[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:

Good arguments, Rog. I expect nothing less. Seriously, well, done. But this still stands: The CIA has stated that the statement should not have been included. The White House has stated the same. So. The statement should not have been included.

Thanx but the White House has taken this position in an attempt to get on top of the issue politically without consideration of the relative merits of what the president said. The CIA has taken this position because it's intel WAS bad. That DOESN'T MEAN the British intel was also bad.

One more thing: according to this guy (scroll to the bottom) Andrea Mitchell claims that Tenet didn't even know about the forged documents until March 7th! - long after Bush had delivered the State of the Union.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Clinton sent thousands of troops to Iraq too, under the same reasons. Oh wait that was different, he didn't stay as long, not as many people died. It was justified.

If he would have gotten it done then, Bush wouldn't have had to now.

I must have missed the part where Clinton has knowingly used forged documents to justify that.

Remember, this argument is not about the whole Iraq issue, it is not about the fact that plenty of people think, there are other `good' reason to have invaded Iraq.

This argument is solely about the fact that the Administration (to my knowledge at least Fleischer, Rumsfeld and Bush) has deliberately used forged documents to `persuade the ones that were not yet persuaded'.

It doesn't matter what Clinton has done in Iraq, because his actions didn't rely on false evidence. One -- however -- could juxtapose Clinton's lie under oath with Bush's lie in the State Of The Union (+ afterwards). vmarks has already put that into discussion; his question was `which one is worse'?

Don't mix things that don't have anything to do with each other.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Remember the arguments we had about war being (or not being) a "forgone conclusion"?
Well, to me, this points to evidence of that foregone conclusion.

That's a separate issue. War wasn't a foregone conclusion because there was always a chance that Saddam would step down or be removed from power without the need for an invasion (see Clinton's intervention into Haiti for an example of that working). But that it would end in Saddam out of power was hardly a secret. That had been US policy since 1998 and it was pretty clear that Bush (unlike Clinton) meant to make it stick. All this is completely in the public record. Remember all those statements by Bush that Saddam either had to disarm himself, or we would do it for him? The man meant what he said, and said what he meant.

I don't know if there really were any people who thought that a vote in the UN would make any difference either way. I personally never thought that no vote in the UN would mean no regime change. I do believe that the impass in the UN made Saddam think he might have a chance at surviving politically. To that extent, it may have made war inevitable, because there was never a third option where Saddam got to stay in power, and keep his weapons programs. Never.

On Troll's point about Saddam being a clear and present danger. I don't believe that the Bush Administration ever framed it in that way. Blair did, but not Bush. (And as a brief aside, Clear and Present Danger comes from First Amendment law, it was Mr. Clancy who first made it a justification for military action. No president would use those words).

Anyway, the Bush Adminmistration's case as I understood it was that Iraq was a clear threat of unknowable magnitude an imminence. Given that, there was no point in waiting because your first indication that there is an imminent threat might be when one of your cities goes boom! One thing we should be learning from this is that intelligence is not foolproof. Intelligence agencies failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, and failed to detect Pakistan's nuclear program until they started testing warheads. Those are just two public and recent examples of intelligence failures. I would prefer not to find out that we have another by way of a mushroom cloud over New York, thank you. Not when you have a leader with a proven willingness to kill civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The world lost nothing by taking out Saddam sooner rather than later. It was an awful regime that nobody should miss.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Anyway, the Bush Adminmistration's case as I understood it was that Iraq was a clear threat of unknowable magnitude an imminence. Given that, there was no point in waiting because your first indication that there is an imminent threat might be when one of your cities goes boom!

Or as Bush said later in the State of the Union:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

(link)

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Other details have turned out to be flat right. For example, the Bush Administration alleged that Iraq had mobile weapons labs. That was based on intelligence information, and it was correct. Those labs have been found.

I'm not going to go through this again, Simey, but you KNOW that this is incorrect. 3 US government departments have looked at that thing. 2 of them said by process of elimination, that it wasn't x, y or z so it must be a weapons lab!. The other said it was definitely not a weapons lab but may be a missile refueler or a fertiliser manufacturing plant. No independent checks have been made and importantly, neither the third trailer which might make this contraption work nor any of the other 10 trucks that Powell said exist nor any of the trains have ever been found. Recently Bush has been criticised by congressman for saying on French and Russian TV that the find proved that Iraq had WMD.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The British say that their information about Yellowcake rested on other information.

