Downing Street Memo

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

What I was looking for is for someone show evidence that Bush took evidence provided, changed it and re-presented that new information to the public/congress/UN. To this point, I have not seen anything to indicate that happened. There have been certain instances that seemed to insinuate that he "cherry-picked" intel (much of what Clarke said), but that's not the same as "fixing" intelligence.

well Im sure Bush didnt actually do it himself, but it is evidenced and factually confirmed that they "cherry picked" what helped make their "case for war" and left out or pushed away any evidence to the contract (niger). Re-writing has occurred, the recent environmental science paper confirms that they're certainly not afraid to make edits, to put in "key" verbage to steer evidence. Perhaps it happened in the Iraq stuff...I dont know. What I do know is that there are numerous people and departments that have stated publicly that pressure was applied, evidence was ignored, concerns were warned off, and intimidation occurred so that the run-up to war would work flawlessly.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

What I was looking for is for someone show evidence that Bush took evidence provided, changed it and re-presented that new information to the public/congress/UN. To this point, I have not seen anything to indicate that happened. There have been certain instances that seemed to insinuate that he "cherry-picked" intel (much of what Clarke said), but that's not the same as "fixing" intelligence.

What would you imagine this evidence looked like? Would it be a videotape of Bush whiteing out key documents? Try to describe what you would consider a "smoking gun" because I think you have created an impossibly high threshold to meet. Even if you can come with a "smoking gun" that meets your test, is there any way this document would ever be declassified?

It's funny - if this were a civil suit and one side found these witnesses and documents, they would all be considered "smoking guns" and everyone would be jumping up and down. You seem to be asking for a document that we all know would never exist in the real world. I guess it makes it clear how unusual the Watergate scandal was. Even with no real documentation, a president was brought down through witness testimony. Nowadays, even when witnesses point fingers, it doesn't make much of a difference.

edit: I think you are also confusing what "fixing" intelligence means. No one is saying that Bush openly "changed" documents. In the intelligence community, you can find "evidence" to support almost any theory. "Fixing" intelligence is about what you call "cherry-picking." You find "facts" (and in some cases like the Niger memo, that term is very loose) and ignore all contrary evidence. That is what the Bush administration is being accused of. So, I don't understand your distinction between "fixing" and "cherry-picking" as far the accusations against Bush are concerned.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You're making an association that isn't there.

What was the latest poll on the front page of USA Today yesterday? 60% of Americans think we should pull back either some or all of our fources out of Iraq.

No, support for the war is huge

An assumption that isn't there? You make a reference to the familis of those killed in action as being against the war. Where is my assumption that isn;t there. Now you throw a poll into the statement to redirect your initial reference. I guess it's better keeping a moving target so you don't actually have to back up what you say...

[MrBigglesworth]

Arles, John Galt's points are what have my perplexed. You seem to want a DNA test or something else completely rediculous. Otherwise, numerous people have already cited clear cases of where intelligence was falsified: Niger memo which was forged, the false aluminum tubes story (which was known to be false when he said it), the meeting between Atta and Iraqi's in Prague which Wolfowitz said was 'confirmed' at the time that it was at best tenuous and since has been found to be completely false, etc. And these were major points in the WMD and 9/11 narrative that was coming out of the White House.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

An assumption that isn't there? You make a reference to the familis of those killed in action as being against the war. Where is my assumption that isn;t there. Now you throw a poll into the statement to redirect your initial reference. I guess it's better keeping a moving target so you don't actually have to back up what you say...

you want to go on and on about how people support the war so I gave you a recent front page article/poll on USA Today saying the opposite. That poll totally doesn't back up what I said about people not being in favor of the war noooooooooo Go back and read the posts, seriously, you're clueless if you think a poll talking about how 60% of those polled wanted at least some troops called back is a majority in favor of the war.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, John Galt's points are what have my perplexed. You seem to want a DNA test or something else completely rediculous. Otherwise, numerous people have already cited clear cases of where intelligence was falsified: Niger memo which was forged, the false aluminum tubes story (which was known to be false when he said it), the meeting between Atta and Iraqi's in Prague which Wolfowitz said was 'confirmed' at the time that it was at best tenuous and since has been found to be completely false, etc. And these were major points in the WMD and 9/11 narrative that was coming out of the White House.

These are all mistakes made by the CIA in verifying information. For each of these above situations, George Tenet told Bush the info was legit. What I am looking for is an instance where Tenet said "No, that's not true" and Bush ran with it anyway. That is what is needed for this "fixing" to be true. If Bush made a claim that Tenet bought off on, then the problem would rely with the CIA not properly vetting the information.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

These are all mistakes made by the CIA in verifying information. For each of these above situations, George Tenet told Bush the info was legit. What I am looking for is an instance where Tenet said "No, that's not true" and Bush ran with it anyway. That is what is needed for this "fixing" to be true. If Bush made a claim that Tenet bought off on, then the problem would rely with the CIA not properly vetting the information.

So, if the CIA had not signed off on it, you would agree with me that the White House acted improperly? If, for instance, the CIA told the White House months before the information was used that it was untrue, that would be evidence of Bush fixing the information, right?

Let's turn to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.

The CIA is not the only intelligence organ in the US government. Regarding the aluminum tubes, Bush repeated the claim on several occasions, including his SOTU address to Congress in January 2003. It was also mentioned in Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. On October 9, 2002, the Institute for Science and International Security wrote:

Based on the available information, the intercepted aluminum tubing could have been intended for use in a centrifuge. It is far harder to confirm the Administration's view that the tubes were specifically intended for use in a centrifuge...One hopes that the CIA has special intelligence information supporting its case about the intended use of these tubes. This possibility, however, appears increasingly remote. The British government said recently in its assessment of Iraq's WMD programs that "there is no definitive intelligence evidence that [the specialized aluminum] is destined for a nuclear programme."

