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...<< <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?)> Well, he did weigh in later and I think he got it just right. >>(...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.> Bush wasn't even in office during much of this time, and obviously wasn't paying too much attention to Iraq then. To try to draw a connection between what Saddam was saying in private in the 90's and what Bush knew or didn't know in the 00's is, well, a stretch. >>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.> I disagree. >>...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?> Saddam's words in private that have until now not been heard by anyone in the west? How COULD they have had a bearing on Bush's decisions when Bush didn't know what those words were? <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.> I do not know whether he did, and I believe the material in these transcripts does not speak to that one way or the other. As usual, JeffG put it better than I did, in post 188, which was - again - just right. But I'll just comment on one of his points... <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.> Exactly. And we do know from dissenting CIA and other intell agents that have come forward that there WERE dissenting opinions expressed... and largely ignored. As for those who insist that Clinton had much the same opinion and therefore it makes it all okay... Clinton didn't invade, now did he? And when Bush began considering it, our intelligence looked much more in depth at Iraq than Clinton ever did (rightly, if we're thinking of invading); their "Iraq file" would have been much larger than Clinton's. And when we started digging deeper, we started seeing things the smaller Clinton-era investigation did not see, in the form of these dissenting opinions. Unfortunately, rather than say "wait a minute..." and take an even closer look at what the real story might be (and allowing the inspectors to do the same), the Bush team essentially said "damn the dissent, full speed ahead," ignored or minimized the dissent, and treated the evidence that pointed to "yes, he's got WMD" as though it were gospel. If you're going to take the monumental step of invading and occupying a country, you've got to be MORE careful, MORE sure; instead, when more doubt was raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD, they went ahead and invaded anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It says misled without definition. It says the public doesn't back the war, but they do.> No, they don't. You're confusing "back the war" with "support an immediate withdrawal of troops." There are tons of Americans who, like me, considered the war a mistake from the beginning. But now that we're there, we have a responsibility to leave that country with as much a chance for success as we can. And who believe that if we left now, that would only make a bad situation worse. That doesn't mean we "back the war." And considering only 31 percent think we should keep our current troop levels, a majority may "back it" even less than I do. It looks like you must said something in 181 that got both it and the post it referred to (my 180) admin'd. But the polls I cited in 180 said clearly that a solid majority of Americans feel the war was a "mistake." Yet you claim they "back" it? I have to give you props, though, for quoting the poll in 183 that shows that a majority think Bush deliberatly misled about WMD, when you had claimed the opposite. (And for the record, my response to that question would be "not sure.")
Originally Posted By woody >>If you're going to take the monumental step of invading and occupying a country, you've got to be MORE careful, MORE sure; instead, when more doubt was raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD, they went ahead and invaded anyway.<< Our intelligence was wrong. We found out after the invasion that it was wrong. >>And we do know from dissenting CIA and other intell agents that have come forward that there WERE dissenting opinions expressed... and largely ignored.<< The dissenting opinion did not present factual contrary intelligence. How could it? Was it opinion or facts? The documents proved Saddam concealed the truth. How would the CIA know what Saddam was doing? You ask for MORE careful, MORE sure, yet we don't have assurance Saddam won't pose a threat when economic sanctions are lifted. In fact, Saddam always intended to reconstitute its weaspons programs. Maybe we were wrong to harp on WMDs because there are many other reasons to invade Iraq. The danger from Saddam is real.
