White House Official Fox News A Wing of the Republican Party

[Kulindahr]

Kulin, I don't remember what kind of intelligence Germany gave us—but if my memory serves me correctly, they were very strongly against that war. In fact, we had to listen to quite a few raspberries from them on the issue.....

The loudest raspberries of all came from France (remember "freedom fries"?), but that's quite a different matter.

Right there is a problem in this discussion: it's assumed that if someone thinks Bush had intelligence that was matched by other countries, that one approves of the invasion.

From all the research I did at the time, and since while on JUB, I have no doubt that the intelligence services of a number of nations pointed to exactly what the stuff Bush had did. I don't even think Bush lied (I once cited a solid Democrat commentator to that effect, somewhere here): he gave us the stuff he had -- but we've seen since that Cheney leaned on the intelligence community to spin the stuff given to Bush.

Yet even if what Bush (and Pelosi, Clinton, and others) saw was 100% correct, my position back then was and remains that there was no need to go off playing Texas Ranger in a place where the varmints have automatic weapons. Saddam had made enough concessions that an astute student of the region could have played the situation like a fiddle and gotten him removed without a single U.S. or NATO or other soldier setting foot on Iraqi soil.

So the problem here is not with the intelligence, or the actions, but that some people lump everyone together if they speak even the slightest bit favorably of anything remotely connected to Bush.

Correct...They would have taken "evidence" from a monkey's ass if that's what it took to justify that scam.

Cheney might have -- but only if he could whip up a set of credentials to make the monkey's ass look like a real intelligence source.

AFTER the invasion, during investigations into the intelligence and where it failed, they discovered that information. Essentially, Germany didn't tell the US their doubts about the intelligence until after the invasion had occurred.

I don't even feel like doing research right now to find it, but I remember an article stating that after we'd gotten the intelligence and moved, the Germans discovered they'd been fed a line, and told us -- quietly; they still don't officially admit they were had.

Though if that admission had come, say, a week before Bush started his little military adventure playing Texas Ranger in the Middle East, I have little doubt that Cheney would have made sure it took ten days to get the information "processed" and delivered through channels... knowing full well that once things got started, Bush wouldn't have the balls to pack up and go home (if nothing else, Rumsfeld probably would have locked him in the Oval Office until he'd gotten his jollies off the "shock and awe").

 

[Kulindahr]

The article says that subsequent investigations revealed what the Germans thought about Curveball. It does not say, as you claim, that the Germans didn't tell the US their doubts about the intelligence. Indeed, George Will, in an article in the Washington Post, said quite the opposite, that prior to the invasion, the Germans, British and some US intelligence officials, were expressing their doubts about Curveball. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110901942.html Before you criticize others for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, you should make sure you're intellectual honesty and knowledge is up to snuff.

Yes, there were doubts, but he hadn't been discredited; I think that's the distinction Droid is pointing to. I remember reading the George Will article (reprinted locally) and thinking, Okay, they'll look into this, right?


Anyway.... back to

 

[CoolBlue71]

Damn dude...relax...take a deep breath...it's just a discussion. No need to take it personally.

If you notice, I have never called you ignorant or intellectualy dishonest. I may have called a person or two "babies" but never amything like this. We're at JustUsBoys gay porn...not a tribunal.

I will tell you this though...I know that Bush and Cheney lied and Fox News is biased.

I'm not as liberal as you may think I am. Just a little.

There isn't anything wrong with being liberal, there isn't anything wrong with being conservative, and there isn't anything wrong with not being ideologically tied to neither while being, perhaps, moderate or simply independent. It just helps matters if one holds his ground and is able to articulate their position.

 

[Kulindahr]

There isn't anything wrong with being liberal, there isn't anything wrong with being conservative, and there isn't anything wrong with not being ideologically tied to neither while being, perhaps, moderate or simply independent. It just helps matters if one holds his ground and is able to articulate their position.

And that includes reading the sources, or listening to them.

I listen to all the vids elvin and anyone else post here. I have to go get a barf bag for some of them considering the people in them, but I listen. I read all that's referenced, too (okay, I skipped some by Rick Warren a while back, because I already knew what he was going to say), and occasionally -- like with the Clarance Page article -- am surprised (I thought such a big Obama fan was going to come off sounding more like elvin does).

Anyone who admits not reading the sources offered, who just clings to his view, shows himself willfully ignorant, and moves 'way down the credibility list.

 

[palemale]

Yes, there were doubts, but he hadn't been discredited; I think that's the distinction Droid is pointing to. I remember reading the George Will article (reprinted locally) and thinking, Okay, they'll look into this, right?


Anyway.... back to

That's not what Droid was pointing to. He said the Germans didn't make their doubts known. Bush and company lied to get us into war in Iraq because they knew if they were truthful, the American public would not have supported the war. Remember Condoleeza Rice and the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud? Remember Cheney saying we know they have weapons of mass destruction? These were lies and they knew they were lies. Plain and simple, and it's intellectually honest to say otherwise.

