Originally Posted By woody The Admin deleted your posts for a reason. Didn't you get the hint? >>I did too.<< With your highly touted logic, your conclusion isn't logical (and this is accounting for your perception of my logic). I would not post an article contradicting my own arguments. Another thing, you originally posted the polls, which stated that 51% of American believed it was misled. You used the polls as evidence to support your argument. I argued with the poll to dispute your conclusions on the word "misled". I didn't argue with the substance of the poll, which I didn't dispute. I don't believe you went back to the thread and re-read it. You only stated your biases. >>Fine, but you didn't make a compelling case for that.<< So, you missed the point. That's fine. Back in the thread, we were debated the meaning of misled. You forgot why we bothered debating. That's your style. >>Well, you changed the argument. That's not my fault.<< Everything we've debated is consistent with the argument. Nothing has changed, including your memory, which is no excuse since you could go back and re-read the 200 posts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>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.> Of course not, but that's not what I said. And since these conversations have only JUST been translated and come to light, they weren't available to Bush as Clinton-era intelligence either. >>...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.> They don't show that at all. Remember, we didn't have this particular intell until AFTER we invaded. This represents stuff we found (and translated) after we invaded. It was not known to our intelligence community in the run-up to the war. How then, could it have had any bearing on our decisions? That just doesn't make sense. <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.> I've never said Bush lied about WMD, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here, especially as it concerns my posts. >>...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.> It's no myth. In fact, there were more British documents released just today that underline that again. Bush had made the decision to invade for months while he was still claiming in public it was a "last resort" (and some people apparently still buy that). <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.)> First of all, I believe we had 18 months of a SHOW of debate about this - while the decision had already been made. Former Bush admin. officials themselves have said that invading Iraq was on the agenda even before 9/11. And not in the "every contingency" way of, say, what do we do if China invades Taiwan, "what if" type contingency. In the sense of "how do we make this happen?" And it's also the fact of the timeline that the inspectors were given greater access than previously in the run-up to the war, and asked for more time to continue their work. That time was denied them. <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.< Good grief, there have been whole threads on this. There have been quite a few dissenters from the CIA, DIA, DOD, recently Colin Powell's former top aide... all talking about dissenting intell about WMD that was minimized, pooh-poohed or outright dismissed because it didn't fit the template the administration was looking for. Plenty of people have come forward - I've seen no one from the Clinton years with similar stories, so that would make more under Bush, by definition. >>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.> And certainly, waiting the month or so more that the inspectors asked us for couldn't have hurt - except in the sense that it might have raised more doubt about the WMD that ultimately weren't there, so it might have hurt the case for war - and might have saved us 2300+ lives, thousands of amputees, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the mistrust with which we are viewed by friend and foe alike. Next time we "have" to take some action based on "sure thing" intelligence - how's that gonna go over? Not to mention the mess that is Iraq now. We can't leave because that could make a bad situation worse, yet our presence serves as an irritant to an already volatile mix. The monumentally bad decision to invade and occupy has put us in a 'damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. We have to hope that cooler heads prevail, yet have no way to guarantee they will, and won't explode into a full-bore civil war that would make even life under Saddam grimly preferable to the average Iraqi. And if calm is restored, we can't be certain at all that civil war won't break out after a period of relative calm (say, 2-3 years) after we do feel okay about withdrawing our troops and create THAT vacuum - perhaps even one that involves Iran and other countries in the region. We are at the mercy of events we do not control, which is pretty much the textbook example of "foreign policy nightmare." And many of us warned of exactly this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The Admin deleted your posts for a reason. Didn't you get the hint?> It's typically because they delete yours and have to delete my post that you refer to. >>I did too.<< <With your highly touted logic, your conclusion isn't logical (and this is accounting for your perception of my logic).> The conclusion that I re-read posts isn't logical? Talk about strange logic. <I would not post an article contradicting my own arguments.> Yet you did. I was giving you credit for being honest enough to do so; turns out you don't even realize you did it. <Another thing, you originally posted the polls, which stated that 51% of American believed it was misled. You used the polls as evidence to support your argument.> And that argument was that not whether they were or not, per se; it was rebutting your statement that most Americans did not feel that way. But as you can see, they do. <I don't believe you went back to the thread and re-read it. You only stated your biases.> Believe what you will. >>Fine, but you didn't make a compelling case for that.<< <So, you missed the point. That's fine.> If you didn't make a strong case, that's not me "missing the point." It's you not making a strong case. <Back in the thread, we were debated the meaning of misled. You forgot why we bothered debating. That's your style.> Just the opposite. All I was doing was disputing your contention that most Americans didn't feel Bush misled them, by showing you a poll that shows they do feel that way. You tried to change it to debating the meaning of "misled," which was not my argument. But typically, you charge me with doing the very thing you do. >>Well, you changed the argument. That's not my fault.<< <Everything we've debated is consistent with the argument. Nothing has changed, including your memory, which is no excuse since you could go back and re-read the 200 posts.> I did re-read the posts that were germane. And you logic just plain has huge leaps in it.
