|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
My contention is that he did not embellish the potential based on:
1. The intel information from agencies (domestic & foreign) available to him
2. The global situation in the post 9-11 environment
3. The discrepancies in Iraqs own declarations to the U.N. about their stockpiles, programs, and materials
4. The U.N. corruption that was becoming obvious in the reaction of the french (especially) to U.S. efforts to enforce PREVIOUS U.N. resolutions and pass stronger measures to bring Iraq into compliance with past resolutions.
^^ I understand your points here. But they just don't hold water.
Let's look at point #1, re: the intel available to Bush at the time.
It's easy for Bush's lackeys to say that they acted reasonably based on the intelligence available at the time. But the evidence we now have from insiders like Zinni, Clarke, and Pillar tells us that's not true. As Pillar put it: "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war. If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath".
Like the article says, the White House did not really use official intelligence in making the decision to go to war. If fact, Bush IGNORED the vast majority of official intelligence. Instead, he selected a few pieces of intel that seemed most favorable to his policy aims.
This is from the article: "The Bush administration politicized Iraq intelligence by repeatedly calling for more material that would contribute to its case for war, a tactic that skewed intelligence resources toward topics favoring the White House."
Yes, it's true that the global situation was especially tense after 9/11, that there were serious discrepancies in the Iraqis' declarations, and that France and the U.N. programs are ridiculously corrupt. But those things only made the task of containing Saddam harder; no serious person claims those things were legitimate grounds for war.
So all I'm asking is that you have some skepticism about your point #1. The evidence just doesn't support it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132 |
I hope I'm wrong but President Bush did seem determined to go to war. I think he had enough reason to go to war because of the way the U.N. inspectors were treated. It would have been better if the U.N had supported President Bush. It seemed like the U.N. was going to just look the other way and not do much. There are a lot of terrorists and terrorist�s supporters out there so "the war on terrorism" is going to be one tough war. President Bush isn�t underestimating the enemy. That would be a big mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651 |
Originally posted by Th_m_s:
I hope I'm wrong but the President Bush did seem determined to go to war.
He did seem like it to me.
But again, the problem was everyone was going to iraq for blackmarket deals. So in that case you clean out the black market.
Simple we do it with drug lords. This time it was a countries dictator!!
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,578
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,578 |
Where's the dead horse smiley when you need it? What's done is done. GW cannot be elected again, he can just serve out the rest of his term or be impeached, and I highly doubt he'll be impeached. Why argue about this crap? It's done with. I didn't even read the article for fear of drowning in BS. All that will happen now is this is going to turn into some huge crap slinging debate that is going to tick everyone off, and wind up getting locked. STOP THE MADNESS. 
2004 Ford Freestar V6
Boogity Boogity Boogity, Let's go racin Boys!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31 |
Gee, Renee. I thought we were having a civilized discussion. It seemed like we were debating our government's policies, like responsible citizens of a democracy. Are we harming you in some way?
By the way, I am not trying to unelect Bush, as much as I would like for that to happen. I never knew we were obligated to stop discussing policy between elections.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Tourist:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
My contention is that he did not embellish the potential based on:
1. The intel information from agencies (domestic & foreign) available to him
2. The global situation in the post 9-11 environment
3. The discrepancies in Iraqs own declarations to the U.N. about their stockpiles, programs, and materials
4. The U.N. corruption that was becoming obvious in the reaction of the french (especially) to U.S. efforts to enforce PREVIOUS U.N. resolutions and pass stronger measures to bring Iraq into compliance with past resolutions.
^^ I understand your points here. But they just don't hold water.
Let's look at point #1, re: the intel available to Bush at the time.
It's easy for Bush's lackeys to say that they acted reasonably based on the intelligence available at the time. But the evidence we now have from insiders like Zinni, Clarke, and Pillar tells us that's not true. As Pillar put it: "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war. If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath".
Like the article says, the White House did not really use official intelligence in making the decision to go to war. If fact, Bush IGNORED the vast majority of official intelligence. Instead, he selected a few pieces of intel that seemed most favorable to his policy aims.
This is from the article: "The Bush administration politicized Iraq intelligence by repeatedly calling for more material that would contribute to its case for war, a tactic that skewed intelligence resources toward topics favoring the White House."
Yes, it's true that the global situation was especially tense after 9/11, that there were serious discrepancies in the Iraqis' declarations, and that France and the U.N. programs are ridiculously corrupt. But those things only made the task of containing Saddam harder; no serious person claims those things were legitimate grounds for war.
So all I'm asking is that you have some skepticism about your point #1. The evidence just doesn't support it.
Your so-called 'evidence' is all speculation, my friend. There are absolutely NO facts to support what you're saying, only that the interpretation of intelligence gathering activities could be twisted to suit an alternate scenario - far fetched as it may be.
For an example of twisting data..., in todays NYT there is an article that indicates the White House is relenting to pressure to brief the appropriate persons in congress about the intelligence gathering activities under the Patriot act. Well, guess what; those briefings are required by law under the act and have been on-going since passage of the act and in compliance with the laws set forth there-in - every 60 days or sup'm like that. Nothing new or controversial. The wording used to describe the events has simply been changed to imply some kind of resistance or passive guilt on the part of the administration, but there is no issue there. The wording is a vaporous apparition, a cloudy vail being utilized to obscure the truth and create a false crisis.
Furthermore, if you were in GWs shoes after 9-11, and discovered through Saddams own declarations that there were significant amounts of WMD materials missing from Saddams inventory, Saddam had been stone-walling the international community for 12 years, and Bin Ladin was still on the loose, wouldn't you have asked for more concrete evidence of where that material might be & who might have access to it??? That's not nessarily skewing data, but gathering critical information. I'd call it prudent, not selective and the prudent scenario seems far more likely to a reasonable person I should think. Seems to me you're turning a blind eye to the potentially catastrophic concequences of proliferation of dangerous materials, but I just can't understand why you would do that. Why would you not want to err on the side of the protection of the innocents, both here and abroad?
GWs primary job is not to pander to the rest of the world. His primary job is to protect the citizens of the U.S., and I'm glad he's doing it despite the political lambasting being inflicted upon him.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Renee:
Where's the dead horse smiley when you need it?
I didn't even read the article for fear of drowning in BS.
All that will happen now is this is going to turn into some huge crap slinging debate that is going to tick everyone off, and wind up getting locked.
STOP THE MADNESS.
Sorry, Renee. I thought twice about it too, but I just had to dive in for some reason. I'm a glutton for punishment or sup'm. 
Originally posted by Tourist:
Gee, Renee. I thought we were having a civilized discussion. It seemed like we were debating our government's policies, like responsible citizens of a democracy. Are we harming you in some way?
By the way, I am not trying to unelect Bush, as much as I would like for that to happen. I never knew we were obligated to stop discussing policy between elections.
I viewed it like this too. Not much name calling going on, so it's all good & healthy debate. No harm, no foul, and no malice intended.
<==== (* Hugs tourist *) See? 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