 

[JB3]

That's not what Droid was pointing to. He said the Germans didn't make their doubts known. Bush and company lied to get us into war in Iraq because they knew if they were truthful, the American public would not have supported the war. Remember Condoleeza Rice and the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud? Remember Cheney saying we know they have weapons of mass destruction? These were lies and they knew they were lies. Plain and simple, and it's intellectually honest to say otherwise.

That's your fucking opinion!!! The history of events leading up to the invasion clearly show that EVERY NATION involved in gathering intelligence about Iraq and WMD's believed that they had them. After the invasion and after they did not find them is when hard questions were asked of sources like 'curveball'; prior to the invasion, though, these agencies had no doubt in their minds that Iraq had WMDs of some sort. The difference of opinion came in whether they thought that they would use them and whether they should be removed by force.

 

[palemale]

That's your fucking opinion!!! The history of events leading up to the invasion clearly show that EVERY NATION involved in gathering intelligence about Iraq and WMD's believed that they had them. After the invasion and after they did not find them is when hard questions were asked of sources like 'curveball'; prior to the invasion, though, these agencies had no doubt in their minds that Iraq had WMDs of some sort. The difference of opinion came in whether they thought that they would use them and whether they should be removed by force.

Continue to delude yourself, Droid, Bush, Cheney and company knew there was no proof, yet they told the American public that there was no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06iht-edwar.1.13526817.html I know you love George Bush and Dick Cheney, but your heros are liars. Try to face the truth and move on.

 

[JB3]

Continue to delude yourself, Droid, Bush, Cheney and company knew there was no proof, yet they told the American public that there was no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06iht-edwar.1.13526817.html I know you love George Bush and Dick Cheney, but your heros are liars. Try to face the truth and move on.

Except there WAS proof. England, Germany and the CIA all provided evidence that WMDs were in Iraq. Much of that turned out to be wrong, but they didn't just pull it out of their ass as you so wrongly state. Its easy to look back now and say they were wrong, but the fact of the matter remains (and I don't expect you to understand this, since you seem particularly dense today) that every major intelligence operation on the face of the earth thought that Iraq possessed WMDs.

So no, no lying. (unless we're counting you. )

 

[palemale]

Except there WAS proof. England, Germany and the CIA all provided evidence that WMDs were in Iraq. Much of that turned out to be wrong, but they didn't just pull it out of their ass as you so wrongly state. Its easy to look back now and say they were wrong, but the fact of the matter remains (and I don't expect you to understand this, since you seem particularly dense today) that every major intelligence operation on the face of the earth thought that Iraq possessed WMDs.

So no, no lying. (unless we're counting you. )

Droid, before you get nasty and accuse people of being dense and of lying, you ought to know what you are talking about. Perhaps you could find a site to show that any intelligence agency had proof that there were WMDs in Iraq.

By the way, do you know what proof is? Do you know the difference between proof and belief? Proof is evidence sufficient to establish the truth of an assertion. The Bush Administration had no proof, they had a belief. They just lacked the evidence to prove their beliefs, but they lied and said with certainty that Iraq had WMDs. If they had proof, they would have found WMDs. If they told the truth and said, "we think there are WMDs in Iraq," they would not have been able to sell the American public on the war. So, they had to lie.

 

[palemale]

I'm a patient man, Elvin, a patient man. When we're done with him, Droid will be a Democrat, maybe even a socialist! I don't know if we'll ever get him to have a sense of humor, though.

 

[JB3]

I have a sense of humor. When it comes to rudderless ideologues I tend to become significantly less amused, however.

 

[palemale]

I have a sense of humor. When it comes to rudderless ideologues I tend to become significantly less amused, however.

You didn't answer my post #311.

 

[Sausy]

It came out not too long ago that Saddam Hussein purposefully wanted to appear as if he did have a WMD capacity....basically to keep Iran and Israel at bay,apprehensive not to try to stir the pot against him.There were doubts raised by some,but his history and the discovery after the Gulf War how far along he was in his WMD programs certainly make very defensible the overall view he was hiding something.

His intentions were to break down the sanctions,and eventually start rebuilding his programs....certainly the French,Germans and Russians were anxious to do business with him.The UN approved Oil for Food Program got one foot in the door to evading sanctions....he certainly built up conventionally through that debacle.

It wasn't all Bush deceptions and lies...though they certainly wanted to believe the worst,the most egregious charges like the mobile labs and buying uranium from Africa.It seemed plausible,like I said because of his precious duplicity no one could believe him.The whole situation is complex,not black and white.Conservatives are often accused,a good deal of the time fairly of having a simple view of the world.Progressives are no different....they have their own orthodoxies,anything questioning or critical is viewed as the secular version of heresy.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not what Droid was pointing to. He said the Germans didn't make their doubts known. Bush and company lied to get us into war in Iraq because they knew if they were truthful, the American public would not have supported the war. Remember Condoleeza Rice and the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud? Remember Cheney saying we know they have weapons of mass destruction? These were lies and they knew they were lies. Plain and simple, and it's intellectually honest to say otherwise.