Originally Posted By woody >>The conclusion that I re-read posts isn't logical? Talk about strange logic.<< A bit slow. The logic that my posting of the poll (of 51% of Americans believed it was misled by WMDs) contradicted my argument, since you loved it so much. I already said I would not contradict my own arguments. These are my arguments. Post 89: <Dabob: The coin sides are "Bush may have lied" and "Bush did lie". You may not have made this claim, but you certainly did not rule it out.> Then I started debating you about lies and misled. Post 137 <There is no lie about WMDs. The CIA intelligence is wrong. Saddam (in newly released documents) destroyed his WMDs without telling his generals.> More posts about why I dispute with you about lies and misled. Post 148 <Dabob2 said "for example, that Saddam was involved with 9/11, WITHOUT actually saying so, thus preserving cover against a "lie" charge."> <To say the public is equally gullible is a mistake. The public does support the war effort.> <This is the most frustrating part of the whole Bush lied conspiracy. Many people did think Saddam was involved. That would include Rumsfeld who thought Saddam harbored terrorists (a truth).> <Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public.> The misleading is based on the 911-Saddam argument. Then you posted the poll in Post 151. This is based on Americans not supporting the war effort, not about misleading although you posted that too. Post 153. >>I said "And since the discussion was the perception of being misled, the difference was clear. There is NO misleading intentional or inadvertent.<< >>The public has a right to their opinion. They thought wrong. Should we start blaming the public for being stupid. Let's go there."<< Did I ever disagree with the poll that the public think it was misled? NO. YOU CAN'T READ.
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 STPH: Since you're a little bewildered by my response, it is quite simple. Dabob2 did not re-read the posts. He made an unfair charge based on....???? I don't know why. My response was reasonable from the (stuff) I'm getting from Dabob2.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I grow weary. >><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.< ...There have been quite a few dissenters from the CIA, DIA, DOD, recently Colin Powell's former top aide... Plenty of people have come forward... I've seen no one from the Clinton years with similar stories, so that would make more under Bush, by definition.<< No. Not at all. You made a direct assertion ("...more doubt was raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD...") which CANNOT be proved. Unless you have direct and intimate knowledge of all the intel that came to the Clinton White House, and all the intel that came to the Bush White House, you are merely speculating. Now, if a batch of new documents came out of the Clinton White House that supported your view, I suppose you could make a case. But then again, I could then claim that they are invalid, since no one knew about them at the time. But I wouldn't do that, since I know that would be a specious argument, with as much validity as the one you are now trying to carry out about the recently translated documents from Saddam's Iraq. I feel I have more than adequately made my point here. I will leave the semantic byplay and "gotchas" to the rest of you.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I feel I have more than adequately made my point here. I will leave the semantic byplay and "gotchas" to the rest of you.>> Now that's how you end a debate!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The conclusion that I re-read posts isn't logical? Talk about strange logic.<< <A bit slow. The logic that my posting of the poll (of 51% of Americans believed it was misled by WMDs) contradicted my argument, since you loved it so much.> But it did contradict your argument, since you said that most Americans did not feel misled by Bush. <Post 89: <Dabob: The coin sides are "Bush may have lied" and "Bush did lie". You may not have made this claim, but you certainly did not rule it out.> Then I started debating you about lies and misled.> Um, okay... but what in my statement is not true? Bush may indded have lied. Certain things he has said have turned out not to be true. The question then becomes did he know they were untrue when he said them? I have said we don't know that yet. <Post 137 <There is no lie about WMDs. The CIA intelligence is wrong. Saddam (in newly released documents) destroyed his WMDs without telling his generals.> More posts about why I dispute with you about lies and misled.> You don't seem to understand that these two things aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is WMD the only thing that Bush may have lied or misled about. <Post 148 <Dabob2 said "for example, that Saddam was involved with 9/11, WITHOUT actually saying so, thus preserving cover against a "lie" charge."> <To say the public is equally gullible is a mistake. The public does support the war effort.