And the CIA says they have never seen that intelligence and that the US and UK intelligence share almost everything. You don't find it strange that after all this time, the Brits haven't handed anything over to the Americans, let alone the public? In any event, I thought you were trying to present cases where the intelligence was proved to be correct?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It has also been proved that Iraq had at least a partial mothballed nuclear weapons program.

Uh no it hasn't. The IAEA has said exactly the opposite. They dealt with the centrifuge claim rather thoroughly. In any event, for me a buried piece of aluminium does not a nuclear threat make!

In short, nothing the US said about Iraq's WMD programme has panned out. Nothing at all. If it had, you can bet that the Bush marketing tool would swing into action pronto. I agree that the 16 words aren't that important. They're just one piece in the whole nasty puzzle of misinformation and deceit.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Troll, living in his own universe.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Troll, living in his own universe.

You can't really refute what Troll just said, now can you?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:




You can't really refute what Troll just said, now can you?

Why bother? No matter what is found, he will always have a reason to say that it isn't 100% reliable. Except, I suppose the baby milk factory that was bombed by the US in the first Gulf War. I'm sure that any wreckage with a sign (conveniently in English) that reads "Baby Milk Factory" is conclusively a baby milk factory. But anything the US finds would be faked, inconclusive, wrong, in error, mere propaganda. etc. etc. Because we all know that Saddam is 100% trustworthy, and the US is 100% lying.

That is, if Saddam ever existed. I'm having my doubts. After all, we haven't found him yet. He was probably more US propaganda too.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why bother? No matter what is found, he will always have a reason to say that it isn't 100% reliable. Except, I suppose the baby milk factory that was bombed by the US in the first Gulf War. I'm sure that any wreckage with a sign (conveniently in English) that reads "Baby Milk Factory" is conclusively a baby milk factory. But anything the US finds would be faked, inconclusive, wrong, in error, mere propaganda. etc. etc. Because we all know that Saddam is 100% trustworthy, and the US is 100% lying.

That is, if Saddam ever existed. I'm having my doubts. After all, we haven't found him yet. He was probably more US propaganda too.

Getting difficult to have to defend your beloved Bush day after day after day after ................................

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...That is, if Saddam ever existed. I'm having my doubts. After all, we haven't found him yet. He was probably more US propaganda too.

From the X-Files episode "Dreamland" (I think):

Morris: You guys are the Lone Gunmen aren't you? You guys are my heroes. I mean look at the crap you print.
Byers: We uncover the truth.
Morris: The truth? That's what's so great about you monkeys. Not only do you believe the horse pucky we create, you broadcast it as well. I mean look at this! [Headline reads: "Saddam testing mandroid army in Iraqi desert."] There is no Saddam Hussein. This guy's name is John Gillnitz, we found him doing dinner theatre in Tulsa. Did a mean "King and I." Plays good ethnics.
Langly: Are you trying to say that Saddam Hussein is a goverment plant?
Morris: I'm saying I invented the guy. We set him up in '79. He rattles his saber whenever we need a good distraction. Ah... if you boys only knew how many of your stories I dreamed up while on the pot.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Troll:
And the CIA says they have never seen that intelligence and that the US and UK intelligence share almost everything. You don't find it strange that after all this time, the Brits haven't handed anything over to the Americans, let alone the public? In any event, I thought you were trying to present cases where the intelligence was proved to be correct?

Anyone in intelligence will tell you, that making good intelligence public renders it useless. It tells the opposition what you know, and allows them to adapt accordingly.

Is it possible that the CIA didn't want said intelligence made public because it was still useful to them, and now it is not, or that there's more to it we don't know- after all, you'd expect intelligence reports to consists of far more than the few words we're hanging onto right now.

The best intelligence made public, for intelligence purposes anyhow, is misinformation, because it feeds the opposition that which you want them to believe.

Unfortunately, the intelligence community is always at odds with transparent government.

read cryptome.org

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:


Getting difficult to have to defend your beloved Bush day after day after day after ................................

No, it is getting difficulty to listen to these anti-American (or at least, anti-Bush) rants day, after day, after day . . .

