Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

Yes. The pre-war intelligence included false information about Iraq's current WMD capabilities, missed some of Iraq's actual terrorist ties, and exaggerated other ties that seem to have dried up before the war.

Information about Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden were out of date. The two hadn't been in touch since bin Laden left Sudan in 1996. On the other hand, we seem to have underestimated Iraq's support of Abu Sayyaf, a Philippine Islamist terrorist group that has been linked to Operation Bojinka, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi Yousef. The BBC story linked above also mentions a planned series of suicide bombings in the West called "Blessed July."

But secular Saddam wouldn't have anything to do with that sort of thing. Right?



Bush knew the current round of inspections hadn't found WMD in Iraq. Show me where the memo "proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq." It's not in the story you linked to. The closest thing in it is "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks."

Did you misread that bit? Or do you believe (and expect us to believe) that doubts about the effectiveness of inspections = "knew there were no WMD in Iraq"?

For Paladin Elspeth and Curmudgen: The U.S. military continues to do extensive research on the effects of depleted uranium. All indications are that its weak radioactivity is not a significant health hazard, even for soldiers who have DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies from the Gulf War. Almost all of DU's harm is caused by its chemical toxicity, which is similar to lead.

DU could be a separate thread (maybe it has been), but anyone who calls it a "nuclear trojan horse" or "nuclear waste" is peddling junk science.

I don't think I did, why don't I post it again.



Please do read that first sentence closely. Notice it doesn't say "as a result of inspections" or anything of the like. It simply says they acknowledged that no weapons had been found and that would include any intelligence that was present before this meeting as well.

If you'll recall, in the march to war Bush and others cited very specific things in regard to what Saddam had. This basically confirms that was all a lie. It also confirms that they were willing to consider options to get the war regardless of the evidence backing it.

Was Bush misled by intelligence?

What, is this site so full of right-wing ideologues that this travesty of a question is being seriously debated?

Bush WAS the "intelligence." Bush, Cheney and the top people in the Pentagon pushed the war in spite of the best available information, not because of it. Was Bush misled by the intelligence, what a laugh! Was Bush misled by his own nose?

I well remember standing on the street corners at our weekly anti-war demonstration, leading up to the invasion, and saying to counter-demonstraters there that the so-called intelligence supporting the war was trumped up; that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction; that there was no link with Al Quaeda; that the Administration was totally untrustworthy; that we would not only not be welcomed, but that we would touch of an Iraqi civil war; that war would only kill a lot of people and cost ourselves a lot of money. Was I psychic, or were indeed a large number of Americans and a vast majority of people everywhere else not saying exactly these things?

And on point after point, you know what these counter-demonstrators said? "Bush knows better than you or anyone else. We trust Bush!" I wonder if these trusting idiots still think so highly of their beloved Leader.

Anyway, in that context, it's worse than idiotic to talk about poor, poor little Georgie Bush being misled by those big bad boys down in Langley. It's a total re-write of history.

I'm sorry, I still think that's a really twisted reading that sentence. Why do you assume it "would include any intelligence" instead of, you know, the unconventional weapons that are actually mentioned in the sentence? Bush and Blair clearly were concerned about WMD, and those concerns weren't much assuaged by statements from people like Hans Blix:


But perhaps Blix is a "right-wing ideologue," at least in Vladimir's eyes.

Belittling remark removed.

We can scrutinize any number of top-level memos; we can let 10,000 autodidacts, amateur intelligence agents and bloggers armed with English-Arabic dictionaries pore over the recently published batch of intelligence documents; we can construct all sorts of conspiracy theories and hypotheticals; but we will never be able deny that leading up to the war, many Americans and a great majority of people everywhere else, including the governments of France, Germany and several other trusted allies, were saying that there was no adequate case for war. It also turns out -- what a big surprise! -- that an expert reading of all this intelligence does indeed conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Critically, as many well-informed people observed before the war and have observed since, it never made any sense that Saddam Hussein, with his Ba'athist ideology and his overwhelming concern for keeping a tight lid on things in Iraq, would have collaborated in an Al-Qaeda attack on the United States or staged an attack of his own.

Moreover, it is not as if there has not been a river of testimony from people quite high up in Washington that the Administration was hell-bent on war and was doing everything it could to cherry-pick the intelligence and manufacture a case for invading Iraq -- and to suppress, with prejudice, any persons in government pushing a more cautious view.

Now considering all of that, I think it really is quite remarkable that we have this thread here where we are scratching our heads over whether poor, well-meaning George Bush and Dick Cheney were misled by the intelligence. It is also remarkable that some people here seem to think that the evidence that the Administration aggressively promoted the war IN SPITE of the intelligence needs to be good enough to stand up in a law court before it's accepted. These people are not, unfortunately, on trial for their lives, and the standard of proof applied by most people in such matters is one of reasonable certainty and common sense. On that basis, and in the court of popular U.S. and world opinion, the case has already been tried-- and Bush lost.

U.S. alters nuclear weapons policy
Congress rejects 'bunker busters' for more reliable arms

Lawmakers killed the widely criticized nuclear "bunker buster" concept, which critics regarded as too aggressive, and instead appropriated $25 million for research on what is called the reliable replacement warhead, or RRW.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGIKFV3FK1.DTL


As mentioned the US denies that depleted Uranium is used in bunker busters. All else is speculation. And clean up (of the bullets used against tanks is simple. Identify it, collect it and dispose of it as you would any nuclear waste.



Not yet but it may come. But remember the connection to 9/11 mistakenly made by some Americans was NOT the reason we went to war and not part of the Intel that lead to war. 1441 was about WMD retained by Iraq. It was about WMD Iraq ADMITTED to having produced.


Certainly anyone with a brain would have been concerned about Iraq before 2001 since they never ever lived up to the UN Resolutions our men died to get in place and there were NO inspectors in Iraq after 1998. AND it was suspected by the UN and EVERY intel agency in the world that Iraq maintained WMD and the ability to make more.

