Did Bush personally gather the intelligence? Did even his administration? Correct me if I am wrong, but the CIA existed before he came to power and the intelligence it provided largely had been gathered/evaluated in the 1990's (i.e. Clinton's watch).
You can't have it both ways. If Senators, arguable the most powerful legislators in the world, with their Intelligence Committee and staff, accepted info that ultimately was proven inaccurate (ONLY AFTER WE INVADED AND SEARCHED OURSELVES), why is it so hard to belief that Bush did the same? Bad data in, bad data out, so to speak.
The underlying problem that needs to be addressed if revamping our intelligence agencies. IMHO.
Kerry has been in the Senate for 25 years. He voted for the war, as did Edwards. Are they that easy to fool? Or did they think (wrongly) that a pro-war vote would play well with the voters?
Congress, the perfect job, a lot of authority and no accountability (too easy to hide in the crowd, unlike
the POTUS)
Statements from fine, honorable Democrats that add up to a compelling argument for action:
"There is no doubt that. Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/13/2004 9:45:11 PM
I love the above argument that I have seen over and over again regarding Kerry and others endorsing the war in Iraq.
Let's see.....Why don't I lie to you and say that the sky is falling and show you some "evidence" and dossier files indicating just that. Then when my overstatements and mistruths are exposed, I'll act as if the very people I lied to were part of my consipracy of incompetence and hidden agenda.
You Neocons constantly whine about the misrepresentation by the media and then you crib comments from your detractors as if to imply that they were the ones that synthesized their own evidence to come to your conclusions. Many of those listed above were spoonfed lies by shrub and company to make their case for the war.
But I digress; taken at face value (not that this stupid little list is indicative of the whole story but for arguments sake let's take it as given) it indicates many who are able to change their minds after presented with REAL evidence. So is your point that someone that "flip-flops" is worse then a LIAR? At least you can trust a flip-flopper to listen to your opinion whereas a LIAR (aka "shrub") can't be trusted to listen since no truth is relavent that doesn't support a previous lie, all opinions outside of a myopic world are irrelavent and truth isn't necessary since agenda takes precedent. Nice world you dudes live in where a lie about a blow job (and who in this of all forums hasn't done that one!!!) is equivalent to a lie about a nuke pointed at our collective heads. Your equivalencies would be laughable if they weren't so pathetically sad.
First, to clear up your ignorant attempt to label me, I'm a libertarian registered as an Independent, not a Republican and certainly not a "Neocon".
Secondly, what's really "pathetically sad" is your lame attempt to paint Bush as a "LIAR" who "spoonfed" lies to the poor, gullible Democrats. The first quote in that post comes from a letter written to Bush from several Democrats urging action regarding Iraq. Once again, just in case it's hard for you to grasp, the letter was sent TO Bush, FROM several Democrats. Now, it seems to me that if Bush were spoon feeding lies to someone, he would be the one sending the letters, no?
Let's go back a little further to 1998, when everyone in the Clinton Admin was saying the exact same thing Bush and the afore mentioned Democrats were stating in 2002. It was also under Clinton that the official policy of "Regime Change" in Iraq was initiated. Was Clinton lying then, or was he being "spoonfed lies" by Governor Bush? Maybe it was some form of mind control, like that which was used to dupe Tony Blair. Was PM Blair lying also?
For you to assert that the Democrats were duped by Bush is ludicrous. The Democratic Senators and Representatives that made those statements based their conclusions on what they probably reasoned as valid intelligence, which later turned out to have been overstated by the intel community, not Bush. Now that it's an election year they, like you, are trying to have it both ways by ignoring the facts and throwing out the lazy, idiotic "Bush Lied" meme. It's nothing more than cheap rhetoric.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/14/2004 12:04:04 PM
-- Modified on 7/14/2004 12:21:00 PM
In addition, Bush lied about the cost of his perscription drug program, and his own party is pissed at him for that.
Bush lied about having never seen any information that Al Qaida was planning attacks in the U.S. using commercial aircraft, until the PDB which contained EXACTLY that information became public.