On April 11, 2001, the Department of Energy noted that:

While gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.

So we see that in the case of the Niger yellow cake, the White House ignored the CIA's retraction of the story. In the case of the aluminum tubes, the White House ignored expert advice from other agencies and other analysts that said the information was false.

What's your next rationalization?

[Dutch]

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

That is proof that the White House will admit a mistake.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

These are all mistakes made by the CIA in verifying information. For each of these above situations, George Tenet told Bush the info was legit. What I am looking for is an instance where Tenet said "No, that's not true" and Bush ran with it anyway. That is what is needed for this "fixing" to be true. If Bush made a claim that Tenet bought off on, then the problem would rely with the CIA not properly vetting the information.

If the CIA was involved in groupthink the WH most certainly was too. They were ecstatic, Im sure, when evidence that supported their case for war came in. If someone dissented they were subjected to intimidation, retribution, and dissparragement. The evidence is overwhelming from Chalabi, to the continued usage of Saddam and Al Qaeda all the way through this election eventhough it was proven false well before, the release of the CIA operative's identity, the minimizing of Clinton's advisors input, and even when Tenet gave them 10% of what they wanted they took it and sold it as 100%:




Dissent over uranium more than a 'footnote'
Doubts about African deal got bigger play in report than White House hints
Posted: July 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Paul Sperry
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON -- An objection raised about a uranium charge in a secret high-level report on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was more than a "footnote," as described by the White House, officials say.

In a National Intelligence Estimate published last October, the intelligence arm of the State Department called "highly dubious" allegations that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa. The dissenting view was presented in the main body of the report, not buried in a footnote, sources say.

President Bush repeated the apparently unfounded uranium allegations in his State of the Union speech in January.

The doubts lodged by State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, have since been validated. It turns out the intelligence was based at least in part on forged documents.

The White House now concedes it was a mistake to include the charge in the president's speech, though it argues it also relied on other intelligence from undisclosed foreign sources.

Democrats argue the administration engaged in a pattern of "hyping" evidence to support starting a war in Iraq. They cite examples of intelligence used in other prewar speeches that also have proved half-baked.

But National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the president's use of the uranium allegation was ultimately cleared by the CIA after some changes in wording. And she described State's objection to the allegation as only a "footnote" in the back of the 90-page report.

CIA Director George Tenet did not call it a footnote, however, in a carefully worded statement he released Friday as the scandal heated up.

"We stand fully behind DCI's [director of central intelligence] statement," CIA spokeswoman Michele Neff told WorldNetDaily. "If he doesn't refer to it as a footnote, then it's not a footnote."

State declined comment. "We don't have anything beyond what's already been said by White House officials," said State spokeswoman Nancy Beck.

According to Tenet, INR's objection in the still-classified report states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

A former intelligence official who helped prepare numerous NIE reports last decade says the statement does not resemble a footnote.

"That sounds like it was in the body of the report," said FBI counterintelligence veteran I.C. Smith, who sat on the National Foreign Intelligence Board, or NFIB.

"Footnotes are short and concise," he said. "If it were a footnote, it would have said something like, 'State does not concur with this finding.'"

Smith points out that though dissension is not rare at NFIB meetings, held at CIA headquarters, it's unusual for that dissension to get in NIE reports, which usually reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. The meetings are also attended by the heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office.

"The fact that the objection got in there is rare," Smith said. "State must have had a real strong reason. And they would have had to all vote to put it in there."

The multi-agency National Intelligence Council, which is located at Langley, writes the reports, which are typically sent by courier to the West Wing.

The White House reportedly faults the CIA for including the sketchy uranium intelligence in the Iraq weapons dossier at all, even as it stands by it.

Tenet argues it never made it in the "Key Judgments" section of the NEI report, and appeared only in the "Discussion" section that follows.

It's not clear what part, if any, Rice read. She maintains that both she and Bush were "unaware" of concerns raised by the CIA when it vetted the uranium line in the State of the Union drafts sent to Langley.

However, Tenet says some of his analysts "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence" with Rice's office, warning her staff against using it in the speech. What's more, Tenet just three months earlier reportedly called Rice's deputy to yank the line from the president's speech in Cincinnati.

It's still unclear why the unfounded charge was included in the more key State of the Union speech.

The Republican leadership in Congress refuses to hold public hearings on the matter.





Arles, Im afraid you're so entrenched that you cannot possibly place some blame on the admin. even with insurrmountable evidence.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That is proof that the White House will admit a mistake.

Then I genuinely ask:

Why did Cheney continue to say that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected during the debates when it had been widely proven to be blatantly wrong? If he knew that, then was he lying? was he selling? OR like I believe, everyone knows that people forget about the apology (you know the saying, better to do it now and apologize later) so he said it and if need be would have his apology pasted on page 7 and he could, once again, get away with it? Is that a trend? Does it reflect back on the "run up to war?"

[Blackadar]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Bush wasn't itching for this Iraqi war when he took office is an idiot. There's little doubt that he and his administration wanted it and pursued a course of action to get it. There's no doubt that he and his staff used false and misleading informaiton to justify it to the American public.

