[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is a fine line between being attuned to bad news and coming across as sympathetic (as Clinton did in 1992), and blatently longing for bad news to make the incumbant look bad. So many of the most partisan on the left seem to hate Bush so much that they have forgotten that.

I don't think so. Both the economy (arguably, but certainly the federal budget) and Iraq are situations that we didn't have to be in, but that Bush made the decision to go into. It isn't surprising "news" that these aren't working out like Bush claimed they would -- he misled the public to promote his policies and now the truth is coming out.

I see a distinction between this kind of news and, say, a terrorist attack. Some people might jump on a terrorist attack and start making political speeches about how Bush could have prevented it, etc etc. This would look pretty bad (in the current political climate, it would be difficult to even hope for an investigation into the attack, viz the stalled Sept. 11 investigation). But the news on Iraq and on the economy can be directly traced to failed and/or mispromoted Bush policies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by tie:
he misled the public to promote his policies and now the truth is coming out.

It will be interesting to see if any Democratic candidate will have the courage to actually state that so boldly. I.e. to actually state that going ot war in Iraq was wrong on the merits and based on a lie. So far, of the mainstream candidates, I only see Dean saying that. The others like Kerry have floated little trial balloons but have otherwise tried to have it both ways -- both supporting the war, and opposing it.

Of course, this is a huge gamble for Democrats. If the public gets the impression that the Democrats are too dovish, it could be McGovern all over again. It is still probably the case that the best bet for a Democrat would be to promote fiscal conservativism, and hawkish defense policy (perhaps hammering Bush on homeland defense). Playing the peacenik card probably is a loser when the public still doesn't feel safe. But you can gamble that the public mood will have changed sufficiently if you like, but Bush can always counter that his policy is better safe than sorry. After 9/11 that is an argument with powerful traction.

[BDiddy]

Alot of you have become to focused on WMD and not on the other aspects that led Bush to invade Iraq. Have you already forgotten about the tens of thousands of dead bodies found in mass graves from Hussein's attempted extermination of the Kurds and Shi'ite muslims? Or how about the soldiers who refused to kill their countrymen having their ears cut off my Saddam? What about the fact the Saddam repeatedly violated the cease fire agreemnet from the 1991 conflict. The missles he shot into Kuwait city (during the 2003 conflict) were in direct violation of this agreement. That alone justifies the invasion. The atrocites committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people justify our actions. The world is a better place, and the Iraqi people will have a better chance at living a happy life. These reasons DEFINITELY justify ousting Saddam Hussein... We are more justified in this conflict than we were when we went to war against Germany in WW2. And why did we do that?? To gain the aid of the Brittish RAF and the Russian Army in our fight against Japan.

Whether we find WMD or not is irrelevant to me.... simply put, if this invasion had occurred two weeks after 9/11, no one would be bad-mouthing Bush or the United States. How soon we forget....

Another point... Freedom of the press DOES NOT equal perfect information... Does anyone actually believe that what you read in Newsweek or what you see on CNN is the absolute truth? Maybe it is just me, but I choose to believe that our government knows alot more than the media or the general public does, or would even want to know!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
simply put, if this invasion had occurred two weeks after 9/11, no one would be bad-mouthing Bush or the United States. How soon we forget....

Indeed. How soon you forget.

You may not recall that there was quite a bit of opposition against Bush's rash (and ultimately, futile) war against Afghanistan. It wasn't as loud and direct as before Iraq, because back then, it was justified as a strike against al Qaeda and Bin Laden (notice how nobody mentions him anymore?). Brash and stupid, but - despite all misgivings - ultimately the U.S.'s call, as they were under attack, and had a huge sympathy bonus.

Turned out Afghanistan is pretty much exactly the way it was before, except with slightly different warlords collecting heroin taxes, and a few choice cities seeing women's faces. Bin Laden is nowhere to be found, and U.N. troops are trying as best they can to rebuild the country as we speak.

Yeah, some other things have changed for the better, too, but for most of teh population, it's not that different.

This time around, in Iraq, there was no sympathy bonus, no general feeling that the U.S. had any business whatsoever there. The mistrust of Bush's warmongering has been proven justified in hindsight, and seven THOUSAND HUMAN LIVES were taken just to prove that.

How quickly we forget.

-s*

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Turned out Afghanistan is pretty much exactly the way it was before, except with slightly different warlords collecting heroin taxes, and a few choice cities seeing women's faces. Bin Laden is nowhere to be found, and U.N. troops are trying as best they can to rebuild the country as we speak.

