[marden]

To Those Who Still Believe Bush Lied About WMD's

Jan 17, 2006 7:30 am US/Eastern

(WJZ) In a candid interview just hours ago, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell talks about mistakes made in the decision to go to war with Iraq.

"We were wrong," Powell says. "The intelligence community was wrong, the British intelligence community was wrong, and all the other intelligence communities were wrong and I presented wrong information, because that was the information we believed to be true at the time."

During the interview with the BBC, Powell frankly admits mistakes, saying the United States made the best decision possible based on information he now says was off-target.

"Everybody believed it to be true at the time, until we actually got into Iraq and didn't find the stockpiles," Powell says.

The British reporter asks: "would you like to apologize for misleading the world?"

"I didn't mislead the world, Powell responds. "When you are presenting what you believe to be the fact."

wjz.com - Shocking War Admission From Colin Powell

Because I believe in the idea of 'leaving no child behind' I want to make sure that everyone AT LAST recognizes that AT LEAST the US was acting in good faith.

We invaded based on the informations we had AT THE TIME.

Point #1 in Marden's 15 points.

Are we all 'there' yet?

If we still have people unable to move past the issue of invasion justification we can't easily or intelligently move on to deal with today's or tomorrow's problems.

EDIT: If you wonder about what Powell said about our intelligence being wrong, consider this:

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.


FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

If we still have people unable to move past the issue of invasion justification we can't easily or intelligently move on to deal with today's or tomorrow's problems.

The issue isn't whether Bush lied about whether he thought there were WMDs. The issue is that WMDs received minimal priority in the execution of the mission.

This is relevant because of the immense value Bush placed on WMDs as a selling point.

He promised we were interested in WMDs, and failed to deliver on that promise.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

The issue isn't whether Bush lied about whether he thought there were WMDs. The issue is that WMDs received minimal priority in the execution of the mission.

This is relevant because of the immense value Bush placed on WMDs as a selling point.

He promised we were interested in WMDs, and failed to deliver on that promise.

You will have to convince me you:

1. Correctly understand the nature of the WMD threat that the Administration considered significant enough to warrant invasion.

I.E. Which WMD's were they most concerned with? Which WMD's (if any) would be quickly known not to be an imminent threat simply by invading? Did they believe it was imminent on a hour by hour, day by day, week to week or any month it could happen? Did their search or investigative efforts after the invasion (hour by hour) coincide with the pre-war doubts? At what point in the invasion did they get information about the WMD's existence, location, non-existence, changed location? From what source did this information come? What was the coalition's response?

2. Correctly assess the efforts by the coalition to APPROPRIATELY deal with the WMD's based on changing information from the time BEFORE the invasion and the time AFTER the invasion began.

I.E. If there was a fear that nuclear missiles existed before the invasion but after the invasion began and we achieved air superiority over all of Iraq we were able to simply fly over the country with sensors, let's say, and determine this fear was unfounded, then your fears would be misplaced.

I'll run it down for you.

A. Before invasion we could not cruise over Iraq at our leisure with instrument bearing aircraft able to detect WMD's. Therefore we could not be sure about the WMD threat.

B. After the invasion we neutralized Saddam's Air Defense systems so our planes would not be shot down.

C. We immediately began flying over the length and breadth of Iraq (focusing FIRST on the territory within missile range of Israel) gathering air samples and quickly found no signs of nuclear materials.

D. Within a few days or even hours of the invasion we might have known there was no imminent danger.

E. We were unable to know this prior to invasion. But soon after invading we WERE able to know this.

This is just a hypothetical example of how invading MIGHT have quickly supplied us the info we needed and someone looking at the coalition's actions after the invasion expecting Keystone Cops-like activity might errantly conclude there WAS no interest in WMD's or that the WMD search effort IN THEIR OPINION did not match what they THOUGHT it should look like.

That reminds me of an experience a number of years ago when a guy bought a new Apple Computer and his friend was with him when he hooked it up and went online.

The friend couldn't believe he was really up and working as quickly as he was.

The kicker was when he asked where the external modem box was.

You will have to convince me you aren't just doubting the Administration because your source didn't see the equivalent of an external modem when judging the coalition's search for WMD's.