Originally Posted By woody >>You're confusing "back the war" with "support an immediate withdrawal of troops."<< I'm staking the ground. People who don't agree with the war would ask for the total withdrawal of troops. The latest anti-war protests show that some people want the return of the troops. I'm sure there is a distinction you're trying to make, but it is of little substance. You might not agree with the war, but you support keeping them there. I'll have to ask you to stop calling me names in Post 180. These names will be deleted. >>I have to give you props, though, for quoting the poll in 183 that shows that a majority think Bush deliberatly misled about WMD, when you had claimed the opposite.<< You haven't retained much substance. Why don't you re-read our posts? In the Washington Post article, it did not say what it meant by "misled". I presumed it could mean WMDs or the 911-Saddam collaboration allegation. When I read the actual poll, it only mentioned WMDs. The article was remiss in omitting this detail. Also, you're negligent since our previous argument was about the PLANTING of the 911-Saddam collaboration allegation as the rationale for the Iraq War.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And when Bush began considering it, our intelligence looked much more in depth at Iraq than Clinton ever did (rightly, if we're thinking of invading); their "Iraq file" would have been much larger than Clinton's. And when we started digging deeper, we started seeing things the smaller Clinton-era investigation did not see, in the form of these dissenting opinions.> Are you suggesting there was little to no dissent about Iraq intelligence during the Clinton administration, but lots during the Bush administration? I have not heard any evidence that supports this idea. It seems far more likely that if, as you're proposing, we got "more" Iraq intelligence under President Bush, then that intelligence would have been of the same character as what we got under President Clinton - i.e. lots of evidence that Saddam was guilty, and very little that he was not.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj "At least Clinton's lies didn't kill anybody . . ." That's my favorite bumper sticker.
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 Dabob2 <<And when Bush began considering it, our intelligence looked much more in depth at Iraq than Clinton ever did (rightly, if we're thinking of invading); their "Iraq file" would have been much larger than Clinton's. And when we started digging deeper, we started seeing things the smaller Clinton-era investigation did not see, in the form of these dissenting opinions.>> <Are you suggesting there was little to no dissent about Iraq intelligence during the Clinton administration, but lots during the Bush administration? I have not heard any evidence that supports this idea.> I've heard various people from the intell services talking about how dissenting intell on Iraq was dismissed, minimized, etc. under Bush, but no one saying similar things about Iraq intell under Clinton. <It seems far more likely that if, as you're proposing, we got "more" Iraq intelligence under President Bush, then that intelligence would have been of the same character as what we got under President Clinton - i.e. lots of evidence that Saddam was guilty, and very little that he was not.> Why is that "more likely?" If Iraq was looked at more closely in the 00's than in the 90's (which it SHOULD have been, if we're thinking of invading), it's only logical that a closer look would get us closer to the truth - and of course, the ultimate truth was that he didn't have them. We were starting to see intell that pointed to that. Unfortunately, it was dismissed rather than explored.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've heard various people from the intell services talking about how dissenting intell on Iraq was dismissed, minimized, etc. under Bush, but no one saying similar things about Iraq intell under Clinton.> And yet the Clinton administration reached the same conclusions that the Bush administration did. <If Iraq was looked at more closely in the 00's than in the 90's (which it SHOULD have been, if we're thinking of invading), it's only logical that a closer look would get us closer to the truth - and of course, the ultimate truth was that he didn't have them.> The ultimate truth is that he was not in compliance with UN resolutions, and would never willing be in compliance with UN resolutions. As such, his regime would always be a threat to us, and to others.
Originally Posted By woody >>I have. And you claimed that most Americans did not believe that Bush deliberately misled us on WMD - then you posted a poll that showed the opposite, and I was giving you props for being honest.<< You haven't re-read the posts. I just did. I said I "did not believe that Bush deliberately misled us on WMD". I am only one American. I didn't dispute the poll. I only dispute the characterization of the poll in the Washington Post article. You have to do better than that. Maybe that's why you were an "adjunct". >>How am I "negligent?"<< You forgot the argument. You don't get better with time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I've heard various people from the intell services talking about how dissenting intell on Iraq was dismissed, minimized, etc. under Bush, but no one saying similar things about Iraq intell under Clinton.>> <And yet the Clinton administration reached the same conclusions that the Bush administration did.> Hello? If the dissenting intell wasn't coming in under Clinton, then it made more sense to reach those conclusions; if it was coming in under Bush (and we know it was), it's a shortcoming to say the least that they STILL came to those conclusions, or at least didn't step back and look yet closer. <<If Iraq was looked at more closely in the 00's than in the 90's (which it SHOULD have been, if we're thinking of invading), it's only logical that a closer look would get us closer to the truth - and of course, the ultimate truth was that he didn't have them.>> <The ultimate truth is that he was not in compliance with UN resolutions, and would never willing be in compliance with UN resolutions. As such, his regime would always be a threat to us, and to others. > More ultimate truth: there are more (and better) ways to deal with a threat other than invasion and occupation.
