G
- Status
T
thestickman
Guest
The truth never ever goes away, does it?
Change the date to 2003. It’s interesting, to say the least.
T
Thekla
Guest
gilliam said:
The problem with bringing up quotes prior to Iraq’s declaration and the work of the weapon’s inspectors is that the quotes were all rendered much less meaningful.
Many people who support the war are rewriting history with their failure to acknowledge that those inspectors were being given information and sites to check and coming up with essentially nothing. Many people thought that Iraq had certain weapons and reassessed their thinking when people began debunking many of the claims.
Did Bush lie? I think that the majority of people now believe that it’s likely if not definite that he did. A lot of people can’t put their finger on why they feel lied to and I think that has to do with the manipulation of language that the administration conducted.
M
MrS
Guest
He may be laughed at for messing up some big words… but at least he knows what “is” means.
I believe him when he says "I did not have sex with Saddam"http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_30.gif
M
MikeWM
Guest
Indeed. Pretty much all of these speeches and quotes are along the lines of ‘well, we need to see what he’s got, and then judge how we can deal with it, including force if necessary.’
We did go to see what we had, and even though Saddam basically had nothing, and was ‘largely in compliance’ with what we were telling him to do, we invaded anyway. What people said in February and March 2003 is what is interesting.
Mike
P
Philip_P
Guest
If you look at the “flip-flops” of those who supported the war and now opposed it, you’ll find that the primary gripe is faulty intelligence. Go through Sen. Rockefeller’s speeches, for instance (go to www.vote-smart.org. You can search his speeches, as well as info on all national elected officials). What you’ll find is support, then increasing questions about the intelligence that support was based on, then finally lack of support.
We know the intelligence was faulty. That’s a fact. We also know that, within the intelligence community, there were indications that the intel was faulty. What we don’t know is to what extent those outside the intel community knew of this, and whether the dissent within the intel community was suppressed in response to political pressure. That seems to be key here.
Two questions seem pertinent. On the question of whether Bush “lied” or “marketed” the war, we need to know if the relevant officials in his administration were aware of the dissenting intel, and deliberately suppressed it.
On the question of whether the Democrats are hypocrites, the same question basically applies.
Neither of these really go to the question of whether the war was justified, but they do go to the question of accountability for the war.
We know the intelligence was faulty. That’s a fact. We also know that, within the intelligence community, there were indications that the intel was faulty. What we don’t know is to what extent those outside the intel community knew of this, and whether the dissent within the intel community was suppressed in response to political pressure. That seems to be key here.
Two questions seem pertinent. On the question of whether Bush “lied” or “marketed” the war, we need to know if the relevant officials in his administration were aware of the dissenting intel, and deliberately suppressed it.
On the question of whether the Democrats are hypocrites, the same question basically applies.
Neither of these really go to the question of whether the war was justified, but they do go to the question of accountability for the war.
S
SamCA
Guest
I actually tend to think that the administrations here and in England probably did really believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. After all, even in the Downing Street Memo, where they’re actually sitting there talking about how the whole ‘let the inspectors in’ thing was a complete BS smokescreen to provide justification for the war, they were seriously considering the idea that Saddam might use WMDs against them.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t cook the books in their favor to make the case, though. I find it very telling that Colin Powell has basically come right out and said that 2/3rds of his speech to the UN was nonsense.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t cook the books in their favor to make the case, though. I find it very telling that Colin Powell has basically come right out and said that 2/3rds of his speech to the UN was nonsense.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I must have missed that. Are you saying Colin Powell admitted to making up 2/3s of his speech? Where’s the actual quote?
Robert
R
rlg94086
Guest
Philip P:
Of course, Bush detractors ASSUME his administration was aware of faulty intel and suppressd it. Whereas, Bush supporters ASSUME they did not know. Either way both sides are assuming…and we all know what that means…
Very reasonable post.
Of course, Bush detractors ASSUME his administration was aware of faulty intel and suppressd it. Whereas, Bush supporters ASSUME they did not know. Either way both sides are assuming…and we all know what that means…
S
SamCA
Guest
usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
I can’t actually find a source for the ‘two thirds’ bit, which leads me to suspect that I’m probably wrong about it. (Could have sworn I remembered a quote to that effect; if anyone actually remembers something like that, let me know; if not, I’m almost certainly incorrect.)
Nonetheless, Powell has publically recanted on the validity of the evidence he presented to the UN.
2
2shelbys
Guest
The only rewriting of history is being done by the Democrats and other opponents of the war. It is also wrong that they came up with nothing. Just because the press keeps saying so does not make it true. I am getting so tired of re-stating the facts in response to this nonsense that I am not even going to bother posting links to things like Hans Blix stating that they found a bunker full of chemical warheads for artillery and his belief that they were only the “tip of the iceberg”. This is just getting too old.
