|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
You are still missing Red's point. Bush went around asserting that the EVIDENCE for an imminent threat from WMDs in Iraq was "slam dunk." Bush was privy to ALL the evidence, he knew it was thin as tissue, and yet he boldly asserted that it was "slam dunk". He lied.
Back again for another thrashing?
Wrong. Tenet said that the case of possession of WMDs was a "slam dunk".
I can't state it any more succinctly:
1) Every intel agency around the GLOBE had pretty much the same information on Iraq, in that it possessed WMD. The CIA wasn't alone in this.
Yes, the CIA said there were WMDs. So did other agencies. But the CIA conclusions were based on weak evidence (that proved to be false): the "aluminum tubes," the "african uranium," the claims of Iraqi exiles with an axe to grind.
The UN got it right: they decided the evidence was too weak to support a war. Bush got it wrong: he started an unecessary war that has caused the deaths of many thousands of people, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Again, where did Bush lie? Please point this out.
Bush knew the CIA evidence was sketchy. He knew very few people would be willing to support his "hit" on Saddam unless he spun the evidence. So that's what he did: he told the American people that the evidence was (in Tenet's words) a "slam dunk." He misled us by saying again and again that the evidence was solid, when he knew it was not. It was a masterful example of politicking and warmongering, and it was a big fat lie.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
If Bush claims he should be allowed to rely on the CONCLUSIONS of the CIA director, (i.e. the president is not responsible for reviewing and analyzing the EVIDENCE himself), then he is not fit to be president.
I disagree, in that no sitting President that I'm aware of has ever drove to Langley to engage in reviews of what would end up being THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of pages of reports, dossiers and transcripts. One has to be an absolute SUCKER if you think any US President is going to dig through the basement at Langley with staff pukes and hash it all out; it's expected that they do a thorough job in the FIRST place. There's a reason that the CIA exists and there is a reason they try to keep politics at arm's length: to provide POLITICALLY neutral information to assist the US leaders in making decisions. This is PRECISELY why no President has any business doing "case work" at the CIA, as you seem to be so ignorantly suggesting.
This is another classic JaTo red herring. Who is suggesting that the president should do "case work", or be involved in the gathering and analysis of raw intel? You know I didn't suggest any such thing. It's absurd.
The intel assessment the president received was a SUMMARY of the evidence. Bush was responsible for reading and analyzing that and making a decision based on it. If you want to maintain that he was allowed to skip straight to the assessment's conclusion and adopt it as his own, then you scare the hell out of me. I'll never understand how you can hold the chief executive to such a low standard of performance.
In the case of the Iraq war, the assessment apparently included only very weak and unreliable evidence (the aluminum tubes, the "Nigerian uranium," the "meeting in Prague", statements from axe-grinding Iraqi exiles). Bush knew it was weak, but he told us the evidence was strong and solid. BIG FAT LIE.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Please read the resolution. It condones the use of force in Iraq. But it does not declare support for Bush's reckless invasion. Bush decided whether to actually invade, when to invade, and how to invade. And he blew it.
Actually, O Solomon the Wise, the invasion was considered to be one of the greatest military successes in the history of warfare.
No historian or politician (not even Kerry himself) has come out and said otherwise.
Now, tell me ONE more time how Bush blew the invasion?
Bush blew it by ordering the invasion in the first place. He ordered without any other countries on board to substantially share the burden. Now, as Colin Powell says, "we broke it, we bought it." We're on our own, baby. Come back in ten years, look in your wallet, and tell me that doesn't matter.
Even those allies who agreed to be part of the coalition did so against the will of their own citizens, and hence offered only a token level of support. We got their token support only because we are the world's only superpower, and we had a lot of money and promises to throw around, and we could threaten those who refused.
Note to Mysti-ken: read-only mode = real good idea.
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Quote:
Note to Mysti-ken: read-only mode = real good idea.
You have got to be kidding me.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Bush knew the CIA evidence was sketchy.
Now, yes. Back then, no.
What do you not understand about the following:
1) Iraq didn't account for TONS of missing VX and other biotoxins. They still remain unaccounted for TODAY.
2) UN 1441 stated in NO uncertain terms that he was supposed to account for ALL previously known amounts and quantities of WMD.
Failure on Hussein's part to address this meant we invaded; with ot without the UN due to the security concerns that the bulk of the American population as well the bulk of the Senate agreed was legitimate.
