Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers! by chrisisall

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That may have been the case. But if it was the case, it was only so because the US and the UK had an invasion force at Iraq’s doorstep, not because the UN or Saddam had changed their colors. At that point, it was a little too late for Saddam to play nice or for the UN to act professionally.

So we invaded not because Saddam had WMD or posed an imminent threat but because he was a bad man with bad intentions and we didn't trust what he might do in the future?

Quote:
and there was no guarantee that weapons inspectors would be done any time soon.

Not according to Blix, and since he was in charge of the inspections I guess he should know. He testified before the UN that he needed another 3 or 4 months. That's why I kept wondering about that urgency to invade. it's not as if Saddam had done anything new or different or more than before that posed an increased threat level to anyone- either us or that region. And in fact, with ongoing UN inspections that showed nothing upon nothing, the real threat was nil and the perception of threat should have been going down not up.

---------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So we invaded not because Saddam had WMD or posed an imminent threat but because he was a bad man with bad intentions and we didn't trust what he might do in the future?

And we were already embroiled in aggression with Iraq, and Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket and was undermining UN authority, and we suspected Saddam had WMDs.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not according to Blix, and since he was in charge of the inspections I guess he should know. He testified before the UN that he needed another 3 or 4 months.

Do you suppose those who were in charge of the last round of weapons inspectors knew they would be guided around like dogs on a leash? The only credibly Blix had came from the invasion force in Kuwait.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And we were already embroiled in aggression with Iraq, and Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket and was undermining UN authority, and we suspected Saddam had WMDs.

And so what? What made an invasion so urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix was done? See my previous 10 posts.

And all that hyperbole- the WMD deployed east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad... the pictures of mushroom clouds... the uranium tubes and yellowcake... what was THAT all about? It was a bedtime story designed to stampede an unsuspecting public into thinking that Saddam posed an iimminent threat... which was not anywhere near true. I just shake my head that someone as bright as you can't look back and see that you were hoodwinked.

------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And so what? What made an invasion so urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix was done? See my previous 10 posts.

We’re starting to go around in circles. I’ve already responded to this. Why wait for weapons’ inspectors if you don’t feel they have any credibility?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And I listed what they were doing and what they found. And then compare and contrast to the mushroom cloud talk, and the WMD deployed east, west, south, north somewhat of Baghdad... the yellowcake and aluminum tubes and all the other crap spewed out by the Bush Administration and than ask yourself WHO had better credibility? An administration that was increasingly strident to the point of hysteria? Despite NO INCREASED THREAT LEVEL? Or a team of experts- including American experts- who were doing a body cavity search of Iraq?

I think that's what really triggered my suspicion: The Administration was getting more and more insistent. The rhetoric was getting more and more overblown. But there was no reason for it. Saddam wasn't massing troops. He wasn't embarking on any new programs. There were no new building detected by satellite. No long-range missile tests. Under the aggressive inspection of the UNMOVIC it was unlikely that a new, higher level threat would be developing.

So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I listed what they were doing and what they found. And then compare and contrast to the mushroom cloud talk, and the WMD deployed east, west, south, north somewhat of Baghdad... the yellowcake and aluminum tubes and all the other crap spewed out by the Bush Administration and than ask yourself WHO had better credibility? An administration that was increasingly strident to the point of hysteria? Despite NO INCREASED THREAT LEVEL? Or a team of experts- including American experts- who were doing a body cavity search of Iraq?

The last team of weapons inspectors were experts too. I don’t doubt any of their credibility individually, but I do doubt their ability as a UN team to deal with Iraq without direct US/UK military intervention. The fact remains that if Blix’s team had more credibility then the last, it was only because of the invasion force in Kuwait.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The fact remains that if Blix’s team had more credibility then the last, it was only because of the invasion force in Kuwait.

That may be so, but the fact is that they did have greater credibility... AND free access...

But you still haven't answered my question: What was the urgent urgency? When I ask "Why not wait?" your only answer is "Why wait?"

Well, waiting might show you that you might not actually HAVE to invade. Isn't THAT a good reason?

-----------------------
I think that's what really triggered my suspicion: The Administration was getting more and more insistent. The rhetoric was getting more and more overblown. But there was no reason for it. Saddam wasn't massing troops. He wasn't embarking on any new programs. There were no new building detected by satellite. No long-range missile tests. Under the aggressive inspection of the UNMOVIC it was unlikely that a new, higher level threat would be developing.