Arles, the proof is overwhelming. Anything else is just simply delusional.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Then I genuinely ask:

Why did Cheney continue to say that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected during the debates when it had been widely proven to be blatantly wrong? If he knew that, then was he lying? was he selling? OR like I believe, everyone knows that people forget about the apology (you know the saying, better to do it now and apologize later) so he said it and if need be would have his apology pasted on page 7 and he could, once again, get away with it? Is that a trend? Does it reflect back on the "run up to war?"

Quoting myself...perhaps Dutch didn't see this question, cuz I certainly think its valid when he points out that when the Admin. is corrected/wrong they're willing to admit it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Arles, the proof is overwhelming. Anything else is just simply delusional.

The proof is overwhelimg that mistakes were made in judgement based on "apparent" solid Intel at the time. But I just don't see instances where the administration knew something was wrong or incorrect, and went with it anyway with no retractions or reservations. Not only would it be probably smelt out by the press right when it happened (because of the legion of information in the WH, CIA and state dept), but it would be extremely stupid from a political standpoint. Anyone who thinks they can openly snow the world on false information is completely dillusional. Heck, the one time they did find out their intel was bad shortly after the fact, the put out a complete retraction and took their lumps. So, again, to believe that Bush and company openly lied on intelligence would force you to believe they:

A) Thought they wouldn't be caught despite the numerous informants and press leaks.

and

B) Weren't concerned about questions they would be forced to answer once we didn't find the WMD (which would coincide with Bush's re-election period).

The odds of both of those happening are slim and it just doesn't pass the political smell test. Now, did the White House latch on to certain info a little too quickly? Probably, and I think the CIA should have done a much better job at vetting their sources on certain things. But none of this equates these accusations of systematic deceit and falsifying information that appear to pop up every day.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So, if the CIA had not signed off on it, you would agree with me that the White House acted improperly? If, for instance, the CIA told the White House months before the information was used that it was untrue, that would be evidence of Bush fixing the information, right?

Let's turn to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm


The CIA is not the only intelligence organ in the US government. Regarding the aluminum tubes, Bush repeated the claim on several occasions, including his SOTU address to Congress in January 2003. It was also mentioned in Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. On October 9, 2002, the Institute for Science and International Security wrote:

On April 11, 2001, the Department of Energy noted that:

So we see that in the case of the Niger yellow cake, the White House ignored the CIA's retraction of the story. In the case of the aluminum tubes, the White House ignored expert advice from other agencies and other analysts that said the information was false.

What's your next rationalization?

Arles, did you miss this post? I gave you the exact information that you requested, so I am eager to hear you admit that Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

But none of this equates these accusations of systematic deceit and falsifying information that appear to pop up every day.

I pass my question on to you then:

Why Did Cheney, in the debate, continue to say that Al Qaeda and Saddam were together, even when it was proven that was true. Was he selling it or was he uninformed of the 9/11 commission and CIA's findings yet (3 months later)? IMO He knew what he said was wrong (so did his opponent) but under the guidelines of the debate it couldn't be exposed so it was sold on national TV and then an apology could be tucked away somewhere the next day or the day after that (the apology or retraction never came).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Bush wasn't itching for this Iraqi war when he took office is an idiot. There's little doubt that he and his administration wanted it and pursued a course of action to get it. There's no doubt that he and his staff used false and misleading informaiton to justify it to the American public.

Arles, the proof is overwhelming. Anything else is just simply delusional.

Actually that's not quite true. Bush wasn't itching for any kind of war when he took office. The neo-cons were, but Bush wasn't a neo-con - he was converted after 9/11.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Actually that's not quite true. Bush wasn't itching for any kind of war when he took office. The neo-cons were, but Bush wasn't a neo-con - he was converted after 9/11.

That's a bold couple of statements without any evidence to support it. Why do you think that is the case? I don't know how any of us would know one way or another, but I think it is fair to point out that all those neo-cons were appointed by the Bush administration before 9/11.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, did you miss this post? I gave you the exact information that you requested, so I am eager to hear you admit that Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy.

Obviously, you didn't read my response above:

Heck, the one time they did find out their intel was bad shortly after the fact, the put out a complete retraction and took their lumps.

Why Did Cheney, in the debate, continue to say that Al Qaeda and Saddam were together, even when it was proven that was true.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20041006a.html

Seems to me that Cheney was simply referencing the information he had available to him at the time from the CIA and Rumsfeld.

I think I've said all I can on this issue without repeating myself (something I've already been forced to do twice recently). If you guys want to believe Bush and company were out there fixing evidence to go to war with Iraq when they knew there were no WMD for some unknown motives - then I wish you good luck with that.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Arles, those in denial will always require the utmost proof before they are swayed, which every administration will be successful in preventing. Those who are realistic about the world (and have seen and experienced many things) can smell a rat. I smelled the rat a long time ago.

Whatever you say, at least you can admit that the administration was (to coin a phrase) not completely "up front" with the American public. I expect more from my leaders who commit lives and money (that could be better spent elsewhere) to war.

[Flasch186]

a little more clearly for those Arles is swerving:

from the SF Chronicle:

Edwards accused Cheney of making misleading claims that the former ruler of Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, telling Cheney: "Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

Cheney insisted that he had never made such a claim and had instead only linked al Qaeda to Iraq. Cheney's defense is true in the sense that he has never blamed Saddam Hussein for the Sept. 11 attack, but he has repeatedly suggested a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and asserted that attacking Iraq will strike a blow to the terrorists who "quote from whatever you were just reading from ...''

"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do," Cheney said, arguing that Iraq was "the most likely nexus between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.''

and this from Radio Netherlands:

Mr Edwards answered that question the moment he opened his mouth in his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. The Democrat attacked the Bush administration relentlessly on the war in Iraq and the conduct of the war on terrorism. He flatly rejected Mr Cheney's insistence that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda's September 11 terror strikes justified invading Iraq.