I don't believe Bush lied; he just passed on what he was given.

But I also noted above that it's irrelevant: even if all that [STRIKE]Cheney[/STRIKE] Bush said was true, there wasn't a case for going off to invade. That the Democrats in Congress bought the notion stands to their everlasting shame.

 

[Kulindahr]

Continue to delude yourself, Droid, Bush, Cheney and company knew there was no proof, yet they told the American public that there was no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06iht-edwar.1.13526817.html I know you love George Bush and Dick Cheney, but your heros are liars. Try to face the truth and move on.

It's unclear from that article just who was lying and when. Rumsfeld has always been slimy; I don't believe he was born at all, but sort of congealed out of the leavings from a slug which had gorged on dog shit. Cheney is the sort to envy Rumsfeld that origin, so the two made quite an unsavory pair (except maybe to slugs which feed on dog shit).

My "Texas Ranch" model of the Bush presidency covers this: boss Bush hears from foremen Rumsfeld and Cheney that there are varmints, and being the trusting sort of fellow he is, he rounds up a posse and sends them off to deal with it. Boss Bush knew he don't have to check; those two would never lead him wrong, would they?

It came out not too long ago that Saddam Hussein purposefully wanted to appear as if he did have a WMD capacity....basically to keep Iran and Israel at bay,apprehensive not to try to stir the pot against him.There were doubts raised by some,but his history and the discovery after the Gulf War how far along he was in his WMD programs certainly make very defensible the overall view he was hiding something.

I remember reading something about that, but I can't recall enough to guess at the source -- I think it was non-U.S., though. It sure must make a lot of intelligence folks feel stupid, though, being misled by Saddam!
My mom reads constantly these days, and read a book about Saddam and his regime, and it said that many of Saddam's military folks who weren't in on the game believed there were WMDs as well (one of them still insists they were loaded into trucks and sent to Syria).

It wasn't all Bush deceptions and lies...though they certainly wanted to believe the worst,the most egregious charges like the mobile labs and buying uranium from Africa.It seemed plausible,like I said because of his precious duplicity no one could believe him.The whole situation is complex,not black and white.Conservatives are often accused,a good deal of the time fairly of having a simple view of the world.Progressives are no different....they have their own orthodoxies,anything questioning or critical is viewed as the secular version of heresy.

It makes an interesting scenario: Saddam playing smoke and mirrors, Rumsfeld and Cheney rabid for blood seeing what they wanted, Saddam realizing he'd done too good a job....

 

[Sausy]

It's unclear from that article just who was lying and when. Rumsfeld has always been slimy; I don't believe he was born at all, but sort of congealed out of the leavings from a slug which had gorged on dog shit. Cheney is the sort to envy Rumsfeld that origin, so the two made quite an unsavory pair (except maybe to slugs which feed on dog shit).

My "Texas Ranch" model of the Bush presidency covers this: boss Bush hears from foremen Rumsfeld and Cheney that there are varmints, and being the trusting sort of fellow he is, he rounds up a posse and sends them off to deal with it. Boss Bush knew he don't have to check; those two would never lead him wrong, would they?



I remember reading something about that, but I can't recall enough to guess at the source -- I think it was non-U.S., though. It sure must make a lot of intelligence folks feel stupid, though, being misled by Saddam!
My mom reads constantly these days, and read a book about Saddam and his regime, and it said that many of Saddam's military folks who weren't in on the game believed there were WMDs as well (one of them still insists they were loaded into trucks and sent to Syria).



It makes an interesting scenario: Saddam playing smoke and mirrors, Rumsfeld and Cheney rabid for blood seeing what they wanted, Saddam realizing he'd done too good a job....

And look at the mess that was made.

 

[Kulindahr]

And look at the mess that was made.

Yeah.

Smoke and mirrors is always risky as foreign policy. The only person in history I'm convinced was a pro at it was Otto von Bismarck -- but then he died, and the system and game he built tattered, and left a tangle that handed us WW I.

Saddam directed his smoke and mirrors at regional foes, never dreaming that he'd actually fool bigger ones, or that they'd be idiotic enough to think an invasion was necessary.

 

[palemale]

Hate to revive this thread, but John Stewart had a very funny take on the "war" between Obama and Fox. Fox News certainly does come off like a biased organ of the GOP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/jon-stewart-takes-on-war_n_339788.html

 

[Apollo]

Hate to revive this thread, but John Stewart had a very funny take on the "war" between Obama and Fox. Fox News certainly does come off like a biased organ of the GOP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/jon-stewart-takes-on-war_n_339788.html

god i love john stewart

 

[hotatlboi]

Campbell Brown absolutely nailed it in that video.

That's what I've been trying to say on here.