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 woody >That's not what you said initially.< WRONG. You have a reading problem. I say this with confidence. You can't be taken seriously, adjunct. We were doing fine with the argument until you misunderstood and blamed it on me. Why is your misunderstanding my fault?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If the dissenting intell wasn't coming in under Clinton, then it made more sense to reach those conclusions> Why wouldn't dissenting intelligence be coming in under President Clinton? <More ultimate truth: there are more (and better) ways to deal with a threat other than invasion and occupation.> In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Bush wasn't even in office during much of this time, and obviously wasn't paying too much attention to Iraq then. To try to draw a connection between what Saddam was saying in private in the 90's and what Bush knew or didn't know in the 00's is, well, a stretch.<< I do not believe for a moment that the information used by the Bush Administration (or any administration)is limited only to what is available during their term of office. >>...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?> Saddam's words in private that have until now not been heard by anyone in the west? How COULD they have had a bearing on Bush's decisions when Bush didn't know what those words were?<< That's the point of this. That not only was Saddam making misleading statements in public, he was also making them in private. These transcripts show that the intel was not being produced in a vacuum, but represented what was going on behind closed doors. As usual, the rest of this discussion has devolved into "Bush lied about WMDs." Yet, the original point here was about the yellowcake uranium, something that was directly challenged, and which is directly addressed in the transcripts.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the Bush team essentially said "damn the dissent, full speed ahead," ignored or minimized the dissent, and treated the evidence that pointed to "yes, he's got WMD" as though it were gospel. If you're going to take the monumental step of invading and occupying a country, you've got to be MORE careful, MORE sure; instead, when more doubt was raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD, they went ahead and invaded anyway.<< Ah, the "rush to war" myth is raised yet again. There were 18 months of very public debate on this. The weapons inspectors regularly issued reports expressing grave doubts about the veracity of the information they were given in Iraq. (It was only AFTER the invasion that they issued anything conclusive that stated they did not believe Saddam had WMDs. These are the facts of the timeline.) And when was "more doubt...raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD?" Please provide information on this.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But we had hints before the invasion that it might be wrong. Which is why we should have said "wait a minute..." before invading.<< We waited more than a minute. We waited 18 months while inspectors inspected, politicians postured, and the UN issued warnings.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I have. And you claimed that most Americans did not believe that Bush deliberately misled us on WMD - then you posted a poll that showed the opposite, and I was giving you props for being honest.<< <You haven't re-read the posts. I just did.> I did too. <I said I "did not believe that Bush deliberately misled us on WMD". I am only one American. I didn't dispute the poll. I only dispute the characterization of the poll in the Washington Post article.> Fine, but you didn't make a compelling case for that. <You have to do better than that. Maybe that's why you were an "adjunct".> Cheap shot - and I still don't think you even know what it means. >>How am I "negligent?"<< <You forgot the argument. You don't get better with time.> Well, you changed the argument. That's not my fault.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<If the dissenting intell wasn't coming in under Clinton, then it made more sense to reach those conclusions>> <Why wouldn't dissenting intelligence be coming in under President Clinton?> That's something neither of us knows; perhaps it did. But if it did, none of the dissenters have made their concerns known. Plenty of dissenters from the 00's have made them known. Two possible reasons: Iraq was looked into in more depth in the 00's as the invasion was being planned, and as I said, it's only logical that a closer look would get us closer to the truth - and of course, the ultimate truth was that he didn't have WMD. The other possibility is that if Clinton wasn't going to invade, it wasn't as urgent for those with dissenting views to delve into them deeper. <<More ultimate truth: there are more (and better) ways to deal with a threat other than invasion and occupation.>> <In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.> In this case, yes.
Originally Posted By DlandDug "Ultimate Truth." Sounds like a new cult. Or a new reality show on Fox. Or a Schwarzenegger movie title.
