important matter. I find it easier to believe that the one's claiming they were duped are playing politics and trying to position themselves to match the current poll results.

I guess I missed something. Could someone tell me which Democratic Senators or Congressmen have said that they were duped? Which ones said that Bush lied? I've heard alot of them say that Bush misled us, but nothing about being personally duped or lied to.

Hmmm, good question Maximus. I just assumed it was true.

Edit: Which is worthy of an ass kicking. I'll do my best to self-inflict one.

I don't know the exact number but I'm sure I've heard several on the news. A quick google search turned up a few.

Thanks flstf. I guess I missed all that. Even if Bush manipulated the intelligence, there was enough information available at the time for them to make the right decision. They chose not to for political reasons and they need to pay the price for that just like everyone else. They don't bear as much responsibility as the Bush administration, but they certainly bear some fo it.
Feinstein's comment is especially troubling since she claims to have looked at all the intelligence available and still came to the conclusion that Saddam posed a threat to the United States. Nothing much has changed since then, except for the fact that the American people have turned against the war. I guess that's enough to change her opinion.

Kerry said he was "misled", and "duped" was not in Feinstein's actual quote. Also "I have been duped" was not attributed to anyone. flstf, do you have actual quotes attributed to specific member of the congress and senate?

humming "I won't be duped again" and plays air guitar. :)

Yes, as much as I dislike the current politiitians, I would like to believe that they are trying to do the right thing when it concerns our troops in harm's way. I wish they would put politics behind them now and work to get our young men and women back soon and at the same time leave a stable Iraq that can fend for themselves.

Elphaba, I checked out the Feinstein quote. Immediately before that, she was asked if she had been duped and said point blank, "yes". Here's the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html

Uhhh....there was more to Feinstein's "not in 1000 years, sound byte.....

Feinstein opened her answer with, <b>"I think statements were made in major public policy addresses prior to the Senate vote that clearly stated that with a matter of certainty."</b>

and.....who made the <b>"statements [were made] in major public policy addresses"</b>? Why it's.....it's.....
Is this really that hard to get your mind around? Feinstein is a senator and she has constituents who watch TV and read newspapers. Guess who is filling the airwaves and the newsprint with a carefully co-ordinated propaganda "Op", timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

Answer...the same thugs who drove their own approval rating to 90 percent backing for war in Iraq by "catapulting the propaganda" by saying the same thing, over and over again, until the truth sinks in....
The same thugs who have driven their job approval rating down to 36 percent, three years later, because some of the sheeple actually "get it" now!

What have these guys ever told you in the last four years that was true?

Come on Elphaba, now you're splitting hairs. You know what they mean. The following is from a CNN interview, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:

flstf, splitting hairs wasn't my intention because I had accepted the "duped" claims from the get go. Host posted the same interview, so I guess it is how one wants to interpret whether Feinstein was led to accept the word "duped" or not. I am not wedded to this line of thinking, but it seems reasonable to ask which members of congress are now claiming that they were "duped."

I still hold that it was necessary for the congress and the senate to appear united in support behind our president and that the intent was to send a unified signal to Saddam and the UN. If there are individuals now that claim other than a singular show of support for the president and are trying to say they were "duped," I would sincerely like to know who they are. I would hold them suspect to political motives rather than honest ones.

flstf, I truly do not hold with liars or opportunists from either party.

Going out for a while....a parting thought to leave you with....

Imagine how difficult it must have been for any legislator who wanted to remain in office, to vote against what the president wanted them to vote for, in the climate of his high approval rating, just after his 9/11 anniversary propaganda campaign.

An indication of the impact of the manipulation of his regime is that, after all his and Cheney's claims were thoroughly discredited, and Iraq has turned into a military and a policy disaster, and his approval rating has cratered 54 points from where it was then, he still doesn't take responsibility for his manipulation of intelligence and his mistaken course of war, and there are still people, in the tiny conservative universe of logic....to have to debate here! Sheeeesh !!!!

A shame, politicophile never got an answer to his question.

Powerclown, *you* could answer one of his questions. Do all of the members of the intelligence committees see all of the secret data, or just the committee heads? C'mon, you owe it to politico to make that effort at least. :rolleyes:

It may have been difficult, but it would have been the right thing to do. 23 Senators and 133 Congressmen, many from "red states", found the strength to do that. Why couldn't someone like Feinstein, who is from one of the most liberal states in the country, find the strength? Probably because she doesn't have it and probably doesn't deserve to be a Senator.

politicophile:
i do not understand why you find that democrats voted for bushwar to be a source of anything for you. i fail to see any argument that would make of the fact that the democrats on the intel commtitee voted along with the administration on this either a demonstration or falsification of anything. when i said that i thought your argument was arbitrary, i meant that i see nothing surprising or interesting or significant about the votes.

as for folk finding themselves to have been duped, see above.

