24-01-2004 19:28									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse The wmd claims remind me of the way Hitler always claimed little countries had attacked Germany just about an hour before the unprovoked surprise attack was launched. It's also just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which North Vietnam was claimed to have fired on US navy ships. The U.S. used this to justify intervention in Vietnam. It never happened. Oh well - they are paying for it now. The whole war is a just a big pack of lies.

The intervention that was justified never happened and that is why Johnson failed.

It was not VC boats that attacked us.

It was North Vietnamese boats.

	24-01-2004 19:38									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Johnson lied about the second torpedo attack, which is what he used to justify retaliation. Everyone who was there has avvered there was no second attack, that they were just shooting at non-existant targets. Johnson didn't care that the incident was fictional, he still used it as justification for escalation.

"For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." - LBJ. Yeah, that's great justification or a war there.

And Admiral Stockdale, who was a witness to the events, wrote in his 1984 book that there was nothing there, except American firepower.

As to the first Tonkin incident, it was certainly provoked:

"There have been some covert operations in that (Tonkin Gulf) area that we have been carrying on - blowing up some bridges and things of that kind, roads and so forth. So I imagine (the North Vietnamese) wanted to put a stop to it." - LBJ

And I'll leave with this all-too familiar thought:

"In Retrospect, many of the people who were associated with the war ..... were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing. ....." - former Undersecretary of State George Ball

Last edited by Boris Godunov on 24-01-2004 at 19:49

	24-01-2004 19:38									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ned, I don't care if Bush actively lied or is just incompetent. The point is, he propagated informations THAT WASN'T TRUE. Hundreds of Americans are dead and billions of dollars are wasted. VP Cheney's Halliburton is stealing tax payer money (even admitting it now) and still no one seems to care.

The fact is Ned, Bush wasn't telling the truth. In my book, I don't care if he put "British Intelligence said..." in front of his lies. They are still lies. He's still a criminal. And he should be hanging at the end of a rope for the treasonous acts he's committed (after a trial of course).

	24-01-2004 19:56									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Better yet, throw him from a helicopter...

	24-01-2004 20:09									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sava, the problem with your position is that Clinton said the same things as Bush. Ditto the entire Democrat party leadership, cabinet and Congress. Also, they continued to say it during the Bush administration. Witness the oft quoted Clark testimony.

And did you ever hear Hillary's speech in favor of the war.

If Bush is a liar, so is Bill Clinton and all the Democrat leadership of that era, and Hillary Clinton and General Clark.

If Bush is a liar, so is Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.

If Bush is a liar, so is Senator Kerry who supported the war and argued in its favor once upon a time.

This Bush is a liar mantra is pure politics.

	24-01-2004 20:10									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Boris, I have no doubts that some of the Tonkin Gulf incident was fiction.

But it was clear we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong.

That was my point.

	24-01-2004 20:31									#37
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one.

As for Bush, considering Tenet personally intervened in October 2002 to stop Bush from making any references to the Nigerian yellow cake claim in a speech in Cincinatti, and at that time the NIE had concluded that the claims of the material was "highly dubious," I'd say it's inclusion in the SotU address was a calculated lie, undoubtedly. The CIA had a conniption fit when they got the first draft of the speech over those claims. But since Bush was hell-bent on saying, it, they could only get the compromise that the intelligence be pinned on the British instead of the U.S. agency. When Bush said "British Intelligence has learned..." he was practicing deliberate deceit, because he and his staff, and the CIA, knew it had been first a CIA information-gathering mission (and that the British were using CIA info), and they knew the claims were unfounded.

Did Bush want to believe the reports? Sure, but that doesn't excuse him for using what was known to be unfounded claims in his SotU address to frighten Americans into supporting a war he had been wanting since before he took office.

Frankly, to make Bush's statements "true," you'd have to do the kind of semantical hair-splitting that made Clinton's statements about the word "is" true.

	24-01-2004 20:50									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole.

I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error.

