|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by caltour:
Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.
I guess the dozen or so UN resolutions and endless weapons 'inspections' don't count for diplomacy.
 double up
Who said no diplomatic efforts were made? Bush's critics are saying that diplomatic efforts were made, but they were just a cynical cover for Bush's true (now clearly revealed) intentions.
And you must have known that I would never let you get away without addressing the real issue of this thread: the British memo shows that Bush knew the justifications were too thin to support a war against Iraq, so he intentionally manipulated the intelligence to provide the appearance of grounds for war. Is this grounds for impeachment?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
First, let me put forth my definition of stupidity:
"Doing the EXACT same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."
Now, diplomacy was tried across 4 terms of 3 sitting US Presidents with Iraq over a decade (unilateral and bilateral diplomacy, I might add)...
...so you're telling me the umpteenth time was going to produce something of a different nature?
You're telling me we would have been able to DECISIVELY determined Hussein's WMD capability through diplomacy? If so, there's a number of historians that have written on this topic that would vehemently disagree with you.
We've invaded and over 2 years later we still don't have an accurate assessment of what was originally in his arsenal (tons of material are still totally MISSING according to even the most recent reports).
If you're trying to pose a situation where impeachment is warranted when one sees the writing on the wall and puts for a presumption of war (i.e., planning and coordination) among those in the international community with the same vision and same concerns, Neville Chamberlain would have loved your thinking. I seem to remember that the US did go back to the UN to lean further on Iraq during the post 9/11 days before we invaded...
More than once, in fact. Of course, this and countless other resolutions, statements, announcements and grievances addressed to the UN and Hussein get entirely ignored or shoved under the table, all for what appears as partisan purposes...
After a little over 10 years of letting the UN play "Hide and Seek" with no end in sight and security concerns at an all-time high, I think Bush and Co. figured out in 2002 what most intel analysts did in the mid to late '90s: The only way to mitigate any risk that Hussein posed as a purveyor of WMD or a wholeseller of WMD to parties of immense concern was to eradicate his power base and remove him from office.
That was step 1; no other forms of "progress" could be assumed or even hoped for until Saddam was rotting in a grave or locked away somewhere.
Again, you have to remember the time you are speaking of; this was during the days of George Tenet's "slam dunk" statement and when both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate were certain that Hussein held a mountain of toxins and WMD. I'll be more than happy to provide quotes from Senators that wander out in far left-field; quotes that have them baring their war-fangs on the removal of Hussein FAR before Bush, Jr. made it into office...
Ultimately, the biggest failure that the US has to face in all of this is the dismal performance of the intelligence community as a whole, as our leaders decisions are only as good as the intelligence they are based upon.
Having said that, if you want to hang someone, go back to a certain US administration in the '90s that utterly gutted CIA HumInt in the Middle-East, gutted CIA budgets here at home and abroad beyond description and half-assed Middle-Eastern policy and statesmanship in such a fashion that helped give "autopilot diplomacy" a new meaning.
It wouldn't be entirely fair to nail Clinton to the wall or burn Madeline Albright at the stake, though; the US and the UK have a LONG history of entangling themselves in Middle-Eastern affairs during entirely different eras; Cold War, WWII, WWI, The English colonial period, etc., etc. Belgium, France and Russia could also be thrown into this "stew" of blame as well, given some of the ethnic and political boundaries that were artificially and fatally set up in the past...
Let's just say that in terms of blame, I think there is a huge line in front of Bush, Jr.
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 caltour:
...the British memo shows that Bush knew the justifications were too thin to support a war against Iraq, so he intentionally manipulated the intelligence to provide the appearance of grounds for war. Is this grounds for impeachment?
No, (it seems) they show that Jack Straw thought that the grounds for invasion were too thin, given that he thought Hussein would need to enact another Kuwait-style invasion of a neighboring country before the UN would EVER sanction force against him.
Please show some proof where Bush actively and intentionally manipulated intelligence; not some vague reference made in a daily rag, either. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by caltour:
...the British memo shows that Bush knew the justifications were too thin to support a war against Iraq, so he intentionally manipulated the intelligence to provide the appearance of grounds for war. Is this grounds for impeachment?
No, (it seems) they show that Jack Straw thought that the grounds for invasion were too thin, given that he thought Hussein would need to enact another Kuwait-style invasion of a neighboring country before the UN would EVER sanction force against him.
Please show some proof where Bush actively and intentionally manipulated intelligence; not some vague reference made in a daily rag, either. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
They got squat, much like a certain major network and some faked paperwork.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Since Bush's handlers would never voluntarily let anything of substance come out while he is in office (or during the terms of any of his sympathetic successors), it will be years before JaTo will admit there is anything to chew on. How convenient.
Meanwhile, is there any chance that Condi Rice replaced Colin Powell at State because Colin and George were both sick of Colin having to tell George he was a fool?
Is Condi anywhere near as capable for State as Colin?
Would Gen. Powell have QUIT a call to serve his country in a time of need unless he found his efforts at State futile and unappreciated? He was shown the door and replaced with a very bright puppy that likes to lick her master.
At least JaTo should be happy with John Bolton.
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: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Who said no diplomatic efforts were made?
Quote:
Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.
In case you can't figure out why that answers your question: If Blair and Bush never thought diplomacy was an option, they never would have tried diplomacy. They tried diplomacy. Therefore, in their opinion, diplomacy was an option. If you think the United States ostensibly pursued diplomacy for 12 years just so that GWB could go to war and avenge the plot to kill his father, then your mind is warped far beyond what I believe it is now.
