Originally Posted By DAR <<So, maybe this means the end of the war is near?>> Honestly, I'd be okay with that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They were making statements based on what the Administration was telling them. They were making statements on the faulty and false intelligence briefings given them.> Your second statement is mostly correct, but your first is not. Nor is most of the rest of your post.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then they're just as stupid." Only insofar as they believed that the Bush Administration would not lie to them about such important matters, and would properly vette any information regarding such a grave decision. So, in thinking that Bush & Co. were not utter incompetents, and would not push us into a deadly war over flimsy evidence, then yes, they were stupid.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Only insofar as they believed that the Bush Administration would not lie to them about such important matters, and would properly vette any information regarding such a grave decision.> The Bush Administration provided them the same sort of information that the Clinton Administration provided them. There's simply no evidence that anyone attempted to deceive, despite your apparent desire that it be so.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The Bush Administration provided them the same sort of information that the Clinton Administration provided them." Except 1) the Bush Admin decided to go ahead and invade 2) The Bush Admin ignored information that had since come out that contraindicated that WMD existed 3) The Clinton Admin did not defy the international community's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the "problem." "There's simply no evidence that anyone attempted to deceive" No, they simply went ahead and made allegations of the most profoundly serious nature without fully having the knowledge they claimed they had. Hmm. Yes, that would be being deceitful.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <the Bush Admin decided to go ahead and invade> Which is irrelevant to the charge that they lied. <The Bush Admin ignored information that had since come out that contraindicated that WMD existed> There's no evidence of this. What's known is that the evidence in favor of Saddam having WMD's overwhelmed the evidence that he didn't. <The Clinton Admin did not defy the international community's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the "problem."> While there were almost as many critics of the Clinton policy of sanctions, no fly zones, and periodic bombings as there were critics of President Bush's decision to remove Saddam by force, this again is irrelevant to the charge that the Bush Administration lied about the threat Saddam posed. <No, they simply went ahead and made allegations of the most profoundly serious nature without fully having the knowledge they claimed they had.> Which were based on the best intelligence at the time, and similar in nature to what the Clinton Administration claimed.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which is irrelevant to the charge that they lied." But it is relevant in contrast to what CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did. "There's no evidence of this." Except it is what Colin Powell had to say on the subject. He knew when he was giving that speech at the UN that we did not have all our ducks in a row. That speech will shame him the rest of his life. "Which were based on the best intelligence at the time" Except that it really wasn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He knew when he was giving that speech at the UN that we did not have all our ducks in a row. That speech will shame him the rest of his life.> Everything I've read has said that, at the time he gave the speech, he thought everything he said was true. Secretary Powell is an honorable man, and I'm sure it bothers him that a lot of the information he gave turned out to be faulty. <Except that it really wasn't.> Almost every nation in the world came to the same conclusion - that Saddam possessed undeclared WMD's, and was trying to acquire more. The only question was what to do about it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Everything I've read has said that, at the time he gave the speech, he thought everything he said was true" Not what I've heard. "Almost every nation in the world came to the same conclusion" And almost every nation in the world wanted to wait until the UN was done with its inspections. But we bucked that, and ended up in a disaster of historic proportions. Oh well! I guess some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you, right?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I guess some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you, right?<< Unless you go hunting with Dick Cheney. Then, all bets are off.* *What's the statute of limitations on Cheney hunting jokes? Just until December 31, 2006, or right on through to the end of Bush Adminstration II?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>*What's the statute of limitations on Cheney hunting jokes? Just until December 31, 2006, or right on through to the end of Bush Adminstration II?<< Cheney hunting jokes are good FOREVER. They will never go out of style. BTW, did you hear the one about Warren Harding and the teapot?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm</a> "Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/ meast/08/19/powell.un/</a> However, he did not blame CIA director George Tenet. Mr Tenet "did not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said. "He believed what he was giving to me was accurate." <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abc.net.au/news/new sitems/200509/s1456650.htm</a> <And almost every nation in the world wanted to wait until the UN was done with its inspections.> Sure. They weren't the ones with 150,000 troops massed waiting for who knows how long.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sure. They weren't the ones with 150,000 troops massed waiting for who knows how long.> Like this necessitated March 2003 and we couldn't possibly have waited any longer. What a crock. A couple more months wouldn't have hurt, the inspectors asked for it, and it could have saved us an awful lot of grief, lives, dollars, and the complete mess we see there now.
Originally Posted By jonvn Good quotes. Here's another one: Associated Press AL-TAJI, Iraq -- A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker. Iraqi officials took journalists to the Ibn Firnas State Company just north of Baghdad on Wednesday, where the drone's project director accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the U.N. Security Council and the public. "He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said." In Washington's search for a "smoking gun" that would prove Iraq is not disarming, Powell has insisted the drone, which has a wingspan of 24.5 feet, could be fitted to dispense chemical and biological weapons. He has said it "should be of concern to everybody." Here is another one: Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week. Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts. The thing is they knew this stuff. They aren't stupid. But they thought everyone else was.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A couple more months wouldn't have hurt, the inspectors asked for it, and it could have saved us an awful lot of grief, lives, dollars, and the complete mess we see there now.> Or it would have led to a completely different mess then the one we have now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The thing is they knew this stuff. They aren't stupid.> Are you saying you believe Secretary Powell and Mr Wilkerson lied when they stated they believed the material was true when Sec Powell presented it?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Are you saying you believe Secretary Powell and Mr Wilkerson lied when they stated they believed the material was true when Sec Powell presented it?" I'm saying the presented the information as if it were the absolute verified fact, and they knew that it wasn't. Is that a lie? I would say that it certainly falls in that direction, to be charitable.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm saying the presented the information as if it were the absolute verified fact, and they knew that it wasn't.> That's a little different then your earlier assertions, isn't it? You presented that as if it was an absolute verified fact, and I think you knew that it wasn't. I would say that it certainly falls in the direction of a lie, to be charitable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<A couple more months wouldn't have hurt, the inspectors asked for it, and it could have saved us an awful lot of grief, lives, dollars, and the complete mess we see there now.>> <Or it would have led to a completely different mess then the one we have now.> Or not. We don't know. We do know what a mess we're in now.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's a little different then your earlier assertions, isn't it?" I'm trying to say it in a less confrontational way. But it is the same as I said before.