Bush clearly either lied, or used incompetent judgement concerning the presence of an active nuclear program in Iraq as of 2003. (NOT 2000, or 1998, or earlier, but in 2003, AFTER the UN inspections made it clear that Saddam no,longer had an ACTIVE nuclear program). If it is mere incompetence, that's certainly sufficient grounds to boot him from office, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on competency and conclude he's a liar.
If the intelligence was bad, at least our former leaders (such as Clinton) had the good sense not to use it to get into an ill-planned war, like the one Bush had been planning WELL BEFORE 9/11.
Oh, and Bush lied about not being aware of any mistakes that he's made in his first 3 years in office. Either that's a lie, or the man is simply an idiot. Once again, while I don't think that he's the sharpest knife in the drawer, NOBODY could be that stupid (of course, I could be wrong about Bush in this case).
And no, I don't think that the Democrats were duped by Bush. The American People were, and the Dems lacked the spine to oppose Bush in the face of his post 9/11 popularity. That is certainly not to their credit. But at least they did not drag us into this fiasco of a war in Iraq. They merely failed to prevent Bush from doing so. But to try to blame the Dems, for Bush's own poor judgement, is the height of hypocrisy.
first: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....
second: Is the CIA answerable to the White House first and foremost? Under the current admin, the agency was repeatedly asked the question regarding link to Al Queda and Iraq until they started to produce the "right" report. Is it your contention that the White House doesn't influence the reports issued and at what time? As stated previously, if the CIA issues a report to congress and senate that a nuke is pointed at our collective heads and the CIA is connected to the shrub at this time....Or we can call it your way. Suppose Clinton and Bush had the same exact info. Why does Clinton NOT make the mistake of wasting troops on the ground in an occupation that serves no immediate purpose? Does that make Bush a zealot, a liar or an idiot?
The regime change that Clinton initiated was based upon destabilizing the country economically so the people within would foment their own revolution and supplemented with very tight containment of fly-zones and border control. He certainly didn't try and place a square peg through a round hole by connecting Saddam to Bin Laden. Using my "duck" rule, you can't assert that Clinton was a coward and therefore couldn't get the job done regarding Saddam if he went into Kosovo. You Mr. Duck also must be held to the same standard you assign to everyone else. Clinton can not at once be a wimp and initiate a "liberation" while Bush is a hero for the same action. Which by the way, they are not the same action. Clinton had the balls to call it what it was while Bush and company lied about nukes pointed at our heads while a real terrorist was almost pinned down save 15,000 more troops to contain the area and prevent escape. Talk about wanting it both ways!!!!
Thirdly: Quack-Quack!!!!!
Back up your claim that the CIA was repeatedly asked the same questions on Iraq until they came up with the "right" answer with some verifiable proof. Then explain why the intel agencies of Britain, Russia, Germany and several other European countries produced the same conclusions (pressure from the Bush Admin, no doubt). Next, show me where I have ever asserted that Clinton was a coward.
After that, I might be able to take you more seriously. The only thing you've proven beyond doubt so far is that you know how to "quack" alot.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/14/2004 1:30:18 PM
Cribbed from Richard Clark's 60 Minutes interview:
"....I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this....."
As far as the other countries, there were plenty of voices within those very countries doubting the war and the efforts to move towards pre-emptive action regarding WMD. Typical Bush supporter trying to now assert that the tide internationally was pro Iraq invasion when the truth is already out there exhaustively through the many links. Why do you walk so lockstep with the Neocons on this issue and then think you can have the luxury of distancing yourself from their stench with claims of "libertarian"? Not many on this forum believe the subtle gradations you are trying to claim.
Southerners during the civil war were against slavery and the degradation of human life but just resented the North (even though the South was allegedly part of the U.S. at the time) telling them what to do. Yeah right.... And that is the kind of argument many of your type are now trying to make about not being a "duck".
From your link: "....I don't let unreasonable hatred and party affiliation cloud my judgement...." Don't you think every person on this board believes this about themselves? Whatever it is, you're judgement is clouded with something to make a statement like that as well as something else. It's called "Myopia", my friend....In regards to your numerous posts, you're not fooling anybody but yourself.