What you say is true, but you conveniently left out that U.S. operations in Aghanistan removed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives, and prevented an unknown quantity of terrorist attacks and civilian deaths. Who knows what would have been had the U.S. not gone in? Similarly, who knows what Saddam Hussein would have done if gone unchecked? That's kind of the beauty of a pre-emptive (or maybe, preventative) attack.... you spare everyone the possible horrors to come. If done effectively, you will never be able to be proven right. You never know the what-ifs. What if the U.S. did not overthrow Hussein, and he DID have WMD, and he sold them to Bin Laden (a more credible threat of this might be N.Korea, but that is another topic), and Bin Laden used them against the West? Well then, everyone would be blaming the U.S. for not stopping it before it got started, wouldn't they? Just like now (with people starting to call Bush a liar and a warmonger) only the loss of life might have been incrementally higher had the U.S. done nothing. We will never know. Bush could have been very right... he could have been very wrong... no one will know... I guess that's the game of life.

[Spheric Harlot]

You do have a point, and there's different shades and opinions on that which have been discussed at length in other threads.

However, that's not what this thread is about.

This one is about how you (and we) have been lied to, and the ends to which this lie were utilized towards, which involved far more deaths than the attack which resulted in (and arguably justified at the time) the Afghanistan war.

The humanitarian issues - while true - were no justification for this war, in any sense, and they were not used as such before the strike.

-s*

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
What about the fact the Saddam repeatedly violated the cease fire agreemnet from the 1991 conflict. The missles he shot into Kuwait city (during the 2003 conflict) were in direct violation of this agreement. That alone justifies the invasion.

Care to explain about those 'violation of the cease fire agreement'?

The missiles shot into Kuwait were a direct response to Iraq being attacked/invaded from Kuwait. Don't you think that 'cease fire agreement' had being nullified by then?

[ambush]

Excuse my immense ignorance, but what did he exactly say??

[thunderous_funker]

"prevented an unknown quantity of terrorist attacks and civilian deaths"

My pet rock prevents an unknown quantity of tigers from killing me and those I love. Wanna borrow it?


"Who knows what would have been had the U.S. not gone in?"

Well, one thing I know is that the estimated 5,000 civilians killed by allied forces wouldn't have been killed by allied forces.

"who knows what Saddam Hussein would have done if gone unchecked?"

Maybe nothing.

Not to mention that the key argument against going in was that Saddam was pretty well "checked" so we didn't have much to worry about. Between the wars, sanctions, hundreds of UN inspectors, U2 overflights, world scrutiny and no-fly zones he was pretty much the mayor of Bagdad and we had the luxory of time and leverage to work on ousting him and addressing humanitarian concerns. The plan to invade/occupy was the highest risk/lowest return scenario.

"That's kind of the beauty of a pre-emptive (or maybe, preventative) attack.... you spare everyone the possible horrors to come. "

Well, you don't spare the people who have to live through the horrors of the war we start. So we have to weigh the "possible" horrors with the very real concrete horrors of war. Whatever that may be, I don't think it goes in my book of "beauty".

As for the "what ifs", the current argument is that there appears to be little or no solid evidence to assume any of them. In fact, what was a sneaking suspicion before the war has now become a pretty clear case of mistaken fear because we still can't find any evidence to justify our fears of these "what ifs". Actually, we seem to only be finding evidence that disproves our suspicions.

For the most part, you seem to be saying "better safe than sorry". I might go along with that if it didn't involve the lives of hundreds of US soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of occupied Iraqies, millions and millions of enraged Muslims, billions of enraged world citizens, unknown numbers of fanatically enraged terrorists, and cost us trillions of dollars.

Some things you just don't roll the dice on. At least not while there are other options available to you. At the very least, we should start admitting to ourselves that we over-reacted. We had time and opportunity to pick a less costly path to secure ourselves against our suspicions and fears.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Care to explain about those 'violation of the cease fire agreement'?

The missiles shot into Kuwait were a direct response to Iraq being attacked/invaded from Kuwait. Don't you think that 'cease fire agreement' had being nullified by then?

Of course... but Iraq was not allowed to have missles of that range whatsoever. So, unless they built them in the 3 days between the U.S. attacking and Iraqi firing back, they violated the UN resolution.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ambush:
Excuse my immense ignorance, but what did he exactly say??

