Pre-war intel

[SonomaCat]

I guess this just backs up what many people already suspected. We were going to war one way or another -- the "evidence" we were provided was only window dressing made up to justify our actions.

I hope history looks back upon that charade as a brilliant stroke of political manuevering instead of the many worse alternatives.

So it never was really about weapons of mass destruction, and most everybody realizes that the "terrorism" line of argument was/is complete B.S.

It is almost a cliche, but it is amazing now to me that Clinton was nearly impeached over lying about getting a blowjob, but when Bush lied about the rationale for going to war and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, we are expected (in the name of patriotism, strangely) to turn our heads and accept a morphing set of reasons to retroactively justify our invasion. Strange, indeed. Looking at our recent history without the benefit of cheering for either political party is painful stuff.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... CON9Q1.DTL

I just hope we can make this whole Iraq thing work out okay and that history (and not just the sanitized American hero-worship history books we use in our high schools) will be kind to us as the years pass.

[Hell's Bells]

I guess this just backs up what many people already suspected. We were going to war one way or another -- the "evidence" we were provided was only window dressing made up to justify our actions.

I hope history looks back upon that charade as a brilliant stroke of political manuevering instead of the many worse alternatives.

So it never was really about weapons of mass destruction, and most everybody realizes that the "terrorism" line of argument was/is complete B.S.

It is almost a cliche, but it is amazing now to me that Clinton was nearly impeached over lying about getting a blowjob, but when Bush lied about the rationale for going to war and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, we are expected (in the name of patriotism, strangely) to turn our heads and accept a morphing set of reasons to retroactively justify our invasion. Strange, indeed. Looking at our recent history without the benefit of cheering for either political party is painful stuff.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... CON9Q1.DTL

I just hope we can make this whole Iraq thing work out okay and that history (and not just the sanitized American hero-worship history books we use in our high schools) will be kind to us as the years pass.

first of all WMD's arent the only reason why we went to war in Iraq BAC. Are you saying that you would much rather have Sadam Hussein run Iraq? As the saying goes at least he made the trains run on time. I still remember the story of what happened once he assumed power. He shot a couple of congressmen. Iraq use to be a middle east mecca where the middle class reigned supreme and would kick every bodies butt in the olympics...although not a juggernot mind you. I find it ironic that iraq has a good soccer team once Hussein is out of power. Dont even start to mention about how dangerous iraq is. Yes it is, but so is South Central Los Angelos, drunk driving, hunting with bob knight, and cancer. I wonder what the outcry would be if the Old York TImes decided to highlight how many people died in Compton, of cancer, or while being shot by bob knight. I tell ya we would have a cancer cure tomorrow. Historically the casualities in the Iraq war are so low it is embrassing. a 2 year war with only 1000 casualities? More people die while driving drunk BAC.

secondly i bet if you are a compassionate human being like i think you are, i bet you are waiting for the day iraq execuites hussein, its going to happen you read it here first.

[El_Gato]

BAC,

I will agree with you that our pre-war intelligence was severly flawed but are you honestly saying that Bush KNEW there were no WMD's?

[SonomaCat]

I guess this just backs up what many people already suspected. We were going to war one way or another -- the "evidence" we were provided was only window dressing made up to justify our actions.

I hope history looks back upon that charade as a brilliant stroke of political manuevering instead of the many worse alternatives.

So it never was really about weapons of mass destruction, and most everybody realizes that the "terrorism" line of argument was/is complete B.S.

It is almost a cliche, but it is amazing now to me that Clinton was nearly impeached over lying about getting a blowjob, but when Bush lied about the rationale for going to war and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, we are expected (in the name of patriotism, strangely) to turn our heads and accept a morphing set of reasons to retroactively justify our invasion. Strange, indeed. Looking at our recent history without the benefit of cheering for either political party is painful stuff.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... CON9Q1.DTL

I just hope we can make this whole Iraq thing work out okay and that history (and not just the sanitized American hero-worship history books we use in our high schools) will be kind to us as the years pass.

first of all WMD's arent the only reason why we went to war in Iraq BAC. Are you saying that you would much rather have Sadam Hussein run Iraq? As the saying goes at least he made the trains run on time. I still remember the story of what happened once he assumed power. He shot a couple of congressmen. Iraq use to be a middle east mecca where the middle class reigned supreme and would kick every bodies butt in the olympics...although not a juggernot mind you. I find it ironic that iraq has a good soccer team once Hussein is out of power. Dont even start to mention about how dangerous iraq is. Yes it is, but so is South Central Los Angelos, drunk driving, hunting with bob knight, and cancer. I wonder what the outcry would be if the Old York TImes decided to highlight how many people died in Compton, of cancer, or while being shot by bob knight. I tell ya we would have a cancer cure tomorrow. Historically the casualities in the Iraq war are so low it is embrassing. a 2 year war with only 1000 casualities? More people die while driving drunk BAC.

secondly i bet if you are a compassionate human being like i think you are, i bet you are waiting for the day iraq execuites hussein, its going to happen you read it here first.