[Atheist]

I fully believe the Administration acted in what they believed was good faith in going to war with Iraq. I also believe that they believed there were WMDs. The problem is human nature. If you look hard enough for something, you'll find it... even if it isn't there. Bush and Co. desperately wanted to believe that Iraq had weapons and that we needed to stop them. So every building and pile of dirt they saw in a satellite image was interpreted to be something it wasn't. You see what you want to see...not necessarily what is there. Everyone agrees there were intelligence failures all around. I feel Bush had such a hard-on to go to war, that he was careless. Just my 2 cents.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I fully believe the Administration acted in what they believed was good faith in going to war with Iraq. I also believe that they believed there were WMDs. The problem is human nature. If you look hard enough for something, you'll find it... even if it isn't there. Bush and Co. desperately wanted to believe that Iraq had weapons and that we needed to stop them. So every building and pile of dirt they saw in a satellite image was interpreted to be something it wasn't. You see what you want to see...not necessarily what is there. Everyone agrees there were intelligence failures all around. I feel Bush had such a hard-on to go to war, that he was careless. Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate that perspective.

There is NO shortage of reasons they had for genuine reasonable doubt, though.

Chalabi & "Curveball."

The fact that Iran respected Iraq's borders.

The games Saddam played with denying the inspectors to instant access ANYWHERE they asked.

The reasons mentioned above by Richard Clarke.

[Wiskedjak]

You're ignoring a few simple facts (the same facts ignored by those bent on war):

A. There were people on the ground in Iraq tasked with verifying that Saddam got rid of his WMD and wasn't developing any new WMD. These people constantly stated that there were no WMD, or WMD development programs in Iraq. These people were mocked more by the US than they were by Saddam.

B. Saddam has a history of bluffing. Because of this history, as well as the opinion of the investigations team, it would have behooved the US to take greater care in their intelligence gathering and analysis.

C. Key evidence, such as the rods, proved not to lead to WMD development and highlighted that intelligence analysts were ignoring evidence that would suggest some doubt in the belief that Iraq had any WMD.

D. Apparently WMD wasn't the only reason for invading Iraq. If you honestly believe that, why do you keep bringing it up?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I fully believe the Administration acted in what they believed was good faith in going to war with Iraq. I also believe that they believed there were WMDs. The problem is human nature. If you look hard enough for something, you'll find it... even if it isn't there. Bush and Co. desperately wanted to believe that Iraq had weapons and that we needed to stop them. So every building and pile of dirt they saw in a satellite image was interpreted to be something it wasn't. You see what you want to see...not necessarily what is there. Everyone agrees there were intelligence failures all around. I feel Bush had such a hard-on to go to war, that he was careless. Just my 2 cents.

I believe the many who opposed the invasion acted in good faith. I also believe that they truly thought Saddam posed no threat to the International Community. The problem is human nature. If you want to believe something, you won't hear anything that contradicts your belief, even if you're woefully mistaken. For example; "Mission Accomplished" being used against Bush with disregard for the actual speech itself. "No WMDs" regardless of the fact that just about everyone believed they had WMDs, but the most blaring example of selective hearing was the fact that having WMDs was only half the concern, the other half was the weapons programs, R&D, and a host of rogue nations waiting to sell and buy. All in repeated breach of UN mandates right up until the day we invaded.

In testimony on the progress of the Iraq Survey Group on October 2, 2003 David Kay revealed to House and Senate committees that the ISG had found that Iraq had a network of clandestine laboratories containing equipment that should have been (but was not) disclosed to the UN inspectors. He also said that the ISG found an undeclared prison laboratory complex and an undeclared Unmanned Aerial Vehicle production facility. The Iraq Survey Group also found out that a UAV had been test-flown out to a range of 500 kilometers even though the agreed upon limit was 150 kilometers. Iraq lied to the UN about the range of that particular UAV, Kay said.
He testified that Iraq had done research on Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella but had not declared this to the UN. Iraq also continued R&D work on anthrax and ricin without declaring it to the UN.
ISG found nuclear research materials and centrifuge parts hidden in the home of Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi.
Kay told the committees that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq attempted to obtain missile technology from North Korea that would allow them to build missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers, far beyond the UN limit of 150 kilometers that Iraq agreed upon in UN Resolution 687. They also sought anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 kilometers from North Korea.
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, (i.e. our invasion)dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War," Kay testified.

After the interview, Kay told National Public Radio that Iraq "had a large number of WMD program-related activities." He said "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas." Kay also said that Iraq had been trying to weaponize ricin "right up until" Operation Iraqi Freedom. He also said that Iraq had began retooling its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001.

I feel Bush's political opposition has such a hard-on to oppose anything Bush says, that they fail to hear what anyone else says and continue to repeat the same dribble over and over again. They do so not in the interest of any truth, but to espouse divisive, partisan rhetoric. Just my 2 cents.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

You will have to convince me you aren't just doubting the Administration because your source didn't see the equivalent of an external modem when judging the coalition's search for WMD's.

Most of my information is from Brigadier General James Marks, senior intelligence officer for the operation. The person who was actually in charge of finding the WMDs.