Look, I realize how much anger there is out there over the Iraq issue. But it happened, OK? Can it a bit.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why bother? No matter what is found, he will always have a reason to say that it isn't 100% reliable. Except, I suppose the baby milk factory that was bombed by the US in the first Gulf War. I'm sure that any wreckage with a sign (conveniently in English) that reads "Baby Milk Factory" is conclusively a baby milk factory. But anything the US finds would be faked, inconclusive, wrong, in error, mere propaganda. etc. etc. Because we all know that Saddam is 100% trustworthy, and the US is 100% lying.

That is, if Saddam ever existed. I'm having my doubts. After all, we haven't found him yet. He was probably more US propaganda too.

leaping to bizarre hyperbole, I see. Well, I suppose that's a debate style, if you wish to employ it.

I would return to the topic, however, and ask what percentage (since you brought up percentages) of lying by the bush administration would be acceptable to you? At what percentage would you finally be outraged? 1%? 10%, 25%, 50%?

or will you always accept, no matter the percentage? IN other words, do you have a limit?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it is getting difficulty to listen to these anti-American (or at least, anti-Bush) rants day, after day, after day . . .

Look, I realize how much anger there is out there over the Iraq issue. But it happened, OK? Can it a bit.

Ah, now I understand!

We should be quiet and allow the US/UK to fool our governments into supporting you, we should allow you to invade other nations without any critique, we should allow you to believe everything the pres says and not try to force this european critique that our presidents/primeministers get every day, and why?

Because you saved us in WWII! Oh, praise America and stop all this anti-American bullshite!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Look, I realize how much anger there is out there over the Iraq issue. But it happened, OK? Can it a bit.

You should copyright that sentence now, I suspect Bush/Blair might be using it soon.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Anyone in intelligence will tell you, that making good intelligence public renders it useless.

What I'm saying is that it is odd that the British intelligence hasn't shared the information they have with the CIA let alone the public. Given that they customarily do share this sort of information, why wouldn't they just say, "Here you go guys. This is the stuff we have. Show this to the panel that is investigating this matter and everything should be hunkey-dorey?"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I must have missed the part where Clinton has knowingly used forged documents to justify that.

He used the SAME reasons. He didn't even think he NEEDED any documents, he didn't even ASK the UN for permission. He claimed he had the authority regardless. I would have LOVED to see you reaction had Bush not even went to the UN first.

Remember, this argument is not about the whole Iraq issue, it is not about the fact that plenty of people think, there are other `good' reason to have invaded Iraq.

This argument is solely about the fact that the Administration (to my knowledge at least Fleischer, Rumsfeld and Bush) has deliberately used forged documents to `persuade the ones that were not yet persuaded'.

And before it was about how you claimed Bush didn't have a real good reason to attack Iraq, and now these "forged" documents pop up, you have a new rant. A new spin to complain about. The motivation behind it is pretty transparent too.

It doesn't matter what Clinton has done in Iraq, because his actions didn't rely on false evidence.

His actions relied on NO evidence. Just action. He claimed Iraq was a threat to the world, gave no evidence, didn't seek UN approval and attacked. That sounds more hawkish than anything Bush did. Actually it's worse. But yet Clinton is justified in his actions. Because he is Clinton you, know, the guy that can do no wrong.

One -- however -- could juxtapose Clinton's lie under oath with Bush's lie in the State Of The Union (+ afterwards). vmarks has already put that into discussion; his question was `which one is worse'?

Again, you don't really know what Bush knew to say he was all out lying.

But lets say they BOTH lied and we know it.

Clinton lied to save his own ass. In the process made the very people he was working for, out to be liars.

Bush lied so that we could take our military into Iraq and save the people from Saddam. [/quote] I think we can obviously see which reason for lying was worse. That is if Bush knowingly lied

Don't mix things that don't have anything to do with each other.

Uh, Clintons actions toward Iraq are almost identical to Bush's. They do have to do with one another. More than you want to admit.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it is getting difficulty to listen to these anti-American (or at least, anti-Bush) rants day, after day, after day . . .

Look, I realize how much anger there is out there over the Iraq issue. But it happened, OK? Can it a bit.

anti-bush is not anti-american.
Further, to hold the president accountable is the duty of the electorate.