-- Modified on 7/14/2004 2:54:13 PM
I may or may not be Myopic, but you're just plain full of narcissistic bullshit. Trotting out Richard Clarke? Between self-serving television appearances, his book, and the Senate Intellence Committee's 9/11 report he's condradicted himself so many times it's pathetic. Time magazine published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, had become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he "undermines a serious conversation about 9/11." Time also criticized "the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it."
As for the foreign countries, you've dodged my question. The issue is not the arguments for or against war, but about the consensus among various intel agencies and governments on the scope of Iraq's WMD programs. Were they lying also? It's a simple question, really. If Bush lied, then everyone else did too. Kind of shoots down your meme.
You're good at making subtle digs and insults but you have not yet put forth a valid rebuttal to my original post.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/14/2004 6:27:44 PM
OK, Mr Clarke is partisan, has contradicted himself and is self serving? How many threads read that about shrub? Shrill? How about the current administration denouncing anybody that disagrees with them as unpatriotic and unamerican? Please save your particular and selective brand of denial for somebody that believes that in your Neocon camp. As far as Richard Clarke responding in ever irate tones, wouldn't you if you told the truth and no one took it to task while more people died needlessly? Typical ploy to minimalize those you disagree with as if their ideals and motives aren't genuine and core to their belief system. I guess only YOU have the conviction of heart to be truthful as you see it. Others are only motivated by evil and ignorance according to your book and only for having a strong belief system that runs contrary to yours. Of course, that is not the definition of an "open-minded person", something you claim in stealth as if no one would challege that and tell you you're just full of shit.
I have a question for you, based not upon internet searches but taking your own assertions as given:
If you say Clinton was no coward and recieved the same info as shrub, how come he doesn't invade Iraq and put the country into a downward spiral of economic and negative geopolitical consequence unless it was clearly (absent the agenda regarding family revenge) the wrong action to take?
In regards to the other countries intell agencies, don't you understand that all the countries have and continue to share the same intell information in many instances? As reflected in numerous informational sources, shrub and co. used the info from Chalabi as well as seeking the standard resources (CIA, etc.) thereby "outsourcing" the gathering of crucial information. Due to the sharing of information by many of the international informational agencies, their is no way to know whether the intell for each country came from their own sources or whether it was in fact coallated or culled from the very "cooked" U.S. reports that misled the U.S. So I must admit, not being privy to what reports were actually used to divine the information regarding a foreign country, I couldn't ascertain what their conclusions might be nor why but neither, myopian can you. So I will answer your question when you can produce the actual reports from each foreign country and the sources from which that information was gathered from. Of course to concede that you are nothing but another armchair warrior like me that selectively picks from internet searches is something I don't think your overblown ego would allow. And lastly, it's easy to admit and concur with someone regarding a bully when you know you're not the one that is going get the major part of the body blows. I liken the foreign countries that concurred with this action (not that they did except to pay lip service when it was asked based upon their own agenda of improving economic relatioships and the like) to any degree to that whiny kid that yells "If that had been me, I would've kicked his ass!". Of course we all have experienced that kid on the sidelines while we endured a bloody nose and a fat lip. Another example of why the international community considers us a laughing stock with your kind and opinions doing nothing to dissuade that. At best we are a bunch of dupes that got conned into a fight that will cost us for years to come. But at least we have cheaper gas prices to show for it...Oh yeah, another misnomer like the "cleaner skies and waters" initiative.
But at least you've stopped the "I'm a free thinking independent" claim for which I and the community at large are eternally thankful.
-- Modified on 7/15/2004 11:04:15 AM
I take it since you still have not answered the question in a substantive way, you're unable to produce anything thing but a silly rant about what you wrongly perceive to be my belief system. As for "overblown egos", your posts have done a fine job of revealing who's afflicted with that particular character fault, Mr. Community Spokesman.
RLTW
Of course you percieve only me dodging when you can't answer my query as to where you get your information and how complete it is in comprehension. I question your claim and refuse your context because you are sitting dogmatically on a question that can only be answered if I accept your view of where the intell came from and the validity of all sources in question arriving at the same obvious conclusion. That is far from the case and very similar to asking someone "Do you wear a condom when you rape?"