> I then posted a couple of polls that shows that the public does NOT support the war any more, though a majority did at one time. <This is the most frustrating part of the whole Bush lied conspiracy. Many people did think Saddam was involved. That would include Rumsfeld who thought Saddam harbored terrorists (a truth).> I answered this as well. Harboring terrorists does not equal "involved in 9/11" - most of the countries in the region harbored terrorists to one degree or another. The administration was quite aware that Saddam was not involved with 9/11. <Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public.> <The misleading is based on the 911-Saddam argument.> Yet the poll you quoted showed that a majority of Americans DID feel they were misled by Bush. This is how you contradicted yourself when you posted it. Is it possible that you STILL don't get this? <Then you posted the poll in Post 151. This is based on Americans not supporting the war effort, not about misleading although you posted that too.> You've jumped around so much that I've had to post several polls. But yes, I posted polls about support for the war effort and on beliefs about being misled. And both showed what I said they did, rather than what you said they did. <Post 153. >>I said "And since the discussion was the perception of being misled, the difference was clear. There is NO misleading intentional or inadvertent.<< This is a conclusion without backup. >>The public has a right to their opinion. They thought wrong. Should we start blaming the public for being stupid. Let's go there."<< (That was your quote, not mine, just in case anyone wonders). <Did I ever disagree with the poll that the public think it was misled? NO. YOU CAN'T READ.> Apparently, you can't read your own post. You said "That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public." Unless you don't understand the meaning of "non-starter," what that means is that most of the public would not believe they were misled. In fact, it was because you posted that little phrase that I posted the poll that shows most Americans DID think they were misled. How can the misleading charge be a "non-starter" with the public, when most of the public agrees with it?
Originally Posted By woody >>But it did contradict your argument, since you said that most Americans did not feel misled by Bush.<< Again, you still can't read. The issue is the meaning of misled: WMD or 911-Saddam. Before Post 151, we were clearly talking about 911-Saddam collaboration. After Post 151, the issue was what the polls actually said and it said it was about WMDs. >>(That was your quote, not mine, just in case anyone wonders).<< Yes, and not contradicting the poll. >>You said "That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public."<< Since we were debating on the misleading charge based on the 911-Saddam accusation rather than the WMDs, I believe the 911-Saddam misleading charge was a non-starter. I did this on Post 148 before Post 151, where you pasted the poll. In Post 151, it didn't define the meaning of mislead. In Post 183, I posted the details of the meaning of "mislead", which clearly states it was about WMDs and NOT 911-Saddam. To quote you.... Can you wrap your head around that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I grow weary.> Me too. >><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.<>> <<...There have been quite a few dissenters from the CIA, DIA, DOD, recently Colin Powell's former top aide... Plenty of people have come forward... I've seen no one from the Clinton years with similar stories, so that would make more under Bush, by definition.>> <No. Not at all.> Yes. Some is more than none. <You made a direct assertion ("...more doubt was raised in our intell services than was ever raised under Clinton about whether Saddam had WMD...") which CANNOT be proved. Unless you have direct and intimate knowledge of all the intel that came to the Clinton White House, and all the intel that came to the Bush White House, you are merely speculating.> Not at all. One doesn't have to know everything - how ridiculous. One only needs to know that plenty of doubt was raised by intell sources under Bush - which it was - and that virtually nothing of this sort has come to light on this subject from the Clinton years, to know that some is by definition more than none. I suppose it would be more proper to say "more dissent on Iraq has come to light from the Bush years than from the Clinton years," but since we lay people can only know what has come to light, and therefore only intelligently discuss that, this would seem to me to be a semantic game. <Now, if a batch of new documents came out of the Clinton White House that supported your view, I suppose you could make a case. But then again, I could then claim that they are invalid, since no one knew about them at the time.