I don't think telling us to "can it" is a proper reponse or expectation.
If, indeed, we were manipulated into a war for false purposes, at great cost of life and material, then "canning it" would be anti-american and irresponsible.

Simply because you do not like the way the events are turning, is no reason to muzzle others.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:


Getting difficult to have to defend your beloved Bush day after day after day after ................................

No, what he is saying is, no amount of evidence shown to you works. You always have SOME excuse as to why you wont accept it.

And that is fine. But don't expect him to chase your tail all day long. That would be silly.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, what he is saying is, no amount of evidence shown to you works. You always have SOME excuse as to why you wont accept it.

Roles could easily be reversed.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Troll:
What I'm saying is that it is odd that the British intelligence hasn't shared the information they have with the CIA let alone the public. Given that they customarily do share this sort of information, why wouldn't they just say, "Here you go guys. This is the stuff we have. Show this to the panel that is investigating this matter and everything should be hunkey-dorey?"

Especially considering how big of an issue gathering international support prior to the war was. If the UK had real proof, it could have been used to make the case to the international community for war. The UK and US didn't want to be the only major players in the war effort, they were forced to because the other major powers wouldn't support the war initiative.

Meanwhile in the UK, Blair is facing more serious opposition than Bush is, yet he has not elaborated on what other intelligence would have supported the claims that Saddam had an active nuclear weapon program. I can understand shielding intelligence findings in order to protect an active agent, but there is to Iraq government left to tip off anymore.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Logic:
Getting difficult to have to defend your beloved Bush day after day after day after

You nailed it! There was a time when some people in these fora defended Bush with interpretations and arguments that bore some weight. It was interesting debating mostly because there was a lack of evidence that what he planned might not work out. None of us had a crystal ball so it was difficult then for critics of Bush to say, "This isn't going to work," because we really couldn't say for sure. Now that it's clear as daylight that he didn't have a clue what he was doing, the Bush apologists are resorting to repeating statements that have been proved by numerous sources to be untrue. They're talking about technical interpretations of finite phrases. The same people who used to laud Bush for not mincing his words are now mincing theirs to a pulp! We get "You're in your own universe," when the evidence doesn't back up their contentions and we get "Because we're bigger than you," when they have no other answers.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, what he is saying is, no amount of evidence shown to you works. You always have SOME excuse as to why you wont accept it.

And that is fine. But don't expect him to chase your tail all day long. That would be silly.

The problem is Zimph, that he has shown no evidence and nothing backs up your beloved Bush's claims about Iraq except that SH was an evildoer. Nothing.

But continue with the sillyness, I won't bother you anymore in this thread.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Simply because you do not like the way the events are turning, is no reason to muzzle others.

I guess he could just take his games and go home. I AM QUITTING MACNN FOREVER

AGAIN!!!



But seriously, it's not that he doesn't like the way events are turning. He is just getting annoyed at the way the people in here are knee-jerking and twisting the events into something worse than they are for pure political reasons.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Troll:
You nailed it! There was a time when some people in these fora defended Bush with interpretations and arguments that bore some weight. It was interesting debating mostly because there was a lack of evidence that what he planned might not work out. None of us had a crystal ball so it was difficult then for critics of Bush to say, "This isn't going to work," because we really couldn't say for sure. Now that it's clear as daylight that he didn't have a clue what he was doing, the Bush apologists are resorting to repeating statements that have been proved by numerous sources to be untrue. They're talking about technical interpretations of finite phrases. The same people who used to laud Bush for not mincing his words are now mincing theirs to a pulp! We get "You're in your own universe," when the evidence doesn't back up their contentions and we get "Because we're bigger than you," when they have no other answers.

My explanation was shorter



But yes you are correct.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bush lied so that we could take our military into Iraq and save the people from Saddam.

Even if this is true, the US had no business invading a soverign nation without international support just because they didn't like the person in charge of it. There are plenty of other governments who are bad to their citizens. Following your logic, the US should have the right to roll into any country whose policies it disagrees with, even if it means telling lies to the public to justify it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
The problem is Zimph, that he has shown no evidence and nothing backs up your beloved Bush's claims about Iraq except that SH was an evildoer. Nothing.

But continue with the sillyness, I won't bother you anymore in this thread.