The Senate intelligence committies were presented with the same material the President was; Congress received a review on this material. BY THEMSELVES and without COERCION, they voted to invade.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
He knew very few people would be willing to support his "hit" on Saddam unless he spun the evidence. So that's what he did: he told the American people that the evidence was (in Tenet's words) a "slam dunk." He misled us by saying again and again that the evidence was solid, when he knew it was not.
At the time, it was considered solid. The "christmas tree ornaments" that the kept hanging onto the CORE issue of WMD (which the UN couldn't resolve as there STILL remains tons of toxins and agents that are mising) such as a possible 9/11 connection (turned out to be a rabbit chase), ties to Al-Qaeda even though Hussein has been PROVEN to have had associations and ties to terrorism; just not Al-Qaeda) and the Nigeria uranium report (which MI6 still stands by) were less so; given this they DIDN'T make up the core of the concern.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It was a masterful example of politicking and warmongering, and it was a big fat lie.
The only lie in existance here is the one that you continue to propigate. The CORE of the intel that had to do with WMD was considered solid almost across the board. The fact that it apparently has been proven wrong today DOES NOT make it a lie when it was ACTED upon.
You are an abject and pathetic distortionst for claiming ANYTHING otherwise.
10 years of lies and distortions on Iraq's part and the security concerns that arose out of this in conjunction with the events of 9/11 DO NOT get mitigated by potentially faulty intelligence on Nigeria uranium chases, or trying to creatively frame Hussein with Al-Qaeda, even though a camp existed within the borders of his country that he "claimed" to be in control of.
Nor do our security concerns get mitigated by a couple of UN security council members more concerned about their financial profits and flow of money over tons of missing nerve toxins in the hands of an avowed hater of the US.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
This is another classic JaTo red herring. Who is suggesting that the president should do "case work", or be involved in the gathering and analysis of raw intel? You know I didn't suggest any such thing. It's absurd.
Then what in the Hell did you suggest? The PDB's and intel assessments put the information in front of the President and his staff. Why did Bush then insist on face-to-face meetings with Tenet (something different than Clinton, who preferred reports over meetings) on a weekly basis?
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The intel assessment the president received was a SUMMARY of the evidence. Bush was responsible for reading and analyzing that and making a decision based on it.
I've read nothing on the internals of what happened, but I serious doubt he skipped to the last page, read it and said "Let's hump 'em to Hell!", as YOU seem to suggest.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
If you want to maintain that he was allowed to skip straight to the assessment's conclusion and adopt it as his own, then you scare the hell out of me. I'll never understand how you can hold the chief executive to such a low standard of performance.
If the assessment approximated what this administration feared and were most concerned over (and for all intents and purposes, it DID), then PLEASE inform me of a valid reason NOT to attack, given the intel we had on-hand then?
The reasons I can come up with for not invading:
1) Trust Hussein was telling the truth, after he continually lying for a DECADE and throwing up numerous roadblocks to finally reach a successful and comprehensive UNIMOVIC report on WMD for the UN.
2) Trust the UN Security Council, even when the dissenters of our actions cared more about their financial links to Iraq than US and Western security concerns.
3) Trust sanctions would work, even though they were impovrishing the Iraqi people and ultimately further ENRICHING Hussein and his cronies.
4) Trust the weapons inspection teams, who only found the WMD remnants in Iraq after the CIA interrogated defectors and pointed the screwups in their investigation to them.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
In the case of the Iraq war, the assessment apparently included only very weak and unreliable evidence (the aluminum tubes, the "Nigerian uranium," the "meeting in Prague", statements from axe-grinding Iraqi exiles). Bush knew it was weak, but he told us the evidence was strong and solid. BIG FAT LIE.
Your ignorance and short-term memory knows absolutely no boundaries. Damn-well near EVERY intel source on the planet pointed to the SAME estimate the US had:
IRAQ STILL POSSESSED WMD AND HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IT.
I dare you to refute this. I DARE you to refute that TONS of materials, toxins and agents are STILL missing from official UN tallies.
The pieces, in and of themselves, that you refer to above are the tip of the iceberg; they are NOT the MASSIVE concern we had about Iraq (i.e., the 90%). If a complete acounting would have been made, we would KNOW that terrorists would have NO chance at getting any materials from Iraq, regardless if they were Al-Qaeda or any other nutbag outfit.