"Mr Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it, your own secretary of state has said it, and you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not, and in fact, the CIA is now about to report that he connection between al-Qaeda is tenuous at best. In fact, the secretary of defence said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people."



.........there were NO Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq prior to the war thus the war in Iraq was NOT an attack on Al Qaeda by any shape or means, considering Al Qaeda was not there AND had NO relationship with Saddam. The reason this is conniving is because the evidence of THIS fact came out PRIOR to the debate(s)...so perhaps you're right. Cheney used OLD data and conclusions and ignored the new conclusions when making his statements. That is completely disingenuous and some would argue slimy I just say it's salesmanship and I dont like it, never did.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Arles, those in denial will always require the utmost proof before they are swayed, which every administration will be successful in preventing. Those who are realistic about the world (and have seen and experienced many things) can smell a rat. I smelled the rat a long time ago.

I guess my question comes down to what does Bush gain by creating a "fraudulent" war when he knows Iraq doesn't have WMD? There's no long-term political gain as the truth about WMD would certainly have been out by 2004. There's no real gain in the party as republicans would support him regardless. So, I guess I don't get motives for Bush openly lying to the public about WMD simply to send 200,000 troops into Iraq. What does he gain by all this?

If he just wanted public support - all he had to do was keep riding 9/11 with afghanistan and do some token angling in the UN. His approval would probably have been about 75% going into the election. He certainly doesn't need the money (nor did he receive any) from Iraq. So, if I am going to believe that Bush openly lied to the American public to go into Iraq - I need a legit reason. And, please, no "Haliburtons" - try and actually think about this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess my question comes down to what does Bush gain by creating a "fraudulent" war when he knows Iraq doesn't have WMD?

4 more years, and a "manadate to push through the conservative agenda".

It wasn't that he didn't know about them before hand, no one is saying that....we're saying he banked on the bits of evidence that showed that they "might have them" AND ignored AND even tore up the evidence that suggested that they might not. Then in turn he allowed the "gang" mentality to prevail and begin a vicious cycle in which they could see outside the goggles pushing the verbage that supported war on us.

(if he'd of stuck to the humanitarian stuff we [me and you] wouldnt be having this discussion right now])

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and this from Radio Netherlands:

Mr Edwards answered that question the moment he opened his mouth in his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. The Democrat attacked the Bush administration relentlessly on the war in Iraq and the conduct of the war on terrorism. He flatly rejected Mr Cheney's insistence that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda's September 11 terror strikes justified invading Iraq.

"Mr Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

Cheney didn't say Iraq and 9/11 - he said Iraq and Al Qaeda. And, if you read the article I cited, there was evidence from Tenet, congress and other CIA sources of communications between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Cheney was simply citing that evidence at the time.

.........there were NO Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq prior to the war thus the war in Iraq was NOT an attack on Al Qaeda by any shape or means, considering Al Qaeda was not there AND had NO relationship with Saddam. The reason this is conniving is because the evidence of THIS fact came out PRIOR to the debate(s)...so perhaps you're right. Cheney used OLD data and conclusions and ignored the new conclusions when making his statements. That is completely disingenuous and some would argue slimy I just say it's salesmanship and I dont like it, never did.

That was not known, nor is known for sure right now. We knew that Al Qaeda trained in Iraq and we know that Al Qaeda leaders had met in Baghdad. What we do not know for sure is where Saddam was involved in those meetings. But, at the time, Tenet and the CIA had provided info to Cheney that showed it to be a distinct possibility.

The only mischaracterization here was Edwards putting words in Cheney's mouth and saying he tried to tie in 9/11 and Saddam - which Cheney never did.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

4 more years, and a "manadate to push through the conservative agenda".

It wasn't that he didn't know about them before hand, no one is saying that....we're saying he banked on the bits of evidence that showed that they "might have them" AND ignored AND even tore up the evidence that suggested that they might not. Then in turn he allowed the "gang" mentality to prevail and begin a vicious cycle in which they could see outside the goggles pushing the verbage that supported war on us.

There was a very large amount of evidence to implicate Saddam and WMD when the US went to war. Now, was there some evidence that questioned it? Certainly, but the vast majority of it under both Clinton, Bush, in the UK and much of Europe stated that Saddam *probably* had WMD. Perhaps *probably* shouldn't be enough to go to war - but the odds that we would have ever known 100% that Saddam did not have WMD are very long without the attack. In the end, we didn't find the WMD but the collective information we had pointed to a high probability that Saddam did. So, I have a hard time believing that Bush did not strongly feel Iraq had WMD and have a great deal of evidence to support that stance. If you do not believe that, then Blair, Clinton, many members of the UN and most international intelligence agencies (including Israel and Russia) were also either lying or ignoring much of the "negative evidence" that no one in the world could find back in 2002 but seems to be extremely obvious to 20-20 critics in 05. It's much easier to find conflicting intel when you have 2 years to search after knowing the outcome.

(if he'd of stuck to the humanitarian stuff we [me and you] wouldnt be having this discussion right now])

OK, so if Bush had simply changed his angle and focuses more on the humanitarian effort you would have no problem with the war? I find this extremely hard to believe.

If you really do feel that way then you should have no problem with the war right now (since it is also dealing with the humanitarian end) and only be mad at Bush for tricking you into supporting something you would have supported anyway. Is that your stance?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Cheney didn't say Iraq and 9/11 - he said Iraq and Al Qaeda. And, if you read the article I cited, there was evidence from Tenet, congress and other CIA sources of communications between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Cheney was simply citing that evidence at the time.