And what I am saying is, it has nothing to do with his actions. You just don't like Bush. No matter WHAT he does, you'll find fault.

Clinton showed no evidence and backed nothing up before he bombed the crap out of Iraq. I never saw you say one peep about it.

I have no problems with people ranting about such things. Just keep it consistent. Or it will look like a political rant. And no one will take you seriously.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I AM QUITTING MACNN FOREVER...AGAIN!!!

LOL, good luck. This place is digital crack.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ringo:
Even if this is true, the US had no business invading a soverign nation without international support just because they didn't like the person in charge of it. There are plenty of other governments who are bad to their citizens. Following your logic, the US should have the right to roll into any country whose policies it disagrees with, even if it means telling lies to the public to justify it.

Did you rant and rave when Clinton did it?

Funny, I never saw crap about it when Clinton did it.

Wonder why.

Oh.. never-mind this is all politically motivated.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
Ah, now I understand!

We should be quiet and allow the US/UK to fool our governments into supporting you

Your governments can be fooled? Hm. That sounds to me like you need new ones.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ringo:
LOL, good luck. This place is digital crack.

Er I think you took that out of context just a tad.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Your governments can be fooled? Hm. That sounds to me like you need new ones.

I actually agree with you on that

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess he could just take his games and go home. I AM QUITTING MACNN FOREVER

AGAIN!!!



But seriously, it's not that he doesn't like the way events are turning. He is just getting annoyed at the way the people in here are knee-jerking and twisting the events into something worse than they are for pure political reasons.

I"m still basking in the glow of your heartfelt apology to me you posted earlier, which I accepted. It seemed so....sincere. Please don't ruin it for me.

Zimphire
Addicted to MacNN



Posts: 8701
Location: Zion
Registered: Jul 2002
Status: Offline



Posted on : 06-27-2003 10:49 AM __





I am posting this because I feel it is needed. I believe I was out of character in that last thread with Lerk. I believe I was taking the attacks he launched on me personally, and thought it justified me doing the same. I realize now that I too was wrong for doing the same thing.

I surely didn't intend on Lerk to STOP posting in the forum, nor would I ever want him to.

Lerk if you come back, I promise I will try to my best ability to not personally attack you.

You are a important part of this forum, and a lot of people miss you. Including myself.

That is all I wanted to say.

Thanks.

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

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
anti-bush is not anti-american.
Further, to hold the president accountable is the duty of the electorate.

I don't think telling us to "can it" is a proper reponse or expectation.
If, indeed, we were manipulated into a war for false purposes, at great cost of life and material, then "canning it" would be anti-american and irresponsible.

Simply because you do not like the way the events are turning, is no reason to muzzle others.

No, anti-Bush is not necessarily anti-American. But they can and do often coexist and it is blindness not to see that.

As for how things are turning out, I remain reasonably confident that things will turn out OK in the long run. What is frustrating is the desire by many to declare failure, quagmire, etc. after 3 months. This is all going to take years, probably decades. I have beleived that consistently. That is what all the historical analogies point to.

The other thing that is annoying is the attempt to make party political hay on a national security issue. I suppose we ought to expect it, and in the long run it will probably play to Bush's favor. Nothing helps Republicans more than Democratic wishee-washinesss on defense. But it is sad.

I think I have also consistently said that I dispise the attempt by so many in (my party as well as yours) to look for scandals rather than debate issues. This is just one more example. If the Democrats want to debate the Bush Doctrine on preemption, then they should make an honest issue of it in the upcoming presidential election. This scandal-mongering is depressing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, anti-Bush is not necessarily anti-American. But they can and do often coexist and it is blindness not to see that.

As for how things are turning out, I remain reasonably confident that things will turn out OK in the long run. What is frustrating is the desire by many to declare failure, quagmire, etc. after 3 months. This is all going to take years, probably decades. I have beleived that consistently. That is what all the historical analogies point to.

The other thing that is annoying is the attempt to make party political hay on a national security issue. I suppose we ought to expect it, and in the long run it will probably play to Bush's favor. Nothing helps Republicans more than Democratic wishee-washinesss on defense. But it is sad.

I think I have also consistently said that I dispise the attempt by so many in (my party as well as yours) to look for scandals rather than debate issues. This is just one more example. If the Democrats want to debate the Bush Doctrine on preemption, then they should make an honest issue of it in the upcoming presidential election. This scandal-mongering is depressing.

learn to deal with depression.

that's my advice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
learn to deal with depression.

that's my advice.