> You don't seem to understand - I'm saying it's the ABSENCE of dissent from the Clinton years that is in contrast with the dissent we know was going on under Bush. So actually it's the opposite - if a bunch of dissenting opinions on Iraq came to light from the Clinton years, then perhaps YOU would have a case. <But I wouldn't do that, since I know that would be a specious argument, with as much validity as the one you are now trying to carry out about the recently translated documents from Saddam's Iraq.> I'm sorry, Dug, but it is you who has the specious argument. You're trying to create a connection between only recently translated documents and Bush's decisions. Which by definition doesn't make sense. <I feel I have more than adequately made my point here. I will leave the semantic byplay and "gotchas" to the rest of you.> (Beau): <Now that's how you end a debate! > ...if one has a weak case and wishes to end it with the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 woody, you're trying to define when "we" were discussing different elements of the Bush run-up to war that might have been misleading, but clearly you can only speak for what was in YOUR mind. To me, it's all of a piece anyway, since it was a comprehensive strategy, but if you want to get semantic, knock yourself out. But since, if anything, the case that Bush was misleading on Saddam-9/11 ties (which he knew didn't exist) was STRONGER than the case that he misled on WMD (where at least he was getting contradictory intell), you're on very thin ice here. True, I didn't post a poll that showed that most Americans believed he misled us about Saddam-9/11 ties per se, but I don't doubt I could find one. So that's really not a non-starter either, and I think deep down you know that.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You guys are like that never ending chess game that people carry on for years in different geographical locations. How do you get the energy?? Amazing!
Originally Posted By woody >>"To me, it's all of a piece anyway, since it was a comprehensive strategy, but if you want to get semantic, knock yourself out."<< I did realize another component of the argument. When I said "Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public.", it is a true statement. Even if the public does believe it was mislead by WMDs and the 911-Saddam collaboration, it is irrelevant because the public does NOT want American troops to be withdrawn or reduced IMMEDIATELY. Of course, the public might change its position when feels worse about the prospects for success. >>"So that's really not a non-starter either, and I think deep down you know that."<< Well, I answered that above.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>"To me, it's all of a piece anyway, since it was a comprehensive strategy, but if you want to get semantic, knock yourself out."<< <I did realize another component of the argument. When I said "Although the polls are bad for Bush, the public do support Bush on national security and do not want the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That's why the misleading charge is a non-starter for the public.", it is a true statement.> No it isn't, it's a leap of logic. The public is perfectly capable of believing that Bush misled us on Iraq, AND that we shouldn't leave now, for whatever reason they believe that (for instance, because it could make a bad situation worse.) The two things are not mutually exclusive, and to contend that they are is not logical. <Even if the public does believe it was mislead by WMDs and the 911-Saddam collaboration, it is irrelevant because the public does NOT want American troops to be withdrawn or reduced IMMEDIATELY.> It is not irrelevant, as they are two separate questions. There are many people who feel that Bush misled us on WMD or 9/11 ties or both - but who feel that now that we're there we need to deal with the reality of today and withdrawal now might only make things worse. That doesn't mean we don't still feel misled, or feel that those who made bad decisions shouldn't be accountable for them. Do you see?
Originally Posted By woody >>The public is perfectly capable of believing that Bush misled us on Iraq, AND that we shouldn't leave now, for whatever reason they believe that (for instance, because it could make a bad situation worse.) The two things are not mutually exclusive, and to contend that they are is not logical.<< By definition, they are two separate things. They are mutally exclusive. Whatever reason we gotten into Iraq, what we do now is RELEVANT. You haven't really said how they are NOT mutually exclusive. You gave no reason for the dichotomy (I know the meaning of the word). The debate over entering the war is past. Why? The liberals have dismissed the Iraq documents. If they are not willing to look into them, what value is the debate? "That doesn't mean we don't still feel misled, or feel that those who made bad decisions shouldn't be accountable for them. Do you see?" You can "feel" anything you want. If you want to feel misled, it is your choice. I believe the misled allegation is not based on fact. It is a wild conspiracy theory of the Michael Moore type.
