06-14-2005, 04:17 PM | #101 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-14-2005, 04:32 PM | #102 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude Last edited by John Galt : 06-14-2005 at 04:46 PM. |
|
06-14-2005, 05:24 PM | #103 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Quote:
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... |
|
06-14-2005, 05:25 PM | #104 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
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.
|
06-14-2005, 05:30 PM | #105 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-14-2005, 05:52 PM | #106 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2005, 10:46 PM | #107 | ||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Let's turn to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm Quote:
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: Quote:
On April 11, 2001, the Department of Energy noted that: Quote:
What's your next rationalization? |
||||
06-14-2005, 10:59 PM | #108 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
That is proof that the White House will admit a mistake. |
|
06-14-2005, 11:09 PM | #109 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-14-2005, 11:13 PM | #110 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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?"
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 01:35 PM | #111 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
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. |
06-16-2005, 01:52 PM | #112 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 02:06 PM | #113 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 02:10 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 02:39 PM | #114 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-16-2005, 02:42 PM | #115 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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).
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 05:35 PM | #116 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-16-2005, 06:52 PM | #117 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-16-2005, 07:16 PM | #118 | |||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
06-16-2005, 09:34 PM | #119 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
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. |
06-16-2005, 09:59 PM | #120 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-16-2005, 09:59 PM | #121 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:01 PM | #122 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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])
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-16-2005 at 10:04 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:06 PM | #123 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
06-16-2005, 10:12 PM | #124 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
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? Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 10:15 PM. |
||
06-16-2005, 10:15 PM | #125 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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).
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 10:18 PM | #126 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-16-2005 at 10:20 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:18 PM | #127 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
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). Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 10:21 PM. |
06-16-2005, 10:20 PM | #128 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-16-2005 at 10:22 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:23 PM | #129 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 10:26 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:33 PM | #130 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
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.
|
06-16-2005, 10:33 PM | #131 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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".
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 10:35 PM | #132 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 10:42 PM | #133 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 10:48 PM. |
||
06-16-2005, 10:50 PM | #134 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 10:51 PM | #135 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
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
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-16-2005, 10:51 PM | #136 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
06-16-2005, 10:57 PM | #137 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Except you haven't listened to a word Arles has said. |
|
06-16-2005, 10:58 PM | #138 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 11:26 PM | #139 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
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.
|
06-16-2005, 11:42 PM | #140 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
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. |
06-17-2005, 12:59 AM | #141 | |||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-17-2005, 12:59 AM | #142 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Arles : 06-17-2005 at 01:06 AM. |
||
06-17-2005, 01:18 AM | #143 | ||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by Arles : 06-17-2005 at 01:21 AM. |
||||
06-17-2005, 01:23 AM | #144 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
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. Last edited by Vinatieri for Prez : 06-17-2005 at 01:40 AM. |
06-17-2005, 01:35 AM | #145 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
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.
|
06-17-2005, 01:42 AM | #146 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
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.
|
06-17-2005, 02:57 AM | #147 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2005, 08:03 AM | #148 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
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! |
|
06-17-2005, 08:07 AM | #149 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 08:38 AM | #150 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
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. Last edited by Arles : 06-17-2005 at 08:46 AM. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|