The decision by Congress and the Admin. To deal with Iraq by force if necessary came after 9/11. And if you would bother to read what I have posted you will notice I did not post anything Bush said but rather the intel gathered by the Weapons Inspectors in Iraq. If you would like to cite some of that from before we attacked and tell me why it was wrong – fire away!

CJ’s Link



While you are technically correct, Bush certainly didn’t know there were WMD in Iraq.



http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?pid=57547

The information in the link above leaves me almost speechless. Bush trying to precipitate a war with Saddam Hussein is sort of like a quarterback’s use of an off cadence count to draw opposing linemen into the neutral zone. My analogy fails miserably. In a football game, players walk away to play again next Friday, Saturday or Sunday or maybe next year. In Bush’s war more than 2500 American soldiers, 30,000 Iraqis have died and thousands more American soldiers have been wounded. Our military has been stretched to the limit with other dangers looming and the national treasury raided.

I don’t think it’s even relevant anymore to ask if Bush got faulty intelligence. In my opinion, he wanted to go to war and would have done so regardless of any intelligence he received. The picture emerges of a reckless, borderline criminal, president going to war at all cost.

It may be apocryphal, but Davy Crockett reportedly had a motto: “Be sure you’re right and then go ahead.” It seems Bush went ahead and has spent the last three years trying to prove he was right.



Does this mean that anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush (or for that matter Ted ) don’t have brains?

And it's only in that narrow, technical sense that I defend Bush. I've lost track of the number of times some document has been leaked that supposedly "proves" that Bush Lied. CJ's link is just another in a long unpersuasive list. I don't believe Bush knew the WMD claims were false. If he'd known, he wouldn't have put as much emphasis on them in the run-up to the war, or (tinfoil hat mode) he would have planted the weapons after the invasion.

I'm not saying I trust Bush about anything, I'm just saying Hanlon's Razor applies. There was plenty of bad intelligence about Iraqi WMD and terrorist connections. Richard Clarke famously warned the Clinton administration about taking action against the Taliban, writing that "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." (p. 134) Was Clarke a right-wing ideologue? No, he was just wrong.

I take your point that Bush should have been more certain before going to war. But there are many ways to be wrong. The CIA thought that Pakistan was years away from developing nuclear weapons, until they tested one. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, which they failed to disclose to inspectors after the Gulf War. Did they restart the program after inspectors left in 1998? Well, no, it turns out they didn't. But how far should Bush have trusted Iraq's denials?

There is a third alternative. I think Bush thought that the American public would buy into the war if they thought WMD were present in Iraq. I just can't see much public support developing if the original reason had been--deposing a dictator, liberating Iraq and attempting, with futility I would suggest, building a budding democracy in the Middle East.

I guess all I can say to this is that I would not want depleted uranium remains in my back yard or embedded in the walls of my house. Would you, especially if you had children?

Would you eat vegetables grown in an area that had been bombed with depleted uranium-coated warheads?

But this is off the subject of the thread.


Yeah, right. Just like vacuum cleaning, eh? That's why they wear those suits while they're doing it...Then what do they do with the waste when they collect it in Iraq? Do you think they can suck up all the radioactivity in a given area?

The U.S. government denies it, so all of these other sources must be lying, right?

The U.S. has been denying a hell of a lot these days--yet we have CIA prisons in other countries, a President authorizing spying on his own people, U.S. citizens being denied habeas corpus in Guantanamo, oh, and of course the humane interrogation techniques of Abu Ghraib ala Charles Graner and Lynndie England. Like the X-Files program used to say, "Deny everything..." And we're supposed to just be good little sheep and believe everything this administration tells us?

Sure, Bushie Boy was misled. Of course he's incompetent, not devious...that's why the Republicans wanted him at the helm! Poster boy for their agenda, the son of an aristocrat who couldn't run his own companies but was Karl Rove's designated Golden Boy. Yup, must've been everybody else's fault that Bush believed the flawed intelligence that came across his desk--and talk about it at the SOTU address to play upon peoples' fears and desire for revenge after 9/11/2001.

Is that what Republicans choose to believe these days?

EDIT: I read over what is written above, and I wonder at the cynicism contained therein. I didn't use to feel this way about my country's top leaders. Would to God that I could believe in them the way they want us to! It is certainly a pleasanter existence to be able to trust that our leaders only have our best interests in mind and only keep things secret from us to protect us, not out of duplicity or fear of reprisal from an angry citizenry that has felt deceived or betrayed.

What you don’t get is the uranium is “depleted”. That means the radiation is low level. You need suites only if you are near a lot of it for a prolonged period of time. And come on PE Iraq had its own nuclear programs and produced lots of nuclear waste. I am sure the US would also dispose of it and may be doing that right now.




You bet. I believe my government before I believe our enemies.



No doubt Bush is not perfect but Bill was far worse. He lead us into 9/11 with his tatally incompetent handling of one terrorist attack after another. And this is what we get from the Dems in general. Ignore it or cal it a “police problem” until they finally kill us by the thousands.

As PE what exactly is the message of the Dems you love so mush? They are either flip flop as on Iraq or they are just negative on everything. What is the plan from idiots like Teddy K??? I don’t see one from him or any of the other clowns on the far left that run that Party today. Do you?. War was OK when Bill did it (without declaration or UN) in Kosovo – and we are STILL THERE by the way. And attack was Ok in Iraq when Bill did it in 1998 to get at the massive WMD in Iraq – but baaaaaaaaad when Bush does it.

I get it now. The usual Dem double speak.




Certainly there is nothing in what you have posted that says that Iraq absolutely did not and would not train and support Al Qaeda. And of course you conveniently leave out most of the reasons we went to war which is the ‘missing” tons of WMD which was the subject of UN 1441. And as we know from reading the former inspectors reports (and NOT anything our CIA, or Bush could have “hyped”) that there is PLENTY of reason there to fear Iraq.

Focus pleas on that intel and tell me why we should not believe Bush was misled if it was wrong. IMO it was not wrong but the fact is it was the consensus at the time (in the world) and this was the info the Congress used to give the go ahead and not just the possibility that Iraq trained Al Qaeda people because even if he never did that does not prove he would not give them what they were looking for in the future

Oh, I get it, Ted, the usual 'Publican doublespeak.