Because Democrats aren't going to take the political risk of challenging Bush on the merits of preemption. They will just try to pick away at it by blowing trivilaities into scandals.

Yes, that's probably true. It's the same thing the GOP tried to do to Clinton. Hopefully, they will have the same success.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"m still basking in the glow of your heartfelt apology to me you posted earlier, which I accepted. It seemed so....sincere. Please don't ruin it for me.

Er I wasn't personally attacking you. At least I HOPE you didn't take that as a personal attack.

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

No, I actually think people are making it out to a bigger deal than it is, for the sake of TRYING to make Bush look worse. Just for pure political reasons.

It's a politics game, you can't deny it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This scandal-mongering is depressing.

Actually it's amusing to a point. It's amusing watching them knee-jerk and react to every news story that MIGHT make Bush look bad. Then come in here post it, and act like the sky is falling.

It's going to get even worse when he gets re-elected. I am sure some in here will have to be committed.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, you don't really know what Bush knew to say he was all out lying.

But lets say they BOTH lied and we know it.

Clinton lied to save his own ass. In the process made the very people he was working for, out to be liars.

Bush lied so that we could take our military into Iraq and save the people from Saddam.
I think we can obviously see which reason for lying was worse.

Two points:

1) Even the thought that Bush *might* have been lying in order to dishonestly garner support for what amounts to the death of several thousand innocent people (more than died in the WTC attack AFAIK) should have any citizen with even the *slightest* sense of democratic responsibility up on the barricades until the matter is conclusively laid to rest, or at least responsibility is assumed by the proper people.

*If* in fact he wasn't consciously lying, his gross incompetence in passing on unverified yet high-impact information should be grounds for EXTREME concern.

Any way you slice it, it STAYS and outrage. No amount of arguing will change that.

Which leads to point
2) I am SICK and ****ing TIRED of reading about Clinton each and every single time something critical towards Bush is posted on these boards.

I've said it before: It would be a really nice change if people like you could actually for once defend Bush on his own merits, rather than by comparison with somebody who has nothing to do with the current situation and is long out of office.

Because, by your unwillingness or inability to do so, it looks suspiciously like Bush HAS no merits.

Especially since now the only one he ever had - integrity - has gone down the shitter.

I assure you, if the man wasn't in control of the largest arsenal of death on the planet, nobody outside America would bother taking him seriously.

Much like Kim Jong-Il was just a crackpot until he claimed nuclear capability and started firing missiles over Japan.

-s*

[lil'babykitten]

DING DONG! To those that feel people should 'can it' or that this is an overreaction or that it's just an excuse to get at Bush.

Let me reiterate a point that has continuously be made throughout this thread yet has been continuously ignored.

We are talking about a WAR here, a war that resulted in the DEATHS of many IRAQIS AND AMERICANS AND BRITS ET AL. A war that was fought because it was believed the threat from Saddam was IMMINENT. The argument put forward was not an argument about humanity, it was an argument to save our own skins. It has now become clear that this argument was a LIE and no one can deny that.

The reason most of us are so annoyed with this now is because people HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF A LIE.

This is why I started the thread titled "How Valued is Human Life Today?"
You want us to 'can it' and forget about the consequences of this lie and how lives could have been saved?

So the question Lerkfish has put forward I think reflects that we have reached a point where many people are prepared to even go to war armed with lies. So where is the limit? Is there a limit? because damn it if governments get away with his one what on Earth will they get away with next?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I remain reasonably confident that things will turn out OK in the long run. What is frustrating is the desire by many to declare failure, quagmire, etc. after 3 months. This is all going to take years, probably decades. I have beleived that consistently. That is what all the historical analogies point to.

I agree with you on this. I think things will turn out okay in the long run. Things have a knack of turning out okay. But, I think things would have turned out okay in the long run if we'd kept up sanctions and weapons inspections too and I think the price for Iraqis would have been cheaper than it is now that the US decided violence was the answer.