So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?

It wasn’t necessarily arbitrary. It is extremely expensive to keep troops idle in the desert. Its costly not only in dollar value but also in moral and political will. Kuwait, for instance, wasn’t going to accept an invasion force on the soil indefinitely. But the real reason was simply that the administration never had any confidence in the UN weapons inspectors, so why should they wait, when there had been 10 years of weapons inspections already?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, waiting might show you that you might not actually HAVE to invade. Isn't THAT a good reason?

I think that there was a concern that the longer the wait the less political will there would be. I work with a guy whose always “almost done” with any project. He might spend three months being “almost done” if you let him. And that was the way weapons inspectors went in Iraq. For 10 years, the weapons inspectors just needed a couple more months. The more often Blix came out and said “almost done” the longer people would be willing to wait, and if people waited long enough, the US/UK would have to withdraw their forces because you can’t keep an invasion force indefinitely in a state of readiness. And Saddam wins yet another political victory on an increasingly week UN. So yeah there was an urgency, because the administration believed that weapons inspections were nothing more than an excuse to put off the inevitable, and given enough time the typical complacency of the UN and the craftiness of Iraqi agents would turn the whole thing into another debacle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Compared to invading a country, keeping your troops nearby is a whole lot cheaper in terms of money and morale. Please Finn, stop rationalizing.

Quote:
I think that there was a concern that the longer the wait the less political will there would be. I work with a guy whose always “almost done” with any project. He might spend three months being “almost done” if you let him. And that was the way weapons inspectors went in Iraq. For 10 years, the weapons inspectors just needed a couple more months. The more often Blix came out and said “almost done” the longer people would be willing to wait, and if people waited long enough, the US/UK would have to withdraw their forces because you can’t keep an invasion force indefinitely in a state of readiness. And Saddam wins yet another political victory on an increasingly week UN. So yeah there was an urgency, because the administration believed that weapons inspections were nothing more than an excuse to put off the inevitable, and given enough time the typical complacency of the UN and the craftiness of Iraqi agents would turn the whole thing into another debacle.

In other words, they chose to invade not because Saddam posed an imminent threat but because he might have won a political victory? Or because he might pose a threat some day? We invaded to preempt the conclusion of inspections?

Well, that's not what they told US

Don't you remember Rumsfeld running around with his hair on fire saying he KNEW where the WMD were deployed? Condi saying that we had to get Iraq before the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compared to invading a country, keeping your troops nearby is a whole lot cheaper in terms of money and morale. Please Finn, stop rationalizing.

First of all, we aren’t talking about just troops – this was an invasion force. And it is costly on moral to keep your troops waiting and not knowing what is going to happen. Soldiers begin to keep helpless, and that is far more costly on moral then taking causalities. Furthermore there’s a difference between spending money to keep an invasion force idle and spending money to put your invasion force to work. These may be points that you didn’t both to consider when you were doing your experienced analysis, but they are not rationalizations.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But let me take your reasoning a bit farther. According to you, it didn't matter to the Administration what UNMOVIC found. Invasion was a forgone conclusion. How do you explain the hysteria of the Administration, which claimed to know where WMD were deployed and scared us all with pictures of mushroom clouds? What kind of backing did they have for these overblown statements?

As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We invaded to preempt the conclusion of inspections?

The inspections had 10 years to work – they didn’t, and the administration no longer had any confidence in them. What about that is so difficult to understand? I’ve repeated that a half dozen times already. You don’t seem to disagree that the administration didn’t have any confidence in the inspections, but you just sort of dismiss it. But it was the reason for the war. Iraq had gotten out of control and no one had any confidence in the UN’s ability to deal with it, and after 9/ll that wasn’t considered tolerable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.

No, this is YOUR conviction and is THE point under discussion. It's clear to me that they planned the invasion for a long time. It's also clear to me that they moved up the deadline to preempt the UNMOVIC findings. It does not necessarily conclude that they did this all because they were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. I can think of a LOT of reasons to do exactly what they did that have nothing to do with WMDs.

Quote:
The inspections had 10 years to work – they didn’t

And as I said b4- new inspection team, new mandate, new access. Yes, forced by US troops and induced by pending contracts. But nonetheless different than before, and effective.