Check the death counts, Ted. Check the amount of time, money, and lives lost and all of the aforementioned that continues to be lost in this Iraq debacle. And now Bush, Jr. says it's going to continue into the next presidency for whoever inherits that position. Thanks a lot, George. Consider also the fact that this thread is about BUSH, and wriggle and squirm all you want, but "Bill Clinton did this, and Bill Clinton did that..." just doesn't cut it in a thread asking about whether Bush was misled by the intelligence.

So pardon me if I do not allow myself to get sucked into that argument.

I will continue to assert that Bush WANTED the dubious intelligence to be true, and he wasn't going to let ANYTHING (like the truth) get in his way when working HIS will. He used scare tactics anyway when the aluminum tubing was said to be too small for nuclear use (check the CNN documentary, DEAD WRONG).

And just what do you think the Democrats do in Congress? I'm in pretty regular communication with Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, about the abuses of our freedoms contained in the so-called PATRIOT Act. You know what? He worked to sponsor legislation to correct those more egregious abuses of our freedoms, only to get shot down by the Bush Lobotomy Brigade in Congress, who wrap themselves in the flag and figure anything Fearless Leader does is just peachy.

Take John Murtha, that decorated Marine veteran of the Vietnam war--oh, yeah, and incidentally the one who was dissed by the White House as some kind of anti-war pinko or traitor or something to that effect until somebody told the White House who he really was and they changed their tune in a hurry when Bushie finally made a public statement about him and what he had to say. Murtha was talking about a six-month pullout from Iraq (Omigosh, a PLAN!), so what did the Republican strategists do? They construed it as "cut and run," an immediate pullout, and of course that mischaracterization didn't wash with their constitutents back home, many of whom, incidentally, still think there was some kind of connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. All the while Bushie's making nice with the SAUDIS and wanted the ports deal for the UAE where the terrorists came from in the first place! For shame, Republicans!

And with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, a Republican President, and a conservative Supreme Court, Republicans b--ch and moan about not being able to get things done. Geez, life really sucks for the Republicans, doesn't it? Then they turn around and try to blame those pesky, minority Democrats for the world's ills when they can't wriggle out of the fact that:

THE 9/11 ATTACKS HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH. Period.

So don't try to tell me that this is somehow the fault of the Democrats when all you guys could prove was that Bill Clinton stained an intern's dress and then lied about it to protect himself from Hillary. Give me a good Presidential sex scandal any day; at least thousands of soldiers weren't sent to their deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars spent for Slick Willie to get his rocks off.

And don't try to tell me that it was Bill Clinton's fault that George Tenet called the so-called evidence a "slam dunk" before the invasion. George could have hired someone else; he was lazy, and he liked the fact that Tenet, like any good kiss-up subordinate, knew what side his bread was buttered on and told him what he wanted to hear. It was George Walker Bush's responsibility to VERIFY the intelligence, and he disregarded the intelligence reports that disagreed. We've seen the consistency of George W. Bush's decisions in who he nominated for Supreme Court Justices, in one breath choosing Roberts, a highly-competent choice, but then nominating HARRIET MIERS????????????? If that wasn't laziness and cronyism, I don't know what is. And then there's Brownie and FEMA...

Indeed, if the Democrats do a lot of flip-flopping, the Republicans, who brought us Richard Nixon, do one helluva lot of wriggling and slithering. With this current President, sometimes I really wonder if we'd be better off with Nixon right now.

There is a psychological term for people who break from reality called "la belle indifference" (beautiful indifference). Don't worry, be happy: the Dems don't know what they're talking about. The war is going great, the middle class is not endangered, our jobs aren't going overseas, our kids are all getting superior educations with No Child Left Behind, we're not being overrun with illegals who are being exploited by American employers, our ports are secure and the news report that enough material for two dirty bombs made it through customs didn't happen, radioactivity from depleted uranium doesn't cause cancer, our President doesn't lie...

*And as far as your slur on Teddy Kennedy goes, you cannot deny that he has introduced more social programs to help the poor and needy in this country than George W. Bush ever envisioned even for his 'beloved' state of Texas. Compassionate conservative, indeed!

Sorry but you can babble all day about what Bush wanted but if you READ what I posted I was careful to post not one darn WORD of what he said to make my case but rather what the people who were THERE in Iraq for 10 years said and wriggle all you like about “yellow cake” etc the fact remains that the INTEL available from the folks on the ground at the UN said Iraq could have had massive amounts of WMD retained and un accounted for.

The fact that Bush after 9/11 actually wanted to do something about this does not IMO make him a bad leaded. I am sure you disagree. I mention Clinton because HE and the Dems that today wriggle as best they can to make Bush look like he went to war without them, Thought Saddam and Iraq was the same kind of threat Bush did. The only real difference was what they did with the intel. Do I really have to post what the the Dems said in 1998??? And please don’t tell me it is meaningless since you should know that the intel was the same in 2002 as it was in 1998..


What Bush wanted is pure speculation. Looking at the record of Iraqi actions when he came to office one certainly would not consider the country to be in compliance with anything and if you read the testimony of UN inspectors like Ritter to Congress in 1998 you would be nutty not to want to resolve the festering situation there. 9/11 merely made this more urgent.

Go back and look at the posted intel and tell me it is wrong and why.

I thought the title of this thread is "Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?"

Three questions:

1. Where were (and are) the WMD's that Rumsfeld was so confident that our forces were going to find "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"?

2. Where was the yellowcake uranium that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of from Africa?

3. Where was the imminent threat to the United States? Never mind that the Saudi's and the United Arab Emirates harbored terrorists that were said by U.S. intelligence to have participated in the 9/11 attacks--they weren't in Bush's sights. I guess Bush had special "discernment" when it came to "intelligence."

-----------------------

Is that devoid enough of babble for you? In the absence of these three things, the intelligence Bush cited was wrong--that's why intelligence officials asked that the infamous "16 words" not be included in Bush's speech (See White House 'warned over Iraq claim').

