[effgee]

... before you fall on your ass?

From this:

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell (Remarks to Reporters on May 4, 2003)

To this:

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush (Remarks to Reporters on May 6, 2003)

And today - this one:

"I think it was clear that this was a regime with intent, capability and it was a risk the president felt strongly we could not take and it was something we all agreed to and would probably agree to it again under any other set of circumstances, ..."

Pathetic doesn't even remotely describe the behavior of these guys ... unbelievable.

(edited to fix incorrect date)

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by effgee:
[BPathetic doesn't even remotely describe the behavior of these guys ... unbelievable. [/B]

IMO, Bush administration's actions in Iraq were not pathetic. What's pathetic is the cover-up "CYA" type of stuff going on now. I firmly believe that, at the time, the Bush administration honestly felt that Saddam had WMD. I am equally as sure that they now know that they were wrong. What's pathetic is that they won't own up to it.

[dialo]

Or how about from this:

Imagine that Saddam Hussein has been offering terrorist training and other lethal support to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda for years. You can't imagine that? Sign up over there. You can be a Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency.


Or at least you could have been until recently. As President Bush's determination to overthrow the Iraqi dictator has become evident to all, a cultural change has come over the world's most expensive intelligence agency: Some analysts out at Langley are now willing to evaluate incriminating evidence against the Iraqis and call it just that.

That development has triggered a fierce internal agency struggle pitting officials whose careers and reputations were built on the old analysis of the Iraqis as a feckless, inert and inward-looking bunch of thugs against those willing to take a fresh, untilted look at all the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

to this:

The CIA's failure on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is only one strand, and a somewhat understandable one. Analysts are rewarded for gravitating toward worst-case scenarios. Predicting what could go right -- that U.S. forces would not need chemical protection suits in the desert, or that Saddam might have been fooled by his scientists, who were stealing money for nonexistent programs, as Kay speculates happened -- is an art that does not flourish in Langley or at the Pentagon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan30.html

[effgee]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
What's pathetic is that they won't own up to it.

My thinking, exactly. I strongly oppose the notion that going to war against Saddam was a necessity in 2003. It also seems quite obvious now that there never was any intelligence that would have supported and/or justified such a course of action. While I don't really believe that they actually made up evidence, I am fairly certain that they grossly exaggerated and distorted what little evidence they had to support their cause.

But in essence - regardless of which side of the fence people are on - the current attempts at justifying what they did should seem (and I'm trying to phrase this as positively as I can) morally questionable at best.

To me at least this seems pretty solid proof that Bush has done anything but restore "honor" to the White House as he promised so boldly right after his becoming the POTUS.

[dialo]

Bush should have his campaign slogan be "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Maybe it will apply to our votes, too

[Mithras]

Originally posted by dialo:
Or how about from this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan30.html

That was simply incredible. How the guy could say one thing, then the other, and not even pause to take a breath and acknowledge his own overeagerness to tilt the intelligence in his direction, simply amazes me.

I loved this section:

This is how war is waged inside the CIA: The upstarts who are challenging the agency's long-standing and deeply flawed analysis of Iraq are being accused of "politicizing intelligence," a label that is a reputation-killer in the intelligence world. It is also a protective shield for analysts who do not want, any more than the rest of us, to acknowledge that they have been profoundly and damagingly mistaken.

The "politicization" accusation suggests that those who find Iraqi links to al Qaeda are primarily interested in currying favor with the Bush White House. It comes primarily from those who won favor in the Clinton years with an analysis based on the proposition that an Arab nationalist such as Saddam Hussein would never cooperate with the Islamic fanatics of al Qaeda. They are now out in the cold in the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz era.

[Y3a]

and nobody has looked in Syria yet, so the verdict still isn't in.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
IMO, Bush administration's actions in Iraq were not pathetic. What's pathetic is the cover-up "CYA" type of stuff going on now. I firmly believe that, at the time, the Bush administration honestly felt that Saddam had WMD. I am equally as sure that they now know that they were wrong. What's pathetic is that they won't own up to it.