There seem to be four possibilities, one and exactly one of which is true:

1. Senator Feinstein did not receive the same intelligence that President Bush did. Her vote in favor of authorizing the use of force was based on this insufficient intelligence and she now realizes her vote was wrong.

2. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. However, she is extremely stupid and was convinced by the President's rhetoric (and by "the climate of his high approval rating, just after his 9/11 anniversary propaganda campaign") that the patriotic thing was to authorize the use of force, despite the fact that the intelligence in no way supported this conclusion. She has now returned to her senses and realizes her vote was wrong.

3. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. She is a part of the Bush/Rove/lumpenconservative/Christian Right conspiracy to reap oil profits from the invasion of Iraq, so she obeyed Emperor Rove's command that she vote in favor of authorizing the use of force. She has now realized that she isn't going to get the money she was promised, so she now claims that her vote was wrong.

4. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. She carefully analyzed it and came to the same conclusion that 12 of her 17 committee members came to: she honestly believed in light of the available evidence that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Now, in a brilliant political move, she has accused the President of acting against the available intelligence. She weakly claims that the President receives weekly memos that could conceivably have provided him with additional intelligence that Feinstein never saw. Feinstein does not know whether this additional intelligence exists or what it might have indicated, but the best political move is for her to insinuate that her vote was proper in light of the limited intelligence she received, but that Bush's decision to invade was improper in light of broader intelligence.

Which of these scenerios (or which fifth scenerio) do you think is true? I especially pose this question to Roachboy and Host, but welcome other responses as well.

This is not the first time that roachboy and host have reminded you that it is absurd and irrelevant to focus on what senator Feinstein, or any other senator, knew or did not know on October 11, 2002.

The overwhelming compilation of evidence is that, as Andrew Card infamously said, "you do not launch a new product in August". The "product" a propaganda campaign timed to take full advantage of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and the spontaneous sentiment of Americans triggered by the memory of that day, embellished with the co-ordinated message of all Bush administration heavy weights. The message was a litany of all the menacing items in Saddam's arsenal that Bush could keep us safe from, if we authorized him to invade Iraq, with, or without the authorization of the UN.

It would be my pleasure to vigorously lobby the voters of California to recall senator Fienstein for incompetence and stupidity, immediately after Bush and Cheney are impeached, tried and found guilty in the senate of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and turned over to the DOJ for deportation to the Hague to satnd trial before and international court on charges related to crimes against humanity......

What's sad here is we have one party saying they were stupid and duped, and another party just saying they were all stupid for not reading into all the info and truly seeing the war was not necessary.

So if both parties are so easily duped, conned, stupid and foolhardy, what does that say about the leadership of our country?

Meanwhile Bush smiles and uses every chance he can to attack Dems. and blast anyone who opposes him or wants to get to the truth.

So we have both parties saying the war is wrong, and we have both parties pointing the finger at the other for getting us over there, yet, when it comes to finding a way to come home, one party tries to make proposals and the other party plays games.

All the while the President and company sit on their asses telling people that if they so much as question the war they are non patriotic traitors.

This is a weak argument, Host. Essentially, you are saying that 77 Senators were so consumed by their 9/11 aniversary emotions that they were unable to vote against George Bush's blood for oil scheme. The Bush spin machine is strong, for sure, but those Senators supported the plan for deeper reasons than blind patriotism.

You have provided an answer to my original question as to whether Democrats are stupid or hypocritical: you chose the "stupid" answer because it allows you to continue arguing that my case is not at all strengthened by the fact that almost half of the Senate Democrats agreed with me back in 2002. I understand now why you have told me repeatedly that my appeals to the Democratic votes don't matter: you hold those Senators to be, to a lesser degree than Bush, parts of the Republican machine that used propaganda as a tool to coerce all "patriotic" Senators into authorizing the use of force.

That's funny because the Democrats sounded pretty sincere in their beliefs that Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S... I guess they were just swept off their feet by patriotism when they made these statements. (Click on the "play" link) How do you explain the pre-9/11 comments?

ok, let's try it this way, then:

pretend for a moment that you are actually interested in persuading someone who does not already agree with you politically---which means that you have to explain you frame of reference rather than simply repeat it. i am sure you understand the distinction.

so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment---think of it as evangelism, if you will----and then try sort this out logically, politicophile--go through the chain of events that resulted in the distorted intl presented to congress by teh administration--and perhaps presented as such from one office to another within the administration at one point or another---then to the congressional actions you are talking about---taking into account the fact of the unsc and information presented publically by the un and other international sources. and then explain to me how it is that your way of trying to frame what is "relevant" does not require so many assumptions behind to that it is functionally arbitrary.

repeating yourself is not answering, btw.
sometimes it seems like there has to be a rule or two.

