[BRussell]

For all you America-haters and Bush-haters out there (what's the difference, really?), this investigation should put you in your place. The conclusion is that when the Bush administration falsified intelligence to go to war with Iraq, they didn't break the law in doing so!

Here's a news report on this vindication of the legality of the Bush administration's deceptions about Iraq, and here's the summary of the report itself (pdf) :

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence"2 to senior decision-makers.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

For all you America-haters and Bush-haters out there (what's the difference, really?), this investigation should put you in your place. The conclusion is that when the Bush administration falsified intelligence to go to war with Iraq, they didn't break the law in doing so!

We need sarcasm tags for the forum, I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[Timo]

BRussell, you need to focus. THe real issue is the size of planes that can reach California from the East Coast. Taxpayers won't stand for such waste.

[Face Ache]

The "US$12 billion in $100 notes goes missing in Iraq" thread has 11 replies and has dropped down the page.

Meanwhile, "Pelosi's Imaginary Demands" thread has two pages, "Some Bimbo Died" has three pages and "Ain't no such thang as global warming" has eleventy bazillion pages.

You froods really know where your towels are.

I predict this thread will be uninteresting to the mass debaters here.

[Big Mac]

Pelosi's demands are very real, and they highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the environmental left.

[BRussell]

OK, if you want to talk about the fact that the Speaker of the House, for security purposes after 9/11, takes a non-stop military flight to his or her home, there's another thread on that.

This thread is about the fact that it was perfectly legal for the Bush administration to lie to take us into war.

[mr. natural]

Of course it wasn't illegal. Haven't you heard about our chump-in chief's executive order: "The Constituion is just a god damned piece of paper."

[Warren Pease]

Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to write works of fiction.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This thread is about the fact that it was perfectly legal for the Bush administration to lie to take us into war.

I still can't tell if you're being serious.

[tie]

Bush and Cheney need to resign. Either that or they should be impeached. They have harmed the US more than Osama Bin Laden, and it certainly seems to have been deliberate. How are these people still in government?

How can Feith not be in prison, why isn't he being tortured to figure out what terrorist organizations he's working for? He deliberately fabricates links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, presents it as intelligence, and gets away with it? How many people are dead because of his lies? He is a traitor.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

How many people are dead because of his lies?

That phrase would apply to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld even better than it does to Feith.

As Commander-in-Chief you need to be 110% sure that the soldiers you are telling to go to war are going for the proper reasons. I have often wondered, does he ever pause, while sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, and think to himself: Are the soldiers who die today in Iraq dying for the proper reasons? Are their death really worth it?
(I don't think he ever does take a moment to pause and reflect on his decision to send troops into harms way. And that (presumed) lack of reflection is what bothers me most. How could you not be *constantly* querying yourself to ensure the decision to send troops to war was the right one? Because if you are not always 110% sure of your decision then I would argue you need to re-consider that fundamental decision to send soldiers into battle. But that is just me and my way of thinking.)

I think he needs to spend more time at Walter Reed hanging out with all the amputees to get a better sense of what are the ramifications of his decisions. Real people get hurt and die because of his decisions and I am highly doubtful he fully grasps what that means to your everyday soldier.


<edited to add this photo of an everyday soldier--injured in Iraq--on his wedding day>

George Bush should be proud the United States has these kinds of men serving in our armed forces and he should be terribly, terribly ashamed he sent them into harms way under very questionable pretenses. The full story of this soldier's experience can be found here.

[subego]

Good God, let's smash our heads against this wall again.

We can go around and around with this forever. "Did not provide 'the most accurate analysis of intelligence'" just isn't as damning as you think it is, at least to your intended audience. Especially when your audience believes the the President thought there were WMDs. This makes you have to prove that the ends don't justify the means.

Good luck with that.

As anyone who has suffered through my rants knows, the most damning evidence is the almost criminally low priority given to finding and securing WMDs during the invasion. The plans for the invasion were in direct opposition to the mission of disarming Saddam.

What makes this most damning is that there are volumes of unequivocal evidence to support this.

It also completely sidesteps the "ends justifies the means" argument, since it is evidence of the people involved actively trying to defeat the supposed ends.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Good God, let's smash our heads against this wall again.

We can go around and around with this forever. "Did not provide 'the most accurate analysis of intelligence'" just isn't as damning as you think it is, at least to your intended audience. Especially when your audience believes the the President thought there were WMDs. This makes you have to prove that the ends don't justify the means.