Bush included them anyway to further his agenda. Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who used to say, "Trust, but verify"?

The U.S. would have had U.N. support if the intelligence was so damned widely accepted in 2003, but the U.S. did not. But you evidently consider France and Germany enemies because these people did not find the argument for a pre-emptive war quite as compelling. As it turns out, maybe the French and Germans had more insight into the consequences than the great war planners of our nation did.

It remains that this administration acts as if it has a lot to hide. In any case, it is the Republican White House that "wriggles" rather than "flip-flops." What's the matter--you don't like Democrats characterizing the Republicans in the same insulting manner that Republicans characterize Democrats? If you don't like nasty characterizations, don't use them!



There's a Latin legal phrase, respondeat superior,

QUOTE(Google)

Literally, "a superior (or master) must answer." The doctrine which holds that employers are responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and agents, when done within the scope of the employees' duties.
www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm

Liability of your organization as "master" for the actions or inactions of a "servant," an employee, agent or volunteer, more generally called vicarious liability.
www.iciclesoftware.com/vlh7/VLH7Glossary.html

<snip>

"The master is liable for the acts of his agent."
www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/r.html

“Let the master answer.” A doctrine of vicarious or derivative liability in which the employer (master) is liable for the legal consequences of the breach of duties by an employee (servant) that the master has promised to others, if the breach of duty occurs while the servant is engaged in work within the scope of his or her employment. ...
www5.aaos.org/oko/vb/online_pubs/professional_liability/glossary.cfm

Regardless of what the Democrats (or anyone else on earth) said or thought, George W. Bush was and is responsible for the actions of his administration, and they have had serious consequences.

And let's focus on this: "the intel was the same in 2002 as it was in 1998.." That was the crux of the problem, wasn't it? If there wasn't up-to-date intelligence, this should have indicated the need for more human intelligence on the ground, not a buildup of forces to invade based on sketchy, old intelligence.

But if the intelligence was all that accurate, why wasn't the President paying attention to his Presidential Daily Briefings?! (The title of that one briefing was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.".) Richard A. Clarke made that abundantly clear. From Clarke's Take on Terror:


As far as Bush trying to tie Iraq to 9/11, and he did try, Clarke went on to say this (from the same link--this was a revealing interview):


It was what Bush did and how he did it that makes his leadership questionable. He should have kept his promise and pursued Osama bin Laden until he was captured instead of this side trip into Iraq. Here it is, four years later, and this guy is still at large. Whatever happened to "we will not rest until" bin Laden was "brought to justice," captured, or whatever?

Remember that Bush was so fond of saying, "Either you are with us, or against us," which is characterized by Wikipedia this way:

QUOTE

You're either with us, or against us is, technically, a false dilemma logical fallacy. It is commonly used in order to polarize situations and force the audience to either become allies or to accept the consequences as being deemed an enemy.

Intimidation was key to wresting compliance from all but the most stalwart critics of Bush's plans. Now the Democrats who buckled are being criticized for marching in step rather than being characterized as traitors--but they were as just as subject to the wave of fear that Bush & Company used to enforce compliance as were the unwashed masses, starting with the PATRIOT Act and proceeding to the invasion of Iraq. (In my first week as a member of this debate forum, another poster said that I was for the terrorists because I was against the war--the late "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy would have been quite comfortable with this demagoguery.)

So Bush and his cronies were great at bullying and cajoling, and now that it has been shown that THEY HAD NO PLAN for after the invasion, they blame the Democrats for having no plan for THEIR mess because they don't want to admit that Congressman John Murtha is right. They deride anyone who says let's pull the troops out now that we've "liberated" the country and deposed the dictator, because the troops are just targets anymore for insurgents, warring factions and any Muslim extremist with a death wish. Hell, we can afford to shed lots more American blood as long as it isn't from the families of the leaders who got us into it, right? How convenient. Makes me wish for the "bad old days" when leaders had the cojones to personally lead their armies into battle. It probably caused them to study the intelligence and count the costs more carefully.

Actually, it has been nearly forty years since I took nuclear chemistry, and I can’t lay my hands on either a textbook or a chart of nuclear isotopes and decays, but I am certain your understanding of “depleted” is incorrect.

As I recall, “Enriched Uranium” is used as fuel in nuclear reactors to manufacture Plutonium for making nuclear weapons. Originally, our government, in the early 50's promised to purchase all of the spent fuel from nuclear reactors, and extract the Plutonium. The reaction generates a great deal of heat, and the heat is used to generate electricity in order to cool the reactors. The “depleted uranium” you are speaking of is likely from reprocessed spent fuel from nuclear reactors. If so, it is going to be far more radioactive than it was originally.

Uranium has, as I recall, a very long half life. According to a random source:


Any Uranium that has been mined since it was discovered that it was usable for making weapons has a long way to go before its radiation levels drop by even half. “Depleted” by no definition that I am aware of, means that the Uranium is safe to handle, ingest, or even be proximal to. Perhaps there is more up to date information in a Nucular Fizzics Handbook beside the proverbial button on the desk in the Oval Office.

Back on topic: Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

It took awhile to find a statement I recalled reading in the newspaper a few years back. Along the way, I read that our current President speaks on the telephone at least daily with his father, who felt that we shouldn't try to depose Saddam Hussein without an exit stategy.


It gives me the impression that this President Bush feels there is really no one whose advice or intelligence he can trust.

PE this is the same ol same ol that is not even of a fraction of the story. And you refuse to even discuss the data I have posted so I don’t see any reason to rehash this.

First of all I AGREE with you on the stupidity of going into Iraq without knowing exactly where Saddam had hidden, moved etc. the WMD I am sure he had. The failure to find it relates to this and I blame Tenant at CIA – and he resigned soon after. The British still say the “yellow cake” uranium was a real issue but it was certainly not the reason we went to wear and you KNOW or should that GWB never , ever said Iraq was an Imminent threat.

The reality which you and the left in general refuse to deal with are the REAL concerns about the “missing” WMD in Iraq ( the WMD Iraq ADMITTED to having produced). EVERY single intel agency in the world and the UN had the same questions and concerns. This was the subject of 1441. See my posts here http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=11647&st=20 - WMD questions. Direct your comment to this rather than the 20/20 hindsight of the liberal media.