That was not known, nor is known for sure right now. We knew that Al Qaeda trained in Iraq and we know that Al Qaeda leaders had met in Baghdad. What we do not know for sure is where Saddam was involved in those meetings. But, at the time, Tenet and the CIA had provided info to Cheney that showed it to be a distinct possibility.

The only mischaracterization here was Edwards putting words in Cheney's mouth and saying he tried to tie in 9/11 and Saddam - which Cheney never did.

BS, Ansar Al Sunna was in Iraq and was anti Saddam. At that time they had no ties to Al Qaeda. You are spreading falsehoods.

At the time of the debate it WAS proven that the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda never happened. Cheney was citing old material if that is what youre saying and was disregarding the correct material(s).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, so if Bush had simply changed his angle and focuses more on the humanitarian effort you would have no problem with the war? I find this extremely hard to believe.

If you really do feel that way then you should have no problem with the war right now (since it is also dealing with the humanitarian end) and only be mad at Bush for tricking you into supporting something you would have supported anyway. Is that your stance?

you hit the nail on the head. Im for the war now and was then. I simply dont like being tricked. I also think we should go into the Sudan too (we = UN w/ us). Arles, it should be easy to understand, being Jewish, Im very much for going to war to end abuses and holocausts/genocides. Saddam deserved what he got, I just think it was disingenuous, how we got there.

[Arles]

Flasch, that is simply your opinion. We do not know if Al Sunna and the four others (that you don't cite) were in Iraq with or without Saddam's knowledge. I find it very difficult to believe a control freak like Saddam would allow 5 high level Al Qaeda members to enter Baghdad multiple times and not know about it.

Now, whether Saddam openly supported Al Qaeda is certainly unlikely, but you do not know the nature of these meetings to this point unless you've talked with Saddam. Cheney certainly didn't know this back during the debates and going on information given to him directly by Tenet (which Tenet has since admitted).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Flasch, that is simply your opinion. We do not know if Al Sunna and the four others (that you don't cite) were in Iraq with or without Saddam's knowledge. I find it very difficult to believe a control freak like Saddam would allow 5 high level Al Qaeda members to enter Baghdad multiple times and not know about it.

Now, whether Saddam openly supported Al Qaeda is certainly unlikely, but you do not know the nature of these meetings to this point unless you've talked with Saddam.

youre sounding like Bubba Wheels except it's not based on religious intolerance, you're simply basing your feelings on the, "you can't prove it so it must not exist." I dont own a smaple of stuff from Mars so I guess it doesn't exist either. Thats ridiculous and allows you to be manipulated by those with spin control.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

youre sounding like Bubba Wheels except it's not based on Christianity, you're simply basing your feelings on the, "you can't prove it so it must not exist." I dont own a smaple of stuff from Mars so I guess it doesn't exist either. Thats ridiculous and allows you to be manipulated by those with spin control.

You are saying that Cheney knew for a fact over a year ago that Saddam never met with Al Qaeda, "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda never happened" and that Cheney should be chastised for even mentioning it a year ago. I would think you need pretty strong proof to take those three stances. And, IMO, the proof was not there last year nor is it there right now.

Again, I think that any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is fairly tenuous at best. But, I don't fault Cheney for speaking what he felt was accurate last year given his briefings from Tenet. In fact, I'm a little surprised that this is still being harped as the "main deceit" from the administration.

[Arles]

dola. Plus, the debates with Cheney were well after we had already gone to war. He could have said the Easter Bunny was real and it wouldn't have impacted how the administration handled the build-up for war - what I gather is the main beef in this thread.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

You are saying that Cheney knew for a fact over a year ago that Saddam never met with Al Qaeda, "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda never happened" and that Cheney should be chastised for even mentioning it a year ago. I would think you need pretty strong proof to take those three stances. And, IMO, the proof was not there last year nor is it there right now.

Again, I think that any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is fairly tenuous at best. But, I don't fault Cheney for speaking what he felt was accurate last year given his briefings from Tenet. In fact, I'm a little surprised that this is still being harped as the "main deceit" from the administration.

with what you'll accept as evidennce its pointless to look. you wont accept anything short of it being written by Cheney or Bush himself....so whats the point. Your stance all the time in these threads is that it came from the liberal media OR it didn't come from the person who "said it"....so at that point you can close your door and hang the "do not disturb sign".

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

dola. Plus, the debates with Cheney were well after we had already gone to war. He could have said the Easter Bunny was real and it wouldn't have impacted how the administration handled the build-up for war - what I gather is the main beef in this thread.

I believe Bush had already said "mission Accomplished" so you would be correct there....The evidence that Saddam had NO ties with Al Qaeda also came out long before the debates. Why do you think Edwards was so quick to jump on it?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I believe Bush had already said "mission Accomplished" so you would be correct there....The evidence that Saddam had NO ties with Al Qaeda also came out long before the debates. Why do you think Edwards was so quick to jump on it?

Edwards is a politician and because the argument wasn't sexy enough by itself he had to change it to "9/11" instead of "Al-Qaeda" for the link with Saddam.