WMD were THE reason we went to war per what we were told at the time. It was NOT marketed as a humanitarian mission. In fact, we were explicitly told by Bush during his campaign that he didn't believe in nation building, blah, blah, blah.

Were it not for the lies about WMD, we would NOT have gone to war -- it wouldn't have had popular support.

That's the thing that bugs me so much about this whole thing. All of this stuff is obvious to everyone who is willing to hear it (and willing to get their news from a source other than the Republicans cheer squad), and people should at least be pissed about being lied to (while still supporting the current war effort, of course, because once it was started, it had to be completed). Instead, people are just accepting one new justification after another (WMD? Nope. Terrorists? Gee, I guess that was bogus, too. How about "Freedom?" Hurray! Let's all wave little flags and hugs our SUV!) for why we are at war without scratching their heads and saying, "Gee, it seems strange that this wasn't the reason we were told for the war from the start."

And no, I'm not disappointed that Saddam is out of power, but that is a pointless argument. There are many world leaders that I want out of power, but that doesn't mean that I want our President to manufacture false reasons to invade their country and push them out of power. If we want to do that, then just say that's what we want to do (and then see if the people of the U.S. are willing to sacrifice a couple thousand soldiers' lives for that particular cause). In other words, be HONEST about it.

Unfortunately, too many people are perfectly willing to be lied to and apparently don't care ... unless it is about a blowjob for a guy from the "other" political party.

One question for you, hb, to test your "it wasn't about the WMD argument": In your opinion, would the U.S. have invaded Iraq if Bush had announced prior to the invasion that their intelligence, upon further review, showed that the chance of Iraq having WMD was low to nonexistent? Do you honestly think we would have still invaded? These are the kinds of questions one must ask to really force ourselves to understand how this whole deceptive process went down.

And, further, even if you can say "the ends justify the means" (meaning that it was a good set of lies because it put us into a noble war against a bad guy), are you willing to let this stand as a precedent for future actions by sitting presidents, including those of other political parties? Are you willing to allow a future Democrat the right to manufacture evidence to justify their own personal wars (say, in Africa), or would you see that as wrong?

[WYCAT]

Well at least you are staying consistent BAC. It has been at least a week now without you supplying a lengthly basting of our president. For over a year now I think everyone has admitted the pre-war intelligence was way off base - no one is arguing that. The same intelligence, by the way, that all of congress saw before they voted as they did. Like I said, thanks for at least staying consistent.

[SonomaCat]

BAC,

I will agree with you that our pre-war intelligence was severly flawed but are you honestly saying that Bush KNEW there were no WMD's?

The more I read, the more it seems to point to the conclusion that everybody who was intimately involved in the war planning process knew that the evidence they were relying upon was shaky, and that they had to pick and choose selected intel (while ignoring contradicting intel) to even begin to argue that there was a WMD threat.

It appears quite certain that WMD were merely a means to an end, and not the true reason for the desire to go to war. That's what really bothers me, because I trusted our leaders when they told me of the WMD "threat" (and I supported the invasion on those terms) and I feel as though I was lied to.

If Bush himself wasn't aware of this shaky intel, then either he wasn't really running things, or the Bush-hater charges about his cognitive abilities are more true that I would like to think.

[SonomaCat]

Well at least you are staying consistent BAC. It has been at least a week now without you supplying a lengthly basting of our president. For over a year now I think everyone has admitted the pre-war intelligence was way off base - no one is arguing that. The same intelligence, by the way, that all of congress saw before they voted as they did. Like I said, thanks for at least staying consistent.

Ummm, yeah. Congress was shown the intel as filtered by those planning the war. We really can't hide behind that argument anymore. The people to blame are the ones who controlled the intel. That would be the administration.

I only blast the President for things that deserve blasting, consistent with my treatment of anyone in office. It's certainly not a partisan thing with me, so I take pride in that piece of consistency.