Unfortunately, the US has created a power vacuumn which needs to be filled to stop Iraq descending into anarchy. For the moment, the Bush administration is the one that should be filling that vacuumn and filling it comes at a price. They need to allocate more resources to Iraq than they have so far. Hopefully the American people will deal with the taxes and the deaths that are going to need to be spent so that Iraq can get back on its own feet.

I think the rest of the world does want what is best for Iraq but the rest of the world has its interests to look out for too. The rest of the world doesn't need its soldiers dying for no reason or its taxes to go towards fixing the richest country on the planet's problem. And the rest of the world needs to show the US that there is a price to pay if you buck the system, otherwise others will be encouraged to follow the US's lead.

I have said before that I love the old America and I love Americans and their spirit. But I think Bush stands for everything that America shouldn't be. I think things will start getting better in this world when the US stops seeing itself as the freight train Simey referred to, the global bully that uses its neo-empirical power to serve its own interests at the expense of all others, the insular island that doesn't need anyone else. Things will get better when the US goes back to its role of being a responsible global citizen. I would like to see a return to the United States being a beacon of human rights, a source of international law, an example of open, responsible democracy. What it used to be. Until that day, I refuse to "can it"!

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...But it happened, OK? Can it a bit.

Great logic.

Watergate happened, OK? Can it a bit.
The holocaust happened, OK? Can it a bit.

Just because something has happened doesn't make it right, or put it beyond analysis. Especially when the something that happened occurred in the face of large-scale disagreement.

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Anyone in intelligence will tell you, that making good intelligence public renders it useless...

Well, I don't know about you, but over here our government must be really useful, because it never shows any sign of intelligence.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, anti-Bush is not necessarily anti-American. But they can and do often coexist and it is blindness not to see that....

While true, this is not relevant.

Pro-Bush and anti-America can co-exist, as can pro-America and anti-Bush.

The original statement "anti-bush is not anti-american" was intended to stop people from deliberately muddying the waters and blurring the difference.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
DING DONG! To those that feel people should 'can it' or that this is an overreaction or that it's just an excuse to get at Bush.

Let me reiterate a point that has continuously be made throughout this thread yet has been continuously ignored.

We are talking about a WAR here, a war that resulted in the DEATHS of many IRAQIS AND AMERICANS AND BRITS ET AL. A war that was fought because it was believed the threat from Saddam was IMMINENT. The argument put forward was not an argument about humanity, it was an argument to save our own skins. It has now become clear that this argument was a LIE and no one can deny that.

The reason most of us are so annoyed with this now is because people HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF A LIE.

This is why I started the thread titled "How Valued is Human Life Today?"
You want us to 'can it' and forget about the consequences of this lie and how lives could have been saved?

So the question Lerkfish has put forward I think reflects that we have reached a point where many people are prepared to even go to war armed with lies. So where is the limit? Is there a limit? because damn it if governments get away with his one what on Earth will they get away with next?

reply with quote because it deserves saying again.
This issue should not be downplayed or whisked away.
One of those things what makes democracy work is accountability. More and more, leaders do not see themselves as accountable.
We are not talking about a sex scandal or some partisan one up. We are not talking about questionable tax practices or unlicensed software or a propensity for expensive booze and underage girls.
We are talking about a war.
I had my questions at the beginning. I had my questions during. I have my questions now. They are questions that deserve to be asked and SCREAM for answers. Instead of things becoming clearer, instead of the justifications coming to light and all the evidence being shown, I have... more questions.

Once again, and for the last time: this issue has NOTHING to do with party differences. It has nothing to do with support for the war. It has nothing to do with Anti Bush Anti America Anti TruthJusticeandtheAmericanWay.
This issue is about integrity and accountability.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I have... more questions.

Losing your train of thought?

[Troll]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
We are talking about a WAR here, a war that resulted in the DEATHS of many IRAQIS AND AMERICANS AND BRITS ET AL.

Yes, let's not forget that SEVEN THOUSAND innocent Iraqi civilians have died so far as a result of this war. Seven thousand. That's nearly double the number that died in 9/11 and we haven't even added soldiers on both sides ... or the five thousand innocent lives lost in Afghanistan.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Losing your train of thought?

At least he's got one, you twit.

-s*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now I agree with that. If the White House says that the words should not have been in the speech, then the president ought to take responsibility for them being in the speech. It was his speech. Bush missed an opportunity to rise above this by not taking responsibility.