Your belief system as is mine are evident in the numerous posts we make. You rail against the left (a position I don't deny) and remain mute on the excess of the right. If you're allegedly libertarian then you would be conservative fiscally as an overblown budget would go hand and hand with an increase in government? Is the point man for this belief Bush? Quack!
What makes you think you can continuously set the narrow agenda of discussion and then use a persons patent refusal of your context as victory? Such superiority....
-- Modified on 7/15/2004 12:09:29 PM
Since I haven't railed against the drunken sailor spending habits of Congress and Bush, you see that as tacit approval and undeniable proof that I'm a "neocon"? That's very lame, but if it makes you feel better I'll rant a little. Yes, I think that Bush is acting too much like a liberal in regards to spending on social programs, and the gay marriage amendment issue is stupid, along with a few other issues Republicans are pushing.
The fact that I haven't posted a negative comment about something doesn't mean I agree with it. But I'll still vote for Bush over Kerry based on reasons I've stated here before. Arguing the merits of preemptive action and the management of the war on terrorism is a valid and necessary endeavor, but no matter how often you and other Bush haters try to pass off the lazy "Bush lied" meme, it just does not stand up to carefull, reasoned scrutiny.
RLTW
Dick Cheney continues even today to lie in the claim that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida cooperated. He was caught in a specific false claim that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.
Bush specifically lied about the cost of his prescription drug program, to the tune of $139 Billion dollars. This underestWhen one of the White House Budget analysts attempted to correct the numbers prior to the vote, he was threatened with firing. After the vote, the White House revealed the actual projected cost of $534 Billion, rather than the $395 billion that was presented prior to the vote.
The claim that was in the State of the Union message of 2003, was that Iraq had been trying to purchase Yellowcake in Niger. THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM has already been disavowed by the White House as not having been sufficiently vetted to be worthy of inclusion in the speech. Nonetheless, it WAS included in the speech, despite the total absence of information that it was true, after Cheney specifically insisted that the case on Saddam's having WMD be made as forcefully as possible. If you wish to chalk this up to total incompetence, rather than deceit, I might be willing to yield on that point, but I tend to believe that there is at least sufficient evidence of competency in the Bush Administration such that intentional deceit is clearly a more likely cause.
They lied when they claimed that the rationale for overthrowing Saddam was 9/11, and the war on terror, when in fact, the war planning in Iraq began from their first day in office. This has been confirmed by several people, including Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and Anthony Zinni.
We don't need a single word from Joseph Wilson to be completely comfortable making the assertion that Bush and Cheney have lied in the course of their public utterrances, and that they have had a complete and utter disregard for the truth in making the case that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown, and we will continue to make that case until Bush is out of office.
Has anyone who so venomously attacks Bush/Cheney (or even RLTW) personally lost someone in this war? What have you PERSONALLY sacrificed for the war on terror?
And why do you guys insist on such personal attacks? I have seen more civil discussion on Jerry Springer.
P.S. If you have personally lost someone in the war effort or 9/11, God be with you and I believe their service was a noble one for our country.
One of my best friends, a gentleman of Iranian origin, was a victim of the Patriot Act. He had the misfortune of attending a picnic put on at a local mosque, which was also attended by someone who was a roommate of one of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. Apparently, my friend had a conversation with this other person at this picnic - I believe he asked the guy to pass him the salad, or maybe it was the silverware. Because this was observed by an undercover FBI agent, my friend was arrested and held for 4 months as a material witness. My friend had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11 - he is in the U.S. because he is a highly skilled engineer who is quite highly valued employee at the firm where both he and I work, and he is working toward his U.S. citizenship and toward bringing his family out of Iran and into the U.S.
My company had to go FAR out of its way to assist him in getting excellent attorneys who were eventually able to get him sprung after 4 months of confinement without being charged with anything, after my friend told the authorities everything that he knew about the hijacker's roommate during the first day that he was interrogated. My friend repeated the same information to the authorities at a half dozen other interrogations, all of which were during the first month of his confinement. However, had my company not valued him so highly that they got him some 1st class legal representation, he quite likely would have been left to rot in jail until being deported (after his work visa would have expired had my company not gone out of its way to insure that his visa paperwork remained current while he was captive.