Come on! I know we have said this before.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he took office. His cabinet was ready to use any excuse. It is public knowledge. READ PNAC! http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Wolfowitz Cheney and Rumsfeld MANIPULATED intelligence to make a case for war. I am tired of this pathetic spin put on this situation.

There were plenty of people crying foul before this stupid war and you people want us to forget it. I will never forget this.

BTW aside: notice how quiet Ashcroft is now?

[effgee]

Originally posted by y3a:
and nobody has looked in Syria yet, so the verdict still isn't in.

1. While that is true don't you think it's a bit odd that the administration was able to present near razor-sharp satellite imagery of supposed "mobile WMD facilities" but at the same time, those satellites were not able to track a bunch of Iraqis moving 1,000,000 lbs of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent (=500 tons, the number Bush stated explicitly on 01/28/2002 in his SOTU address), not even mentioning the necessary containers, missiles, warheads, launch facilities etc. etc. - none of this stuff has been found to date. Neither have the facilities where this stuff was produced.

2. If the verdict isn't in yet - eight months after the end of "major combat operations", how is it that the administration needs "more time" when last year, they stated quite clearly that they wouldn't give the UN inspectors more time to complete their work.

Whether or not you (= people in general) supported this war, the latest statements coming out of the administration are quite obviously less than truthful when compared to how they chose to phrase things a few months ago:

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer (Press Briefing on January 9, 2003)

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld (ABC Interview on March 30, 2003)

Only question seems to be when they were lying - "back then", "now" or "all along" ...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by effgee:
Only question seems to be when they were lying - "back then", "now" or "all along" ...

How about "all of the above"?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he took office. His cabinet was ready to use any excuse. It is public knowledge. READ PNAC! http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Just because it is on a website doesn't make it public knowledge... I can come up with a website stating the exact opposite.... would that be public knowledge?

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Wolfowitz Cheney and Rumsfeld MANIPULATED intelligence to make a case for war. I am tired of this pathetic spin put on this situation.

Since this is public knowledge, please prove it.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Just because it is on a website doesn't make it public knowledge... I can come up with a website stating the exact opposite.... would that be public knowledge?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Just because it is on a website doesn't make it public knowledge... I can come up with a website stating the exact opposite.... would that be public knowledge?

um.....nah, never mind.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um.....nah, never mind.

You guys can all you like... that doesn't make you right... If it was public knowledge that the Bush administration knowingly and intentionally altered or ignored various intel to justify going to war, then why hasn't there been any talk about impeachment? Give me a break, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's public knowledge.

[effgee]

I agree with Fanatic that this was not public knowledge ... but ... and this is one tricky sucker, keep in mind the large propaganda machine each and every administration keeps humming along the sidelines to make sure that they can retain a certain degree of control over what is public knowledge and what isn't ... here's a fun example:



Here's the link to the corresponding article.
And here the link to the site with the complete study.

Either Americans are extremely gullible (which they're not) or they were presented with information in a way that was intended to lead them to incorrect conclusions.

Even though fabricating and blatant manipulation of all the intelligence are not proven irrefutibly (<- is that a word?), the small lies (see quotes above) as well as partial fabrications ("yellow cake", anyone?) should be undisputed.

And seeing that they did lie (a bit here and there) and that they did use fabricated (by someone else) data does certainly not improve the position the administration maneuvered itself into. Sort of like: "If you lie about one thing and make up another - why exactly would you assume that I believe the rest of what you have to say?"

That - at least - should be worth a thought or two, no?

[dialo]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
You guys can all you like... that doesn't make you right... If it was public knowledge that the Bush administration knowingly and intentionally altered or ignored various intel to justify going to war, then why hasn't there been any talk about impeachment? Give me a break, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's public knowledge.

The problem with your statement is still flying over your head.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by dialo:
The problem with your statement is still flying over your head.

Well then, instead of being a dick, why don't you enlighten me?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
You guys can all you like... that doesn't make you right... If it was public knowledge that the Bush administration knowingly and intentionally altered or ignored various intel to justify going to war, then why hasn't there been any talk about impeachment? Give me a break, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's public knowledge.

Its amazing to me how many things are misunderstood on a message board when all you have to do is scroll up to reread something.