The reason no one can put their finger on it is that there is no rational reason to believe he lied. The only reason anyone believes it is that the press keeps harping on it every day.
V
Vanessa
Guest
I still believe he had weapons of mass destruction. I think they got carried out of the country during the months of the war build-up. He was an insane, possibly possessed, murdering man who desperately wanted revenge on the USA. If I was him, I would have had them.
I was against the war from the beginning, not because Sadam didn’t need stomping, but because I saw no way to win. And I especially saw no way for the Iraqi Christians to do anything but lose.
How we can get out of this mess now is beyond me. Unless we stay there, Iraq will become another crusading Muslim country.
I don’t believe Bush lied. Now did he have other motives, like finishing his father’s war or a Christian rescue? Maybe.
I was against the war from the beginning, not because Sadam didn’t need stomping, but because I saw no way to win. And I especially saw no way for the Iraqi Christians to do anything but lose.
How we can get out of this mess now is beyond me. Unless we stay there, Iraq will become another crusading Muslim country.
I don’t believe Bush lied. Now did he have other motives, like finishing his father’s war or a Christian rescue? Maybe.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Philip P:
We know no such thing and it certainly is no fact. ALL of the nations whos intelligence communities supported the notion that Iraq had these weapons and was likely to use them still to this day support the accuracy of the intelligence. This includes, Britian, Russia, Germany, France, and even China.
That is because there was no credible “dissenting” intel and you do not risk disaster based on intel that is not credible.
Not really. They saw the same intelligence that the Bush administration saw and they came to the same conclusion. Now they are pretending that never happened.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
It doesn’t matter if we find out the intelligence is faulty now.
At the time, everyone agreed that Saddam probably had the weapons.
As far as criticizing the credibility, look at 9/11. Wasn’t there intelligence stating that something was going to happen, but determined to be not “credible enough”.
Contrary to popular belief, intelligence is not an exact process.
At the time, everyone agreed that Saddam probably had the weapons.
As far as criticizing the credibility, look at 9/11. Wasn’t there intelligence stating that something was going to happen, but determined to be not “credible enough”.
Contrary to popular belief, intelligence is not an exact process.
R
rlg94086
Guest
SamCA said:
Fair enough…thanks for the link.
However, it doesn’t say Powell admitted to misrepresenting the facts. It says he was embarrassed to be the one who presented invalid data. It doesn’t say that anyone “cooked the books”.
He doesn’t even indict the intelligence community. All he says is some knew that some of the sources weren’t good and shouldn’t be relied on.
Let’s all jump in a time machine to pre-Copernican days and let all of the scientific community know they are purposely misrepresenting the truth by saying the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I think everyone came to conclusions based on the data available and acted in good faith…Republicans and Democrats.
F
FightingFat
Guest
Here’s another great Google search!! 
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Jerks at google.
L
Lonevoice
Guest
Lately Google has been showing it’s colours, so to speak, with what they decide to list and what they don’t.
Try alltheweb.com/
-or-
dogpile.com/
and if you just want NOTHING to do with Google, you can try altavista.com/web/
Try alltheweb.com/
-or-
dogpile.com/
and if you just want NOTHING to do with Google, you can try altavista.com/web/
S
SamCA
Guest
No, but it does say that…
But they were relied upon, despite the fact that they knew beforehand the sources were bad. Why would you go to the UN and give them information from sources you already know aren’t telling the truth, if you’re not trying to spice up your case a bit?
An example. We had a prisoner in custody who told us that Iraq was training Al Queida in bomb making and tactics. We used that intelligence to try to show a link between Iraq and Al Quieda, up to and including major speeches by Bush. Since then, leaked internal communications have shown that they knew this were pretty sure was lying through his teeth right from the getgo, and he was classified as unreliable – but they used it anyway to try to get people onboard with Iraq.
The question to me seems to amount to where the dishonesty took place. I’m quite capable of believing that it was much further down the chain than the President, and by the time the intel got to him he believed it was entirely accurate, but somebody was messing about.
There’s also the small matter that we now know for a fact that Bush was bald-faced lying back when he was going on about how invading Iraq was a last resort, and how we should let the weapons inspectors work. We know this because the British government has leaked nine different memos from the highest levels of their government that discuss in plain language meetings they’ve had with their American counterparts to discuss the fact that Bush was already determined to invade Iraq even back then. These even including their own lawyers’ assessments that such an invasion would be illegal, unless they can use the UN WMD resolutions to provide legal cover.
M
MikeWM
Guest
John McCain said that Powell said ‘two thirds’ on The Daily Show last week, if that helps.
Mike
- Status