Please just admit that you don't think the United States should go to war under any circumstances.
Originally posted by caltour:
And you must have known that I would never let you get away without addressing the real issue of this thread: the British memo shows that Bush knew the justifications were too thin to support a war against Iraq, so he intentionally manipulated the intelligence to provide the appearance of grounds for war. Is this grounds for impeachment?
You don't know too much about anything if you really think a president can manipulate intelligence.
...but let's say for a minute that by 'manipulate intelligence', you mean he exagerrated the significance of pieces of intelligence in order to support the war. If you think those pieces of intelligence are what made the war legal, you are seriously mistaken.
Some people just have to face the truth. George Lucas isn't going to make Episodes VII, VIII, and IX. Bush isn't going to be removed from office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Since Bush's handlers would never voluntarily let anything of substance come out while he is in office (or during the terms of any of his sympathetic successors), it will be years before JaTo will admit there is anything to chew on. How convenient.
Since Bush's critics would never voluntarily publish anything of substance while he is in office, it will be years before PDXSVT will admit that Bush has done some things right. How convenient.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Is Condi anywhere near as capable for State as Colin?
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
At least JaTo should be happy with John Bolton.
Funny you bring Colin/Condi and John Bolton up in the same post. Isn't Bolton being blasted for being the same type of person that everyone thinks Colin Powell was? Powell is praised for being a stand-up, take-no-[censored] Secretary of State. Yet, Bolton shows the same behaviors and he's blasted for being a rogue loose cannon. I'll take Double Standards for $1000 please, Alex.
Last edited by Davo; 05/30/05 02:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by caltour:
...the British memo shows that Bush knew the justifications were too thin to support a war against Iraq, so he intentionally manipulated the intelligence to provide the appearance of grounds for war. Is this grounds for impeachment?
No, (it seems) they show that Jack Straw thought that the grounds for invasion were too thin, given that he thought Hussein would need to enact another Kuwait-style invasion of a neighboring country before the UN would EVER sanction force against him.
Please show some proof where Bush actively and intentionally manipulated intelligence; not some vague reference made in a daily rag, either. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
They got squat, much like a certain major network and some faked paperwork.
Oh, yeah? Read the memo:
The Downing Street memo.
In the memo, our pals the Brits clearly say that Bush had decided to go to war, and he was busily manipulating the "intelligence" to justify it. Read the part where it says: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
First, let me put forth my definition of stupidity:
"Doing the EXACT same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."
Now, diplomacy was tried across 4 terms of 3 sitting US Presidents with Iraq over a decade (unilateral and bilateral diplomacy, I might add)...
...so you're telling me the umpteenth time was going to produce something of a different nature?
You're telling me we would have been able to DECISIVELY determined Hussein's WMD capability through diplomacy? If so, there's a number of historians that have written on this topic that would vehemently disagree with you.
We've invaded and over 2 years later we still don't have an accurate assessment of what was originally in his arsenal (tons of material are still totally MISSING according to even the most recent reports).
If you're trying to pose a situation where impeachment is warranted when one sees the writing on the wall and puts for a presumption of war (i.e., planning and coordination) among those in the international community with the same vision and same concerns, Neville Chamberlain would have loved your thinking. I seem to remember that the US did go back to the UN to lean further on Iraq during the post 9/11 days before we invaded...
More than once, in fact. Of course, this and countless other resolutions, statements, announcements and grievances addressed to the UN and Hussein get entirely ignored or shoved under the table, all for what appears as partisan purposes...
After a little over 10 years of letting the UN play "Hide and Seek" with no end in sight and security concerns at an all-time high, I think Bush and Co. figured out in 2002 what most intel analysts did in the mid to late '90s: The only way to mitigate any risk that Hussein posed as a purveyor of WMD or a wholeseller of WMD to parties of immense concern was to eradicate his power base and remove him from office.
That was step 1; no other forms of "progress" could be assumed or even hoped for until Saddam was rotting in a grave or locked away somewhere.
Again, you have to remember the time you are speaking of; this was during the days of George Tenet's "slam dunk" statement and when both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate were certain that Hussein held a mountain of toxins and WMD. I'll be more than happy to provide quotes from Senators that wander out in far left-field; quotes that have them baring their war-fangs on the removal of Hussein FAR before Bush, Jr. made it into office...
Ultimately, the biggest failure that the US has to face in all of this is the dismal performance of the intelligence community as a whole, as our leaders decisions are only as good as the intelligence they are based upon.
Having said that, if you want to hang someone, go back to a certain US administration in the '90s that utterly gutted CIA HumInt in the Middle-East, gutted CIA budgets here at home and abroad beyond description and half-assed Middle-Eastern policy and statesmanship in such a fashion that helped give "autopilot diplomacy" a new meaning.
It wouldn't be entirely fair to nail Clinton to the wall or burn Madeline Albright at the stake, though; the US and the UK have a LONG history of entangling themselves in Middle-Eastern affairs during entirely different eras; Cold War, WWII, WWI, The English colonial period, etc., etc. Belgium, France and Russia could also be thrown into this "stew" of blame as well, given some of the ethnic and political boundaries that were artificially and fatally set up in the past...
Let's just say that in terms of blame, I think there is a huge line in front of Bush, Jr.
JaTo, what the hell are you talking about? You are still making the case for war, I guess. But that is not the issue here.
THE ISSUE HERE IS INTENTIONAL FALSIFICATION AND MANIPULATION OF INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR.
Can you refute the British memo? Can you show us how it is false? Can you argue that it does not support the argument my side has been making for years?
|
|
|
|
|