And the Dems statements WERE relevant since Blix essentially picked up wher the UN left off in 1998. And in 1998 after BILL attacked IRAQ WITHOUT the UN the Dems rushed to his defense. Intel in 2002 was essentially the same. They said:


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Were these folk all LYING in 1998 and 2002?????? Did George somehow stuff the words into their mouths in 1998?????

IMO the intel was RIGHT and we blundered and let Saddam or his friends move the WMD but even if the intel was wrong it certainly indicated Iraq had WMD. And the majority of the Intel was not from GWB but from the UN and as quoted above.

Attacks like the following?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...t/etc/cron.html
April 18, 1983: Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut; Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans

Oct. 23, 1983: Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded.

Dec. 12, 1983: Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait;

March 16, 1984: CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped

Sept. 20, 1984: Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut; killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

April 5, 1986: Bombing of La Belle Discotheque;

December 21, 1988: Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103


Under Clinton we lost like what 50 to 75 people to foreign terrorists? That is quite an excellent record in an 8 year period, for many recent Presidents.

It’s not Clinton’s fault that Bush ignored the warnings given him and his team during the transition and nor was it Clinton that ignored a PDB warning about bin Laden’s determination to attack and go on vacation.

It was public warnings that led to vigilance that led to the Millennium Bomber getting caught at the border. Had we had the same heightened awareness just prior to 9-11, the hijackers would just be another group apprehended when trying to board the planes.

Even Bush admitted that ‘We can’t win this war’; so to assume that Clinton should have kept us 100% safe is utter foolishness.

Kerry was right; the best we can hope for is that it’s is limited to a nuisance. And while that may sound callous; it’s the closes thing to the Truth spoken about Terrorism in the last election.

In 1998 220 people were killed in the Embassy bombings. So when you say “people” you obviously ignore everyone who is not a US citizen????

Your 80s posts are all over the map as sources. Clinton missed numerous chances to have Bin laden and HE was the man who would get us on 9/11. If the Clinton team had done their jobs there would have been no 9/11. Sure we would have been hit by other nuts but Bill missed the big one and so did his staff. Clinton had 10 times the time and opportunity to get Bin Laden and it was under him that we actually passes laws preventing the sharing of info by CIA and FBI.

Clinton was offered Bin laden by Sudan and turned them down. Later his own CIA team asked for permission to have him snatched and was turned down.

I agree Bush should have moved quicker to oust the idiots like Tennant and Clark and others but it goes beyond even that. The real culprits are the Congress that ignored numerous warning from paid for “terrorist Commissions” and continued to cut human intel and under fund all anti terrorist efforts. This is why these idiots (on both sides of the isle) set up the 9/11 Commission with the objective of “not assigning blame” because it was clear much of it would have landed in their laps.

Ted,

I’ve noticed from this and some of your other posts that you are fond of calling people “idiots” Could it be than anyone who disagrees with Ted is an idiot? Do you really know what the word “idiot” means?

“Idiot” was the lowest of three rungs in the English classification system for mentally retarded people. It was once used here, but is now considered offensive. I doubt that Richard Clarke or George Tenet qualify for the inclusion in the “idiot” classification.

Far from enhancing your posts, your continued use of this term "idiot" is a both distraction and a detraction.

Is this your response to my post??? I am free to call these men anything I want to. They are public figures. – perhaps ‘fools” is better. We went to war because we were certain Iraq had WMD. Our CIA should have had better info on exactly where the WMD was. I will bet that the CIA said to Bush and the congress that 1. he was sure they had it and 2. they (CIA) had a real good idea they knew where it was and would secure it.

I feel the same way about Clarke and the Congress. Clarke said he was tough on terrorism, so why did OBL slip away twice? Was it Bill who was weak? The CIA and FBI both asked for more men to fight terrorism and were turned down by the Congress and I see no evidence that the Administration or Clarke pushed for spending the money. Do you? Instead the budgets were cut, people were CUT from human intel.

As far as the Congress and the “9/11 Commission” – am I wrong that they set it up conveniently so that they would not have to look at their own errors leading up to 9/11?

I think that the decision to go to war was based in intel much of which was incomplete and/or inaccurate. The fact that the UN and all the other intel in the world said the same thing does not mean we should feel good about not doing better. I believe Saddam had the WMD the UN suspected he had, and that he admitted having, but we may never know because our bad intel leading up to the war did not allow us to pinpoint its locatiuon and/or stop it from leaving the country.

So the Bali Bombings, Madrid, London etc. are now all Bush’s fault according to you?

Was Clinton also the President of 2 African Countries and responsible for Local Security, while running the U.S. into Prosperity? I knew hew was good, but not that good.

And what opportunities were these? Keep in mind that we expect the President to follow the Rule of Law and not act like a domestic bin Laden.

That has got to be the biggest stinking pile of lie I’ve ever heard. If you believe this; I’m waiting to see you post that not only did Bush know about 9-11 in advance; he personally directed it.


For people to “believe” this story, requires them to “believe” the following.

First they have to believe that the FBI lied to a Republican dominated Congress while giving testimony of what the intelligence said in ’96. There was NO Actionable Intelligence back in early 1996; DOH! Then they have to believe that the Republicans in Congress let the FBI get away with this.
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm


Next up are the 5 Republicans on the 9-11 Commission. They have to believe that each and every one of these guys is a liar. And they have to now believe that the Bush Administration is being Silent over these guys lying.

Fred Fielding: Counsel to the President of the United States, as deputy counsel from 1972-1974 and as Associate Counsel from 1970-1972. He also served as clearance counsel during the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition.

Slade Gorton: Senator for 18 years, from 1982-2000. While in the Senate, Gorton served on the Appropriations, Budget, Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. He served as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee (1995-2001), the Commerce Subcommittees on Consumer Affairs (1995-99), and Aviation (1999-2000). He was also a member of the Republican leadership as counsel to the Majority Leader (1996-2000)

Thomas H. Kean: Former governor of New Jersey (1982-1990)

John F. Lehman: Secretary of the Navy under Reagan from 1981 till 1987, and a 25 year naval Reservist.