You may be comfortable painting the "best case scenario" and giving a fair degree of trust when confronted with a dictator who has gassed Iranian troops and his own people, in addition to have continually mislead and lied to the UN.
Most sane individuals will err on the side of caution, especially when they have just been knocked clean out of their socks only a scant year and a half earlier. Especially when putting up what was one of the most heavily armed (conventional and chemical) regimes in the Middle-East. Especially when dealing with a dictator who constantly lied and concealed as much as he could...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Bush blew it by ordering the invasion in the first place. He ordered without any other countries on board to substantially share the burden.
Sue your instructors. The disservice they have done you is extraordinary. The US has almost ALWAYS shouldered the bulk of the burden in regards to UN policing and peacekeeping activities; even with the UN involved in Iraq today, this would be NO DIFFERENT.
I see it as France and Germany stabbed us in the back, when they backed out of UN 1441 at the 11th hour...
...and for little more than purely POLITICAL and FINANCIAL purposes.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Now, as Colin Powell says, "we broke it, we bought it." We're on our own, baby. Come back in ten years, look in your wallet, and tell me that doesn't matter.
If we didn't invade then, it would have been later as Hussein was apparently insistent on keeping up a ruse that he held WMD in order to give Iran "pause". Invasion was practically inevitable.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Even those allies who agreed to be part of the coalition did so against the will of their own citizens, and hence offered only a token level of support. We got their token support only because we are the world's only superpower, and we had a lot of money and promises to throw around, and we could threaten those who refused.
Howard's re-election in Australia seems to counter that half-assed theory; we'll see how Blair fares (I believe he's on his way out). Spain is a unique sitation; Anzar had it won until he stupidly kept blaming the bombings on ETA despite the overwhelming evidence that it wasn't them.
I don't profess to know the political climate in most other nations, so I can't firmly say one way or the other.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Note to Mysti-ken: read-only mode = real good idea.
If this thread has to put up with the swill that is being retched up by you and Red, it most certainly can use some external candor and a third-party calling BS when they come across it.
I welcome it, even though I doubt I would escape the scrutiny of Mysti-ken for long, as I totally resemble the aggressive and "take no prisoners" hard-line a$$hole that he so politely refers to...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Bush knew the CIA evidence was sketchy.
Now, yes. Back then, no.
Wrong. You can analyze a piece of evidence at any time and ascertain whether or not it can be relied upon at that time to prove a particular fact. For example, in a fraud case, I may have some evidence of intent to deceive (such as a witness' testimony that he heard the defendant admit intention to deceive the plaintiff). I can ascertain the value (or "probative weight") of that evidence by looking at the credibility of the witness (criminal record, occupation, motivation to tell the truth, etc.) and at corroborating testimony from other witnesses, and at contradictory evidence (i.e. a document proving that the witness was on a business trip on the day he claimed to have heard the defendant's admission). I look at the facts and circumstances and determine whether a reasonable jury would believe the evidence is true. It's called weighing the evidence. It's simple. People do this all day long, in all walks of life. You do it when you decide whether to take a job offer, whether to buy a particular car, or whether your spouse is cheating on you.
Bush could have done the same thing. All he needed to do was weigh the evidence. For example, take the evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. If the only source for that "evidence" is that somebody said something to somebody else, and there is no corroboration, then the only intelligent thing to do is to discount that evidence. Bush should have pushed it aside as too unreliable to support a rational decision.
So you're wrong, JaTo. The CIA (and Bush) DID KNOW "back then" that the WMD evidence was weak. They had full access to all the supporting background info on all the evidence, and they knew it was too thin. They were just so determined to carry out the hit on Saddam that they didn't care.
Originally posted by JaTo:
1) Iraq didn't account for TONS of missing VX and other biotoxins. They still remain unaccounted for TODAY.
I thought you agreed that the absence of evidence does not support a decision to go to war. Only the PRESENCE of SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE supports a decision to go to war. Saddam's failure to account for the VX proves only that he failed to account for it. It doesn't prove that he still had it, or that he was going to somehow use it against America.
Originally posted by JaTo:
UN 1441 stated in NO uncertain terms that he was supposed to account for ALL previously known amounts and quantities of WMD.
A UN resolution is a paper with words on it. It may state reasons for going to war, and it may even authorize the UN to go to war, but it is NEVER sufficient to support a US decision to go to war without the UN's approval.