Note - I was given the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts show.



edit: spelling

Last edited by Wezil on 24-01-2004 at 21:35

	24-01-2004 21:01									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov As for Bush, considering Tenet personally intervened in October 2002 to stop Bush from making any references to the Nigerian yellow cake claim in a speech in Cincinatti, and at that time the NIE had concluded that the claims of the material was "highly dubious," I'd say it's inclusion in the SotU address was a calculated lie, undoubtedly. The CIA had a conniption fit when they got the first draft of the speech over those claims. But since Bush was hell-bent on saying, it, they could only get the compromise that the intelligence be pinned on the British instead of the U.S. agency. When Bush said "British Intelligence has learned..." he was practicing deliberate deceit, because he and his staff, and the CIA, knew it had been first a CIA information-gathering mission (and that the British were using CIA info), and they knew the claims were unfounded. Did Bush want to believe the reports? Sure, but that doesn't excuse him for using what was known to be unfounded claims in his SotU address to frighten Americans into supporting a war he had been wanting since before he took office. Frankly, to make Bush's statements "true," you'd have to do the kind of semantical hair-splitting that made Clinton's statements about the word "is" true.

George Tenet did not read the state of the Union draft. Had he done his job properly, I am sure that Bush would not have included the reference to Niger in his speech.

However I am equally a sure that Bush would still have pursued Saddam Hussein and that events would have unfold as they did. The Niger evidence was not critical to the overall debate.

	24-01-2004 21:06									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but regardless of why we were attacked by North Vietnam, the point is that we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong. The Tonkin Gulf incident provided no legal basis in my view for active combat hostilities against the Vietcong. It did provide a basis for declaration of war on North Vietnam. Johnson did not pursue the enemy that had attacked us. In the end, this failure to pursue the true enemy cost us any chance of victory.

	24-01-2004 21:12									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole. I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error. Note - I was giving the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts shows.

All I have to say is this. Everyone in the administrations of both Clinton and Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons. You cannot say that Bush was lying without also indicting Bill Clinton and all of the top Democrat leaders including Hillary Clinton, General Clark, and Senator Kerry.

	24-01-2004 21:15									#42
	Suffering from ads?

Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

	24-01-2004 21:42									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bush claimed in this SOTU that there were WMD programs. Kay is saying this wasn't true.

More interesting, however, is the fact that the Administration has decided to stop cooperating with the 9/11 Inquiry. The Dem's really need to hammer on this.

	24-01-2004 22:09									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned Sava, the problem with your position is that Clinton said the same things as Bush. Ditto the entire Democrat party leadership, cabinet and Congress. Also, they continued to say it during the Bush administration. Witness the oft quoted Clark testimony.

then it's a problem with the intelligence community...

quote: And did you ever hear Hillary's speech in favor of the war.

so? I hate Hillary, too.

quote: If Bush is a liar, so is Bill Clinton and all the Democrat leadership of that era, and Hillary Clinton and General Clark.

or misled by the same kind of hawks

quote: If Bush is a liar, so is Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.

you won't get an argument from me on that one, but LIEberman and Twit Gephardt didn't get in front of the country and repeat assertions that the CIA KNEW TO BE FALSE (Niger).

quote: If Bush is a liar, so is Senator Kerry who supported the war and argued in its favor once upon a time.

nah, but Kerry was probably a victim of misleading intelligence... I still don't like his defense of his IWR vote.

quote: This Bush is a liar mantra is pure politics.

NO, it's pure fact... and since I'm equally bashing Dems who were misled, how is it politics on my part? My opinion on Bush is based upon a variety of sources, not just a knee-jerk anti-repuke feeling.

You should read the Bob Woodward book, "Bush at War". And also, search the net to learn about the Project for a New American Century. Had the Democrats you mentioned been part of such hawkish organizations or been so gung ho about making the war happen, then I'd bash then as much as I do Bush.

