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.