If you're talking about Biddy, his second post made the point that these invasions may have, in the long run, avoided many killings made by their respective regimes over the years.

That is a valid point, but there are many equally valid couter-points to be made - that *have* been made in other threads, at length.

Can we drop the side-track, though?

The original subject is hard enough to keep on track already, and I'd really like to read some more on that.

-s*

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

BOT: I don't think people HAVE to twist this situation into anything worse, its bad enough on its own...

But that's exactly what you have been doing.

... Bush says those 16 words should not have been in the speech, Tenet says they shouldn't, and Bush refuses to accept responsibilty for his own speech. That's pretty bad, even IF you think he wasn't lying.

I can agree with that. My problem is with you guys saying he's lying when you simply do not know that. The EVIDENCE (which you say you care about) doesn't support such a conclusion. You can suspect, ask questions, demand answers... whatever. But you can't say he lied to you. It's simply not there.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Of course... but Iraq was not allowed to have missles of that range whatsoever.

What range? What missiles? I think you are confusing some media-spin with facts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
What range? What missiles? I think you are confusing some media-spin with facts.

The missiles that hit Kuwait City. They were NOT SCUDs, but a smaller short-range Chinese missile that Iraq WAS allowed to have.

-s*

[Logic]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Of course... but Iraq was not allowed to have missles of that range whatsoever. So, unless they built them in the 3 days between the U.S. attacking and Iraqi firing back, they violated the UN resolution.

No, no, no and no!
The distance from Iraq to Kuwait is at places one meter or perhaps at most 10 after how broad the line is.

The limit was set so that he would not be able to strike Israel. IIRC 150 miles.

The Al-Samouds were in violation of that(though one might argue over that) and after a while they destroyed them.

But please, study this whole mess a bit more so you can keep up.

But anyway, welcome

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The missiles that hit Kuwait City. They were NOT SCUDs, but a smaller short-range Chinese missile that Iraq WAS allowed to have.

-s*

IIRC they were short range anti-ship missiles.

[ringo]

It appears that the white house is releasing some additional intelligence that was under consideration at the time.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nyc-fl...ort-navigation

Again we see the contrasting views between agencies. Nothing new or definitive here, just more of the same....some parties claiming that Iraq was seeking weapons, others saying that such claims are"highly dubious". Make of it what you will.

Some interesting comments from a Reuters story on the subject: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3117916

The declassified summary, however, included cautionary footnotes from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) about how compelling the case really was.

This agency said in an "alternative view" annex on page 84 of the 90-page summary that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

Bush never saw this footnote but would not be expected to, a senior administration official said, since he was leaving it to his team to draft his speech and check the facts in it.
...
Asked if Bush was comfortable making assertions the State Department thinks are highly dubious, the official said: "The president was comfortable at the time based on the information that was provided in the NIE. The president of the United States is not a fact-checker."

In any case, the president is still denying the responsibility for any words that pass through his lips. His opposition has accused him of being an empty headed puppet in the past. Funny and sad to see him use the "puppet defense" to clear his name here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ringo:
It appears that the white house is releasing some additional intelligence that was under consideration at the time.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nyc-fl...ort-navigation

Again we see the contrasting views between agencies. Nothing new or definitive here, just more of the same....some parties claiming that Iraq was seeking weapons, others saying that such claims are"highly dubious". Make of it what you will.

Some interesting comments from a Reuters story on the subject: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3117916



In any case, the president is still denying the responsibility for any words that pass through his lips. His opposition has accused him of being an empty headed puppet in the past. Funny and sad to see him use the "puppet defense" to clear his name here.

As I said above, Bush should take responsibility for saying the words. At the end of the day, the buck stops at his desk.

Having said that, these beaurocratic details are what you have to pay attention to if we want to learn exactly what happened. A number of people have made the correct observation that intelligence is not an exact science, and that intelligence analysts do not make the final call. The elected decisionmakers do that. There are also some institutional things that should be borne in mind.

There are a number of intelligence agencies in the US, and their mandates overlap in order to give decision makers multiple opinions. The CIA is the premier one, and the one with the broadest mandate. Then there is the Defense Intelligence Agency, which does much the same thing, but primarily for the Defense Department. The National Security Agency serves all the agencies with signals intelligence, but they have their own analysts as well. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency does imagery analysis for all agencies, but also all sources analysis. The Bureau of Intelligence and research (INR) does mostly diplomatic intelligence and (I am told by a CIA veteran professor I had) is the least regarded of the lot because it isn't a full service intelligence agency. It is just an office within the state department that mostly does analysis of things their diplomats hear, not what intelligence agents learn.