You can read it in all of its gory detail in Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II.

Today's reading from page 81:

Originally Posted by General Marks

It just seemed like this was something that should have been granularly ripped apart long before we rolled in. That's what was most amazing to me. The nation had been looking at and studying the WMD issue. It was the raison d'être for war and nobody pored or labored over the details of the list where this stuff was supposed to be stored or developed. My routine question was who cares about this besides us?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're ignoring a few simple facts (the same facts ignored by those bent on war):

A. There were people on the ground in Iraq tasked with verifying that Saddam got rid of his WMD and wasn't developing any new WMD. These people constantly stated that there were no WMD, or WMD development programs in Iraq. These people were mocked more by the US than they were by Saddam.

Wrong. The people tasked with finding WMDs claimed while no stockpile had been found, in fact the WMDs program was alive and well. There were numerous documents and various forms of communication found that affirm Saddam was in contact with N. Korea for missile technology in breach of UN mandates and a host of other documents affirming R&D into other WMD programs, all in severe breach of UN mandates.

B. Saddam has a history of bluffing. Because of this history, as well as the opinion of the investigations team, it would have behooved the US to take greater care in their intelligence gathering and analysis.

He also has a history of tyranny, torture, rape, mass graves, and using WMDs on his own people. I believe 12 years and 13 UN resolutions with final call of "serious consequences" for non-compliance is about as great a care in gathering intel and analysis as one should take given the history of this despot.

C. Key evidence, such as the rods, proved not to lead to WMD development and highlighted that intelligence analysts were ignoring evidence that would suggest some doubt in the belief that Iraq had any WMD.

Why only consider the evidence that might caste doubt. What about the evidence that affirms guilt?

D. Apparently WMD wasn't the only reason for invading Iraq. If you honestly believe that, why do you keep bringing it up?

Here, I totally agree with you. I suspect marden keeps bringing it up because too many continue to insist that this was the only reason for invading Iraq. They do so because of selective hearing.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suspect marden keeps bringing it up because too many continue to insist that this was the only reason for invading Iraq. They do so because of selective hearing.

I watched an interview show on TV which made me scream nasty things at some smug mealy-mouthed liberal Broadway playright who doesn't know half as much as the average poster here at MacNN.

Then I thought about it a moment and thought I'd better make sure that everyone here was AT LEAST better informed than that ********* before I go any further with my assumptions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He also has a history of tyranny, torture, rape, mass graves, and using WMDs on his own people.

True, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he had any WMD. It appears to me that not only wasn't WMD the primary reason for invasion, but that wasn't even a reason at all and that it was actually a tool to sell invasion to voters who probably wouldn't have supported any of the other reasons.

Why only consider the evidence that might caste doubt. What about the evidence that affirms guilt?

I'm not saying only consider evidence casting doubt, but you shouldn't dismiss it outright either.

Here, I totally agree with you. I suspect marden keeps bringing it up because too many continue to insist that this was the only reason for invading Iraq. They do so because of selective hearing.

Personally, I think he keeps on bringing it up because he also believes the argument for WMD in Iraq was shaky and central to the justification for invading Iraq.

[Nicko]

The truth is Saddam was a petty dictator who was contained. If the US had just kept up the pressure on him he would have eventually turned into a pussy cat not unlike the transformation Kadafi made.

Kadafi...dictator for life who actually HAD a working WMD program and was on the verge of creating his own nukes. Now that Kadafi has rebranded his image Libya is booming economically with oil companies and others tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. The contrasts with Iraq could not be starker.

Americans have been shown to be a bunch of gullible chumps for what they have done in Iraq.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Personally, I think he keeps on bringing it up because he also believes the argument for WMD in Iraq was shaky and central to the justification for invading Iraq.

I watched an interview show on TV which made me scream nasty things at some smug mealy-mouthed liberal Broadway playright who doesn't know half as much as the average poster here at MacNN.

Then I thought about it a moment and thought I'd better make sure that everyone here was AT LEAST better informed than that deuce bag before I go any further with my assumptions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I watched an interview show on TV which made me scream nasty things at some smug mealy-mouthed liberal Broadway playright who doesn't know half as much as the average poster here at MacNN.

Then I thought about it a moment and thought I'd better make sure that everyone here was AT LEAST better informed than that deuce bag before I go any further with my assumptions.

If that's the case, why not just continue with the "WMD was not the only reason" mantra?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

The truth is Saddam was a petty dictator who was contained. If the US had just kept up the pressure on him he would have eventually turned into a pussy cat not unlike the transformation Kadafi made.