It seems you are saying Bush tricked the American public into approving the Iraq war by having Cheney play fast and loose with the facts months after we had already gone to war with broad US support. I'm not really following your argument anymore and it seems you're almost arguing for the sake of arguing. So, I will simply repost what I put above as it fits my impressions on this entire affair:

There was a very large amount of evidence to implicate Saddam and WMD when the US went to war. Now, was there some evidence that questioned it? Certainly, but the vast majority of it under both Clinton, Bush, in the UK and much of Europe stated that Saddam *probably* had WMD. Perhaps *probably* shouldn't be enough to go to war - but the odds that we would have ever known 100% that Saddam did not have WMD are very long without the attack. In the end, we didn't find the WMD but the collective information we had pointed to a high probability that Saddam did. So, I have a hard time believing that Bush did not strongly feel Iraq had WMD and have a great deal of evidence to support that stance. If you do not believe that, then Blair, Clinton, many members of the UN and most international intelligence agencies (including Israel and Russia) were also either lying or ignoring much of the "negative evidence" that no one in the world could find back in 2002 but seems to be extremely obvious to 20-20 critics in 05. It's much easier to find conflicting intel when you have 2 years to search after knowing the outcome.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Edwards is a politician and because the argument wasn't sexy enough by itself he had to change it to "9/11" instead of "Al-Qaeda" for the link with Saddam.

It seems you are saying Bush tricked the American public into approving the Iraq war by having Cheney play fast and loose with the facts months after we had already gone to war with broad US support. I'm not really following your argument anymore and it seems you're almost arguing for the sake of arguing. So, I will simply repost what I put above as it fits my impressions on this entire affair:

So edwards made it sexy and that is WRONG, but so is what cheney did but you refuse to admit that when he/the admin. does something eggregious (IMO lying counts) it is wrong. In this case at that debate, Cheney lied and thats all there is to it. If Edwards lied, than that is wrong too.

[Flasch186]

BTW, none of our debates are ever intended with malice....I like you and am glad youre willing to participate. its fun, and enlightening, sometimes

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So edwards made it sexy and that is WRONG, but so is what cheney did but you refuse to admit that when he/the admin. does something eggregious (IMO lying counts) it is wrong. In this case at that debate, Cheney lied and thats all there is to it. If Edwards lied, than that is wrong too.

OK, Cheney should have checked his facts for the debate better if the administration knew the link was tenuous at best. I still fail to see how this impacts the decision to go to war or impacting American support for that decision. But, I will certainly admit that trying to deceive the American public is wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BTW, none of our debates are ever intended with malice....I like you and am glad youre willing to participate. its fun, and enlightening, sometimes

Except you haven't listened to a word Arles has said.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, Cheney should have checked his facts for the debate better if the administration knew the link was tenuous at best. I still fail to see how this impacts the decision to go to war or impacting American support for that decision. But, I will certainly admit that trying to deceive the American public is wrong.

welp thats it....we're on the same page....no wonder there have been earthquakes recently.

I was not saying this had to do with the decision to go to war simply that the admin (Cheney) was lying (you might say not accurate) and they DO lie on occasion to lead in their direction.

[Arles]

And the world is round But stretching a few points to try and win a debate is not on the same level as openly deceiving the American people in a war the facts do not support. Taking that plunge is one I have a hard time doing given what we knew in 2002 and what we know now. A lot of people would have needed to be "deceiving us" for that to have happened - many gaining very little in the process.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Arles, you're still in denial.

Allowing Cheney to skate on saying Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked because he didn't say "9/11" is a the wrong stance to take. He knew darn well people would make that link based on what he said. That is just as bad as saying it as far as I am concerned. Anyways, right after the debates CNN showed a clip of Cheney saying something he claimed he didn't say when Edwards pressed him in the debate. You and the administration are the ultimate word parsers. You shouldn't parse words when making the case for war, never. It is completely irresponsible, and you just can't justify it in my mind.

And I think Flasch nailed the answer on what the motivation was (4 more years -- the guy won the presidency the first time by a whisker -- and no one votes out a war time president). I am not saying Bush knew there weren't WMDs and just made it an excuse to go to war. What he did do was rely on information he knew was shaky (and ignored evidence to the contrary) when informing the public of the state of affairs with Iraq. Again, irresponsible, and not very presidential.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Obviously, you didn't read my response above:

I didn't think you would give such a weak rebuttal for such a damning indictment, so I figured that wasn't addressed to me. But I stand corrected, you really did give a weak rebuttal.

Me: They fixed the intelligence
Arles: Show me an example
Me: Here are several examples
Arles: No, I want an example that fits these specific criteria
Me: Here is an example that fits those specific criteria
Arles: Well, they apologized

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess my question comes down to what does Bush gain by creating a "fraudulent" war when he knows Iraq doesn't have WMD?

That is the question that is making the rounds in the leftie blogs: Why did we go to war? Digby has the best summary:

Let me be clear. Nobody saying that there was a conspiracy. What we are wondering is why, in light of the information that they knew Saddam wasn't a threat to US national security and knew that there were no terrorist ties, did they really want to invade --- particularly after 9/11 when it had been made very clear that a real threat existed that needed our full attention?

For all I know they had a perfectly reasonable rationale. But whatever it was, it was not the one they said it was. We had just suffered a massive terrorist attack and the entire country was prepared to do whatever was necessary to prevent it happening again. Yet the governments of the US (colluding with Britain) decided very soon after 9/11 that invasion of Iraq was essential, a decision that has not been adequately explained. It is not conspiracy mongering to want to know why they did what they did.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

And I think Flasch nailed the answer on what the motivation was (4 more years -- the guy won the presidency the first time by a whisker -- and no one votes out a war time president).

So, he staged a war on false pretense to win another election? That makes absolutely no sense as even the most hawkish admitted the war would be a long, tough battle that would require American resolve. If Bush was concerned about re-election, his best bet would have been to continue in afghanistan, keep living off the 9/11 patriotism and not upset the Apple cart. Remember, before we went to war his approval was close to 80% - why mess with that?