In the end Finn they were wrong. And the info that they used to prove their point had either been discredited ahead of time or was sheer supposition. They ignored fresh credible data to the contrary. They irresponsibly committed lives and money to a mission that they had every duty to pursue thoroughly and honestly, and they utterly failed. And given the weak nature of their findings, they used exaggeration and lies to scare the American public into backing a weak case.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but this desire to portray Bush as some sort of evil villain that was desperate for war is just far too sophomoric.

Finn, since this political discussion with you has slipped into "belief-not-fact" territory, and more resembles a religious discussion than anything else, I see no point in continuing for me.
Let me just say that I believe you are so unwilling to see George for the arrested adolescent, dry-drunk, puppet-politician that he is, that only Jesus himself could convince you, and he'd have to have some angels with him to back him up.

Is Bush evil? That depends on the definition. Some would say yes.
I think he's just an unfortunate cog in the machine. We didn't go to war because of Bush, he was merely one of many to make that decision- he was just the most visible.

More than ever, The United States is a business. And I understand that it's mostly nothing personal anymore...but the rich peeps who have the biggest say see the impending financial lows this global economy is going to thrust upon us, and they are determined to set up their lasting nest egg. Where are the millions unaccounted for going?

Who's profiting the most from this war?

A little googling will reveal all.

But concerning history past- YOU RULE!

The gotta-bounce Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:28 AM

KANEMAN

I knew....you did'nt know....round and round we go....Truth is that Bush and the neocons KNEW that WMD's were not present in Iraq. They just needed a reason to go in. If you can't see that it is one of two reasons...A) Your head is in your ass...deep in your ass. or B) You are an absolute idiototic, kool-aid drinking, neoconservative, cheney ass wiping, rove ball licking, bush daughter dating person with his head in his ass....deep in his ass........Which is it?

......Well it's true........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.
No, this is YOUR conviction …

and explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And as I said b4- new inspection team, new mandate, new access. Yes, forced by US troops and induced by pending contracts. YOU may be free to roll your eyes and pretend it was all the same old same old, but Bush & Co do not have that luxury.

Regardless of what Luxuries you think Bush had, that is exactly what they did, in my opinion. And the only difference between the last inspection team and the one before it was an invasion force poised to attack on Kuwaiti soil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:31 AM

I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying. I like Finn's correlation to the officer shooting; and still believe a full investigation is warranted just as one would be done for such a case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn has pretty much agreed that Bush was committed to an invasion no matter WHAT Blix concluded. The only thing we're arguing about now is whether Bush did this out of conviction (ignoring contrary data, rush to judgment) or whether he did it out of maliciousness.

Quote:
No, this is YOUR conviction …Signy
and explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue.-Finn

Are yu saying they used imminent WMD as an EXCUSE because they knew it would play with the public? That the REAL reason had nothing to do with any imminent threat? Well Lordy be! Join the club!

The difference between Finn and me is that he thinks all of this backhanded stuff is justified.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, since this political discussion with you has slipped into "belief-not-fact" terratory, and more resembles a religious discussion than anything else, I see no point in continuing for me.

This discussion has been “belief-not-fact” from the very beginning. Just because rue and signym claim they know something doesn’t make it a fact because you agree with it – regardless of how they worded their posts, they were discussing their belief that WMD did not exist in Iraq, not fact. And I’m discussing what I believe as well. Hopefully, before you tuned out my perspective, you at least learned that there are other points of view then just the Bush is evil theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who's profiting the most from this war?

Not Bush, the Republicans or the Neo-Conservative theory in general, that’s for sure. In fact, as a whole this war has been most beneficial to the Democrats and the Liberals.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But concerning history past- YOU RULE!

History past is easy. No one has any political or emotional investment in Hannibal’s invasion of Italy or whether Caesar took it in the rear from Phillip of Macedon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No Finn. I watched Bush et al rather closely. I pursued data, a lot of which is new to you. I drew conclusions, and they were correct. And you were wrong. (And so was Bush but in a different way and for different reasons.) You might want to check back with your model/ assumption/ hypotheses to see what went wrong.

But I'm outta here. I got things to do today, so TTUL.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying.

I believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq because it makes sense and there’s no reason not to believe it. It explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue as the CB for the war. The difference is that I take a little more rational perspective I think – I’m not evaluating the decision made by the administration based on cynicism and mistrust. You can disagree with the war and still believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq and that he was acting in what he believed was good faith with respect to the American people and national security. Instead you assume that he was either dishonest or that he was stupid and being lead around by someone who was dishonest. And then you make this illogical jump to the war. What was Bush’s motivation for going to war? Well, it doesn’t matter because he’s evil and evil people do stuff like that. I consider that to be pretty sophomoric, and superfluous. Bush told us why we went to war, and there’s no reason to believe that Bush’s explanation for why he went to war wasn’t his own honest explanation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
there’s no reason not to believe it.

And this is where you sound like AntiMason RE evolution. "Belief"? Where does "belief" fit into rationality? IT doesn't. It goes with the evidence.

You stick to your beliefs then, if that's what makes you comfortable. I'll continue to refine my model. But don't expect me to take you seriously.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I watched Bush et al rather closely. I pursued data, a lot of which is new to you. I drew conclusions, and they were correct. And you were wrong. (And so was Bush but in a different way and for different reasons.) You might want to check back with your model/ assumption/ hypotheses to see what went wrong.

And we’re back square one – you made a guess. Insightful – maybe, but a guess nonetheless. That does not qualify as fact; that is belief. You believed, evidently with some conviction, that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. As it turned out that belief may have been correct, and maybe we can call it a fact today, but not then – it was belief then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

my post above said:

Quote:
there’s no reason not to believe it.-Finn
And this is where you sound like AntiMason RE evolution. "Belief"? Where does "belief" fit into rationality? IT doesn't. It goes with the evidence.-Signy

You stick to your beliefs then, if that's what makes you comfortable. I'll continue to refine my model. But don't expect me to take you seriously.

--------------
The difference between your beliefs and my models is that mine are subject to new information and correction, whereas yours (evidently) are not.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The dratted double strikes again!

Well, now I really AM outta here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The difference between your beliefs and my models is that mine are subject to correction, whereas yours (evidently) are not.

Subject to correction? Since when? You were as certain in 2003 as you are now. Sounds like conviction to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:39 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- the liquid anthrax that Saddam was a "bulk" form.
Quote:
Consequently, it was also never explained that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by UN inspectors, in the words of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, with "90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…verifiably eliminated". It was never revealed to the American public by the Bush administration that even had Iraq managed to maintain "stockpiles" of the anthrax it had produced, it had a shelf life which would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq, Ritter explained, produced only "liquid bulk anthrax", which "even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless."

Y'all should read this:
www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_anthrax.htm

ALSO, FLECTH2-The wiki article that you link to is NOT REPEAT NOT liquid anthrax. They refer to anthrax spores which are a dry powder. When they refer to a "brown aerosol" they're referring to a POWDERED aerosol.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well according to your earlier post then the liquid is a precursor to the intended product. It would seem reasonable then that if the research continued you would want to hunt for the final product and not just the precursor. Say Sadam had 3 tons of liquid and that made a ton of powder. If you show up six months later and the liquid is no longer there then there are 3 options.

1) he destroyed it
2) he's hidden 3 tons of liquid someplace
3) he has 1 ton of spores someplace.

I'm sure the UN didn't say "you know that 3 tons of liquid has probably gone off that's the end of it let's go home." There must have at least been some that wondered if 1 ton of the other stuff wasnt out there someplace.

I know it was spores in the article I posted I even said so in my posting. The point you keep missing is that in 1940 the UK while under austerity and nightly German bombing still produced a crude but working Anthrax bomb. Fifty years later the UN said that Saddam was trying to do the same. This isn't nuclear science, you don't need high speed trigger tubes or yellowcake or a working reactor to pull this off. I'm wondering why you think that it was technologically impossible for Iraq to do what Britain did in 1942? You keep on about things like antistatic coatings and optimum milling sizes which I am sure you are right in saying Saddam didn't have, but the British bomb didnt either and it still worked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who's profiting the most from this war?
Not Bush, the Republicans or the Neo-Conservative theory in general, that’s for sure.

:big bug-eyed emoticon we don't have here:

Friends...friends of friends....peeps we'll never know about...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swi
ndle

...and I haven't tuned you out, just Battered Expired Equine Syndrome

.