Here's what was said:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he took office. His cabinet was ready to use any excuse. It is public knowledge. READ PNAC! http://www.newamericancentury.org/

From that, you jump to:

If it was public knowledge that the Bush administration knowingly and intentionally altered or ignored various intel to justify going to war

The first statement by GG allin was about wanting to invade Iraq, a goal clearly spelled out in the link provided, cosigned back then by many members of his present entourage. The cornerstone of the PNAC philosophy involves reshaping Iraq as a beginning point to reshaping the region. He didn't say anything at all about altering intelligence...you got there all on your own.

To the next point, and the reason I said is the use of the term "public knowledge". The PNAC website has been online since the 1990s, and is not restricted access in any way. Its openly signed by the coauthors (including Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld). Its completely available to the public.

Now, in retrospect, there may be some confusion on both sides as to what constitutes "public knowledge". I define that as anything which is available to the public, whether all individuals are aware of it. But it seems your definition might be that it means everyone knows about it. If so, I apologize for going on you there. I had thought you'd made a bizarre statement, the gist of which was "how could it be public knowledge when its on the internet?" by my definition, that's a clueless question. But by yours I suppose it might not be.

[effgee]

I agree with Fanatic that this was not public knowledge per se ... but ... and this is one tricky sucker, keep in mind the large propaganda machine each and every administration keeps humming along the sidelines to ensure a certain degree of control over what is public knowledge and what isn't ... here's a fun example:



Here's the link to the corresponding article.
And here the link to the site with the complete study.

Either Americans are extremely gullible (which they're not) or they were presented with information in a way that was intended to lead them to incorrect conclusions.

Even though fabricating and blatant manipulation of all the intelligence are not proven irrefutibly (<- is that a word?), the small lies (see quotes above) as well as partial fabrications ("yellow cake", anyone?) should be undisputed.

And seeing that they did lie (a bit here and there) and that they did use fabricated (by someone else) data does certainly not improve the position the administration maneuvered itself into. Sort of like: "If you lie about one thing and make up another - why exactly would you assume that I believe the rest of what you have to say?"

That - at least - should be worth a thought or two, no?

[dialo]

What Lerk said.

And just to add:

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Just because it is on a website doesn't make it public knowledge... I can come up with a website stating the exact opposite.... would that be public knowledge?

You clearly aren't aware what PNAC is since your response assumed it was just a website compiling information supporting his statement, rather than the primary source that it is.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Its amazing to me how many things are misunderstood on a message board when all you have to do is scroll up to reread something.

You are exactly right... it is amazing.... please see GG Allin's post one more time and you will see this:

Originally posted by GG Allin:

Wolfowitz Cheney and Rumsfeld MANIPULATED intelligence to make a case for war.

And yet you go on to say:

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

He didn't say anything at all about altering intelligence...you got there all on your own.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

To the next point, and the reason I said is the use of the term "public knowledge". The PNAC website has been online since the 1990s, and is not restricted access in any way. Its openly signed by the coauthors (including Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld). Its completely available to the public.

Now, in retrospect, there may be some confusion on both sides as to what constitutes "public knowledge". I define that as anything which is available to the public, whether all individuals are aware of it. But it seems your definition might be that it means everyone knows about it. If so, I apologize for going on you there. I had thought you'd made a bizarre statement, the gist of which was "how could it be public knowledge when its on the internet?" by my definition, that's a clueless question. But by yours I suppose it might not be.

I guess that by public knowledge I was interpretting it to mean publically accepted as true. GG Allin wrote:

Originally posted by GG Allin:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he took office. His cabinet was ready to use any excuse. It is public knowledge. READ PNAC!

... if by public knowledge, he meant that PNAC was available to the public, then yes, he is correct.... but I took public knowledge to mean fact.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
... if by public knowledge, he meant that PNAC was available to the public, then yes, he is correct.... but I took public knowledge to mean fact.

I agree that most people haven't bothered to look, but it clearly is a 'fact' that it has been advocated for a long time, regardless if that fact is public knowledge or not.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by dialo:
What Lerk said.

And just to add:

You clearly aren't aware what PNAC is since your response assumed it was just a website compiling information supporting his statement, rather than the primary source that it is.

