Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There are a number of events that could raise suspicion that Bush made the 911-Saddam linkage. 1. Some in administration speculated the fact. 2. Bush asked CIA to investigate the possiblity.> Or the obvious answer: his own statements, and those of Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. in 2002 and 2003. They very cleverly linked Saddam and 9/11 in people's minds. The media reported their statements - but if anything aided and abetted the administration's planting of this idea by not calling bs on them at the time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (JeffG)>>It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did.<< (DlandDug)<I disagree. Please indicate where, in the totality of these documents, that there is evidence that Bush intentionally misled the American people. > I think you missed Jeff's point, Dug. Because you omitted his sentence prior to the one you quoted: "The information from these documents that has been revealed to date really gives no information at all about what the Bush administration did or didn't know prior to the start of the war. " This is true. These Saddam transcripts just don't speak to what Bush knew or didn't know, or to Bush's truthfulness of lack of it. So Jeff's statement "It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did" is correct - just as it would correct to say that "It isn't any more reasonable to infer after reading 'A Tale of Two Cities' that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did." Like "A Tale of Two Cities" these Saddam transcripts don't speak to the question of Bush's truthfulness.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I think you missed Jeff's point, Dug.<< No, I disagreed with his point. >>Because you omitted his sentence prior to the one you quoted: "The information from these documents that has been revealed to date really gives no information at all about what the Bush administration did or didn't know prior to the start of the war. "<< My quote was succinct and my reply addresses all that was said. >>These Saddam transcripts just don't speak to what Bush knew or didn't know, or to Bush's truthfulness of lack of it. So Jeff's statement "It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did" is correct<< Again, I disagree. These transcripts go directly to the issue of what Saddam was doing to create or dispel belief in his weapons programs. >>...it would [be] correct to say that "It isn't any more reasonable to infer after reading 'A Tale of Two Cities' that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did."<< No, it would not, as A Tale of Two Cities has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. >>Like "A Tale of Two Cities" these Saddam transcripts don't speak to the question of Bush's truthfulness.<< I cannot agree that an English novel dealing with the French Revolution is comparable to transcripts of Saddam Hussein's statements about his weapons program. I cannot fathom how anyone would choose to believe that such a facetious comparison could be drawn. A Tale of Two Cities sheds no light on the subject. The transcripts obviously do.
Originally Posted By woody >>I cited those poll numbers only to disprove woody's assertion that most Americans backed Bush on the war and did not believe he misled us.<< You have a marvelous way of changing the poll. The poll say 57% thinks Bush misled, but this does not imply they don't back the war. The poll did not say Americans want the withdrawal of troops. It says "57 percent say the United States should reduce the number of U.S. troops there." That implies Americans still back the war although "58 percent are less confident the war will come to a successful conclusion." Certainly, the poll is bad news for Bush and the Iraq War effort, but they never really asked the question about whether America should remain in Iraq. They asked a straw man question about misleading. As I said, its a loaded question and it only fuels speculation. Say it enough and people will believe it. (Misled about what? 911-Saddam? Never asked.) The mainstream media in its most biased example.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I think you missed Jeff's point, Dug.<< <No, I disagreed with his point.> I think you sidestepped it, but let's move on. >>Because you omitted his sentence prior to the one you quoted: "The information from these documents that has been revealed to date really gives no information at all about what the Bush administration did or didn't know prior to the start of the war. "<< <My quote was succinct and my reply addresses all that was said.> Okay, I disagree. >>These Saddam transcripts just don't speak to what Bush knew or didn't know, or to Bush's truthfulness of lack of it. So Jeff's statement "It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did" is correct<< <Again, I disagree. These transcripts go directly to the issue of what Saddam was doing to create or dispel belief in his weapons programs.> That's partially relevant, but don't really speak to what Bush knew or didn't know, certainly on the eve of war (and most of these transcripts are pre-2002 aren't they?). It's a stretch to say that what Saddam was talking about in private in the 90's figured directly into Bush's knowledge level in 2002-03. It can seem that way in hindsight (and to those seeking to create a connection), but looked at more dispassionate way, there isn't much. >>...it would [be] correct to say that "It isn't any more reasonable to infer after reading 'A Tale of Two Cities' that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did."<< <No, it would not, as A Tale of Two Cities has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.> It was an extreme example to show that the Saddam transcripts - at least what we've seen - had little to do with it either. >>Like "A Tale of Two Cities" these Saddam transcripts don't speak to the question of Bush's truthfulness.<< <I cannot agree that an English novel dealing with the French Revolution is comparable to transcripts of Saddam Hussein's statements about his weapons program. I cannot fathom how anyone would choose to believe that such a facetious comparison could be drawn. A Tale of Two Cities sheds no light on the subject. The transcripts obviously do.> No, they really don't. They shed light on Saddam, but not on Bush. Unless you're trying to see more than what is there.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>>I think you missed Jeff's point, Dug.<<...<No, I disagreed with his point.>...I think you sidestepped it, but let's move on...<< I neither missed nor sidestepped the point. I addressed it directly and diasagreed. Twice. (Inasmuch as the original poster has not weighed in yet, why don't you give this the benefit of the doubt, and then move on?) >>(...most of these transcripts are pre-2002 aren't they?). It's a stretch to say that what Saddam was talking about in private in the 90's figured directly into Bush's knowledge level in 2002-03.<< Why? It is precisely because these transcripts cover a substantial period of time that they are relevant to the topic at hand. >>It can seem that way in hindsight (and to those seeking to create a connection), but looked at more dispassionate way, there isn't much.<< No one is seeking to create a connection to anything. >>...the Saddam transcripts - at least what we've seen - had little to do with it [the topic at hand: whether Bush lied about Saddam] either... They shed light on Saddam, but not on Bush. Unless you're trying to see more than what is there.<< Just to be sure I understand, are you saying that Saddam's own words shed no light on what would have formed the perceptions of President George Bush regarding the invasion of Iraq? Is that what you are saying? While you have been arguing the points of others, I will ask a simple question, which goes directly to the thesis I have held all along. Do you believe that President Bush told the American public things he knew were factually untrue during the 18 months preceding the invasion of Iraq? I do not, and I believe that the material in these transcripts supports that thesis.