Kadafi...dictator for life who actually HAD a working WMD program and was on the verge of creating his own nukes. Now that Kadafi has rebranded his image Libya is booming economically with oil companies and others tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. The contrasts with Iraq could not be starker.

Americans have been shown to be a bunch of gullible chumps for what they have done in Iraq.

Saddam was NOT contained.

Yet Blair is arguably as much an initiator of the Iraq war as either Bush or the usual neocon suspects. Blair raised the issue of Iraq with Bush in February 2001, the month when the main headlines were Bill Clinton's presidential pardons. Blair worried that sanctions and containment were crumbling, undermined by Saddam and his allies on the U.N. Security Council, such as France and Russia. Indeed, two months previously, in November 2000, when Americans were arguing over their presidential elections and Iraq was largely debated by Washington policy wonks, the British minister of state for foreign affairs, Peter Hain, had denounced French behavior towards Iraq as "pretty contemptible."
National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com)

John Hawkins: Here's another question along those same lines: What do you say to people who claim that containment was working with Iraq and that we should stick with containment in dealing with other terrorist supporting states?

David Frum: In the case of Iraq, containment was visibly crumbling. The Iraqis had successfully forced the inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and the sanctions were crumbling. The Iraqis did agree to readmit the inspectors in 2002, but that was clearly going to be true only so long as there were American troops on their borders. Realism tells you that this policy had no future. Many of the most prominent people who advocate containment had been in the nineties advocating the undoing of sanctions. So they're advocating a policy that they themselves wanted to see the end of.

John Hawkins: In fact, there was a real push to take part of the sanctions off of Iraq before 9/11 wasn't there?

David Frum: There was. What was happening was sort of a perverse struggle. You had the United States at the United Nations asking for more lenient sanctions and France and Russia were opposing our demands for more lenient sanctions because they hoped sanctions would collapse altogether.The David Frum Interview - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

A crumbling sanctions regime

The sanctions regime against Iraq suffers a setback as several nations, including Russia and France, send medical teams and humanitarian supplies to the country without seeking the prior concurrence of the U.N. Sanctions Committee.
A crumbling sanctions regime

Defence Policy (25 Mar 2004)
Clare Short: I will not give way, because I would like to get on and make my speech. From the very beginning, my view on Iraq was that it was right to threaten to use force to back up the UN's authority, because containment was crumbling and sanctions were hurting, but that there was no need to rush. That is where all the failure has come from. The Defence Committee failed to face up to the reasons for the...Search: the word 'iraq' spoken by Clare Short page 2 (TheyWorkForYou.com)

Invade Iraq, But Bring Friends
Bringing down Saddam could end Islamic terror.
By Fareed Zakaria

Unfortunately the box is falling apart. As Kenneth Pollack, one of the leading strategic analysts of the Middle East, details in a superb forthcoming book, sanctions against Saddam Hussein are crumbling. Having mastered smuggling and cheating, Saddam now has between $2 billion and $3 billion a year that he can use for whatever purpose he wants. Last year Secretary of State Colin Powell made a valiant attempt to shore up containment by proposing "smart sanctions," which would have targeted Saddam's regime more tightly and loosened the controls on the Iraqi people. But smart sanctions never got off the ground. Iraq's neighbors, European powers (most shamefully, France) and Russia all conspired to maintain the system as is, which brings their companies cozy contracts. The failure of smart sanctions was the end of any hope that containment could be shored up.
Invade Iraq, But Bring Friends by Fareed Zakaria

Containment Measures were failing
One of the major problems with Saddam was that containing him required a concerted effort with many of our allies. The main thing which kept Saddam contained was a combination of intrusive weapons inspections and the comprehensive sanction program set in place by the UN. With the knowledge we have now, it seems that these measures kept Saddam from obtaining many of the WMD that he desired. But this whole system was falling apart.

Saddam had designated huge complexes off limits to the inspectors, and the UN didn't force the issue. By 1998 Saddam and restricted the movements of the inspectors so much that they were effectively under house arrest. He claimed they were spys, but the only part of his military worth spying on involved his WMD programs, and that is exactly what the UN allowed the investigators to look for. In 1998 the inspectors left as Clinton bombed Iraq. The inspectors were not allowed back in until the end of 2002, under threat of war, I mean 'serious consequences', from the UN. The only reason the UN took this serious step was because Bush threatened to go to war.