Look at your blatant contradiction: one the one hand, you (and Bush) say the UN resolution was a sufficient basis for the US invasion, even though the UN flat-out refused to authorize the US to invade. You can't cloak yourself in the UN resolution to justify Bush's war (a tacit acknowledgment of the UN's authority in the matter) without admitting that the very same UN refused to support the US invasion. You can't use the UN resolutions you like and disregard the ones you don't, if you are trying to use UN resolutions as a justification for Bush's war.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Failure on Hussein's part to address this meant we invaded; with ot without the UN due to the security concerns that the bulk of the American population as well the bulk of the Senate agreed was legitimate.
Everyone agrees there were legitimate security concerns. But you seem to be mischaracterizing the UN resolution 1441 as some kind of blanket authorization to the US military, which the UN has explicitly said it was not. And you seem to be characterizing the UN resolution as some like of light switch, which once flipped, required a war to follow. I think you are confusing the UN's legislative act (authorization of use of force) with the very separate executive act (UN deciding to actually go to war). The UN collectively decided that the threat was not imminent enough to justify war yet. The UN was right, wasn't it?
Originally posted by JaTo:
The Senate intelligence committies were presented with the same material the President was; Congress received a review on this material. BY THEMSELVES and without COERCION, they voted to invade.
No, they did not see the same material. Only a few Senators see everything the president sees. The rest see edited portfolios. They all know this, and they therefore traditionally defer to the president whenever there is any room for doing so.
No, the Senate did not "vote to invade." They voted to condone the use of force, in the event the Bush chose to make the executive decision to go to war. They voted not to tie the president's hands. They voted to apply more leverage on Saddam. They voted to keep all options open, including the military option.
You seem to be equating the Senate resolution with a congressional declaration of war, but they are VERY different. A declaration of war has the affirmative effect of law, and commands a number of goernmental acts.
Originally posted by JaTo:
At the time, it was considered solid.
I notice you used the passive voice here, which makes your meaning unclear. Exactly who genuinely thought that the evidence for WMDs was solid? Even the CIA admitted internally that it was not.
Originally posted by JaTo:
ties to Al-Qaeda even though Hussein has been PROVEN to have had associations and ties to terrorism; just not Al-Qaeda)
Oh, God. Didn't the Senate committee report dispense with this well enough for you? You are the last person on Earth still clinging to the "Iraq had ties to Al-Quaeda" nonsense.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
If you want to maintain that he was allowed to skip straight to the assessment's conclusion and adopt it as his own, then you scare the hell out of me. I'll never understand how you can hold the chief executive to such a low standard of performance.
If the assessment approximated what this administration feared and were most concerned over (and for all intents and purposes, it DID), then PLEASE inform me of a valid reason NOT to attack, given the intel we had on-hand then?
How about: 1) the evidence for WMDs was paper-thin, and 2) we could have shared the cost and risk of the mission (if it ever became necessary) by waiting and cooperating with the UN.
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Aren't we overdue for some Winston Churchill quotes?
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Wrong. You can analyze a piece of evidence at any time and ascertain whether or not it can be relied upon at that time to prove a particular fact. For example, in a fraud case, I may have some evidence of intent to deceive (such as a witness' testimony that he heard the defendant admit intention to deceive the plaintiff). I can ascertain the value (or "probative weight") of that evidence by looking at the credibility of the witness (criminal record, occupation, motivation to tell the truth, etc.) and at corroborating testimony from other witnesses, and at contradictory evidence (i.e. a document proving that the witness was on a business trip on the day he claimed to have heard the defendant's admission). I look at the facts and circumstances and determine whether a reasonable jury would believe the evidence is true. It's called weighing the evidence. It's simple. People do this all day long, in all walks of life. You do it when you decide whether to take a job offer, whether to buy a particular car, or whether your spouse is cheating on you.
Bush could have done the same thing. All he needed to do was weigh the evidence. For example, take the evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. If the only source for that "evidence" is that somebody said something to somebody else, and there is no corroboration, then the only intelligent thing to do is to discount that evidence. Bush should have pushed it aside as too unreliable to support a rational decision.
All the known evidence was weighed; it told Bush as well as the Senators and the House members that voted for the invasion precisely what they needed to do in regard to the circumstances, or mass of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Quick question: How is it that in US law a suspect can be convicted "in absentia". How is it that circumstantial evidence has sealed cases, in light of physical evidence? 