That doesn't mean they were wrong and the CIA et al were right. It could easily have been the other way around. It just means, hypothetically, if the CIA, and DIA said yes, and the INR said no, he INR would on balance be ignored. It is just the nature of the beaurocratic beast. CIA, DIA et al, are big, well funded, and specialize in intelligence. They are the people the National Security Council turn to when they want intelligence. INR is small, underfunded, and is a backwater of the State Department.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
What range? What missiles? I think you are confusing some media-spin with facts.

Ohhh... you must be one of the priveldged ones who gets his information from sources OTHER than the media...

I'll be the first to admit if I am wrong, and I very well could be wrong. All I know is that CNN hammered on the 'supposed' fact that the missles that hit Kuwait city were Al-Somoud. I could be wrong. Plus, Al-Somoud missles were found in several places during the ground campaign.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Plus, Al-Somoud missles were found in several places during the ground campaign.

I don't recall that. Could you provide a link?

<SH apologist> It wouldn't be a surprise though since the Iraqi regime didn't have the time to destroy them. When the UN said they were a violation of 1441(and other resolutions) they tried some tricks but ended up destroying them, even if they suspected that the US would invade any day soon </SH apologist>

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
No, no, no and no!
The distance from Iraq to Kuwait is at places one meter or perhaps at most 10 after how broad the line is.

The limit was set so that he would not be able to strike Israel. IIRC 150 miles.

The Al-Samouds were in violation of that(though one might argue over that) and after a while they destroyed them.

But please, study this whole mess a bit more so you can keep up.

But anyway, welcome

Actually, they have found several Al-Somoud missles:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030402/80/dwu2q.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...idden.missile/



Thank you for the welcome. I apologize for being argumentative, but I couldn't resist because you asked me to study the whole mess a little more

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Actually, they have found several Al-Somoud missles:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030402/80/dwu2q.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...idden.missile/



Thank you for the welcome. I apologize for being argumentative, but I couldn't resist because you asked me to study the whole mess a little more

The first link is 2 missles, the second link is 1 missle. There was no confirmation that they exceeded the 150 km range restrictions.

[Logic]

From you own links:

Under pressure from U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraq had begun destroying some of its estimated 120 al-Samouds, but the war started before the process was finished.

and

It was not clear whether the missile violated the range of 150 kilometers (93 miles) set under U.N. sanctions.

During the last round of U.N. inspections -- which ended when the war began March 19 -- Iraq destroyed more than 70 al-Samoud 2 missiles the United Nations said exceeded the 150-kilometer range. Iraq denied the missiles violated that range.

Doesn't really back up your case does it? They weren't able to finish destroying them and after the war began no such deals should be expected to be respected. They were actively destroying them up until the war. And I wouldn't call three missiles "several", but a few.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The first link is 2 missles, the second link is 1 missle. There was no confirmation that they exceeded the 150 km range restrictions.

True, and one of the problems for the Iraqis regarding Al-Samouds was that they weren't allowed to have any guidance systems making them "spread" quite more than wanted. IIRC a few of the missiles had exceeded the 150 km limit in test launches but most of them had stayed within the limit.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Doesn't really back up your case does it? They weren't able to finish destroying them and after the war began no such deals should be expected to be respected. They were actively destroying them up until the war. And I wouldn't call three missiles "several", but a few.

Do a google search on al-somoud missles, and you will find more links. And yes, it does back up my case, in that I was responding to your previous post where you claimed that they had already been destroyed. Secondly, they had years to come into compliance, and were warned again in October 2002. I'm no rocket scientist (forgive the pun) but I think they could destroy all their missles in 5 monthes. Furthermore, and I could be wrong, but I do believe the UN Resolution banned all Al-somoud missles due to the possibility that they could exceed the 150km limit.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Do a google search on al-somoud missles, and you will find more links. And yes, it does back up my case, in that I was responding to your previous post where you claimed that they had already been destroyed. Secondly, they had years to come into compliance, and were warned again in October 2002. I'm no rocket scientist (forgive the pun) but I think they could destroy all their missles in 5 monthes. Furthermore, and I could be wrong, but I do believe the UN Resolution banned all Al-somoud missles due to the possibility that they could exceed the 150km limit.

If they had them and, more importantly, had the intent to use them, why didn't they?