On the other hand, far too much is being extrapolated from this. That part of the intelligence was shakey does not prove all of it was. It certainly does not prove that anyone set out to mislead (except, I suppose, whoever gave whichever intelligence agency the forged documents). But that isn't a political scandal, and a political scandal is what opponants of the war, and Bush's political rivals desparately want. That's is why Howard Dean is slavering at the mouth for another Watergate. Well it could be, but I doubt it. This has the look to me to be another fizzler in a silly season month. Already in the UK, there is increasing evidence that the BBC's source for its "sexed up the intelligence" story was not what they said it was.

In a trial, when a witness/party is caught in a lie, even a small lie, you'll invariably hear opposing counsel say in closing arguments, "If he/she lied about that one thing, how do we know he/she wasn't lying about other things?" Of course, the answer lies in the corroborating evidence (if any) and whether the witness/party appeared to the jury to be weasely in general.

I agree that Bush could have defused the situation at least somewhat by accepting direct responsibility. I think he could have said "The British claim to have separate intelligence, and I thought it was of sufficient importance to share with the public, but since our own intelligence was faulty and the British aren't prepared to show us their intelligence for security reasons, in hindsight I would have left it out. My intent was to address the potential seriousness of the situation, not to mislead." This might have satisfied some skeptics, if not all, but it would have at least lessened the weasel factor. His failure to accept direct responsibility contributes to the feeling that he's a deceptive politician like any other.

The problem is that the corroborating evidence isn't impressive either. It can be said that intelligence is murky and that these things take time, but when no weaponry posing the kind of substantive threat that the administration talked about has been discovered, even after the capture of numerous officials and scientists, and the U.S. won't let U.N. inspectors back in, and at least one bit of rhetoric used by both the President and the Vice President has been called into question, and lives are being lost and billions upon billions of dollars are being spent, I think it's reasonable for people to ask "Was the President being straight with us in general about his reasons for going to war, or at least the need to go to war now rather than later?" Some of it is pure partisanship - Bush will never satisfy some people - but I don't think all of it is. I think there are some real credibility concerns. Bush may yet resolve them, but I don't think they're altogether illegitimate.

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.

It still comes down to how well things proceed in Iraq and in the U.S. economy. If things go badly, there'll be hell to pay, but if things go well, this little scandal will probably fade and Bush will probably be re-elected. His problem is that he has opened a door to Democrats who could not otherwise seem to find one.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
In a trial, when a witness/party is caught in a lie, even a small lie, you'll invariably hear opposing counsel say in closing arguments, "If he/she lied about that one thing, how do we know he/she wasn't lying about other things?" Of course, the answer lies in the corroborating evidence (if any) and whether the witness/party appeared to the jury to be weasely in general.

I agree that Bush could have defused the situation at least somewhat by accepting direct responsibility. I think he could have said "The British claim to have separate intelligence, and I thought it was of sufficient importance to share with the public, but since our own intelligence was faulty and the British aren't prepared to show us their intelligence for security reasons, in hindsight I would have left it out. My intent was to address the potential seriousness of the situation, not to mislead."

Yes, I agree with this, and with your suggested remarks (quick, the White House may have an opening for a speechwriter!). Unfortunately, Bush went into one of his deer-in-the-headlights poses yesterday. We've seen fewer of those of late, but he does do it from time to time. This was one of those times. He just kind of stammered, and rather than answer a direct question he went into what was obviously a rehersed speech. It was a little sad, but he can probably recover. But to do that he will have to come across as sincere. It's not my job to say how he will do that. But somehow I agree he will have to address it.

At the end of the day, this is silly season. He has stumbled, no doubt about it. But I can't help thinking that in their glee and desire to put a chink in Bush' national defense armor, the Dems may be stumbling more than they realize. It's not just that they risk a soft on defense charge at a time when it is back at the top of people's concerns, they also risk coming across as hoping things go badly in Iraq. That won't play well. Nor will openly hoping for a recession.

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. Of course, this is because there are primaries coming up. We'll see what the candidate does once nominated. In all things, nothing is decided until it is decided.


Note: I'm talking here only of domestic politics. I'm not talking about international observers and their interests, nor am I talking about Blair's political future. I'm just talking about the US political outlook, as I understood zigzag was doing.