The clairvoyent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 8:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I learned what I learned not by listening to Hussein or any 'secret' information source, but by reading technical reports and watching the Bush administration. That's how I know what they knew and that they lied. I only have time for a short post, but let us reason together for a bit.

Yellowcake.

When it came up in the SOTU there was an immediate but muted and limited reaction in Congress, among experts and even in some newspapers. Many of those people thought it was a questionable claim at best. But it wasn't until much later that a committee was formed to investigate, which then came up with the Senate Report.

From the Senate Report I learned that that claim had been previously eliminated from Bush's speeches by the CIA TWO TIMES already as being unsubstantiated. In order to have it in the SOTU, the administration made two changes to the speech (Africa/ Niger, uranium/ yellowcake) and submitted the speech late for CIA vetting.

The substance of the claim was already known to be false. But the administration delibertaly word-smithed and finagled it into the SOTU anyway in order to mislead - and stampede - the public into support for an attack on Iraq.

Now, what can we learn about watching the administration in this instance ? It's that the case for war didn't exist and the administration felt the need to create something.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying.
I believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq because it makes sense and there’s no reason not to believe it. It explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue as the CB for the war. The difference is that I take a little more rational perspective I think – I’m not evaluating the decision made by the administration based on cynicism and mistrust. You can disagree with the war and still believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq and that he was acting in what he believed was good faith with respect to the American people and national security. Instead you assume that he was either dishonest or that he was stupid and being lead around by someone who was dishonest. And then you make this illogical jump to the war. What was Bush’s motivation for going to war? Well, it doesn’t matter because he’s evil and evil people do stuff like that. I consider that to be pretty sophomoric, and superfluous. Bush told us why we went to war, and there’s no reason to believe that Bush’s explanation for why he went to war wasn’t his own honest explanation.

I don't believe I said Bush was evil.
I believe two parties very badly miscalculated. The first was Sadam, who thought he could flout the US threat and keep Iran at bay. Clearly he underestimated Bush's determination to take war to Iraq.
Bush on the other hand, I believe wanted the war to give the far right a more permanent place in power, by drumming fear into the common man. By putting us on a longterm 'war footing'. It is clear that his cronies have well profited from the war financially. His miscalculation was assuming the Iraqies would welcome us, then pull together to form a cohesive government. Had that happened, while it still would not, IMHO, have justified the war, would have made him wildly popular and the right would have benefited greatly politically; and his wildest dreams would have come thru; a long term Republican majority. Sadly, his gamble did not pay off; the Iraqis are at each other throats, and it is questionable as to whether anything stable is going to come out of this. His legacy and the Republican party are, as you point out, suffering badly. Had his gamble paid off, it would have worked out very well for him. So, I will agree, his gamble didn't pay off politically.

Feel free to throw around terms like 'sophomoric' all you wish. You will notice the worst -I've- said about your position is that we disagree. If it helps, I do see your logic; I just think you are wrong, as clearly you see my position as wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Actually Finn, I'd love your take on the yellow cake comment. No matter how you dice it, Bush worked very hard to work that into a speech even though it was cut previously as unsubstantiated. Do you genuinely believe Bush was being 'honest and forthright' about that item? If you say 'no', then I will say 'Why then should I trust Bush's explanation?' If you say 'yes', I'll leave you with that final word; however, this is the essence of our disagreement; I do not believe he was being honest and forthright. You may insult me as you wish, but it will not change my opinion on the matter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually Finn, I'd love your take on the yellow cake comment. No matter how you dice it, Bush worked very hard to work that into a speech even though it was cut previously as unsubstantiated. Do you genuinely believe Bush was being 'honest and forthright' about that item? If you say 'no', then I will say 'Why then should I trust Bush's explanation?' If you say 'yes', I'll leave you with that final word; however, this is the essence of our disagreement; I do not believe he was being honest and forthright. You may insult me as you wish, but it will not change my opinion on the matter.

Well, first of all I’m not insulting you. That I think you’re portrayal of Bush as some sort of two-dimensional villain in a B-movie is a sophomoric argument is not a reflection of what I think about you, whom I actually like. There is a trend these days to despise people we disagree with, but I assure you that I don’t participate in that particular fad.