It is unfortunate that you felt the need to pollute the dialogue between Host and me with these personal insults. Your tendancy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being hopelessly and illogically dependent upon "the conservative talking points of hte moment" is annoying, to say the least. It is more than time for you to lose this labeling (lumpenconservative, e.g.)/ad hominem (so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment) tendency that is so damaging to good dialogue. Host and I will continue our discussion in spite of your rude, confrontational interference. It is possible to debate a conservative heathen without resorting to name-calling: take a page out of Host's book.

In response to your actual argument, I will attempt to explain my chain of logic:

George Bush's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
France's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Great Britain's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Germany's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

George Bush sent his intelligence to Congress, who agreed by a vote of 77-23 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the President should be authorized to use military force against Iraq if necessary.

France thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.
Germany thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.

George Bush thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.
Congress thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.

George Bush is accused of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq because the actual threat turned out to be insignificant compared to the threat portrayed by the intelligence.

Some members of Congress who voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, and who are on record for thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, now accuse Bush of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq.

Bush's intelligence was not different from the intelligence of France or Germany.

It is safe to assume that Bush did not falsify the French or German intelligence.

Thus, Bush did not falsify the American intelligence, as it would not have matched the French and German intelligence if he did.

Thus, Congress' claims that Bush "hyped" the case for war are ridiculous because the Congress had access to the same intelligence as France and Germany and yet they voted in favor of going to war.

The members of Congress who changed their minds are just looking for an excuse to justify voting in obvious opposition to the facts.

I think that roachboy's posts to you may seem condescending in their tone, but I think that is because you have given him much justification to end any further dialogue with you. His frustration is showing, and it is his responsibility to control his reaction, but your "style" of argument does not include much indication that you've fully considered the facts in the counter argument. I call them "facts" because most of my references are direct quotes that you haven't challenged, and MSM news reports. You have not even indicated that you have read them, and your certainly haven't taken any of them into consideration in your argument.

My post to you here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=42 on another thread on this poltical forum contains a reminder to you that you did not indicate that you had considered my points in a previous post to you.

When I post quotes...for example, from Tenet, Powell, and Rice that all make it clear that, prior to 9/11 these key spokespeople for this administration were of the unanimous opinion that Saddam's Iraq bore continued close scrutiny, but there was a consensus that his military was no threat to his neighbors, that the "no fly zone" and trade sanctions were working as intended to keep Saddam from recontituting his prior, WMD programs, and inventories.

No one from the conservative, "defender of Bush et al" POV, who I have posted the points in the above link, has ever offered an explanation or a rebuttal to my premise that Tenet, Powell, and Rice were all of the same opinion regarding the threat that Saddam and his ambitions posed. No one has been willing to discuss the curious paradox of the above three officials all committing to a policy of "closely watching" what Saddam is up to, yet suddenly being part of a massive "about face", wherein Saddam is transformed almost overnight into a threat that justifies an invasion to stop, not only towards his neighbors, but even imminently to the U.S. mainland itself.

I've posted the contents of the post linked above, politicophile, at least a dozen times in these threads. You ignored the quotes in the contents of the post, and the MSM news reports of CBS news/Rumsfeld, Time's early 2002 report that Rumsfeld knew that Iraq was weak but requested intel to the contrary from the CIA "ten times", Bush's "Eff" Saddam, we're taking him out"
quote, and Wolfowitz's comments to congress that acknowledged that the "no fly" zone had been effective, but that it cost more than an invasion would, going forward.

You've also ignored or failed to refute the clear evidence that there was a one year anniversary of 9/11 propaganda campaign intended to sell an invasion, complete with intended fear mongering that was shameful in it's scope and intent, and the effect that had on legislators who voted the intent of the overwhelming majority of their constituents, an action which is in keeping with the reasons that they are sent to Washington.The overwhelming "intent" of the constituents was a direct result of deliberatley alarmist rhetoric and exaggerated from Bush and his entourage, all at once, at what they perceived, and probably was the optimimum time period on the calendar;
coninciding with the 9/11 attack anniversary and 8 weeks in advance of the midterm elections. All of that mattered and it overwhelmed the feeble oppostion of Bob Graham, a lame duck in his senate position.

