25-01-2004 22:47									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned What is the issue here? Whether Bush lied or whether the reason for the war was the imminence of the threat?

Bush's deceptions focused on how the threat was imminent... lies and threat... the issue is one and the same.

Iraq wasn't an imminent threat... even IF they had WMD's... the fact that there are none and that they were most likely all destroyed in 1991 only further hurts the credibility of Bush and the American intelligence community. Even though the Clinton admin believed the same information, Clinton didn't hype the threat or take the country to war.

I've noticed the Repukes are also harping the "but Clinton did this" excuse on the issue of the Defense of Marriage. Big Deal... so Clinton said "this or that". It doesn't change the fact that the war was wrong, and a gross misallocation of military and government resources. The War on Terror is being hurt by the effort in Iraq... AND domestic security is being hurt by the war in Iraq.

	25-01-2004 23:07									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Bush's deceptions focused on how the threat was imminent... lies and threat... the issue is one and the same.

Not only that, but these were the same people who were saying Iraq WASN'T a threat before 9/11, which makes it even worse. Here's Powell from a press conference on Feb 24, 2001 during a state visit to Egypt:

quote: We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Powell, again before a Senate subcommittee...

quote: Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs? Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago. So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful

Source

So, after 9/11, they're suddenly the scourge of the world?? This just makes the lying liars look worse. Powell got up before the UN and just about directly contradicted everything he had said before 9/11. Pitiful..

	25-01-2004 23:23									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

truth or lie?

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." ( October 7, 2002)

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" (same speech)

"And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." ( February 8, 2003 )

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories . . . and we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." (May 30, 2003)

	26-01-2004 00:19									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

*gloats*

	26-01-2004 01:01									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Imran, did Kruschev have a formal alliance with NV? As to West Germany, Kennedy made it clear that an attack on West Germany would invoke a nuclear response by the US on the USSR. Kruschev had no such alliance with Ho and had not made anything clear. Besides, the Cuban missile crisis showed that the Soviets would back down. They had no desire to see their country destroyed for Castro's sake. Later, in 67, they failed to support Egypt when it was being overrun by Israel. The evidence suggests that the USSR would go some distance to support their fellow communist regimes but would not risk nuclear war with the US.

The real reason was that the Soviets did not have that many Nuc. Missile to hit us with. Now in the 80s the Soviets had tons of missile, just not in the 60s. Also in the 60s, we had over 1,000 B-47s and the last of the B-52 was finish, so we had several hundred B-52s and B-58s. We also had 3 to 4 SSBNs and Russia did not have any until 67/8 and they were 3 tubs per boat with very short range.

	26-01-2004 04:56									#96
	Remove this text

Good post Oedo, shjowing exactly what the lies were. Though of course, I thgink Ned will find a way to excuse those statements...

The sad part is that a significant portion of people have already been convinced by the lies, and the media will not, unless there is some mayor investigation in Washington, which republicans in congress will block from happening most likely, really go far with this, and that Bush will not suffer politically as he should.

And for those who wonder "who cares?" First, of course, it shows the amdinistration did not believe it could sell the war it wanted solely on the ideology it espoused, so it had to conjure up a non-existent threat to the US to sell the war: now this should bring question to everyones minds about the viability of the ideas that motivate this war, and if perhaps they could not have sold a war by themselves, how could they possibly successfully run the aftermath of the war, which, as we have seen, is a real challenge, and the place were all the quick military wins could be totally undone.

	26-01-2004 05:22									#97
	Support Apolyton

Interestingly:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast....kay/index.html

quote: It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said. "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said. "We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

quote: Kay also raised the possibility -- one he first discussed in a weekend interview with "The Sunday Telegraph" of London -- that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq's western border. "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said. But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

So it isn't just an anti-Bush claim here. Kay seems to blame the intelligence community and says the evidence may be in Syria.

	26-01-2004 05:38									#98
	Inflate your Upload Space

On Imran's post:

1. Certainly the intelligence agencies believed Iraq still had, if not wepaons, weapons programs, which is why the general discussion, here in poly at least, and in a few other areas outside of the general public, was that even if Iraq had such programs, was it a real threat?