James R. Thompson: Illinois' longest-serving governor (1977-1991)


Next, add Mansoor Ijaz, the actual source of the details of the negotiations to the list of people they have to call a liar.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200404150832.
. . . Rosslyn, Virginia, March 3, 1996. In late 1995, CIA Director John Deutsch withdrew over 100 fabricated intelligence reports on Sudan's alleged terrorist threats against U.S. diplomats, spies, and their children in Khartoum. In January 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher ordered the U.S. embassy in Khartoum closed on the basis of that bad intelligence over the objections of US Ambassador Tim Carney. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister El Fatih Erwa secretly met Carney, State Department official David Shinn, and a senior CIA Africa officer at a Rosslyn, Virginia, hotel. After receiving a list of eight demands from the CIA, of which providing detailed intelligence data and assessments on bin Laden and his al Qaeda followers was number two, Erwa reiterated Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Carney had received a similar proposal during his Khartoum exit interview with Sudan's foreign minister a month earlier. President Clinton, hoping the Saudi king would take bin Laden back and swiftly behead him, called Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, to vet the proposal. The Saudis said no, again. Erwa asked for a second meeting five days later.

Alexandria, Virginia, March 8, 1996. With only Erwa and the CIA Africa officer present during the second meeting, Sudan first offered to increase surveillance and hand over intelligence on bin Laden and his associates. Deemed insufficient to reflect the hard line Washington wanted to take with Sudan, Erwa made another offer. He told the CIA officer that if the U.S. could show cause through an indictment that bin Laden was complicit in or guilty of committing terrorist acts against Americans and the Justice Department was willing to try him on U.S. soil, Sudan would hand him over to U.S. authorities. The CIA officer's account of this meeting matches Erwa's and has been recounted in Richard Miniter's New York Times bestseller, Losing Bin Laden. There is no question that a prima facia offer was made. The question is how was it handled by the U.S. government's various organs once it was made.

Where is the gap of understanding in what the commission reported to the American people and what really happened? Nothing less than the very failure the commission was charged with trying to uncover, understand, and prevent in the future. An intelligence officer of the U.S. government received the offer, not a political official from the Clinton administration. The CIA officer was neither empowered to respond, nor inclined to take a controversial, perhaps not believable proposal from the representative of a pariah state to his superiors whom he knew were engaged in a war of words with the Clinton White House at the time. The offer was, quite literally, left on the table in that Virginia hotel room. . .


And if they want to take each sentence on the Clinton “Tape” literally; like the “They released him” sentence; they have to believe that the Sudan had bin Laden in Custody, and there is NO supporting evidence for that, even on Crazy Rightwing sites.


Then they have to believe that there is a Mega Conspiracy at the CIA to hide the truth; because none of the, oh so many, ‘off the record leaks’ or he books written by retired agent, have even hinted that this story is true.


Next they have to decide if Hannity, a regular repeater of this Sudan Kie, was lying on his Radio Program when he said that the 9-11 Commission had "gathered" evidence "backing up the allegation"; or if he was lying 2 days on Hannity & Colmes when he claimed the commission had "ignored" the allegation. (If they ignored it, they could not have ‘gathered’ the evidence, lol)

Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

60 Minutes has delivered a nice knockout punch on this - Transcript - Video - CBS Site

I think that interview has proven by any shadow of doubt that invading Iraq was a policy decision and a bad one at that.

But more importantly, it has shown how totally inept, corrupt, and laughable the Robb-Silverman Commission was/is. I thought it was bogus enough when Pat Roberts, Chris Bond, and Orrin Hatch (3 republicans) tacked on an addendum to dispute a few minor points about Joe Wilson (which incidentally was contested by others on the panel but the republicans rejected the request for a revote), but now to learn that Drumheller was interviewed 3 times by the commission with no mention of any of them in the report.

I can't see how this latest revelation can allow anybody to believe that the Iraq war is based on bad policy - not bad intel. And the 911 commission? As bogus as everything else in congress.

Consider....



...and the reason we would take this at face value, given his position as Iraq's foreign minister, of all things, is...?????? Or are we somehow now taking the stance that whenever a foreign minister tells us something that clearly fits in with his own domestic agenda, that we always just take it at face value?

Then consider that he only said Iraq had no active WMD program. Which of course says not a thing about having any inactive, but easily restarted when the heat dies down WMD programs, does it? The 9-11 commission report clearly stated that this was indeed Saddam's intention.

Then further consider:



Looking for evidencde to fit their policy. Hmmmm....this would make them, what...the same as any administration, in any country, during any period of time, ever? WMD was NEVER the sole reason for the invasion. It was simply the one chosen to take to the UN. As I have stated in other, similar threads...can anyone name one point in time, ever, where any war has ever been started with anything approaching full disclosure?

Then finally consider that looking for evidence to fit their policy is precisely what those opposed to the war are doing as well (as all humans do), which has me confused...who is the kettle, and who is the pot?

We don't need to look for evidence to fit our "policy" of not waging war on these countries--I would say that the mounting toll of deaths and serious injuries sustained during the occupation of the "liberated" Iraq serves as well as anything. I would also say that the serious criticism of the Secretary of Defense by no less than six retired generals would also attest to the veracity of our stance.

Our stance against the war did not involve falsehoods. Bush's reasons for waging war changed and changed and changed again as the evidence failed to be uncovered.

I am glad, Hobbes, that you recognize that such tactics of the Bush administration--ignoring or discounting the intelligence they had previously sought and on which they based their bloodlust to attack Iraq--were as common and ignoble as they come in recorded history. I wouldn't want to confuse the motives of the United States with something purer or more altruistic. Since everybody's doin' it, it must be okay, right? Except that I was raised to believe that our country held itself to a higher standard. Using "evidence" that had been disproven was dishonest, and if going to war was the right decision, it shouldn't have been necessary.

This simply does not fit with other evidence that we have.

Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'


I think there was obviously conflicting evidence about WMDs in Iraq, but saying "well, that's it then" is simply short-sighted.

IF Tenet told Bush in the "Fall of 2002" that Iraq did not have WMDs, how could he say in December 2002 that the case was a "slam dunk"?

Most likely, what he told Bush in the "fall of 2002" was that there are reports from Iraq administration officials that Iraq does not have an active WMD program. Big surprise there.

Who is this Naji Sabri anyway? Naji_Sabri

Ah yes, the point man on lobbying Russia, India, China and even Iran to oppose the US.

Oh wait, and here's a juicy tidbit: Naji Sabri was the guy, who the US did not deal with directly but dealt with through the French, that told us that he could give us details about Iraq's WMD programs, including it's "poison gas" stockpiles.



So should we believe him when he tells us there is no program, or should we believe him when he tells us (for money) that there is one?

I'm sorry, but this is not a "slam dunk" by any means.

I partly agree. This is but a piece in the puzzle. But I honestly have to ask, Amlord. How many stories do we have to receive about this administration willingly and openly dismissing first hand any intel that didn't jive with their desire for war before we make an effort to actually hold this administration truly accountable for their actions?

If members of the Bush Administration were truly guilty of Stovepiping, aren't they culpable to some degree?

We keep getting these reports from a variety of credible sources. See enough smoke and you begin to suspect fire. Unfortunately we can't rely on a GOP backed Congress to investigate this properly, especially with Pat Roberts leading the charge.

Blaming an entire war on George "Slam Dunk" Tenet doesn't work. Nor does the refrain of "everyone else thought he did too". We had the burden of proof because we were the nation seeking, no, demanding, regime change and war. And more and more reports seem to come out pointing the finger directly at Cheney's office and the PNAC warhawks. When does someone actually get held accountable for these failures. Or do we have to wait until 2008 for another "regime change"?

My dear Hobbes, it is the supporters of the invasion of Iraq that are the pot and those whom opposed it that are the kettle. Despite your claim that they both occupy equal footing upon the rock of credibility, the invasion supporters are hanging on to the slippery side of that rock by their fingernails.

The most important decision a Chief Executive can make is to lead a nation into war. It would be helpful if the reasons WHY the nation is going to war happen to be valid. They were not. The Bush Administration favored the intelligence that justified attacking Iraq and ignored the intelligence that did not support invasion.

It's easier to blame anonymous, faceless spies and bureaucrats in the intelligence agency than George W. Bush, but at the end of day he (supposedly) is the guy who makes the final decision. But the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been reached long before the plan was put into action. In other words, the policy was set long before the intelligence to support it.

It is evident that for the die-hard Bush supporters, nothing less than an open admission from the lips of the President that we were going into to Iraq come hell or high water will ever convince them. For them Joe Wilson and Tyler Drumheller are just ticked-off bureaucrats with axes to grind or books to shill.

Yes, Hobbes, most humans do opt to embrace "evidence" that supports our previously held beliefs instead of challenging them. You've proven the Bush Administration was human in cherry-picking only information that supported the policy. You haven't proven the information or the policy was right.

That burden of proof rests exclusively and a bit heavily upon the shoulders of those who supported this misbegotten, mistake of a war.

Isn't it just a bit ironic that we're once again debating the reasons for the war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden once again sticks his head out of his rathole just long enough to remind us that he's still not dead, still not caught and still not punished for September 11, 2001?

There's your "intelligence failure" right there.

Heh, yeah, wasn't that expected as the polls look bad and elections come up? How convenient to keep OBL at large. Makes me suspect that he is kept at large on purpose to work the fear spin, but of course there is the little thing about being buddies with the bin Laden family.

OBL calls for all Muslims to reject Western goods and services. I can get on board with that -- especially explosives and ammunition.

This recent revelation needs to be added to the mountain of accumulated indications that Bush and the war party operating out of the Office of the Vice President and the Defense Department not only pressured intelligence agencies to make a case for Iraqi WMDs and al Qaeda connections but also cherry picked the intelligence they did receive.

(See AFP Report on CBS 60 Minutes Interview).

Are we going to allow the neocrazies to get away with it again to intigate a war with Iran?

Fixed quote. -Amlord

I suppose you didn't read the article and find out who Tyler Drumheller actually is? He was the CIA head honcho in Europe, right in the thick of things, working with our allies and those we wanted to be our allies in the run up to the war.

His words match the words of Richard Dearlove (link) also known as "C", the former head of MI6.


There you have it, two of the most well positioned men to be in the know, from both US and British agencies confirming this. If you can't believe it with the mountain of evidence that has presented itself over the past months then I don't think you ever will.

And when you look at it with hindsight, it doesn't matter whether you think his Iraqi asset was credible, he turned out to be right.

The fact that becomes more clear each day is that Bush was not mislead by the intelligence, he mislead the intelligence.

Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

I don't really think so although perhaps one needs to qualify that. When Tennet comes in and says it is a "slam dunk" that SH has WMDs one could guess that provided Bush with an added inducement to believe what he was already predisposed to believe.

It appears that Bush was persuaded by the very activist PNAC folks from the earliest days of his administration that forcing a regime change in Iraq was essential and it had little to do with WMDs. It was in the words of Cheney the "doable" first approach to converting the ME into a Western friendly democratic region that would not be an incubator of terrorists, would be business friendly and would get along with Israel. 911 opened the door to activating the regime change policy.

One could take both the position that Bush lied or did not lie. He lied in the sense that he showed a reckless disregard for the evidence that was presented him about WMDs and an Al Qaeda connection. On the other hand he appears to have convinced himself nevertheless that Saddam had WMDs and a working relationship with Al Qaeda. Of course he had one ace in the hole that Ted likes to beat to death. Saddam couldn't prove he hadn't destroyed earlier known WMDs because he no longer had records of the destruction. In other words he couldn't answer the question "prove you don't have something." Well that's what we had inspectors for. But that along with a lot of cherry picked often self-developed(See my thread called "Stacking the deck on intelligence") misinformation provided the BA with the excuse to do what they intended to do, WMDs be damned.