Yes, the Clinton administration thought there were WMD's... I THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD's. But I did not feel Saddam was a direct threat to the US. He wasn't allied with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda... they are fundamental enemies! And Saddam wasn't about to fire a SCUD and hit New York.

Bush made this war happen, Clinton didn't. THe Democrats only failing is that they trusted the uberparanoid inept intelligence community... and since popular opinion was generally pro-war, what with Bush scaring the public, most of them had no choice but to vote for war... or commit political suicide. Remember, the Iraq War Resoultion (IWR) vote was RIGHT BEFORE THE 2002 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS. That was also a planned political move by Bush.

	24-01-2004 23:09									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned George Tenet did not read the state of the Union draft. Had he done his job properly, I am sure that Bush would not have included the reference to Niger in his speech. However I am equally a sure that Bush would still have pursued Saddam Hussein and that events would have unfold as they did. The Niger evidence was not critical to the overall debate.

The CIA did review the speech, whether it was Tenet or not, and they did complain about the claim, thus getting the language changed to pin the intelligence on Britain. They would have struck it entirely, but the Administration was hell-bent on saying it. The simple fact of the matter is that we knew that the claim had first been investigated by the CIA, NOT the British, so at the very least, pinning the intelligence on the British was deceptive. I think it's obvious the administration did so to cover their ass once it was learned the intelligence was false.

And I think that public sentiment about the war would have been dramatically different without the false WMD claims. They scared people into thinking Saddam was doing something he wasn't to get public support for the war, plain and simple.

	24-01-2004 23:11									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It would be great to post the text versions of the 2003 and 2004 SOTU's and contrast the language. Bush spoke of imminent threats, mushroom clouds, danger to the world, etc... and then changed to talking about programs, could be's, and possible connections...

it's really quite astounding the difference the truth makes in one's propaganda...

	24-01-2004 23:11									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Maybe I'm missing something here, .

Yes, you're missing the point entirely. AH brought up Tonkin as an example of when a government has lied about something as an excuse for war. Johnson lied about the torpedo attack, which his own statements show he knew wasn't real, to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed and allow him to go to war with N. Vietnam.

Whether or not it was the right enemy or if he was successful is moot, since the only reference was to the lies.

	24-01-2004 23:14									#48
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned All I have to say is this. Everyone in the administrations of both Clinton and Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons. You cannot say that Bush was lying without also indicting Bill Clinton and all of the top Democrat leaders including Hillary Clinton, General Clark, and Senator Kerry.

Sen. Clinton, Clark and Kerry were not privvy to the intelligence from the CIA about the Niger claims, now were they? They believed there were weapons, but they didn't lie about a specific piece of intelligence in a State of the Union address, did they? They believed Bush, which was their mistake, as Clark and Kerry said since. Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

	24-01-2004 23:15									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Sen. Clinton, Clark and Kerry were not privvy to the intelligence from the CIA about the Niger claims, now were they? They believed there were weapons, but they didn't lie about a specific piece of intelligence in a State of the Union address, did they? They believed Bush, which was their mistake, as Clark and Kerry said since. Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

who's a bigger BAMer? Bush or Fez?

	25-01-2004 00:12									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

Indeed, Bush actively lied about the existence of WMD. I can't blame him if he has suspicions of Saddam still having WMD, but has he proved it?

Don't you agree that it is very dangerous if people can simply decide to go to war for reasons just based on assumptions?

I've seen the explanation Colin Powell made one day to prove to the rest of the world that Saddam was working on WMD. He was talking about those mobile labs and some factories that "might" be able to be used for this purpose.
I mean any child could see that it was not conclusive evidence, let alone worth calling evidence!

Simply pathetic imo.

	25-01-2004 01:06									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

Perhaps I'm too cynical, Boris, but I think the correct answer to that question is "anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to history and politics at any point during their entire lives."

	25-01-2004 03:27									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I never believed there were weapons in the manner in which Bush described them.