The thing i, the intelligence agencies were split- Kay was a member of those in the intelliegence community that believed they were weapons, why he was chosen for this job he just left in the first place. but others, Richter simply the most annoyingly vocal, in the intelligence community or just out of it questioned the geenral consencus.

Certainly the intellieence agencies are at fault for using worse case scenerios exclusively: the thing is the admin. never soght to look at the opposite claims, and in many instances went even further than the intelligence agencies in their claims.

2. First, given what Kay's main statement was, this later statement is at odds- after all, if he believes now Iraq did not have such weapons or perhaps even programs, then what could have been taken to Syria?

notice in how the press in theUS reports it the out for Bush is already built in- like the intelliegcne agencies of old that Kay blames, they take a statement of his and build it inot a grand possibility, already bought by some, that the answers are still out there, no, we were not wrong! (cause remember, Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint.)

	26-01-2004 05:40									#99
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger He lied about Iraqis having BCN weapons without any evidence backing him up. He did not say it was a speculation -- he said it as if it were a fact. Again, he did not even change his stance even after repeated attempts in locating these alleged weapons had failed.

Urban Ranger, true. The question is was whether he was alone in making such statements because, if he was not, the statements were made because the intelligence that he was basing his statements upon were inaccurate.

That is why I point to the statements of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, General Clark and others, such as Tony Blair. They all said that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. Bush was simply not alone in what he was saying. The statement that Bush lied implies that Bush himself was the only one that that ever drew the conclusions that Saddam had chemical biological weapons from the available intelligence.

It is also a point of fact that the intelligence was also made available to Congress. The people who voted on the Iraq war resolution did not have to rely on Bush's statements. They could review the evidence themselves and draw conclusions. The people who did, like Rep. Gephardt, drew the same conclusions as did George Bush. If Bush lied so did Gephardt. It is that simple.

The only conclusion that anyone can come to based upon these facts is that none of these people were lying; but rather that the intelligence was faulty.

	26-01-2004 05:43									#100
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint.

Then the question was is perhaps the weight being placed on the wrong thing? You say the press has given Bush an out.. but perhaps Kay stressed this 'out' rather than the alternative. He did say it, after all. And saying that he blames the intelligence community much more than Bush is not the press' doing.

	26-01-2004 06:07									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint. Then the question was is perhaps the weight being placed on the wrong thing? You say the press has given Bush an out.. but perhaps Kay stressed this 'out' rather than the alternative. He did say it, after all. And saying that he blames the intelligence community much more than Bush is not the press' doing.

Well, Kay is a biased source- that he went as far as he did in stating he has doubts now about Iraq's programs is news- but given his past, I do not think he could do a complete Mea Culpa (after all, HE is one of those intelliegence folks) and then attack his boss.

In general though, even before Kay opened his mouth this time evidence for the misleading actions of the amdin abound. Just look at Oedo's posst of statements- even the most Gunho intelliegence guys. including Kay, would say "I believe Saddam still has these weapons"- they would not say "we KNOW he has these weapons"- mayor difference between the two. Look at the statements- Bush is saying "I KNOW Saddam has these things", a statement of FACT. Now, even if he was not lying outright, even if the admin. was not being misleading, it brings to mind huge questions about whether W knows the difference between "I Believe" and "I Know", which is a quality of this admin. that goes beyond the Iraq war.

	26-01-2004 06:08									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse You mean like start World War III? As soon as I saw U.S. troops doing cordon and search operations and standing at intersections manning meaningless checkpoints I knew the US military had learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam.

Alexander's Horse, who was risking World War III when they put missiles in the Cuba?

Who was a risking World War III when they actively supported the Vietcong in violation of the peace accords against a country they had a defensive treaty with the United States of America?

Who was risking World War III when they attacked the U.S. Navy on the open seas?

The problem of promoting aggression against a nation that is defended by a nuclear power is obvious. Now why does such aggression began in the first place one must ask. I submit that the aggression began because one signals that the aggression will not result in serious resistance.

The Korean aggression began after United States pulled out of South Korea. The Vietnam aggression began in earnest after Kennedy was elected and indicated his weakness at the Bay of Pigs. His weakness at the Bay of Pigs also brought on the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin Wall crisis. In order to restore some credibility to American policy, Kennedy actually had to say publicly that an attack on West Germany would be met with a full-scale nuclear response on the Soviet Union. Perhaps this statement was the only thing that prevented World War III from happening from Soviet aggression in Europe.