[WYCAT]

It's certainly not a partisan thing with me, so I take pride in that piece of consistency.

Yea right. I will remember that 4, 8, 12, whatever years from now. Maybe you should run for office yourself BAC. You seem to have all the answers to the "tough" issues (especially after the dust has settled) and obviously enjoy the power that comes with a high position, such as being the administrator of this board. Give me a preview of your campaign platform - but don't use the Bush sucks angle. Your hero tried that a few months ago with poor results.

[mquast53000]

I would say that mustard gas that Saddam had was a WMD. How many Kuwaitis did he kill in Desert Storm with that stuff? 100K? Biological weapons ARE WMDs. Look at the congress votes, EVERYONE across both party lines thought that there were WMDs. I can guarantee that no Democrat congressmen voted to give Bush power to invade Iraqi without convincing non-partisan intelligence.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Technically, Iraq was invaded because they did not allow UN Inspectors back in (i.e., the "ultimatum" that was referenced in the above article) to determine, conclusively, whether there were WMDs, or not. So, technically, the US and British leaders weren't lying. They were simply providing the circumstantial evidence, and then made the argument to remove hussein.

If you remember, we all saw the aerial photos of the reported WMD facilities, but we never did see the actual WMDs. The Administration never said that they had "physically observed WMDs." They always said that the preponderance of the evidence suggested that hussein had WMDs...and we believed them, because we believed our eyes, and a reasonable person, which we believe us to be, would conclude that WMDs existed based on the evidence available.

The decision by hussein to flip off the UN was just the final piece of evidence that he was hiding something. 80% of Americans believed the same thing, and we didn't have the intel. There was only circumstantial evidence of WMDs, and no one can dispute that. The Administration doesn't even dispute that. Hussein was given the "ultimatum", and because he rejected Inspectors, the invasion was a foregone conclusion.

Personally, I believe that a bad guy was prevented from obtaining WMDs. We'll never know what would have happened if the world was still "negotiating" with hussein. That's the problem with "intervention."

However, I also think the invasion has made it clear to the DPRK, Iran, Syria and Libya that they had better either develop WMDs as soon as possible, or face the same consequences as hussein. That was downside.

Finally, I find it very ironic that it was British intelligence that actually had the most damning evidence against Iraq. We now know that that intel was supposedly bogus. Why then, would we now believe British "information" that clearly throws the US under the bus? I think that, quite possibly, the Brits leaked this "memo" on purpsoe to make themselves look better. So of course, Blair isn't going to dispute the authenticity of the memo! That's a no brainer!

So, BAC, while you entitled to believe that you were lied to, I would ask you to consder (and this is maybe why you're are pissed off) that you actually assumed the same things we all did...and now we know that we made the proverbial "ass out of you and me."

On the Clinton thing: Clinton admitted to lying under oath (which was felony) - that was the cause for impeachment, not that he got a BJ. That's an easy one to forget, though.

[jagur1]

"DPRK, Iran, Syria and Libya" One note I think Libya gave up & offered to play nice.

[SonomaCat]

It's certainly not a partisan thing with me, so I take pride in that piece of consistency.

Yea right. I will remember that 4, 8, 12, whatever years from now. Maybe you should run for office yourself BAC. You seem to have all the answers to the "tough" issues (especially after the dust has settled) and obviously enjoy the power that comes with a high position, such as being the administrator of this board. Give me a preview of your campaign platform - but don't use the Bush sucks angle. Your hero tried that a few months ago with poor results.

Hmmm. Well, I voted for Bush the first time around, and I am still currently a registered Republican. I voted for Arnold and most of the Republican candidates in the California elections, and I spent a lot of time and energy arguing in favor of invading Iraq to my more anti-Bush friends on the front-end (before I realized that we were being lied to). Unfortunately, it turned out that they were right and I was wrong ... and I hate it when that happens.

So when I say that I'm coming from a non-partisan position, believe it. I'm not anti-Republican or anti-Democrat. I'm anti-bad policy.

It is possible, and in my opinion actually necessary, that people, regardless of their political party, be honest in their assessments of our leadership. Why you seem to think that such critical thought is only possible from a partisanship-motivated position is beyond me.

I can't run for office. I'm too honest. I'm not patting myself on the back as I think most people fit this bill -- I just see too much intellectually dishonest rhetoric from both sides to realize that telling the whole truth on any issue seems to be setting oneself up for political failure.