I would ask you to read this and try running the above by me again after you've done so:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
So you're wrong, JaTo. The CIA (and Bush) DID KNOW "back then" that the WMD evidence was weak. They had full access to all the supporting background info on all the evidence, and they knew it was too thin. They were just so determined to carry out the hit on Saddam that they didn't care.
The above report says you're full of it, along with intelligence around the globe at the time.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I thought you agreed that the absence of evidence does not support a decision to go to war.
If we were dealing with the island of Tahiti, then yes. Dealing with Hussein and Iraq, AND for a decade on the subject?
I see that common sense and reasoning have both "slipped the moorings" and have taken another pleasure cruise...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Only the PRESENCE of SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE supports a decision to go to war. Saddam's failure to account for the VX proves only that he failed to account for it.
...which the stated penalty by the US and the UN was "severe consequences". By this, the Security Council didn't mean they were going to put on their "really pissed faces" instead of their "aggrivated faces"; it was commonly known to mean INVASION.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It doesn't prove that he still had it, or that he was going to somehow use it against America.
And people actually wonder why I don't want two trial lawyers anywhere NEAR the Oval Office? 
The fact that he hid it, moved it of failed to account for TONS (I'm not talking a few ziplock bags; I'm talking tens of THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of some of the most dangerous crap this planet has ever seen!) of weaponized toxins has been addressed NUMEROUS times; if you have a problem with the UN 1441, I strongly suggest you talk to the Security Council to get it rewritten to reflect your legal interpretations...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
A UN resolution is a paper with words on it. It may state reasons for going to war, and it may even authorize the UN to go to war, but it is NEVER sufficient to support a US decision to go to war without the UN's approval.
I somewhat respect the UN's ability to do certain things, but the ONE thing I will never entrust to a multi-national body is US security and dictating to us what is and is NOT a threat.
The fact that France, Germany and quite possibly Russia backing out of military action at the 11th hour for purely political and financial reasons won't even elicit a response from you , will it?
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Look at your blatant contradiction: one the one hand, you (and Bush) say the UN resolution was a sufficient basis for the US invasion, even though the UN flat-out refused to authorize the US to invade.
The heart of the contradiction lies in the motives of France and Germany.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You can't cloak yourself in the UN resolution to justify Bush's war (a tacit acknowledgment of the UN's authority in the matter) without admitting that the very same UN refused to support the US invasion. You can't use the UN resolutions you like and disregard the ones you don't, if you are trying to use UN resolutions as a justification for Bush's war.
If Iraq is buying UN Security Council votes and certain council members back out at the last minute for purely self-serving political and financial reasons, then why the Hell not?
I don't see the apellate courts tossing case law out on it's ear when a corrupt judge makes a call that serves his or her own interest? Why should I toss UN mandate that was agreed to by a body that was largely interested in doing the right thing, instead of a small few that decided to cater to financial and political whims and lean on everybody else to screw the entire process up?
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Everyone agrees there were legitimate security concerns. But you seem to be mischaracterizing the UN resolution 1441 as some kind of blanket authorization to the US military, which the UN has explicitly said it was not.
I'm not calling it a blanket authorization, I'm calling it what it really served as and what it was universally recognized as: a final ultimatum to the Iraqi regime.
The conditions set forth in it were not met, key council members deserted their stated stance for selfish political and financial reasons and after repeated demands past UN 1441, we finally acted.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
And you seem to be characterizing the UN resolution as some like of light switch, which once flipped, required a war to follow.
Absolutely not; if Hussein had lived up to it (or countless other resolutions that required his FULL cooperation), then there would have been NO basis to invade Iraq.
It wasn't just UN 1441 that solely led to the invasion. It was a decade of deceit, lies and compromised resolutions that so utterly destroyed any trust that the international community and the US could have with Iraq that in the end, invasion was the only viable alternative.
Hussein was given so many chances to come clean and totally "open the kimono" it was absurd. He chose another path entirely.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I think you are confusing the UN's legislative act (authorization of use of force) with the very separate executive act (UN deciding to actually go to war). The UN collectively decided that the threat was not imminent enough to justify war yet.
By collective, I guess you mean those that either abstained or sided with France and Germany; not the 30+ countries that sided with the US on this, right?
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The UN was right, wasn't it?
That is the crux of it all:
The UN, through YEARS of bungling, half-measures, a corrupt sanctions program held over Iraq, multiple screwups in WMD searches (with some of the biggest finds delivered by CIA-interrogated defectors pointing their compass in the right direction), letting Hussein dictate the terms of those searches (not going into palaces, only interrogating scientists under the presense of his staff, etc.), bribes and everything else...