This becomes obvious when you look back at French, German and Russian action in January of 2002. At that time all three countries were pushing for sanctions to be totally abandoned. They were advocating this despite the fact that Saddam had prevented weapons inspectors from performing their duties for four years. The multi-national inspection regime and sanction programs had lost support from all countries except the US and the UK. The were only maintained at all because of the unilateral insistence of the US. The UN wanted to totally normalize Iraqi relations. The only reason the inspections and sanctions continued, which is to say the only reason containment continued, was because of the US threat of war. A credible threat of war cannot be maintained indefinitely. With the containment efforts crumbling in 2001 and 2002, war became a much more necessary option.

If France, Germany and Russia had been willing to continue long-term containment, perhaps the war with Iraq could have been avoided. These countries made it clear that they would be willing to go along with containment only so long as the US was actively threatening war. That was not going to be a long term solution.Republicans & Conservatives:: The Reasons For the War (Part III)

Enough?

[Nicko]

hehe there is actually a website called Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If that's the case, why not just continue with the "WMD was not the only reason" mantra?

I have always been waiting for an excuse to deal with ONE reason at a time to explain in depth.

[BRussell]

The 1% doctrine.

Bush believed that even if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had WMD, the Iraq war was a good idea. I don't see how anyone can consider that to be a rational position. Is that an appropriate criterion marden? One percent?

Furthermore, having an "honest belief" in something doesn't excuse lying or passing along questionable evidence. If I honestly believe that Bush is intellectually vacuous, that doesn't excuse me posting fake IQ results that I claim is Bush's actual IQ. It also doesn't excuse me from scouring the internet looking for any information I can cling to, no matter how bogus, that Bush has a low IQ.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The 1% doctrine.

Bush believed that even if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had WMD, the Iraq war was a good idea. I don't see how anyone can consider that to be a rational position. Is that an appropriate criterion marden? One percent?

Furthermore, having an "honest belief" in something doesn't excuse lying or passing along questionable evidence. If I honestly believe that Bush is intellectually vacuous, that doesn't excuse me posting fake IQ results that I claim is Bush's actual IQ. It also doesn't excuse me from scouring the internet looking for any information I can cling to, no matter how bogus, that Bush has a low IQ.

Frankly I think the theory that Bush feels he is on a crusade (ie mission from god) has more credibility at this point.


I call this the Captain Ahab complex.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The 1% doctrine.

Bush believed that even if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had WMD, the Iraq war was a good idea. I don't see how anyone can consider that to be a rational position. Is that an appropriate criterion marden? One percent?

Furthermore, having an "honest belief" in something doesn't excuse lying or passing along questionable evidence. If I honestly believe that Bush is intellectually vacuous, that doesn't excuse me posting fake IQ results that I claim is Bush's actual IQ. It also doesn't excuse me from scouring the internet looking for any information I can cling to, no matter how bogus, that Bush has a low IQ.

From your link:

In November, 2001, Suskind writes, Vice-President Dick Cheney announced that if there was "a one percent chance" that a threat was real "we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

Let's consider some other 1% considerations that might make you want to deal seriously with them:

1% chance your wife is cheating on you?
1% chance you have AIDS?
1% chance your spouse is pregnant?
1% chance the baby has a birth defect?
1% chance you might not make it safe to work?
1% chance you will be fired on Monday?

There are some things that are just too important to NOT take them seriously.

And in the case that there was a 1% chance that Saddam had nukes which would be used to destroy Israel there is no margin for error.

Not even 1%.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden 

Let's consider some other 1% considerations that might make you want to deal seriously with them:

1% chance your wife is cheating on you?
1% chance you have AIDS?
1% chance your spouse is pregnant?
1% chance the baby has a birth defect?
1% chance you might not make it safe to work?
1% chance you will be fired on Monday?

There are some things that are just too important to NOT take them seriously.

It would be the height of irrationality to engage in the equivalent of "going to war" in any of those cases: To divorce my wife if there was a 1% chance she was cheating on me? To abort our baby if there was a 1% chance it had a birth defect? Absurd and irrational.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It would be the height of irrationality to engage in the equivalent of "going to war" in any of those cases: To divorce my wife if there was a 1% chance she was cheating on me? To abort our baby if there was a 1% chance it had a birth defect? Absurd and irrational.

I said you'd want to deal seriously with them.

Let's consider some other 1% considerations that might make you want to deal seriously with them:

1% chance your wife is cheating on you?
1% chance you have AIDS?
1% chance your spouse is pregnant?
1% chance the baby has a birth defect?
1% chance you might not make it safe to work?
1% chance you will be fired on Monday?

There are some things that are just too important to NOT take them seriously.

And in the case that there was a 1% chance that Saddam had nukes which would be used to destroy Israel there is no margin for error.

Not even 1%.

But you missed the point of the post, completely.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by marden

...bull...