Ah yes, subego's "they didn't lie they just didn't tell the truth" position. The only reason we can go around forever is if people don't accept basic facts (not that that's unusual). You make the mistake of assuming the people we're arguing with are doing so in good faith. They had a whole friggin office set up to produce and disseminate false intel, such as a direct Iraq-9/11 link, designed to convince the public to go to war. The only reason they created this office is because the actual intel coming from the actual intel agencies didn't support their pre-existing conclusions about nukes, about Iraq being behind 9/11, etc. In short, they specifically set out to lie.

But hey, now we know it wasn't illegal.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Pelosi's demands are very real, and they highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the environmental left.

Either the sarcasm tags are missing, or you're really ignoring the facts to come up with this one.

[Pendergast]

Obviously, you have to be above the Law to make it.


Good job!

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Ah yes, subego's "they didn't lie they just didn't tell the truth" position. The only reason we can go around forever is if people don't accept basic facts (not that that's unusual). You make the mistake of assuming the people we're arguing with are doing so in good faith. They had a whole friggin office set up to produce and disseminate false intel, such as a direct Iraq-9/11 link, designed to convince the public to go to war. The only reason they created this office is because the actual intel coming from the actual intel agencies didn't support their pre-existing conclusions about nukes, about Iraq being behind 9/11, etc. In short, they specifically set out to lie.

But hey, now we know it wasn't illegal.

Sorry if my post came off as narky.

Let me declare I'm absolutely not trying to persuade you to my position on this. I'm trying to persuade you that my position can be held by someone who is reasonable, rational, and arguing in good faith (for instance, myself ). My thought process is that since this is something upon which reasonable people can disagree, it may be more productive to focus on something less debatable.

You say that the problem is people not accepting the facts. I'm not challenging your facts, I'm challenging the weight you put on them (again, from my own perspective).

The "ends justify the means" is the crux of my argument. If one approves of the ends, the fact that the administration goosed-up the evidence just doesn't bother you. It really doesn't bother anyone who supported/supports the war. The people who it bothers never really supported the war in the first place. At best, they were tolerating it.

As I said, I'm arguing in good faith here. I'm not going to play musical chairs with you over the reasons we went to war. It's the patently obvious ones. Oil, revenge for 9/11 (not that Iraq was involved, but as a message that we're playing hardball), strong military presence in the ME and WMD. I won't whitewash it. This wasn't neoconservatism, it was neocolonialism.

Does supporting that make me a selfish asshole? Sure. I won't argue that. But considering how big of an asshole I am, do you really think I'm going to let some overzealous marketing get in my way?

Again, I'm not trying to convince you to think the way I do, I'm only trying to explain that if one supported/supports the war, putting less weight on the facts you present is both internally consistent and rational.

That being said, it's not like WMD are unimportant, especially in the context of 9/11. I'm an asshole, but I'm an honest asshole, and even the less honest assholes can't help but be made uncomfortable that the invasion was conducted as if disarming Saddam was inconsequential.

Isolated, it probably wouldn't mean much, but even the most dishonest asshole can't help but be crushed under the weight of the colossal missteps that aren't helping them... from their perspective.

How WMD were played operationally, is only the first of these.

I do have to add though, I still don't understand how you can't see that what was going on in these peoples' heads (which is unknowable) makes the difference between a cascading cluster**** of mistakes and a conspiracy with a capital "C".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Timo 

BRussell, you need to focus. THe real issue is the size of planes that can reach California from the East Coast. Taxpayers won't stand for such waste.

What are the passenger planes in the US military's possession that can reach California from the East Coast without refueling?

[subego]

So, I heard the tape of Dick Armitage talking to Bob Woodward about how the White House overrode the CIA about the yellowcake. He also blamed Condi for not wanting to stand her ground against Cheney.

This also seems to cast some doubt on Powell's claim that he didn't discuss the yellowcake with Tenent in preparation for his UN speech because it had already been stated publicly by the President, and therefore didn't need to be vetted any further.

I can't find any links, my searches get swamped with the more current Dick and Bob tape, but I thought this was relevant to the discussion.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

For all you America-haters and Bush-haters out there (what's the difference, really?), this investigation should put you in your place. The conclusion is that when the Bush administration falsified intelligence to go to war with Iraq, they didn't break the law in doing so!

Here's a news report on this vindication of the legality of the Bush administration's deceptions about Iraq, and here's the summary of the report itself (pdf) :

Levin released the full declassified report yesterday: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/sup...ort.040507.pdf

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

The "US$12 billion in $100 notes goes missing in Iraq" thread has 11 replies and has dropped down the page.

Meanwhile, "Pelosi's Imaginary Demands" thread has two pages, "Some Bimbo Died" has three pages and "Ain't no such thang as global warming" has eleventy bazillion pages.

You froods really know where your towels are.

I predict this thread will be uninteresting to the mass debaters here.

How right you were!