If the GOP "video" that you referred me to is so compelling, why did Bush's speechwriter and "re-write" history" "Op" co-ordinators blow it with the weak and transparent distortion of a senator Levin quote, used in Bush's Veteran's day speech to the troops.
You also failed to respond to the unusual reaction by Washington Post reporters to that speech, the reporters judged that the speech contained "less that truthful" statements from Bush.....
<b>Here is the article, described in the preceding quote box....</b>
Bush's approval poll numbers won't be coming back, even if you choose to stick to your interpretation of Bush and Co's pre-invasion presentation to justify a choice for war. roachboy rightly describes the conservative reasoning process as "tiny", because so much of what actually happens has to be left out, because it just doesn't fit with the conclusion that the reasoning process arrives at.
And...the above item. from Bob Graham, appeared on the web as i was posting this article. I look forward to a response to my questions, and a more thorought response to roachboy's core question, distilled to....how do you come by you opinion and your rock solid belief that this is a matter of how legislators voted on Oct. 11, 2002, and not about the integrity of the information, the sincerity of the president, and the fairness and balance of the assessment that he and those, at his driection, delivered to the American people in the days leading up to the senate vote. I go to extreme lengths to post exactly what influences my opinions and conclusions, and I do not see anywhere near comparable transparency in your posts.........

That's exactly my experience in this thread too. As far as I can tell, politicophile didn't even read my posts.

The sad thing is, that strategy works: I quit posting.

Congratulations, politicophile. You've successfully BSed me right out of the conversation.

I told myself that when I ceased to feel like a valued member of this community, I'd call it quits. This repeated (and false) argument that I haven't responded to previous counterarguments is particularly annoying in light of the fact that this thread is three pages long, I am the only one advancing my position, and I simply don't have time to respond to everyone.

The sad thing is, that strategy works: I quit posting.

Congratulations, ratbastid. You've successfully BSed me right out of the TFP.

I will not post on or view any TFP forums until at least January, at which point I hope to have recovered from this feeling of not being welcome here.

Oh come on now! You don't like that people point out your shortcomings in this debate so you're taking your ball and going home? That's absurd! The simple fact is that you haven't responded to the tough questions in this thread. I know it's frustrating to be backed into a corner while you're debating, but don't you think this reaction is a little extreme?

Besides it's not really your fault that you can't win this argument. There IS no winning this argument for the republicans at this point. Too much of what they've done has been exposed. Debating from the republican side right now would be incredibly tough. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Wow.

I honestly regret that you feel unwelcome, that wasn't my intention. I was actually interested in hearing more from you, not less.

This thread should be re-titled: "Portrait of the Republican Senator as a Young Man" and stand as some kind of case study.

Who can blame him for being disillusioned?
He presents a simple, straightforward question, and is met with excuses, semantics, guerrilla op-eds and posh condescension.

Another lifelong Republican joins the ranks, I imagine.

Some of us here transparently post the sources that shape our opinions, and some of us apparently prefer to visit sites like the most recent one that politicophile posted; www.gop.com .

Your approach here seems very similar to politicophile's......you never responded to my quesions, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1850316&postcount=45

The scenario on this forum plays out over and over, I lay out my opinion, complete with a majority of references from main stream sources, you counter with a contradictory opinion, and if it includes references, they are more often than not from obscure or biased sources. You dismiss most or all of my documentation, or you ignore it completely.

You posture in a similar way to politicophile, acting as if your opinion or point is obviously true or reliable, without showing the rest of us what influenced your thinking.Then you'll fail to respond, as in the example cited in my last link in this post, and you'll maintain a running commentary in the forum with jabs like, "host hasn't responded, google must be down, or barbs about your distaste for the amount of content in my posts.

You do everything to keep the focus of your criticism on the messenger, because you are unwilling or unable to engage in a series of posts where you
respond to the points in the message.

Aside from the effort that you put into your "Good things about Iraq" thread, you have not demonsrated a willingness to make your claim, back it up with reports from MSM or other non-partisan sources, and defend your points and references and rebut those posted by others.

That describes the exchanges that are supposed to take place at this forum.
politicophile has not shown a willingness to participate as I've described, and now he announces that he will step back for a while.

When you start a thread or make a point here, you should be prepared to back up your point with comments other than talking points, prejudices, or feelings. Exchanges need to progress similarly to what happens in a courtroom, a process that attempts findings of fact. That process requires research, and it is not usually helpful to look on rnc.com or dnc.com .