The fact is, if this person had been an typical employee, rather than a star within my company, he likely would have ended up jailed for at least a year and then kicked out of the U.S., simply for asking the wrong arab to pass him the salad. As it was, the Justice department took 4 months of his life and terrorized him during that time, when they should have gotten everything they legitimately needed out of the guy in a matter of a day or two of questioning.
People seem to insist that this crap is not happenning, or at least is extremely rare. Unfortunately, I know for a fact that it is happenning, and it is not rare at all.
BTW, none of this has ANYTHING to DO with the Iraq invasion. THAT's why I am angry at Bush and Cheney. Because they fabricated the entire justification that Iraq was somehow 9/11 related. 9/11 was a legitimate justification for invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban. It had nothing to do with Iraq whatsoever.
I enjoy the venom. It's the best sign that a whack has found its mark.
RLTW
The venomous attacks are a result of the strong belief that the people have been lied to in order to pursue an agenda of war (IMHO). If this is felt, would not the same person take the many deaths and lies PERSONALLY.
So, poor Bush/Cheney are being called mean things - what a tragedy. Besides, it's not as if we drove a hateful spear into their side or put panties on their heads.
And just why do you guys take attacks on Bush/Cheney PERSONALLY ? Is it because they are so adored ?
BTW, nobody has said the service of the soldiers in this war is not noble (from their perspective). It is possible to be against a war without being against the soldiers who are ACTUALLY doing the fighting (save NobleBush(tm) landing on an aircraft carrier).
-- Modified on 7/19/2004 7:27:17 AM
Funny I was reading a debate. I think we have found your problem- tinnitus! If we can get rid of the deafening silence in your head- we might be able to get some sense in there!
This is jocular aside- not a total diss.
of Kerry, Edwards and every other senator who voted was based upon their assessment of the information the the Bush admistration shared with them. Congress does not have an intelligence gathering agency such as the CIA, but the admistration does. The war votes were based upon assessments made as a result of the information that was presented.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Did Bush personally gather the intelligence? Did even his administration? Correct me if I am wrong, but the CIA existed before he came to power and the intelligence it provided largely had been gathered/evaluated in the 1990's (i.e. Clinton's watch).
You can't have it both ways. If Senators, arguable the most powerful legislators in the world, with their Intelligence Committee and staff, accepted info that ultimately was proven inaccurate (ONLY AFTER WE INVADED AND SEARCHED OURSELVES), why is it so hard to belief that Bush did the same? Bad data in, bad data out, so to speak.
The underlying problem that needs to be addressed if revamping our intelligence agencies. IMHO.
No Bush didn't gather the intelligence. But the Cheney/Bush Administration DID determine what case to present to congress prior to the vote. So not ONLY was the intelligence bad, the portion of it which was selected by the Administration was biased. And yes, I will agree that this was not Congress's finest hour. But make no mistake about it. Congress voted the way they voted because Cheney/Bush had already hoodwinked the American Public into supporting the war. As a representative body, Congress expressed the will of the public. And the public had already been defrauded by the biased case that Cheney/Bush made using the already flawed intelligence. Claiming anything else is disengenous to the point of hypocrisy.
"Fraud" and "Hood-winked" imply that the Bush administration knew the intelligence to be flawed and presented it anyway. I think that is conspiracy theory crap. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, thought there were WMD in Iraq. Dem, Republicans, Senators, CIA, everybody. WE ONLY KNOW THAT IS WRONG BECAUSE WE INVADED AND SEARCHED FOR OURSELVES. Maybe you have some inside info to which the rest of us aren't privy. Or maybe you irrationally hate Bush/Cheney so much that you fill in the details on your own.
only supplies information to congress on a need to know and classified basis. If that information is slanted, no congressional staffer, who simply does not have the expertise to discern the slant is going to prevent the information from being accepted as fact.
You are right, much of the information that was presented to congress to justify the Iraq invasion was collected under the Clinton admistration - but the interpretation of that information for congress was exclusively designed by the CIA under the auspices of Bush. In that interpretation some information was left out, while the importance of other information was amplified.
and we have seen that there was no eddying counter info for them to latch onto, so monodirectional were the Int services...
Now we are getting to see if they were pushing or pushed...