[iaafan]

Hahahahahaha...... Good luck with this bunch BAC. Nixon didn't really have anything to do with Watergate and Bush didn't lie. I'm going out to the garage to start warming my mind-control and Hitler posts. Yippee!

[SonomaCat]

I would say that mustard gas that Saddam had was a WMD. How many Kuwaitis did he kill in Desert Storm with that stuff? 100K? Biological weapons ARE WMDs. Look at the congress votes, EVERYONE across both party lines thought that there were WMDs. I can guarantee that no Democrat congressmen voted to give Bush power to invade Iraqi without convincing non-partisan intelligence.

Again, who provided the intelligence? They saw what was presented to them, post-massage.

[SonomaCat]

Finally, I find it very ironic that it was British intelligence that actually had the most damning evidence against Iraq. We now know that that intel was supposedly bogus. Why then, would we now believe British "information" that clearly throws the US under the bus? I think that, quite possibly, the Brits leaked this "memo" on purpsoe to make themselves look better. So of course, Blair isn't going to dispute the authenticity of the memo! That's a no brainer!

So, BAC, while you entitled to believe that you were lied to, I would ask you to consder (and this is maybe why you're are pissed off) that you actually assumed the same things we all did...and now we know that we made the proverbial "ass out of you and me."

On the Clinton thing: Clinton admitted to lying under oath (which was felony) - that was the cause for impeachment, not that he got a BJ. That's an easy one to forget, though.

That memo almost cost Blair this last election -- if anything it was leaked to cost him his office. It was not in his best interest for that info to be public information, so I find it highly unlikely that Blair is misrepresenting its authenticity to cover himself.

I agree with your second paragraph -- that's exactly why I am pissed. I did make those same assumptions, but only under strong, strong, strong suggestion of the White House. We now know that they didn't really believe it themselves at the time, so I do feel like an ass for having made up my mind based on what they told us. True, they didn't say that there was a 100% liklihood that there were WMD, but they did everything short of that, knowing full well that they were probably wrong. That chaps me.

I am in agreement about the Clinton impeachment. I think that's how I phrased it as well. He lied about the blowjob, and that was the cause of two years of scandal mongering and government funded independent investigations. People lie about/exagerrate/misrepresent/botch (pick whatever term works best) WMD intel, and we don't even bat an eye. That inconsistency disturbs me. If nothing else, shouldn't there at least the same level of scrutiny for both events?

[iaafan]

Therestrecken vill nyot be clos skrutiny of Herr Bush. Bush vill be vindicated uff all klaims. Zig Heil der BushenReich!!

[SonomaCat]

Hahahahahaha...... Good luck with this bunch BAC. Nixon didn't really have anything to do with Watergate and Bush didn't lie. I'm going out to the garage to start warming my mind-control and Hitler posts. Yippee!

Please let the engine stay cold on the Hitler posts.... As long as people are thinking about this kind of stuff and constantly questioning everything around them (regardless of party) and coming to their own informed conclusions, then I'm happy. I respect well thought-out opinions and positions (like BBG's). I just like to shake things up a bit and force that on people to make sure that everybody's awake.

[iaafan]

Well, OK. But it won't be easy.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Scrutiny from whom? As I recall, that loudmouth from Vermont was about the only guy who voted against the use of force. If memory serves, I think there were a total of 3 nay votes in the House.

If anyone tries to scrutinize, all they'll accomplish is dumping a big pile of "you know what" on themselves. Political suicide only works in Hollywood.

Unlike you, I'm not pissed that I jumped to the wrong conclusions. I'm a "greater good" type person. So, I've clearly justified the invasion in my own mind based on the fact that I believe the world is a better place, and will continue to get better...even in spite of the daily bloodshed.

Off topic: Am I wrong, or doesn't Afghanistan and Iraq remind you of the old west? At least to me they do given what I've read about the American West. I think we'll start hearing more about vigilante groups and "Judge Roy Beans" in the future. One thing that has really been under the radar in both countries are the various militias that are operating.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Therestrecken vill nyot be clos skrutiny of Herr Bush. Bush vill be vindicated uff all klaims. Zig Heil der BushenReich!!

I think it would be impossible, even for Bush, to "sell" Americans that we need more "lebenraum" in Iraq and Afghanistan for cryin' out loud! I would impeach him just for that!

Hitler comparisons have got to be the most tired-est old-est analogy known to mankind...it's just weak.