[Wiskedjak]

Given the amount of thought and preparation that goes into something like the State of the Union speech and the importance of that speech, there is absolutely no margin for error. Especially since the IAEA was able to determine that the Nigerian documents in question were forgeries simply by using Google (and warned the US about the documents long before the speech).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Furthermore, and I could be wrong, but I do believe the UN Resolution banned all Al-somoud missles due to the possibility that they could exceed the 150km limit.

You're not wrong, but it's a bit more than that. The Al-somoud was not banned by the UN, per se. Iraq was banned from having missles of various capabilities. Technically, the Al-somoud is within that acceptible range of capability.

However, it was charged that Iraq had modified Al-somoud missles beyond the restrictions. Some test fire data showed that under the conditions of the test, they had a range greater than 150 km. There were also missles that had been made larger than UN restrictions allowed.

Iraq maintained that the test results did not reflect "real world" capability (not an argument without merit) and originally balked at destroying them. Under pressure, however, they caved in and destroyed about 70 missles before the inspection process ended because of the war.

So the missles were not destroyed before because Iraq claimed they were not in violation. When confronted by the pressure of the renewed inspections, they caved in and complied.

To my mind this underscores the fact that Iraq was being effectily de-fanged by the inspection process which should have been given more time. It makes the Bush administration's alarmist rhetoric seem quite out of touch with actual events and evidence.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Given the amount of thought and preparation that goes into something like the State of the Union speech and the importance of that speech, there is absolutely no margin for error. Especially since the IAEA was able to determine that the Nigerian documents in question were forgeries simply by using Google (and warned the US about the documents long before the speech).

This is what's perplexing. The state of the union speech is one of the most important speeches a president makes. To think that things were accidentally included that shouldn't have been, or thrown in willy nilly defies plausibility.

Especially when you consider that nearly all of us admit Dubya is not that good at extemporaneous speaking....meaning I'm sure that script was hammered and practiced repeatedly before that night, and I'm also sure that no less than a dozen eyes read that script before it was performed.

If NOT, then that's even more idiotic. To think no care was taken in crafting the SOTU speech is not very reassuring.

BOT: This thread is not about al samoud missiles or whether the invasion was justified apart from the 16 words, the point of the thread is NOW knowing that at the very least the words were misstatements or carefully crafted manipulations, The question is how many words or how truthful do you need the president to be when justifying an invasion and regime change of another country?

My point is more an investigation of the nature of trust and how and where the corners can or should or have been or are acceptable to shave.
In other words, do we all have individual tolerances of the amount of truth we expect or demand from our leaders? and if so, how do we differ and why.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

BOT: This thread is not about al samoud missiles or whether the invasion was justified apart from the 16 words, the point of the thread is NOW knowing that at the very least the words were misstatements or carefully crafted manipulations...

Either the CIA was right or the British are right. If the CIA was right, Bush can be criticized for trusting the wrong people. Furthermore it's not unreasonable to speculate why he put more stock in the Brits than in the CIA. But it's also neccessary to place squarely on the table the fact that the CIA's misgivings were muted and that George Tenet probably didn't even know about the forged documents until long AFTER the State of the Union had been delivered. Which is to say, the likelihood that Bush was manipulating anything is very remote.

If the British are right, then you are just scandal-mongering.

The NIE is the flagship document of our intelligence agencies and despite the footnote highlighted in Ringo's post above, within the body of the report the Niger story is treated as credible: "... a foreign government service reported that as of early 2001 Niger planned to send several tons of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement." In the next paragraph it continues, "reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo... we cannot confirm whether Iraq has succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." (for those who missed the link the first time I posted it)

So in the State of the Union we have Bush repeating an allegation that was presented within the NIE and amplified by the British. Do you REALLY think the only possiblities are the ones you've presented?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Do you REALLY think the only possiblities are the ones you've presented?

yes.

either it was a misstatement (which is a set of possibilities that includes the possibility you proffer)
or an intentional manipulation.

We already know, by the administration's own admission, that the data was unreliable, but was presented as reliable. So that only leaves those two possibilities for its usage.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes.

So much for your interest in the evidence.

[ringo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The NIE is the flagship document of our intelligence agencies and despite the footnote highlighted in Ringo's post above, within the body of the report the Niger story is treated as credible

At that is what is at the heart of the problem. There is a contradiction between agencies. One group said that there might have been a uranium deal, the other said that it was highly unlikely.