Even if Iraq have had WMD stockpiles up to the moon, who should have given a shyt??? Like ole Rummy once said "[...]Saddam is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". This just says enough about American policy.

And to your 1% chances ( )... what about the 100% stuff? Countries like Pakistan, India and Israel having the atomic bomb? A dozen of other states experimenting with it? The American Anthrax plotters still at large? The Palestine vs. Israel conflict unsolved and treated with some "Don't ask don't tell"-policy by GWB himself? The still and again hundreds of hot spots in Afghanistan? Dictators in Africa enslaving whole peoples like in the middle ages?
I somehow would said, those priorities are about 10000 times higher, then trying to start some experiment like "cleanup of a contained local problem". Just my two Euros.


PB.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Even if Iraq have had WMD stockpiles up to the moon, who should have given a shyt??? Like ole Rummy once said "[...]Saddam is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". This just says enough about American policy.

And to your 1% chances ( )... what about the 100% stuff? Countries like Pakistan, India and Israel having the atomic bomb? A dozen of other states experimenting with it? The American Anthrax plotters still at large? The Palestine vs. Israel conflict unsolved and treated with some "Don't ask don't tell"-policy by GWB himself? The still and again hundreds of hot spots in Afghanistan? Dictators in Africa enslaving whole peoples like in the middle ages?
I somehow would said, those priorities are about 10000 times higher, then trying to start some experiment like "cleanup of a contained local problem". Just my two Euros.


PB.

That's easy for you to say!

But the history of Saddam trying to destroy Israel was real and the history of Saddam trying to develop WMD's was real. The crumbling Iraqi containment was real.

The danger of Saddam causing chaos that would make him a BIGGER problem had we done nothing was real.

What you prefer to ignore is the effect a nuclear detonation over israel would have on all of us.

Some of us would not survive it.*

NO ONE OF US WOULD REMAIN UNAFFECTED.

* And I'm not talking about JUST those who might live in Israel. But those who live in any of the countries that are allied to Arab & Muslim countries, oil producing countries and those who live in nations allied to or in close proximity to Israel. That means all of the coalition of the willing and MAYBE even Europe. Consider that the Chernobyl accident was 'only' a meltdown which allowed radiation to escape. There is an area the size of Great Britain which, 20 years later, is still uninhabitable.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden 

I said you'd want to deal seriously with them.

Can you "deal seriously" with something short of invading, occupying, and creating a failed state out of it? For example, was the policy of containment of the USSR "dealing seriously" with the threat they posed? It sure seems to have worked, anyway.

But you missed the point of the post, completely.

I thought your point was to draw an analogy between one taking serious actions in one's personal life even in the face of a lack of evidence. I'm sorry, but I believe it's always irrational to act in an extreme fashion despite a lack of evidence. It's the definition of irrationality.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Can you "deal seriously" with something short of invading, occupying, and creating a failed state out of it? For example, was the policy of containment of the USSR "dealing seriously" with the threat they posed? It sure seems to have worked, anyway.
I thought your point was to draw an analogy between one taking serious actions in one's personal life even in the face of a lack of evidence. I'm sorry, but I believe it's always irrational to act in an extreme fashion despite a lack of evidence. It's the definition of irrationality.

I think posting without all the evidence is irrational.

I was presenting a series of situations which a 1% chance of their being true would have to be considered very seriously. Then I introduced the situation which is even more serious than those and I pointed out that in response to that 1% possibility of it being real demanded the President's doing what was needed to make it a 0% chance.

No US president would allow a clear and present danger such as that which Saddam had demonstrated to threaten the lives of millions in one stroke.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Most of my information is from Brigadier General James Marks...

Nothin' with that?

Try this one on then, from one of Gen. Marks' planners:

Originally Posted by Lt. Col. Steven Peterson

Over a month before the war began, the Phase IV planning group concluded that the campaign would produce conditions at odds with meeting strategic objectives... They realized the joint campaign was specifically designed to break all control mechanisms of the regime and there would be a period following regime collapse in which we would face the greatest danger to our strategic objectives. This assessment described the risk of an influx to terrorists to Iraq, the rise of criminal activity, the probable actions of former regime members and the loss of control of WMD that was believed to exist.

The problem being...

Originally Posted by Lt. Col. Steven Peterson

No officer in the headquarters was prepared to argue for actions that would siphon resources from the war fighting effort... Only a fool would propose hurting the war fighting effort to address post-war conditions that might or might not occur.

The Rumsfeld doctrine called for such a small deployment that non-combat operations (such as WMDs) were shorthanded by design.

[mania]

hey marden, We KNOW north korea has WMDs and we aren't doing anything about it except bitchin. the WMDs were wishful thinking and a convenient excuse. Bush wanted the CIA to tell him there were WMDs and they did.

