To be a little more accurate: "Bush reported that the UN said, the US Intellligence said, that International Atomic Energy Agency said, and finally that Iraqi defectors said.
You are correct on technicality, however, you think the President of the United States merely speaks as a reporter in the most important annual address to the nation (and the world)?
Which would you go with? I say neither. There was conflicting intelligence. They are on the hot seat while you are in the easy chair with a cozy retrospective on what should have been done and no responsibility to do anything or protect anyone. If they had a pipeline to everybody heart and mind, then I would be worried. But they don't. They have a right to express their argument and they don't have a right to take this country to war without involvement of the US Senate. If you want to blame somebody, blame those decision-makers who bought the argument. I have no desire to blame anybody because I happen to agree.
If it was just a matter of which intelligence to believe and they made a good faith effort but believed the wrong intel, then please explain this: Why did they decide to "fix the intel around the policy of military invasion?" That would seem to show they wanted a war, and fixed the intel to support their desire. Why were the people who ended up picking the correct intel to believe so often fired, or replaced by the Bush administration while those that were wrong in their assessment rewarded and promoted? Since it was the wrong intel assessments that would lead to war, and also to rewards it seems odd, that somebody just made an honest mistake. I'm sorry Giddy but it looks like there has been a pattern here. Evidence and testimony, including some by people who support the war indicates that the whitehouse wanted war, rewarded those that helped them acheive it, and punished those that were against it, even though the ones who believed and supplied the evidence against the reasons for war were correct.
<b>FranchiseBlade If it was just a matter of which intelligence to believe and they made a good faith effort but believed the wrong intel, then please explain this: Why did they decide to "fix the intel around the policy of military invasion?" That would seem to show they wanted a war, and fixed the intel to support their desire.</b> Who are you quoting there? Fixing intel means no more than paying heed to the intel that supports your position. <b>Why were the people who ended up picking the correct intel to believe so often fired, or replaced by the Bush administration while those that were wrong in their assessment rewarded and promoted? Since it was the wrong intel assessments that would lead to war, and also to rewards it seems odd, that somebody just made an honest mistake.</b> Once you're in, you're in. The US has got to finish the job. <b>I'm sorry Giddy but it looks like there has been a pattern here. Evidence and testimony, including some by people who support the war indicates that the whitehouse wanted war, rewarded those that helped them acheive it, and punished those that were against it, even though the ones who believed and supplied the evidence against the reasons for war were correct.</b> See above. If you think they are not competent, vote them out, but making their job harder is doing no one any good.
I'm objecting to your over-use of the word "lie." You casually call the president of the US a liar when technically he probably was not. He may not have been accurate to some degree but that does not make him a liar.
That's not an answer at all. In fact, it's so illogical I can't fathom what you're even trying to say.
I did a search last week and posted an article on the history of Enemy Combatants. That status has been around a long time and they have, historically, been treated much worse than they are today-- probably because of media coverage and inquiry. In WWII many enemy combatants were just summarily executed. That's your answer...
So you admit their position was that they wanted to go to war, and fixed the intel to go along with that decision while they were busy telling congress that the decision to go to war hadn't made? I'm quoting the memos which stated that in 2002 the Bush administration had decided on war, and were fixing the intel to match that policy. That doesn't answer why the people who were correct in their assessments were fired, and people who were wrong but but their assessments supported going to war were rewarded. You can realize that you went in based in mistaken intel and try and make the best of it, and stay in. But that doesn't mean you should reward the people who told you the wrong thing, and punish those that told you the correct one. Bush has done that, and your answer doesn't explain that away.
Giddy, to justify your slandering ( ), you need to find at least 2 different instances on this BBS where I over-used the word "lie" to describe Bush. ... Couldn't find any? Never mind too many posters may have crossed your mind. I can assure you that you won't see me using this word on Bush in future D&D, either. How does "mislead" sound to you, less casual and more accurate?
Exactly. They ignored intel that was just as credible (moreso since some of it came from the weapons inspectors that were actually IN Iraq) that pointed to a vastly different conclusion. Then, they passed on the "fixed" intel as the "best" we had at the time and used that information to start a war. They decieved us to drum up support for a war that was not necessary. They were firing people and manipulating intel before we went to war. If holding people responsible for their actions is "making their job harder" then I am all for it. They are the ones that took the action, they are the ones that manipulated and decieved us, and they deserve to be taken to task for it.