If you disagree with my outline of how our exchanges should be conducted on this forum, powerclown please offer points of disagreement, and your own outline of how we should structure our discussions here, and examples that show you operating within your guidelines, in your prior posts.

How do we end, for example, people posting opinions that there is a strong chance that the US will till find caches of Iraqi WMD, in Iraq or in other locations, using a different approach than I have used to discourage posts that still try to advance the idea, other than to respond to every post like that with links and excerpts from white house press secretary mCclellan's admissions too reporters that the expected weapons were not there to be found, and were not expected to be found?

Your "gueriilla op-ed" critical comment fails to mention the vast amount of news reports and reliable, referenced documentation that was posted for politicophile and others who agreed with him, to consider and respond to, but unfortunately, that did not happen. What took place here, as far as a fact finding proocess, was very one sided, as most other threads are. If that is the core reason motivating your comments, why not make the effort to challenge the documented points that others make with points of similar strength and transparency?

The argument that 'we will till find Iraqi WMD" finally went away because it was challenged with a set of unimpeachable points of fact, everytime it was raised. All future weak, tentative, and unsupported arguments will meet the same fate on these threads, no matter how obviously valid they may appear to be to you.

Amazingly funny way of showing it :p

politicophile - Don't feel to bad, I learned that lesson about TFP political posting quite a long time ago, and I took a few long breaks as well. Focus on one of the more reasonable posters, and ignore the bombs thrown. I think you know you don't reason with liberals you defeat them, you can't reason with someone who has has a case of the socialist disease. Its good to see their reasoning, but think of it more as a case study than a debate, and it can be fun despite these limitations. Hope to see you back, and best of luck to you, I think you have made an excellent start.

I would prefer that we did not lose the excellent perspective of this member



You will be missed.

I think this is totally incorrect. It's not accurate to say that he didn't respond to the "tough questions", the problem arose when his response wasn't to immediately fall in line with the liberal adjenda. And I could understand his frustration with being the only one defending his opinion in this thread for the most part, but I think many who might agree with him have grown tired of leftists requiring full theses for arguements that essentially come down to an overblown version of a two children yelling "Uh-huh" and "Nu-uh" at each other.

Many people on both sides just can't be convinced of the other's rightness or wrongness, no matter how much informatinog is given. So it's pointless to try. And I'm sure that you're gonna come back with some not-to-veiled attack on Rebublicans being blind to the truth, but it's just as bad on both sides. And to ignore that fact is to be blind to the truth.

And just in case you are still watching politicophile-the ignore function is your friend. You'd be suprised how much good it can do, if used properly.

Yes, but what does this mean exactly? How can you pretend to be accessing 'transparent' material from sites that are committed to the Left point of view? Of course you are going to get the material you want from sites that resonate with your beliefs. How can you honestly invalidate gop.com while at the same time validate tnr.com?

While I have respect for the amount of time you put into your posts, whenever I respond I get deluged with guerilla op-eds. And not only that (and one or more mods here can attest to this) but you frequently omit key parts of articles that don't support your line.

99% of the sources everyone provides here are op-eds, and these days that means they are strongly partisan. Truthout.org, The New Republic, dailychaos.com are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Left - these organizations have no interest in espousing moderate, rational views. I have found very few sites that take a reasonable, moderate viewpoint, yet they do exist. In the case of this particular thread, one simply needed to cite the official Senate voting records to answer politicophile's question, not Liberal op-eds of those voting records.

So evertime someone posts an opinion or comment, they have to back it up with a source, which inevitably gets knocked down anyway?

Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm. Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.

Why should he 'participate as you've described'? He started the thread, he asked a legitimate question, and you (and others) never directly answered his question. Instead, you cite multiple, dubious sources that you think discredits his question to begin with, which you use as justification to avoid the question.

Please...your links are some of the most partisan out there. 2-way street. If we had a judge here declaring guerilla op-eds as inadmissable, the courtroom analogy might work. I truly believe at this point that people are here mostly just to vent their frustrations, not seek the truth.

I'll cut and paste to repeat: Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm. Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.

As long as you maintain that guerilla op-eds constitute "unimpeachable points of fact", interesting and intelligent dialogue here will remain the exception to the rule.

I think you might be too blinded by party politcs. This has nothing to do with being a leftists or socialist, but everything to do with right or wrong. If you are unable to see past your party, then you will probably never see the corruption if it hit you in the face. Politicians are famous for posing as popular groups in order to get their agenda through ( like Conservative or Christian) and the sooner you wake up to this the better off the country will be.

A defeat for this administration is not a defeat of conservative ideas, but a defeat of corruption which you should hold above your party.