When the CIA reveiwed the speech, they maintained their problem with the intelligence. The wording was changed and the speech given. Cheyney and Rice went to the press with nuclear fear mongering to hype the war.

Bush admits it wasn't credible. The CIA continues to say it is not credible. Blair defends it, but either can't or won't back it up, despite losing next to all credibility at home.

Shortly after, the CIA takes the blame, but does so in a way as to suggest that they still don't think the claim is credible. Bush completely distances himself from it by saying that he is not accountable for the words that he speaks.

If the British claim is legitimate, why isn't Blair elaborating? Why isn't the CIA falling all over themselves to claim credit for the good intelligence? Why is Bush backing away with the deer in headlights look and the stammered words about accountability? Why are intelligence agencies pointing fingers at each other?

If the British claim is legitimate, why wasn't it repeated after the SotU? Why didn't Powell use it when we were trying desprately to get support in the UN from France, Germany, and Russia? When we were buying votes with political favors with the smaller members of the security council because we didn't have the hard evidence to gain the support of our allies?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So much for your interest in the evidence.

Come on, it wasn't that long a post.

Out of the three sentences (and one fragment) Lerk posted, it was pretty difficult to miss this one:

either it was a misstatement (which is a set of possibilities that includes the possibility you proffer)

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm reminded of the time Geraldo Rivera went into Al Capone's "secret vault." The show was hyped and hyped and then . . . nothing. It didn't necessarily mean that Geraldo misled anybody, but it meant that fewer people would take him seriously thereafter.

Another example that springs to mind is the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Legend has it that during the height of the missile crisis, President John Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to brief French President Charles de Gaulle. Acheson gave De Gaulle a verbal account of the unfolding crisis, and then offered the French president an intelligence briefing complete with photographs of Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba taken by U-2 spy planes. De Gaulle responded that he needed no such briefing: President Kennedy would not have provided him misinformation.

De Gaulle said, "Credibility is the coin of the realm in international affairs." Bush has spent his last coin and I think he's spent a few for future presidents too. Never again will a foreign country take an American president's word.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Another example that springs to mind is the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Legend has it that during the height of the missile crisis, President John Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to brief French President Charles de Gaulle. Acheson gave De Gaulle a verbal account of the unfolding crisis, and then offered the French president an intelligence briefing complete with photographs of Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba taken by U-2 spy planes. De Gaulle responded that he needed no such briefing: President Kennedy would not have provided him misinformation.

De Gaulle said, "Credibility is the coin of the realm in international affairs." Bush has spent his last coin and I think he's spent a few for future presidents too. Never again will a foreign country take an American president's word.

Oh, climb down off that high horse. Remember when New Zealand asked France how it was that the Rainbow Warrior happened to blow up in Auckland Harbor killing one volunteer? France said it had no idea - until the French intelligence operative who planted the bomb was caught. France is not above flat out lying when it suits them.

The story you tell is what the US naively relied on when Powell went to the UN with his intelligence information. Instead of being trusted as the foreign minister of a fellow democracy he was, in his words "ambushed" by Dominique De Villepin, who launched into his own prepared -- and opposite -- presentation. That was really the point when the split occurred. The fact is, history never quite repeats itself. Personalities matter. Charles DeGaulle, for all his hauteur was above all a man of honor. I doubt he would have done what Chirac did. Then again, DeGaulle never had to cling to power in order to stay a pending indictment.


Edit: On a lighter note, what a coincidence that the Safari spellcheck suggestion for DeVillipin is "villain" and Chirac is "shirk"

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Alot of you have become to focused on WMD and not on the other aspects that led Bush to invade Iraq . . .

I'm inclined to agree, which is why I didn't actively oppose the invasion, the problem is that the administration focused on WMD in order to garner public support. The concern is that they knowingly exaggerated the WMD threat in order to sell the invasion. Many obviously feel that even if there were other valid reasons for an invasion, the administration has an obligation to be forthright about the reasons.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So much for your interest in the evidence.

besides not reading my post clearly,
you have made a very ironic dismissal.

You are acting as if I am not interested in the evidence because I demand to see it proven conclusively. Yet you seem to imply that you are interested in the evidence because you prefer to accept what has not been conclusively proven.

Where is Alannis Morrissette when you need her?

[Spliffdaddy]

an old man

turned ninety-eight

he won the lottery

and died the next day

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
France is not above flat out lying when it suits them.