Johnson had the opportunity of reversing all that by making it clear that North Vietnam had to stop its aggression or risk war with United States. He never did that. And that is why we lost 55,000 troops for no good reason.

The reason I say that had Johnson been firm the Communists would have backed down is that they did back down when threatened with war over Cuba and did back down and failed to support their client state the United Arab Republic.

	26-01-2004 06:10									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: would say "I believe Saddam still has these weapons"- they would not say "we KNOW he has these weapons"- mayor difference between the two. Look at the statements- Bush is saying "I KNOW Saddam has these things", a statement of FACT. Now, even if he was not lying outright, even if the admin. was not being misleading, it brings to mind huge questions about whether W knows the difference between "I Believe" and "I Know", which is a quality of this admin. that goes beyond the Iraq war.

Plenty of stuff in politics has been done on the basis of what the intelligence community believed. The politicos treat is as fact, because it is the closest thing they have to fact (there is little that is 100% certain in intelligence).

	26-01-2004 06:25									#104
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Plenty of stuff in politics has been done on the basis of what the intelligence community believed. The politicos treat is as fact, because it is the closest thing they have to fact (there is little that is 100% certain in intelligence).

Lets go back and ask this question- why did Bush not suggest invading Iraq back in August 2001? The intelliegence was the same then...the only things that changed was 9/11, which was an action by Al Qaeda- what is being ignored as well is that the Bush admins calims about a linik between Iraq and Al Qaeada have also proven illusory, and these were claims the Bush admin. was making without a general consensus in the intelligence community. Then there is the issue of delivery systems, another set of claims by the Bush amdin. in which there was no consensus among the intelligence community: without a link to Al qaeda or serious delivery systems all the WMD warheads in the world would still not be a imminent threat to the US.

But there is an even more fundamental question- you say that intelligence is the closest we get to fact- well, while most in the intelliegence community said they though Iraq still had these weapons, there was till a significant opposition (and as I sadi, on many of the other claims of the admin. they could not even come up with a mayority claim)- which bring to mind the question of whether a preventive war (this was not pre-emptive, given that NO one in the intelliegence community ever claimed an imminent threat) can be justified using intelliegence that is viewed as unianimous, not even a mayority consensus.

	26-01-2004 06:32									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just like our failure to track al Qaida prior to 9/11, our intelligence on Iraq seems to be underwhelming. Clark's attacks on Bush to me are much more effective because he does not say that Bush lied, but because he says that Bush did not do enough on al Qaida and because the threat of Saddam was not imminent.

The Dems really need to dump Dean and the Bush is a liar message.

	26-01-2004 06:45									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Why did Bush not suggest invading Iraq back in August 2001? The intelliegence was the same then...the only things that changed was 9/11, which was an action by Al Qaeda

They got political capital for it. And 9/11 saw the rise of the neocons (as opposed to the 'interest' foreign policy types) in the administration.

quote: which bring to mind the question of whether a preventive war (this was not pre-emptive, given that NO one in the intelliegence community ever claimed an imminent threat) can be justified using intelliegence that is viewed as unianimous, not even a mayority consensus.

Well I'd disagree that there wasn't a majority consensus that Saddam was persuing WMD. I think there was. Also there is no intelligence that will be unanimous. Perhaps you believe that this means preventive war cannot be justified. I do not accept that view... I guess it is matter of opinion on that issue.

	26-01-2004 06:51									#107
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Well I'd disagree that there wasn't a majority consensus that Saddam was persuing WMD. I think there was. Also there is no intelligence that will be unanimous. Perhaps you believe that this means preventive war cannot be justified. I do not accept that view... I guess it is matter of opinion on that issue.

A 60 or 70% mayority leaves a lot of doubt- there were porminent people speking against the intelligence form day one- more improtantly, there wasn't even mayority that would say Iraq had Al Qeada links, or that they had any elivery systems that made Iraqi WMD's a threat to the US itself, which is what the admin. was trying to sell.

	26-01-2004 07:02									#108
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Alexander's Horse, who was risking World War III when they put missiles in the Cuba?