As far as the Yellowcake in the State of the Union Address, Bush is not the only person involved in writing it. In fact, Bush is just the man in charge; he delegates speech writing to other people, whom hopefully are experts on the topics or in consultation with the experts. So I’m not sure that this reflects on Bush as directly as some may hope.

However, as I’ve said repeatedly, I think Bush and many of his advisers were certain of WMD in Iraq, something that at the time was certainly deemed a possibility, but which quite frankly, the White House or anyone else couldn’t possibly have known. What is also true is that the position of some in the IC on the Yellowcake issue seemed to waffle considerably in 2002, but as late as September of that year both the DIA and CIA claimed that Saddam was in fact attempting to acquire 500 metric tons of yellowcake from Niger. This position was stated in a DIA intelligence assessment and later confirmed by the CIA. Also in September, British intelligence confirmed what the CIA and DIA had claimed. In October the CIA was cautioning that a statement in the SOTU draft addressing the Yellowcake should be removed because it overstated the issue. I don’t know exactly why the CIA seemed to reverse their position on this in October, but what I do know is that as late as September the Yellowcake issue looked pretty strong with both the DIA and the CIA agreeing and with corroboration from a trusted foreign intelligence source. Maybe the CIA realized in October that the issue had been overstated in US assessments or they got new information that caused them to reverse their position or maybe their position was solid, yet the statement in the SOTU draft (which I've never seen) was indeed overstated and changed. But whatever the reason, the Yellowcake was already well confirmed as fact in at least the minds of the SOTU speech writers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 3:50 PM

Your original post was not clear that the 'sophomoric' was intended to refer to my 'portrayal' as opposed to myself; I'll accept your clarification in good faith.

A villain? Again, it is not what I said. I believe that Bush believed that the US would be well served by toppling a hateful, despotic, murdering, monster. I believed he felt the actions he was taking would serve well his party and his vision of where the US should be. (It hasn't, but that's a different problem.) What I am not clear is that Bush truly believed what he used when he indicated WMD were present in Iraq. I believe he used whatever he thought he could to 'sell the war.' I understand you accept that Bush's statements were an honest mistake. It is still not clear to me this was the case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 6:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Subject to correction? Since when? You were as certain in 2003 as you are now. Sounds like conviction to me

I was right- there were no WMD. What should I correct?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 5:01 AM

I've been trying to figure out why this item irritates me so much. Here's why:
Basically, I felt, going into Iraq, Bush stood up and swore that there were WMD in Iraq; and this being the sole justification of those given I felt was a 'legitimate' reason to invade, I gave tacit approval for this reason. I even spoke to a few friends suggesting they cut the President some slack on the issue. The President claimed that to reveal the details of the issues would compromise national security. However, I 'went' into the situation thinking 'they dang well better find the WMD's'. This is the main reason I am so seriously displeased with Bush; this was an item he -had- to be right about, and I do not believe the events have supported the claims he made.

There were -plenty- of reasons to doubt the validity of Bush's claims (as there's many reasons to give why Bush might have been justified in believing). Everything from Bush's tendency to surround himself with 'yes men' to many nations not 'signing on' with Bush to help in the invasion of Iraq. However, I 'signed on' for the reason Bush said 'trust me.' I did.

So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented; however, I've already summarized what I now believe to be Bush's motives previously; though I left out 'Iraq is sitting on a heap of oil', that really does deserve to be mentioned. I also believe that in similar circumstances had there not been a heap of oil involved, Bush would have declined to go in.

For the record, I tend to believe Sig and Rue had excellent intuitive insight to the situation at the time. I now believe the information was there and had I dug a bit more, I would not have been misled by Bush (even if he was merely wrong instead of making deliberate misstatements, it is still a failure of leadership).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 6:12 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, Bush is just the man in charge;

Good damned point! And the buck stops where now?

Are you honestly arguing that Bush can't be held accountable for the things he says, because, hey, he's just the guy in charge?

Are you seriouse???

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 12:25 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I've been trying to figure out why this item irritates me so much. Here's why:
Basically, I felt, going into Iraq, Bush stood up and swore that there were WMD in Iraq; and this being the sole justification of those given I felt was a 'legitimate' reason to invade, I gave tacit approval for this reason. I even spoke to a few friends suggesting they cut the President some slack on the issue. The President claimed that to reveal the details of the issues would compromise national security. However, I 'went' into the situation thinking 'they dang well better find the WMD's'. This is the main reason I am so seriously displeased with Bush; this was an item he -had- to be right about, and I do not believe the events have supported the claims he made.