[Dakar²]

Funny, when I watched Colin's proceeding at the UN I never got the impression that he was all that convinced himself.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Let's consider some other 1% considerations that might make you want to deal seriously with them:

1% chance your wife is cheating on you?
1% chance you have AIDS?
1% chance your spouse is pregnant?
1% chance the baby has a birth defect?
1% chance you might not make it safe to work?
1% chance you will be fired on Monday?

There are some things that are just too important to NOT take them seriously.

And in the case that there was a 1% chance that Saddam had nukes which would be used to destroy Israel there is no margin for error.

Not even 1%.

I don't get the meaning of this post, ademardenwriter. Are you saying that there are things that people should take seriously if there was only a 1% chance? Because, to be honest, for me this list doesn't prove your point at all; many of the items listed here do have a 1% chance. A 1% chance people won't make it safe to work?? That could be right. Same with babies having a birth defect of some sort, or your wife being pregnant, or of a given person being fired.

I guess what I'm saying is, if people took everything that has a 1% chance of happening seriously, then people would be completely freaked out, all the time. It's called "cost-benefit analysis."

Then again, I've already had that futile argument with you. But, is that indeed what you meant by the list?

greg

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Then again, I've already had that futile argument with you. But, is that indeed what you meant by the list?

greg

There is atleast a 1% chance you might be right.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I don't get the meaning of this post, ademardenwriter. Are you saying that there are things that people should take seriously if there was only a 1% chance? Because, to be honest, for me this list doesn't prove your point at all; many of the items listed here do have a 1% chance. A 1% chance people won't make it safe to work?? That could be right. Same with babies having a birth defect of some sort, or your wife being pregnant, or of a given person being fired.

I guess what I'm saying is, if people took everything that has a 1% chance of happening seriously, then people would be completely freaked out, all the time. It's called "cost-benefit analysis."

Then again, I've already had that futile argument with you. But, is that indeed what you meant by the list?

greg

When I asked he just told me I had completely missed his point.

[goMac]

The CIA told them there weren't WMD's. The problem is the administration blew past every red flag.

[tie]

Originally Posted by marden 

To Those Who Still Believe Bush Lied About WMD's

"I didn't mislead the world, Powell responds. "When you are presenting what you believe to be the fact."

Powell did mislead the world. There is enormous evidence that he deliberately lied. No kidding, Powell claims that he didn't lie -- what do you expect him to say? He's lying. (Why did you bold-face this quote?)

[marden]

Originally Posted by mania 

hey marden, We KNOW north korea has WMDs and we aren't doing anything about it except bitchin. the WMDs were wishful thinking and a convenient excuse. Bush wanted the CIA to tell him there were WMDs and they did.

Hey mania, which nation could NoKo hit with a nuclear missile that might automatically trigger WWII/IV?

None.

Which nation could Saddam have hit with a nuclear missile (or could Iran target in the future) that might automatically trigger an end of days scenario?

Add to that the fact that Noko's leadership does not have aspirations of regional or global dominance.

Saddam did. (Just as Ahmadinejad does.)

And, while we are talking about the difference between Kim Jong iL and Ahmadinejad, Kim doesn't have a death wish or an End of Days religious fantasy.

So, bottom line, while NOKO is a threat, it is not NEARLY as dangerous to the whole world as the threat of Saddam with a "bomb" or Iran with the "bomb."

[marden]

Originally Posted by tie 

Powell did mislead the world. There is enormous evidence that he deliberately lied. No kidding, Powell claims that he didn't lie -- what do you expect him to say? He's lying. (Why did you bold-face this quote?)

You can not dispute the facts I have presented. There is no getting around them.

We believed the possibility of there being WMD's at the time.
wjz.com - Shocking War Admission From Colin Powell

We had been fooled before and could not afford to be foold again.
FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The CIA told them there weren't WMD's. The problem is the administration blew past every red flag.

The CIA had missed it before. The President could not be sure they hadn't missed it again.
FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

When I asked he just told me I had completely missed his point.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Can you "deal seriously" with something short of invading, occupying, and creating a failed state out of it? For example, was the policy of containment of the USSR "dealing seriously" with the threat they posed? It sure seems to have worked, anyway.
I thought your point was to draw an analogy between one taking serious actions in one's personal life even in the face of a lack of evidence. I'm sorry, but I believe it's always irrational to act in an extreme fashion despite a lack of evidence. It's the definition of irrationality.

I think posting without all the evidence is irrational.