You're right, France is not above lying. My quote didn't suggest that it was. The fact that it involved De Gaulle is irrelevant to the point I made (that integrity is important in international relations).

Every time you see the word France though you feel a need to jump in there and knock them, don't you? Am I misreading things or do you have a bit of an intense dislike for French people?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You're right, France is not above lying. My quote didn't suggest that it was. The fact that it involved De Gaulle is irrelevant to the point I made (that integrity is important in international relations).

Every time you see the word France though you feel a need to jump in there and knock them, don't you? Am I misreading things or do you have a bit of an intense dislike for French people?

Yes, you are misreading things. I don't dislike France the nation and certainly not its people. But in my opinion, what Chirac and De Villipin did was dishonorable. Your point about integrity in international relations cuts both ways. The US naively believed that the French government would show some. They were wrong.

But in any case, your point about how the US will never be believed again is silly as is proved by the (rather small) Rainbow Warrior incident. French presidents have outright lied to other governments and to the world before. They have nevertheless been believed on other occasions. The Gentlemanly era of De Gaulle is over, if indeed it ever existed (which I severely doubt). It hasn't been established yet that Bush outright lied. But supposing for the sake of argument that he did. The US will still be believed in the future. The rules of personal conduct don't entirely apply between states. But then again, that's me speaking as a neo-realist. You live in another theoretical universe.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But in any case, your point about how the US will never be believed again is silly as is proved by the (rather small) Rainbow Warrior incident. French presidents have outright lied to other governments and to the world before. They have nevertheless been believed on other occasions. The Gentlemanly era of De Gaulle is over, if indeed it ever existed (which I severely doubt). It hasn't been established yet that Bush outright lied. But supposing for the sake of argument that he did. The US will still be believed in the future. The rules of personal conduct don't entirely apply between states. But then again, that's me speaking as a neo-realist. You live in another theoretical universe.

I agree with you that while trustworthiness in the international arena has some bearing, politicians everywhere know how the game is played and respond more to power and $$$ than credibility. Thus, the seeming duplicity of the French, and the flap over the SOTU, will fade away amongst the leadership as soon as expedience dictates.

At the same time, I think that if it's determined that the administration engaged in any outright chicanery, a price will be paid. It's not that they'll never be believed about anything again, but the scrutiny will be greater. And people with anti-U.S. sentiments will have that much more ammunition, which is the opposite of the effect we presumably wanted. We can only hope that this will be outweighed by the positive effects of deposing Saddam.

And there would be political consequences at home. For people who tend to sit on the fence, it's a possible chink in Bush's armor. Everyone wants to believe that this President is more honest than the last one (not just now, but every time a new President gets elected), and this could prove to be his feet-of-clay moment (or not). Time will tell.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, you are misreading things. I don't dislike France the nation and certainly not its people. But in my opinion, what Chirac and De Villipin did was dishonorable. Your point about integrity in international relations cuts both ways. The US naively believed that the French government would show some. They were wrong.

I don't understand how you can find the French government's actions in standing up for what they believed was right especially with the benefit of hindsight, but you don't find Bush's actions dishonourable! The US went around the world actively campaigning and threatening other countries into taking part in an illegal war that turned out to have no basis. The French were forced to counter that by doing their own campaigning for peace. That's not dishonourable - au contraire. I think the French show spadefuls of honour and history has vindicated them.

By the way Simey, the Safari spellcheck suggests 'Villein' for De Villepin. It does not, as you said suggest that the French foreign minister is a crook. A villein is not the same as a villain, although they have the same origin. A Villein is a person from a class of feudal serfs who used to be considered freemen under feudal law in their dealings with all people except their lord. I wouldn't consider that an insult. Of course I didn't have my prejudicial glasses on when I ran the spellcheck.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't understand how you can find the French government's actions in standing up for what they believed was right especially with the benefit of hindsight, but you don't find Bush's actions dishonourable! The US went around the world actively campaigning and threatening other countries into taking part in an illegal war that turned out to have no basis. The French were forced to counter that by doing their own campaigning for peace. That's not dishonourable - au contraire. I think the French show spadefuls of honour and history has vindicated them.

By the way Simey, the Safari spellcheck suggests 'Villein' for De Villepin. It does not, as you said suggest that the French foreign minister is a crook. A villein is not the same as a villain, although they have the same origin. A Villein is a person from a class of feudal serfs who used to be considered freemen under feudal law in their dealings with all people except their lord. I wouldn't consider that an insult. Of course I didn't have my prejudicial glasses on when I ran the spellcheck.