There were -plenty- of reasons to doubt the validity of Bush's claims (as there's many reasons to give why Bush might have been justified in believing). Everything from Bush's tendency to surround himself with 'yes men' to many nations not 'signing on' with Bush to help in the invasion of Iraq. However, I 'signed on' for the reason Bush said 'trust me.' I did.

So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented; however, I've already summarized what I now believe to be Bush's motives previously; though I left out 'Iraq is sitting on a heap of oil', that really does deserve to be mentioned. I also believe that in similar circumstances had there not been a heap of oil involved, Bush would have declined to go in.

For the record, I tend to believe Sig and Rue had excellent intuitive insight to the situation at the time. I now believe the information was there and had I dug a bit more, I would not have been misled by Bush (even if he was merely wrong instead of making deliberate misstatements, it is still a failure of leadership).

Which is why I think Colin Powell resigned when he did. He made a leap of faith, and found he was made into a puppet. In five or ten years, I hope he writes a tell all about who told what lie and who betrayed whom. He likely will not unless he thinks it is in the country's best interest to have it out in the open, but I hope it happens.

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 1:28 PM

I'd say 10-15, at best.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 2:03 PM

Leadb, I totally admire the fair and balanced tone of your posts! Kudos for stayin' off the edge, as Mal might say.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was right- there were no WMD. What should I correct?

It’s your story. I’m not the one pretending a belief based on cynicism and mistrust is falsifiable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented …

I appreciate your willingness to recognize this leap. It lends far more credibility to your argument as a whole then those who feel compelled to pursue a single-minded assault on the character and person of Bush to validate what they obviously feel are a pretty weak arguments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Are you honestly arguing that Bush can't be held accountable for the things he says, because, hey, he's just the guy in charge?

What do you want? A lynching?

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Are you seriouse???

No. But I am serious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 9, 2007 8:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

eh, forget it. I don't think it'll sink in anyway.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 3:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh hell, I'll say it anyway altho I really don't expect an answer: Finn- How did Bush earn such faith and trust? And is that faith so complete that he's beyond question?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh hell, I'll say it anyway: Finn- How did Bush earn such faith and trust? And is that faith so complete that he's beyond question?

Because I don’t assume that someone is a lying son of a bitch, it means I think they are beyond question? I don’t think so. I don't think you're a lying son of a bitch, but some of your arguments are pretty questionable. Bush saw both sides of inconclusive evidence, he chose the side you didn’t and the Whitehouse argued that case. You assume he lied because he didn’t agree with you. I don’t believe that’s an appropriate reason to accuse someone of lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 4:10 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
What do you want? A lynching?

No. But how about some accountability. I'm sick of all you Bushies letting him slide for everything. It's disgracefull.

Quote:
No. But I am serious.

Bravo, you found a typo. You must feel good about yourself.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 4:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Because I don’t assume that someone is a lying son of a bitch, it means I think they are beyond question? I don’t think so. I don't think you're a lying son of a bitch, but some of your arguments are pretty questionable. Bush saw both sides of inconclusive evidence, he chose the side you didn’t and the Whitehouse argued that case. You assume he lied because he didn’t agree with you. I don’t believe that’s an appropriate reason to accuse someone of lying.

Let's assume that he DIDN'T lie. He put "yellowcake" back into the SOTU twice, focused on aluminum tubes which would never have meet technical specs for nuclear centrifuge tubes, (You're a technical guy, right? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.) took the word of someone who had already been deemed unreliable by both the CIA and the DIA (Curveball), and completely blew off the UNMOVIC inspection process, ... all because he was convinced that Saddam had an active WMD manufacturing program and meaningful "stockpiles" of WMD.

In other words, let's assume he had an unshakable conviction that Saddam had WMD despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary. Does that constitute an "imminent threat"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 4:30 AM

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck....
Could be a pig.

We need to run tests Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 5:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hero

You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?

Is there a secret base or giant stockpile? No. Thats silly. But a canister of sarin gas buried in the desert or in a forgotton cellar...you can't rule that out.

I note for the record that chlorine gas has been used in a small number of insurgent attacks since 2003.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 10, 2007 5:12 AM