Wow. Two wrongs make a right I guess. By the same token comparisons of Iraq to other failed imperialist wars such as Vietnam and the Phillipines are becoming more poignant.
There have been intersting quotes by liberals about 9/11. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming." Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown." Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."[/b[ MoveOn.org "We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America appeal to...all leaders internationally and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction." Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: “The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Ibid.) Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” George Soros: "The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy." Howard Dean: "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far--which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t think – it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." Bill Clinton: "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound. "
Aint I allowed to get cantankerous too? I think Irish Unionists would disagree with you on that but whether I agree or not is immaterial to your reasoning that this is a war on terror in general. You've continously brought up the justification that Iraq needed to be invaded because Saddam was a terrorist and this is a war on terror and not just the perpetrators of 9/11. I will agree in the broadest of terms Saddam is a terrorists, although not much of a Muslim one. So under your reasoning we need to pursue all terrorists and not just those who've attacked us and Muslim or not. I wasn't asking that we do it once just asking you would support us going after terrorists of all stripes wherever they are since that's what you advocate.
<b>rhadamanthus Wow. Two wrongs make a right I guess.</b> I think it is more like "thousands" or "tens" of thousands... <b>By the same token comparisons of Iraq to other failed imperialist wars such as Vietnam and the Phillipines are becoming more poignant.</b> The ones I remembered were the Nazis (how appropriate for a war against Islamofascists). Was WWII a failed war, too?
This <b>one</b> was sufficiently universal I thought: Being honest for once clearly implies that most of the time he is lying. When you say it that completely, you don't have to repeat it because you have just grossly over-generalized.
Being honest for once clearly implies that most of the time he is lying. Funny that you would mention implications from something, given that this entire thread has been you trying to argue the details of Bush's words to get rid of any implications of what was really meant. If you want to blame somebody, blame those decision-makers who bought the argument. The decision makers who bought the argument bought it on false terms. They asked questions, and the administration provided knowingly-incomplete answers. I think Congress has a right to express the truth from the President. Don't say "We know Iraq has WMDs" when you have intelligence information that clearly states that we don't know that. Which would you go with? I say neither. There was conflicting intelligence. They are on the hot seat while you are in the easy chair with a cozy retrospective on what should have been done and no responsibility to do anything or protect anyone. If there's conflicting intelligence, they should say that. The administration shouldn't be the ones deciding what parts of the intelligence are right, simply based on what they want to believe, and it is quite clear now that this is exactly what they did. As far as what I would go with, I say they have no concern with the truth and wanted to go to war with someone, Iraq was convenient, and the administration was going to do whatever they had to do to make it happen, if it involved deceit or not. This is a pattern in the administration with everything from the way the tax cuts were presented to how we went to war.
There is nothing wrong with what Abercrombie was saying. Peaceful relations and pursuing peace is an excellent way to gauge the anger and potential danger. This statement in no way suggests being soft on terrorism, or wanting to enroll terrorists in counseling. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."[/QUOTE] If Marcy was referring the action of OBL in Afhganistan under the soviet invasion, she was correct. Otherwise the statement makes zero sense. Even this statement says wherever possible. It is pretty wussified, but looking at it in hindsight it would have prevented some of the disasters surrounding gitmo. I think a more comprehensive approach like the one mentioned by Kerry later in this post would be the most effective. Biden was absolutely correct. The insurgents even attempted to use that and sent out challenges to meet in the field of battle. It is also a call for more than just a bombing campaign, and to do things other than just bomb, which could also be to get the military more involved. Kerry's statements are right on the money. He is willing to use our military as well as the legal system and intel gathering. The great thing is that using more intel gathering will help prevent future attacks. By going after new ideas on fighting terror as Kerry suggested is the way to go. Bush's plan hasn't been working, and his ideas have no end in sight. This makes no sense and Kucinich is the one who's logic doesn't follow here. Soros is correct. There is no end to terrorists. Especially as the good general said that for every one we kill we create three more. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the ineffectiveness of Bush's plan. Dean talks about a theory he heard? Why is this even in here? I've heard that theory before as well. This isn't Dean saying that is what happened. He is merely saying a theory he heard. There is absolutely no big deal about this quote, unless some are interested in mischaracterizing it to make it sound like Howard Dean believes Bush knew about it from the Saudis, which isn't what Dean said at all. Clinton is talking about history. I guess now it is wrong to not only talk about the actual events that go on today, but also the actual events that went on in the past unless they glorify Christendom?