Yes, you are correct. I misread it. Peasant it is.

Let's not rehash the whole Iraq debate. Personally I think standing for peace that allows a threat to remain, that leaves a country enslaved, that does business with a murderer, and which stabs a supposed ally in the back, all for domestic political purposes, all add up to one dishonorable stance. You are free to come to a different conclusion. And indeed, you obviously have.

[zigzag]

I thought Simey was specifically referring to the episode where Powell felt betrayed by the French U.N. ambassador, as opposed to overall French policy, but no matter - you guys obviously see the whole thing differently either way. Myself, I'm not as upset with the overall French position as Simey, but do feel that the leadership acted with some duplicity.

Getting back to Lerk's original question, it appears that, as one might expect where politics is concerned, it mostly depends on:

- one's pre-existing biases;
- the seriousness of the alleged deception;
- the seriousness of the consequences.

Since there will be disagreement on all three of those counts, there's not likely to be any consensus on how much slack a politician should get, even if all agree that a deception occurred. I doubt even a single person could come up with a consistent rule because we're all subject to biases for certain politicians and against others. I think that both the Lewinsky case and the current case demonstrate this.

In other words, it all depends.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Personally I think standing for peace that allows a threat to remain, that leaves a country enslaved, that does business with a murderer, and which stabs a supposed ally in the back, all for domestic political purposes, all add up to one dishonorable stance.

Sounds like the Bush stance toward Saudi Arabia to me.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, you are correct. I misread it. Peasant it is.

Let's not rehash the whole Iraq debate. Personally I think standing for peace that allows a threat to remain, that leaves a country enslaved, that does business with a murderer, and which stabs a supposed ally in the back, all for domestic political purposes, all add up to one dishonorable stance. You are free to come to a different conclusion. And indeed, you obviously have.

This describes a great many country leaders, though I could also ascribe that to Bush very easily, and I have concluded it is a dishonorable stance.

Thanks for setting up the parameters so nicely.

[ringo]

Could someone edit the poll? Looks like Bush had a few more Texas tales to tell...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1/MN105561.DTL

Washington -- Last fall, the administration repeatedly warned in public of the danger that an unprovoked Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist or individual terrorists," President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech, the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely.

In fact, the estimate, completed Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his regime were collapsing after a military attack by the United States

Not that Bush is accountable for any of the words that pass through his lips or anything.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
besides not reading my post clearly,
you have made a very ironic dismissal.

I know what you said.

You are acting as if I am not interested in the evidence because I demand to see it proven conclusively.

That's just it. You AREN'T interested in conclusive proof. You already have your mind made up as to what this means. You haven't waited for more information before pronouncing your judgement. You don't know whether or not the British intelligence is reliable so you've decided to act as though it doesn't even exist.

The NIE and the British intelligence were clearly the reason for what Bush said in the State of the Union. There's certainly reason NOW to second guess what was in the NIE but at the time that would have been counter-intuitive. As for the British intelligence, we simply do not know whether or not it has been debunked. And the Brits are standing by their story.

Yet you seem to imply that you are interested in the evidence because you prefer to accept what has not been conclusively proven.

No. I simply have refused to accept your judgements.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by ringo:
At that is what is at the heart of the problem. There is a contradiction between agencies. One group said that there might have been a uranium deal, the other said that it was highly unlikely.

Whatever the contradiction it's pretty clear who won the argument and it wasn't the INR. You're suggesting Bush should have given more weight to a footnote on page 84 of the annex to the report than what was in the body of the report. Why? It's highly probable he didn't even see the footnote.

If the British claim is legitimate, why isn't Blair elaborating?

I already answered this one. They don't want to burn their sources.

Why isn't the CIA falling all over themselves to claim credit for the good intelligence?

They didn't have the same sources as the Brits.

If the British claim is legitimate, why wasn't it repeated after the SotU? Why didn't Powell use it when we were trying desprately to get support in the UN from France, Germany, and Russia? When we were buying votes with political favors with the smaller members of the security council because we didn't have the hard evidence to gain the support of our allies?

Again, we didn't have the same sources as the Brits.

But all this highlights the dilemma of the "Bush lied" side of this argument. If they didn't repeatedly use that sound-bite, you can hardly claim it was all that influential in making the case for war. And if the admin stopped using it because they became less sure of the facts regarding this claim, that shows a desire to make an argument as beyond reproach as possible rather than a desire to deceive.