Did the USSR not have a right to counter the US missiles in Turkey? Certainly they risked nuclear way, and we came closer than we ever should have, but we started the process, putting missiles on their border.

quote: Who was a risking World War III when they actively supported the Vietcong in violation of the peace accords against a country they had a defensive treaty with the United States of America?

The support the Vietcong got from outside the South was negligible. That's why, no matter how much the U.S. pounded the HCM Trail, it didn't matter. The VC weren't controlled by the North. They were an indigenous revolutionary organization which took up arms after the failure of the South to abide by the elections.

quote: Who was risking World War III when they attacked the U.S. Navy on the open seas?

As the US was already shelling and bombing the North, I can't really fault them for attacking U.S. warships, regardless of being on the open seas.

	26-01-2004 07:32									#109
	Put an end to popups!

Che, Where is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Vietcong today?
Independent my a$$.

	26-01-2004 08:10									#110
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state.

	26-01-2004 10:11									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Urban Ranger, true. The question is was whether he was alone in making such statements because, if he was not, the statements were made because the intelligence that he was basing his statements upon were inaccurate. That is why I point to the statements of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, General Clark and others, such as Tony Blair. They all said that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. Bush was simply not alone in what he was saying.

Perhaps he was not alone in making these statements, but he was not interested in finding out more. Before the invasion of Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors were actually making progress, that they could not find any BCN weapons or weapons programs in Iraq. W, however, ignored this. Together with Powell's presentation at the UN and Blair's "dossier" (har har), it paints a picture of the POTUS was just looking for an excuse, no matter how weak it was, to achieve his own ulterior motive.

I have to say, this is very damning.

	26-01-2004 12:09									#112
	Get a bigger avatar today!

UR, the mission of the "inspectors" was making progress? AFAIK, Saddam never complied with 1441, so their was nothing for the inspectors to verify.

	26-01-2004 12:10									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state.

Where is the Peoples Republic of Vietcong?

	26-01-2004 12:14									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state."

	26-01-2004 14:58									#115
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon What's frightening is that they may not pay for it. If this happens then I will no longer support democracy as it would be plain that it doesn't work. Here's hoping Blair goes and then Bush, or that some decent citizen solves the problems with a couple of bullets.

When the governement of a country has such extreme power over the media, i don't think democratic is the right word to describe it. Oligarchic perhaps, but democratic ?

	26-01-2004 15:05									#116
	Tired of ads?

exactly how does the goverment have such control over the media.

typical left wing paranoia.

Don't get me wrong. This is disusting. Although not really the deal breaker why I'm not voting for Bush. A lot of that has to deal with domestic issues. Mainly the patriot act and how he is handling the economy- and the overspending.

I want a real conservative. Not this phony of George W. Bush. He's turning out to be one of the worst presidents of the 21 century. . Okay I meant to say 20th century, but I just realized it is no longer the 20th century.

	26-01-2004 15:05									#117
	Suffering from ads?

btw this is making the top story of the hour on CNN right now. I'm sick and tired of you commies saying there is some vast right wing control of the media. CNN and Fox only slant to the right because the american population is currently slanted to the right. They do it for ratings alone. Not because the goverment tells them to. Although I do question the goverment's relationship with Fox. There have been instances of Fox getting exclusive coverage and CNN not getting exclusive coverage. Obviously the goverment is biased towards Fox.

	26-01-2004 15:10									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

i didn't say right wing politics have control over the media...

and i was just being general. you can't have a democracy when you don't fully know what the governement is doing...

it is as much an accusation towards my own governement which is centre left in the political spectrum

	26-01-2004 15:13									#119
	Suffering from ads?

well I do believe the public knows or has the capability to know (most public ignores politics) what the goverment is doing.

Things were far worse in the 19th century. And it's not like we had a democracy back then either. It was a republic. I think with the many media outlets, we have more view into what the goverment is doing than ever before. Let's hope that continues.

	26-01-2004 19:00									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I wonder how the "Bush is a liar" Demoncrats are going to handle Kay's call for the intelligence community to explain itself to GWB.

BTW, a Brit UN Weapons inspector called into question the Iraq scientist defense that they simply pocketed the money rather than conduct WMD development. He noted that they said the very same thing in 1991. But it turned out then that that was a lie.