I was presenting a series of situations which a 1% chance of their being true would have to be considered very seriously. Then I introduced the situation which is even more serious than those and I pointed out that in response to that 1% possibility of it being real demanded the President's doing what was needed to make it a 0% chance.

No US president would allow a clear and present danger such as that which Saddam had demonstrated to threaten the lives of millions in one stroke.

[tie]

Originally Posted by marden 

You can not dispute the facts I have presented.

Sorry, I didn't realize you presented any facts, just wild conspiracy theories in bold and really big fonts.

(Yes, I admit it -- I'm a secret agent of the Committee for an Islamic America, full of dastardly plans for world domination.)

[marden]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, I didn't realize you presented any facts, just wild conspiracy theories in bold and really big fonts.

(Yes, I admit it -- I'm a secret agent of the Committee for an Islamic America, full of dastardly plans for world domination.)

How much would you like to wager that everything I've listed in bold or really big fonts has been posted here on these pages at LEAST 3 - 5 before but you somehow missed?

And yes, we know of your orientation.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

The CIA had missed it before. The President could not be sure they hadn't missed it again.
FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

Ah. I get it. So Bush was willing to take the evidence the CIA provided him as truth, but when the CIA told him the information was coming from a known bad source, he ignored them.

Makes perfect sense, but if that's how you want to justify it to yourself, go ahead.

[Chuckit]

Does anybody remember when the IAEA disproved Bush's "evidence" with a quick search on Google? Good times.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ah. I get it. So Bush was willing to take the evidence the CIA provided him as truth, but when the CIA told him the information was coming from a known bad source, he ignored them.

Makes perfect sense, but if that's how you want to justify it to yourself, go ahead.

No, I don't think you get it.

If you look at your watch and it says 12:00 but you KNOW it isn't an accurate time piece and might be several minutes off, you REALLY don't know what the correct time is, do you?

If you are dependent on the correct time to make an important decision but that watch is the best information you have available, you might take action early and risk the negative consequences of being early instead of acting too late, which might have even WORSE consequences.

Please, all of you who haven't read this or haven't been able to understand it, try again.

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

During the course of the first Gulf War there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from building Atomic Bombs...Nuclear Weapons!

Saddam was about a year and a half removed from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and the CIA had totally missed it.

We had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility.

We didn't know it was there. We never dropped one bomb on it.

The Iraqis must have said to themselves "we had this huge nuclear weapons facility that the Americans never hit during the war because the CIA was unable to detect it until after the war was over."

The Iraqis were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and the CIA didn't know it.

Dick Cheney came to an OH CRAP!!! moment after Gulf War I.

He saw that the CIA had missed this ATOM BOMB MAKING PLANT IN IRAQ and said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So, when Dick Cheney became Vice President nine years later one of the things he remembers from his experience in Gulf War I was that Iraq wanted a nuclear weapon in 1991 and was building a WMD plant that we couldn't detect.

And now in 2003 before the invasion Cheney realized that Iraq still wants nuclear weapons and the CIA is saying there are no WMD's.

But how could ANYONE in the government trust the CIA when it was clear that Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue in Gulf War I?

If you still don't get it let me know.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, I don't think you get it.

If you look at your watch and it says 12:00 but you KNOW it isn't an accurate time piece and might be several minutes off, you REALLY don't know what the correct time is, do you?

Well you know it sure the hell isn't 12:00.

I'm not sure you get your own metaphor. To fix your metaphor, Bush looked at his watch, saw it was 12:00, knew it wasn't really 12:00, but acted like it was 12:00 anyway.

[Chuckit]

I have no way of knowing for sure whether Abe plans to kill me. I think this thread is suggesting I should attack him with maximum force, just to be safe?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think this thread is suggesting I should attack him with maximum force, just to be safe?

Only if you have evidence that Abe isn't planning to kill you. Then you need to attack him just in case he really is planning to kill you and you were wrong.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I have no way of knowing for sure whether Abe plans to kill me. I think this thread is suggesting I should attack him with maximum force, just to be safe?

I will tell you what MARDEN thinks...

Good thing abe isn't here or else you would be reported in more ways than you know.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Only if you have evidence that Abe isn't planning to kill you. Then you need to attack him just in case he really is planning to kill you and you were wrong.

You too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

I will tell you what MARDEN thinks...

Good thing abe isn't here or else you would be reported in more ways than you know.

"Reported in more ways than I know"? Is that a come-on or what?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Reported in more ways than I know"? Is that a come-on or what?

I was just trying to make you think he had friends in high places. It was a joke. Sorry I said it.

But you see how that works?

When you read that you suddenly realized you DID NOT KNOW what abe's connections were.

Saddam made the US fear it had WMD's and the US had to assume he did.