Nuclear weapons? No. Absolutely not. There is no way Saddam Hussein could have ever reconstituted a Nuclear program given the surveillance he was under and no way he would ever have given them to terrorists. In fact that latter is the biggest whopper of the whole thing. There is no way a man who would have to spend millions and millions of dollars on nuclear weapons would give them to his ideological enemies and invite a holocaust upon himself when they were used. Saddam was evil, but he's not stupid.

2. Bio-weapons. The problem with these is that they don't work. He could have had smallpox or anthrax. In the former case they could not be effectively used against the US because mass immunization would quickly render them ineffective. And in the latter case, we all know what a mass killer anthrax is. Didn't that guy manage to kill about 5 people with it?

3. Chemical weapons. Again these are next to useless unless they are deployed as a battlefield weapon against massed infantry attacks (exactly what Saddam used them for and what they were used for in WW1). As for using them against civilians one need only point to the Tokyo subway attack which used a lethal agent, Sarin, in the most favourable circumstances imaginable (a closed space) and still only managed to kill about ten people.

Anyone who bothered to do some basic research would know that the whole case for WMDs was smoke and mirrors. If he had them, they would be next to useless unless they were nuclear, and nobody with any brains believed that Saddam had, or was close to developing nuclear weapons.

Both Bush and Blair know these facts. Their own intelligence services told them so. The various leaks were because intelligence officials did not want to end up holding the can for their lies.

Case closed. They wilfully engaged in deception. The left were spot on the whole time.

	25-01-2004 03:31									#53
	Put an end to popups!

The bad karma of the right is starting to catch up with them somewhat.

	25-01-2004 03:59									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by monkspider The bad karma of the right is starting to catch up with them somewhat.

Not that they'll care if they manage to hang on to power, since that's all they care about. Moral cripples...

	25-01-2004 05:39									#55
	Support Apolyton

This Administration reeks to high heaven of corruption and lies.

So all these coalition soldiers and Iraqis are getting killed every day and for what? So Bush and his cronies can make a lot of money like they did after Gulf War I?

Wake up people!

	25-01-2004 05:43									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

alexander's horse is gay

	25-01-2004 05:48									#57
	Put an end to popups!

Well I walk the talk - unlike some I know.

	25-01-2004 06:11									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

As I said, if this is true, then everyone who formerly said that Saddam had WMD lied. That includes all the top Democrats from the Clinton administration and everyone who argued in favor of the Iraq War authorization in Congress, which includes Hillary Clinton and Senator Kerry.

This is not an issue that the Democrats can win on if their nominee is Kerry. This is a Dean issue because he is the ONLY one running that has always been against the war.

	25-01-2004 06:14									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sava Yes, the Clinton administration thought there were WMD's... I THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD's. But I did not feel Saddam was a direct threat to the US. He wasn't allied with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda... they are fundamental enemies! And Saddam wasn't about to fire a SCUD and hit New York.

What is the issue here? Whether Bush lied or whether the reason for the war was the imminence of the threat?

	25-01-2004 06:29									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yes, you're missing the point entirely. AH brought up Tonkin as an example of when a government has lied about something as an excuse for war. Johnson lied about the torpedo attack, which his own statements show he knew wasn't real, to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed and allow him to go to war with N. Vietnam. Whether or not it was the right enemy or if he was successful is moot, since the only reference was to the lies.

Boris, he did not go to war with North Vietnam, which is MY point. Whether there was a second attack is irrelevant if there was in fact a first attack. If the NV attacked our ships on the high seas, it was an act of war that was materially different in kind from supplying arms to the Vietcong. But instead of declaring war on NV which we had a right to do, we sent troops to SV to fight the Vietcong.

A year later, the NV sent troops South in response to Johnson's intervention there. We know where that led.

Why didn't he do it, declare war on North Vietnam?

Goldwater.

Johnson was trying to protray Goldwater as an irresponsible warmonger. He would have looked like a fool for going after NV. Which, in hindsight, may explain why the NV's attacked in the middle of an election campaign.