If he was truly worried about keeping power he would have waited until after the election to enter Iraq and played the UN game for another year or so. That would have been the safest course for him to stay in power. Have the invasion 6-8 months before the election. By going as early as he did, he seriously risked his chances for re-election.

I am not saying Bush knew there weren't WMDs and just made it an excuse to go to war. What he did do was rely on information he knew was shaky (and ignored evidence to the contrary) when informing the public of the state of affairs with Iraq. Again, irresponsible, and not very presidential.

I completely disagree. If the info was shaky, then there would have been a large swelling out of the Israelis, Russians, British, CIA, US Senate or House to reveal the truth. What the critics now refuse to admit (and it's quite amazing when you go back and look at the info in 01-02) is that there was very little "evidence to the contrary" when taking the entire picture in when the US went to war. Heck, even the UN, France and Germany didn't dispute that Saddam *probably* had WMD. They were simply arguing that war wasn't the best way to get him to disarm the weapons they felt he had.

This is really quite remarkable - this theory that it was plain as day that Saddam didn't have WMD and Bush just happened to snow the US congress, British, Israelis, UN, France, Germany, Russia and even former president Clinton. Give me a break. Any person with a brain back in 2001-2002 stated that Saddam had WMD, and going back to cherry pick obscure memos and statements no one gave any credibility to back in 01-02 (including the top democrats like Biden, Kerry and Kennedy) to help show it was "obvious" that Saddam didn't have WMD is laughable and complete revisionist history. The US (and much of the world) turned out to be wrong on Saddam's WMD, but that doesn't mean everyone acted negligent and "irresponsible" when reaching that conclusion.

Again, this all comes down to the fact that people do not want to believe the US (and world) intelligence could have been as wrong on the issue of WMD as they were so they are setting up Bush to be this evil overlord who burned all this legitimate data (unknown to CLinton, France, Germany, UK, Israel, US congress, George Tenet and the UN) that could have saved us from war if only he had allowed it to be presented. If you guys want to think that way - have at it. But don't patronize the rest of us and say you don't think there was any "conspiracy". If what you are saying is indeed true, it would be one of the biggest conspiracies in the past century and one that numerous world governments and US administrations would have needed to turn a blind eye on. And, that seems way too increduluous to believe.

That is, unless you are too terrified to believe that the US and world could very well have been wrong about Saddam with no conspiracy - meaning it could easily happen again in the future to any administration. That is significantly more likely and should be the focus of all of us for the future. Not trying to paint Bush as some Boogeyman who snowed us all and went to war for fame and oil.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Arles

I guess my question comes down to what does Bush gain by creating a "fraudulent" war when he knows Iraq doesn't have WMD?

Originally Posted by Flasch186

4 more years, and a "manadate to push through the conservative agenda".

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

And I think Flasch nailed the answer on what the motivation was (4 more years -- the guy won the presidency the first time by a whisker -- and no one votes out a war time president).

Let me be clear. Nobody saying that there was a conspiracy.

Right, and I've got some swampland to sell you. That's exactly what many on the left have been trying to peddle for over a year now. I think that the FOFC members that trend left are much more responsible and level-headed than the common left blogger. Yet, as seen in this post, some of them have even entertained this "war for political gain" poppycock.

There were just too many people that would have jumped on the WMD argument being bogus and didn't (Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, France, Germany, UN, UK) for me to think that if Bush would have paid more attention to a few odd memos or Richard Clarke that everyone would have known Saddam didn't have WMD.

But, hey, maybe that makes me some Bush apologist and completely out of touch with reality. At this point, given the wacky alternatives being thrown out there by people I would normally classify as intelligent (most not on FOFC - to be fair), I guess I don't really have a problem with that label from some of the critics.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I give up. I can no longer debate somebody in denial.

Hang on. One last try. Listen to what we are saying on Bush's thinking.

1) I believe Saddam is a bad man, and needs to be removed. He invaded Kuwait and killed his own people and I just don't like him.
2) Majority of public would not support a war on this basis, and so this would seriously hurt my re-election chances
3) Since I honestly believe Saddam has to go, I will look for other reasons to get rid of him.
4) Well, here is some info about links to 9/11 and WMDs. This would easily be supported by the public to start the war. Hmm, and it sure would help my re-election chances
5)Hmm, the info on WMDs and 9/11 link is shaky, but since Saddam is a bad man and has to go, I will throw these reasons out there for going to war
6) I guessed right, the public is really latching onto these ideas, let's push them right up front as justification for going to war. You know what, I bet we find WMDs anyway. And you know what else, maybe we can start the spread of freedom over there (these are hopeful wishes with inadequate planning)
7) Then, his idiot advisors lead him to believe it will all be a cakewalk with flowers for the victors.

You see, I am not saying the guy was evil and started a war for the heck of it. He just wasn't being up front about why Iraq was being invaded. And I simply don't think this is ok for making the decision that ends up costing the lives of 1,700 US men and women, seriously injuring 12,000 of them, and by conservative estimates causing the death of 70,000 to 100,000 of Iraqi civilians, including many children. That's all I'm saying.

P.S. as for the continued arguments that everyone else thought he had WMDs, the simple fact is that the majority of those nations (except UK for the most part) thought the evidence was too shaky or the task too complicated. So, they refused to support the war (even Canada who supports the US on almost every such decision). Clearly, those other countries knew all too well what Bush chose to ignore.