So to answer the question in a meaningful sense, no Bush wasn't mislead in my opinion.

The order makes no difference, the point being the similarity in the accusation.



I believe they were. Remember, as I said previously, WMD was NEVER the sole reason for the invasion. As I have stated repeatedly on this issue, there were a variety of reasons. This thread doesn't deal with any of the others, so to use it to say the reasons for war are invalid holds no weight.



Again, this statement is assuming WMD was the only factor, when it was far, far from it. So, to claim that the intelligence didn't fit the policy would require a great deal more evidence, covering a much wider set of factors. Not the least of which is that sanctions were simply not supportable indefinitely, yet the only way to remove them was to remove Saddam's regime...and the only way to do that was by force. ALL of that intelligence fit the policy. Ditto for most of the other reasons I cited previously for the war, as well. Even for WMD itself, the threat never required the actual existence to be valid. The entire world agreed prior to the invasion that Saddam was indeed pursuing WMD programs...in fact, the intelligence AFTER the invasion continues to support that. Given this, the entire WMD discussion, at this point, is trivial.



Actually, in all the various Iraqi threads covering this topic, I think I have. Personally, where I think the 'intelligence failure' occurred had nothing to do with WMD, but much more so with how to extricate themselves after the invasion. All of the various factors leading to the war carried with them a 'cost' if they weren't acted upon. Unfortunately, the cost of acting on them wasn't nearly sufficiently realized. This would be a much more relevant and fruitful topic than WMD...but, alas, everyone seems to want to focus on that, despite the fact that it is old news by now.



Ah, you mean Congress?



No argument there....

My point in this is that focusing on WMD ignores the majority of the reasons for the war. For those opposed to the war...don't you think it important enough to actually examine ALL the reasons leading to the decision, rather than focusing on just this one? While focusing on WMD might make good political fodder, it only scratches the surface of all of the reasons leading up to the conflict. Leaving those untouched leaves open the possibility of something similar recurring. I would think the point for those opposed would be to avoid that, would it not?

Hobbes - somebody is lying and it's either you or Bush. I'll let you choose.

After the war started:

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003


And from this transcript:
.

The point with the above statement meaning that Bush gave Saddam the opportunity to avoid military action if he disarmed. Bush was clear to give Saddam this "choice" just before the war. If this war was about more than WMD, Bush lied to everybody in the world.

Moreover, that transcript has so many out and out lies, it's pathetic. We have witnesses and corroborating evidence that Iraq was a policy decision - not self defense. Saddam said he was not armed, many in the CIA said he was not armed, Saddam gave 15,000 pages of documents to try to prove he was not armed, and he gave complete unfettered access to UN inspectors last time to see for themselves. Clearly, Saddam Hussein is more truthful and credible then George W. Bush. You might be ok with that. I'm not.

The "this war wasn't only about WMD" is revisionism at it's worst.

edited to add: Additional clarification, spelling, etc.

I fully agree with that. And speaking of those who supported this "misbegotten, mistake of a war," I find it highly ironic that so many of the war's original supporters are saying, "It was a good idea, but the Admistration made mistakes x, y and z to spoil it all; continuing the war now is a bad idea." I suppose it is better late than never that these people came to grips with reality, but as one who vigorously opposed the war and joined many public demonstrations against it, it is simply exasperating that the very likely outcomes to which we war opponents were pointing then, having occurred, are now treated as surprising!

Who could have guessed that no weapons of mass destruction would be found? That there would be a vigorous insurgency? That the Iraqi oil supply would not be reliable? That the average Iraqi would hate our guts? That the expenditure of blood and treasure would be so great? Who could have guessed, indeed!

Thomas L. Friedman is one of the worst, but there are thousands of them. God, the hypocrisy! Has even one of these people had the guts to say, "Just like the Administration, I failed to foresee the obvious?"

I am happy that John Kerry finally calls for withdrawal, but in November 2003 I had to hold my nose to vote for a man who said then that he had a "smarter plan to win in Iraq" than Bush did. Really, if all the courage and leadership of the Democrats were squeezed out of the lot of them, it would not fill a thimble. The same is true of the Republicans in Congress, of course, but at least they have the excuse of having followed their leader.

DR, are you really stating that you truly believe that statements from a press secretary should be considered the full and unabridged story on a subject? If so, then I'm afraid I don't really have any platform from which to continue the discussion. If not, then the statement is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Either way...nothing to discuss.

I'm not sure why this concept seems so difficult to grasp, but I'll try and point it out one final time. What drove the decision, and what drove the message regarding the decision ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. Using statements regarding the latter has no real bearing on the former.



Sigh....Apparently the nuances of foreign policy are elusive. If this constitutes a lie, well, then, I'm open to your list of any politician, anywhere, anytime, that has managed to avoid this. Here's a hint...there won't be any on it. Further, I'm still waiting for anyone to provide an example, anytime, anywhere, from any administration, ever, where full disclosure was given to the citizens prior to a war. Here's another hint...that list also has no members. Therefore, anyone expecting any different behaviour is either hopelessly naive, or seriously lacking in historical precedent. I guess this time the choice is yours.



I have ALWAYS stated this war was about much more than WMD, from even before the war started. Not sure how that's revisionism.

I'm still not sure exactly what the discussion here is about. Were the reasons for going to war likely more complex than those stated? Yes. Is this news? Hardly. This should have been thought of by anyone prior to the war, and has been officially discussed and released since then (and quite some time ago). So, again...I'm really at a loss as to what the real point of this discussion is. However, any further discussion of the topic needs to separate the decision from the message. Is it really the message that bothers those against the war, or the decision? I would think the decision would carry far greater weight, yet all that anyone seems to want to discuss is the message. Failure to discuss the decision makes similar future decisions easy to repeat. Is that really what those opposed to the war want? I would think not.

Well allowing for some oversimplification I would be inclined to agree that there is some distinction to be made.
1. Decision driver - PNAC.
2. Message driver - WMDs.

Given the supposed lessons of history that should mollify those who feel they were suckered in. Is that the point?