Originally Posted By woody On the misled question, here is the poll with the actual question. <a href="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/03/13/rel8a.pdf" target="_blank">http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2006/imag es/03/13/rel8a.pdf</a> 20. Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not? 2006 Mar 10-12 deliberately misled 51% No, did not 46%
Originally Posted By woody On withdrawal of the troops. Look at #27b Reduction of troops without timeline is 17% and Not sure is 3% plus Maintain current troop level 31% equals 51%, a clear majority. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20060315.pdf" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/public/r esources/documents/poll20060315.pdf</a> 27b. And do you think that the United States should reduce its number of troops but NOT have a timeline for withdrawal of all troops, or should the United States reduce its number of troops and have a target deadline for withdrawal of all troops within a year? Date 3/06 Maintain current troop level 31 Reduce number of troops 61 WITHOUT timeline for withdrawal 17 WITH timeline for withdrawal 41 Depends/not sure when to reduce (VOL) 3 Depends/some of both (VOL) 5 Not sure 3 28. More specifically, do you think that we should have an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, or not? Yes, should have an immediate withdrawal 30 No, should not have an immediate withdrawal 66
Originally Posted By DlandDug Interesting distinction, Woody. This thread originally addressed a fairly narrow and specific topic-- the yellowcake uranium issue. It has since been broadened to cover a range of areas. And some here will, of course, try to steer it only to WMDs. What I still contend is that Bush did not say anything he knew to be untrue. In my opinion, these transcripts indicate that the intel that was being gathered in Iraq throughout the 90s and up until the eve of the invasion was consistent with what Saddam Hussein was saying in private. Namely, Saddam was being purposely deceitful, and created a climate of doubt and fear. It was against this backdrop that President Bush and his advisors crafted their message to the American people, one in which he did not lie.
Originally Posted By woody From reviewing the polling data, I realized that the mainstream media only reported what it wants the public to know. It says misled without definition. It says the public doesn't back the war, but they do. I agree the public is afraid and they are clearly unhappy with Bush and the Republican Congress, but they do support the Iraq War with reservations. The mainstream media is misleading the public. That's a shame. >>And some here will, of course, try to steer it only to WMDs.<< And to the 911-Saddam connection.
Originally Posted By woody On the WashingtonPost-ABC News Poll, the troop withdrawal is completely misrepresented. Quote: "In the face of continuing violence, half -- 52 percent -- of those surveyed said the United States should begin withdrawing forces. One in six favors immediate withdrawal of all troops, however, while about one-third prefer a more gradual return." Foul!!! The poll does not say anything about the violence influencing the poll. This characterization is wrong to say "one-third prefer a more gradual return." One-third asks for a reduction in troops, which is not total withdrawal, and it doesn't mention a timetable for withdrawal. ("decreased, but not all withdrawn immediately" is very poor use of grammar. Not sure what it really means.) To crunch the numbers, only 17 asks for immediate troop withdrawal. On the other side, 36 say decrease the troops (neither immediate or total), 11 say troops should be increased, 34 say the troop level stays the same, and 3 have no opinion for a total of 84%. Clearly, a majority of Americans want to keep the troops in Iraq. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_iraqwar_030606.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_iraqwar_030606.htm</a> 16. Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be (increased=11), (decreased=52), or kept about the same (34), No Opinion (3)? 17. (IF DECREASED, Q16) Should all U.S. forces in Iraq be withdrawn immediately (33), or should they be decreased, but not all withdrawn immediately (67)? MORE BREAKDOWNS 16/17 NET: Increased = 11 Decreased NET = 52 - All/immed. = 17 - Not all/not immed. = 36 Kept about the same = 34 No op. = 3 11. Compared to before September 11, 2001, do you think the country today is safer from terrorism or less safe from terrorism? IF SAFER: Would you say the country is much safer or somewhat safer? Safer = 56 Less Safe = 35 No diff. = 8 No op. = 1 (Could question 11 be planting disinformation on the public for thinking the Iraq invasion is based on 911? Just wondering.)