Whatever PNAC is, it surely is not a primary source! PNAC links to articles from various primary sources (such as the Washington Post)...

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by dialo:
I agree that most people haven't bothered to look, but it clearly is a 'fact' that it has been advocated for a long time, regardless if that fact is public knowledge or not.

This may be true, but the statement made:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he took office. His cabinet was ready to use any excuse.

is CLEARLY an opinion

[tie]

"They took every piece of information that proved their point and listed it," a former senior intelligence official who took part in the prewar debates said, referring to the senior C.I.A. officials whose analytical conclusions formed the basis of Mr. Powell's presentation. "They would disregard or make fun of any contrary evidence. They forgot they were making mere guesses, and even guesses have to be taken with caution. They didn't hedge or caveat. Instead they would say we're right and you're wrong and it's a matter of national security."

Given how the administration retaliated against Wilson, it isn't surprising the source is anonymous.

No, this isn't proof, but it's a lot better than any of the evidence on which we based our decision to go to war.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Whatever PNAC is, it surely is not a primary source! PNAC links to articles from various primary sources (such as the Washington Post)...

PNAC links to and hosts articles, memos and statements written by it's members and mouthpieces. That's the whole point.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
You are exactly right... it is amazing.... please see GG Allin's post one more time and you will see this:



And yet you go on to say:



Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

ok, I'll give you half credit for that, your comment about "public knowledge" was to a specific portion of that post. But then yes, you are correct, and I concede the point that I should have scrolled up myself.

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I guess that by public knowledge I was interpretting it to mean publically accepted as true. GG Allin wrote:


... if by public knowledge, he meant that PNAC was available to the public, then yes, he is correct.... but I took public knowledge to mean fact.

Well, those are two completely different things.
Since I was taking you at what you said instead of what you meant, that was the reason for the

ok, we got that straight now? I apologize for my misunderstanding of your intent with your post.

Now, however, you obviously need to educated about the PNAC. open up the link provided. It is the manifesto of the neoconservative movement, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others are directly entrenched in the present administration.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Now, however, you obviously need to educated about the PNAC. open up the link provided. It is the manifesto of the neoconservative movement, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others are directly entrenched in the present administration.

I have read most of the articles... I even saw how Gore and most of the Democrats outside of the Clinton administration felt that our foreign policy against Saddam needed to be stepped up, and that we should even consider removing Saddam from power...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq_001.htm

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I have read most of the articles... I even saw how Gore and most of the Democrats outside of the Clinton administration felt that our foreign policy against Saddam needed to be stepped up, and that we should even consider removing Saddam from power...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq_001.htm

interesting.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
interesting.

I thought so... since most people in here seem to think that only the neo-cons thought Saddam should have been removed....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I thought so... since most people in here seem to think that only the neo-cons thought Saddam should have been removed....

no, sorry, that's an oversimplification.

The neocons needed to remove Saddam for strategic reasons having to do with their views on "american leadership" and reshaping the region to a more western-friendly structure through hegemony. That's empire building. They needed to regime change Iraq because of its strategic location in the region, and its oil reserves.

The non-neocons felt the need to work towards removing Saddam personally due to humanitarian and threat issues. None of them went so far as to suggest preemptive invasion, I don't think.

There is a difference in intent and long term goals for the same result.

What the neocons did was further their own agenda, using the justifications of others as a codpiece to cover their true intentions. Don't confuse the two.

[thunderous_funker]

And while lots of people considered the implosion of the Ba'ath regime, not everyone thought the best course of action was for the United States to take over.

That is without question the highest risk scenario imaginable. In fact, many have argued (and now feel quite vindicated) that invading was the worst possible means of bringing about an end to the Ba'ath regime because the resulting occupation would likely lead to massive complications that would be counter-productive towards Democratization and the larger goals of reshaping the middle east.

Nudging a borderline failed state further towards failure is hardly a positive step towards bringing the middle east into the 21st century.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Nudging a borderline failed state further towards failure is hardly a positive step towards bringing the middle east into the 21st century.

Agreed. I have hope, but so far, it's been, "Second verse, Same as the first..".