[Arles]

I give up as well. This is like arguing with a kid afraid of the boggeyman. No matter how hard a try to get a reason for the fear, all I end up getting is "because he's scary". Well, don't worry guys, Bush will be out in a little over two years and all our national intelligence problems will be solved.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Arles, see my edit above. Hopefully, this will make it clear where we are coming from. I am not saying it was a bogeyman, I am saying it was a man who was very misguided and deceptive, who thought the end justified the means. Not acceptable on going to war.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

I give up as well. This is like arguing with a kid afraid of the boggeyman. No matter how hard a try to get a reason for the fear, all I end up getting is "because he's scary". Well, don't worry guys, Bush will be out in a little over two years and all our national intelligence problems will be solved.

What the heck are you talking about? People keep giving evidence and you keep ignoring it. In fact, you asked for specific evidence, I gave it, then you ignored it and talked about how it's so frustrating because people won't give you any evidence. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, he staged a war on false pretense to win another election? That makes absolutely no sense as even the most hawkish admitted the war would be a long, tough battle that would require American resolve. If Bush was concerned about re-election, his best bet would have been to continue in afghanistan, keep living off the 9/11 patriotism and not upset the Apple cart. Remember, before we went to war his approval was close to 80% - why mess with that?

If he was truly worried about keeping power he would have waited until after the election to enter Iraq and played the UN game for another year or so. That would have been the safest course for him to stay in power. Have the invasion 6-8 months before the election. By going as early as he did, he seriously risked his chances for re-election.

Come on Arles, you can't be that blind. It makes perfect sense. His own FATHER had record approval numbers during the Gulf War and was out of office less than 2 years later. Afghanistan was over. Living off of that would have been like George Sr. living of the Gulf War. It didn't work. So he learned from dear ol' Dad's mistakes.

As for the timing, that's easy - his hand was forced. The events of 9/11 still gave him a lot of leeway in national defense matters in the public's opinion. UN Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and starting to conclude there were no more WMD's. A final report concluding there were none would have taken away one of the main reasons for going to war. Saddam was also showing signs of capitulating. Waiting was not a viable alternative as it would have eroded the 9/11 support, the WMD argument and perhaps even the view of Saddam in the USA.

So before people could have jumped on the WMD argument being bogus, Bush struck Iraq. By the time the correct information regarding WMDs and Al-Quada surfaced, we were mired in Iraq - it was "unpatriotic" to question why we're there. After all, our Boys need our support!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

If what you are saying is indeed true, it would be one of the biggest conspiracies in the past century and one that numerous world governments and US administrations would have needed to turn a blind eye on. And, that seems way too increduluous to believe.

Not that I think it was an "intentional" conspiraacy BUT how could all of those countries believe it? Well Bush had just said youre either with us or against us, he had just called them an axis of evil, he had just had Powell hold up a vial of Anthrax at the UN, he had an 80% approval rating AND we all believed it. Why wouldn't they? OR, just like our admin, they might've had their doubts but who could voice them under the atmosphere that pervaded.

[Arles]

OK, I'm trying to take a step back and look at the situation in its entirety. There was a great deal of intelligence gathered from the mid 90s to 2002 on Saddam. And I have no doubt that, years after knowing the outcome on WMD, some people could find information that questionned it. That isn't really being argued here. The heart of the argument is did Bush purposefully modify/hide intelligence to avoid people finding out about it and not wanting to go to war. And this is what I take exception to.

The scenerio you guys are basically proposing is that Bush, after seeing (just the main bits):

1. All the satellite images, accounts and data that Powell presented to the UN
2. Getting the info from the UN on unaccounted weapons and WMD material with no confirmation from the inspectors on it being disposed of or where they were even being stored.
3. Handed bundles of intelligence from the Clinton term that was compelling enough for Bill to bomb Iraq stating they were going after nuclear capabilities and had WMD.
4. Straight CIA data that was compelling enough to have senate intelligence members like Joe Biden say, unequivically, that Saddam possessed WMD both BEFORE and during the Bush administration.
5. Being told by the director of the CIA that the case was a "slam dunk" for Saddam possessing WMD.

After all this, Bush found a couple outlying memos and found that a few CIA agents that he hadn't even talked to might be against the WMD argument, so he frantically started to hide and burn dissenting materials because he really thought if people found a memo or heard from a CIA guy that the entire case would have been discredited? And, Bush knew that the WMD information was shaky but that he needed this war to stay in office?

Not only would the info people have found now after years of piling through old data not have made a hill of beans difference, but you guys are taking this information in a vaccum and completely ignoring the info that we now question - but was viewed as completely legit by the CIA, congress (and much of the world) back in 2002. A better claim would not be that Bush purposefully hid or deceived the public, but that, given info 1-5 listed above, he simply felt the other pieces of information (that have suddenly taken on more credibility now that we know the outcome) were not compelling enough to change his opinion. Plus, we know that much of this information found now wasn't given much credence by George Tenet or FBI head Muller when the president was briefed.

Again, if you guys want to believe that there was some "hidden gem" of information readily available back in 2001 and 2002 that would have changed everyone's mind on Iraq or should have made a compelling case to Bush not to go to war - go right ahead. But you guys are doing exactly what you are accussing Bush of doing back in 2002 in searching only for bits of information that may help your case while completely ignoring the elephant in the room that was the massive US, UN and world intelligence that implicated Saddam possessing WMD. Bush, the US and much of the world were wrong on the claim Saddam possessed WMD, but that doesn't mean there was massive deceit involved in convincing others. That's the leap that you guys seem more than willing to make and I do not.