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I neither missed nor sidestepped the point. I addressed it directly and diasagreed. Twice. (Inasmuch as the original poster has not weighed in yet, why don't you give this the benefit of the doubt, and then move on?)" << I don't generally have an opportunity to post during the day, making it hard to keep up here... Based on your clarifications, I do think you understood and simply disagreed with my point. Based on your initial reply alone, where your attempt to keep the quote "concise" left out really the most critical part, I can easily understand Dabob's conclusion. I do think that the fairly limited information from the documents helps to bring some additional clarity to why the intelligence was so far off, but I still contend that it gives us very little information at all about what information the administration actually had during the lead-up to the war. Much of what we have seen really just adds some clarity to information that generally was already known, namely that Hussein did not have WMDs or a particularly active WMD program, but the he didn't really want that to be too widely known. What we still really don't know is how much, if any, evidence had been gathered that told the true story instead of the one that Hussein was trying to convey. Considering that the main purpose of intelligence gathering is to uncover information that foreign powers don't really want to share, I find it difficult to believe that there was no intelligence out there that questioned his WMD stock. In fact, we pretty much know from the mixed world opinions about the justification for invasion prior to the start of the war that there was a fair amount of doubt out there. These documents basically do nothing to tell us whether the administration truly had no accurate intelligence, whether they simply made wrong decisions about which intelligence they deemed credible, or if they intentionally withheld and discarded credible information that didn't support a decision that had pretty much already been made. Ultimately, these are the questions that are at the crux of the whole debate over whether or not the administration acted honestly in building the case for war. I have seen nothing in these documents that give any significantly increased insight into these issues. I really doubt very much that we will see much more light shined on these issues until the Republicans are no longer in the position to block deeper investigation. -Jeff
Originally Posted By woody >>Considering that the main purpose of intelligence gathering is to uncover information that foreign powers don't really want to share, I find it difficult to believe that there was no intelligence out there that questioned his WMD stock. In fact, we pretty much know from the mixed world opinions about the justification for invasion prior to the start of the war that there was a fair amount of doubt out there.<< There was definitely doubt about WMD stock and the intelligence was faulty based on the concealment. Saddam's concealment proves that he cannot be trusted despite whether he had WMDs or not. How can he be an honest broker? "These documents basically do nothing to tell us whether the administration truly had no accurate intelligence, whether they simply made wrong decisions about which intelligence they deemed credible, or if they intentionally withheld and discarded credible information that didn't support a decision that had pretty much already been made." This is a wrong analysis. The documents are the evidence. They should be compared with what the Adminstration had. The last argument about "intentionally withheld and discarded credible information" implies the Administration had accurate intelligence. WRONG. Let's back up. Let's compare the documents with what the Administration had. Then we can conclude whether the Administration acted with bad or good intelligence and whether their decision is based on it. If you really think that the Administration "support a decision that had pretty much already been made", I agree the documents do nothing. This means YOU have made up your mind already.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Woody, I am noticing the left in this country are backing away from the Bush lied! talking point they have used as their truth for years now. I also notice they are not bringing up Rove going to jail or Plame being " outed ". In the end, the truth comes out. These people on the left are now viewed as Chicken little or the boy who cried wolf. I also KNOW the polls showing Bush is not to be trusted and the other nonsense is not how people in this country actually feel. You can't tell me the average American ( not living in SF or Vermont ) want to declare defeat in Iraq and want to declare our commander in cheif as incompetant and a liar. The left offer no ideas on how to keep the country safe, how to raise good families, how to make money by being good buisnesspeople. Yet they think people are going to buy their bogus polls and slanted media reports come election time? Remember 2004 and the run up to the election?? Same thing.. yet Bush got more votes than any president in history. Get ready for them to claim the voting machines were rigged again.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "These documents are the evidence. They should be compared with what the Adminstration had. " << That is pretty much the investigation that I was saying should be done. It isn't fully known what information the administration had at the time. All that is known is what information they decided to share. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Jeff, do you ever wonder why every democrat said Saddam had WMD's and that his weapons programs could not be left to continue? Where did they get their information to make such a statement? The president they are trying to paint as incompetant?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It might make more sense to say the Bush Administration "cherry picked" intelligence to prove their case against Iraq if the previous administration didn't say the same things, but they did. The Clinton administration said that Saddam had WMD's, that he was deceiving the UN, and that he had ties to Al Queda. It's all on record.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << The Clinton administration said that Saddam had WMD's, that he was deceiving the UN, and that he had ties to Al Queda. It's all on record.>> Exactly. That's why anyone who has a Bush Lied! sticker on thier car or on their protest sign is a total moron. In my opinion. K2man, how's it going!!