...they somehow managed to stumble into what seems to be the ultimate correct answer on the question of Iraqi WMD.
Like the math teachers I had, I'm interested in the answer, but I'm also interested in how the answer was obtained. If someone got it by pure serendipity (akin to throwing darts while blindfolded), then I don't put much faith in their methods.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
No, they did not see the same material.Only a few Senators see everything the president sees. The rest see edited portfolios.
That is factually correct; I got ahead of myself there.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
They all know this, and they therefore traditionally defer to the president whenever there is any room for doing so.
Don't watch CSPAN much, do you? On the topic of invading Iraq, there was SERIOUS debate on both sides and coverage to prove it. If you are suggesting that the edited briefs omitted key findings that would have switched the vote another direction, I've got some beachfront property here in Kanas you might be interested in...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
No, the Senate did not "vote to invade." They voted to condone the use of force, in the event the Bush chose to make the executive decision to go to war. They voted not to tie the president's hands. They voted to apply more leverage on Saddam. They voted to keep all options open, including the military option.
Here's the summary of HJ Res 114, from the 107th Congress, 2nd session, just for you:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You seem to be equating the Senate resolution with a congressional declaration of war, but they are VERY different. A declaration of war has the affirmative effect of law, and commands a number of goernmental acts.
I fully understand that this wasn't a declaration of war, but it was a "de facto" resolution that declared the FULL intent for invasion, UNLESS Hussein met with the demands that the US and the international community had pushed for.
Resolutions like this don't pop up every day, or every year. Congress knew that this administration supported invasion if Hussein didn't abide by international law and they concurred in authorizing that power instead of blocking it.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I notice you used the passive voice here, which makes your meaning unclear. Exactly who genuinely thought that the evidence for WMDs was solid? Even the CIA admitted internally that it was not.
The current administration, past administrations, the CIA (yes, they LATER came out and said that some particular pieces were not fully flushed out, though not before the invasion with any particular fervor or might) MI6, Mossad; you name
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Aren't we overdue for some Winston Churchill quotes?
Ask and you shall receive:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Not trying to be a smartass, but if the shoe fits...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Perhaps that "fanatic" term could be widely applied to some on these boards.
Borrowing from that old saying about people who live in glass houses... You and I could go in toghether to buy Windex in bulk, JaTo, but Res. 1441 does seem to be a hot button for you.
Just an observation.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Perhaps that "fanatic" term could be widely applied to some on these boards.
Borrowing from that old saying about people who live in glass houses... You and I could go in toghether to buy Windex in bulk, JaTo, but Res. 1441 does seem to be a hot button for you.
Just an observation.
I would agree on all points there.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
I looked at that CIA report, JaTo. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see any information in there that speaks to the reliability of the "evidence" in the report. In other words, it does not tell us where the information comes from, whether it can be verified, who supplied the information, and so forth. (You can be sure Bush got something much more detailed than this report)
To use the example in my last post, it's like having several witnesses who claim they heard the defendant state his intention to commit fraud, but having no information by which to judge the credibility of those witnesses. We don't know if they are friends of the plaintiff, or convicted felons, or the Dalai Lama. Likewise, we don't know if the "witnesses" the CIA relied on are axe-grinding exiles, former Baathists angling for clemency, or the Pope himself. We don't know whether the CIA's statements about the various industrial sites are from unbiased witnesses, or from half-stoned goat-herders.
It's so easy to throw together a lot of alarming claims (and pictures, too!), but they don't prove anything unless you can assess their reliability. With this report, we cannot assess the reliability of the evidence at all. (Note: that doesn't make it a bad report - I know the CIA can't reveal its sources. It just makes the report useless to prove your point that Bush didn't lie.)
I also had a problem with the tone of the report. It reads like it is trying to persuade the reader, like it has an agenda. Not like a straightforward, factual, impartial intel analysis. I smell administration pressure on Tenet to produce the goods Bush wanted.
You boldy stated that the report proved the CIA had strong evidence of WMDs, but it doesn't prove that at all. The report is a summary of evidentiary points, but it does not address the STRENGTH of the evidence.
Unless you can prove the CIA had STRONG, RELIABLE evidence of WMDs in Iraq, I will conclude that Bush lied when he told us there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs.
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
