Bush knew Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t

[rjung]

Since some folks (including SDMB regulars) are still clinging to the notion that George W. Bush didn't lie about Iraqi WMD, but was merely "misled," I thought I'd toss out the following. It's rather long, but definitely worth a read:

They Knew
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak

...In his first major address on the "Iraqi threat" in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation—stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

Regardless, the chemical/biological weapons claims from the administration continued to escalate. Powell told the United Nations on February 5, 2003, "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." As proof, he cited aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected weapons site.

According to newly released documents in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Powell’s own top intelligence experts told him not to make such claims about the photographs. They said the vehicles were likely water trucks. He ignored their warnings.

In the summer of 2002, USA Today reported White House lawyers had concluded that establishing an Iraq-al Qaeda link would provide the legal cover at the United Nations for the administration to attack Iraq. Such a connection, no doubt, also would provide political capital at home. And so, by the fall of 2002, the Iraq-al Qaeda drumbeat began.

It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, "you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." This was news even to members of Bush’s own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda ‚ I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda."

To no surprise, the day after Bush’s statement, USA Today reported several intelligence experts "expressed skepticism" about the claim, with a Pentagon official calling the president’s assertion an "exaggeration."

Even today, with all of the intelligence firmly against him, Cheney remains unrepentant. Asked in June about whether the meeting had occurred, he admitted, "That’s never been proven." Then he added, "It’s never been refuted." When CNBC’s Gloria Borger asked about his initial claim that the meeting was "pretty well confirmed," Cheney snapped, "No, I never said that. I never said that. Absolutely not."

His actual words in December 2001: "It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service."

In other words, Cheney hit a new low. He resorted not only to lying about the story, but lying about lying about the story.

To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true.

But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity.

Of course, this is all old hat for a lot of folks on the SDMB. I'm simply curious as to whether any of the "Bush was misled" apologists can actually refute the points raised in the article, or if they'll resort to simply running around with fingers in their ears yet again.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Interesting timing, this thread. I've just finished watching Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War and it makes basically the same point. The best thing about it is that is uses the administration's own words against them. Clips of Cheney saying one thing, followed by clips of him denying he ever said it. Clips of Bush affirming that the intelligence is "real good". That sort of thing over and over.

There was also a section on how much of a tool Powell was at the UN, making his debut performance as a sattelite imaging expert. CIA experts with decades of imagry experience followd up by saying how embarrasing this part of the speech was. He also did a bang-up job of showing us artist's renditions of bioweapons trailers. Why use cartoon drawings? Because there was no evidence that the real thing existed.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Thanks, rjung. This revision of history appears to be gaining traction, so your efforts are unfortunately probably going to fall on deaf ears. I would note that there is so much more evidence out there, such as the existence of the OSP, the documented efforts by the CIA to have the administration cool it on the infamous 16 words, and the incident that prompted Condi to assert that "the President is not a fact checker."

It seems, however, that the idea of Bush being misled by the intelligence agencies is a handy hook for administration defenders to hang their hat. I'm just curious if long timers in the intelligence community look on this with indifference, or are happy to fall on their swords, or are carrying a big ass grudge.

[Rashak Mani]

Don't forget that blaming the intelligence also serves to take any blame from Congress for approving the Iraq War. The system was wrong... so no one is wrong !!!! Absurd... but are voters paying attention ?

What is sad that the same thing was done in Britain... everyone did it in goodwill.

Bush apologists will probably claim that eventually Saddam would have those weapons anyway... that an "evil" dictator was taken down anyway. That Bush did it in good faith... never mind cherry picking intelligence and being deaf to contrary views.

Overall I think this is very sad... I'd rather Bush and Blair had just said "we wanna take Saddam down" and so forth. Democracy and international law wouldn't be kicked around like this. Sadder still is if a real threat does emerge. Some little arab country with real nukes and willing to use them... then everyone will think the intel is wrong...

[Voyager]

Thanks from me also. Good stuff.

We also shouldn't forget that no matter what the state of intelligence was in 2002, before the war began the UN inspectors had been to the places named by US Intelligence (or Chalabi) as WMD locations, and found nothing. This converted Blix into an aWMDist.

[jshore]

Yeah...That's an interesting article that I just posted to this thread last night. There is also this piece by David Corn in The Nation a few months back.

And, it is also interesting to read the following articles that appeared in the New York Times before the war (or, in the last case, 4 days after it began), reporting the ways in which the intelligence community and such were uncomfortable about the case that the Administration was making:

• October 9, 2002: Aides Split on Assessment of Iraq's Plans
• October 24, 2002: A C.I.A. Rival; Pentagon Sets up Intelligence Unit
• Feb. 2, 2003: Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda
• March 23, 2003: C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports

(Because of the vagueries of how the N.Y. Times runs it archive, it seems the links above get redirected in a way that only allows me to access the summaries, but if I go to this page and hit on the same links, I am able to read the full articles. See what works for you!)

It's important that the history on this not be conveniently rewritten.

[elucidator]

I don't even think the "misled by intel" line is even intended for serious debate. The Bushiviks know they have a solid base of people who will forgive him anything, just so long as they are presented with a "talking point", something they can hang on to. They aren't particular, not skeptical, throw them a bone. This line of defense was the last line, there is no place left to go. They're hoping it will do. Clearly for a considerable number of people, it will.

But this is intended to sway anyone who isn't already on board. They have to say something. And this is it. The best they can do.

[Marley23]

Wow. Great work, rjung. It's nice to have that in one place - I felt they believed what they wanted to, but I'd gone a little soft on the 'bad intelligence' stuff. Now I see I shouldn't have. I did read a lot of those articles the first time out, but it's been a while.

[Liberal]

It is amazing to me how galvanized this nation is. As a disinterested party in the pissing contest between Present Tyrant Bush and Future Tyrant Kerry, I tend to be skeptical of both sides. I do not believe Republicans who tell me that Bush has not trampled upon our civil liberties because the fact of the matter is that he has. On the other hand, I do not believe Democrats who tell me that Bush sitting in the Florida classroom for five minutes is in any way significant because the fact of the matter is that it isn't. So I approached Rjung's article with an open mind. Even though he thinks I make things up to win arguments, the fact of the matter is that I don't. Nothing would please me more than to add to my arsenal of complaints against Bush the discovery that he is a liar — that is, a liar on a significantly greater scale than any arbitrary politician. They're almost all liars, so what I need is a whopper like this one under discussion in order really to cite it when I bash Bush for his tyranny.

But something in the article caught my eye almost immediately. It was one of those little surprises that cause a man to tilt his head, blink his eyes, and go "hmm...". It was in the first paragraph. (I do not include the one-sentence statement that is printed as though it were a paragraph.) The article refers to what the 9/11 Commission Report reported, but does not cite the commission. Instead, it cites the NY Times. This seemed weird for a couple of reasons: (1) the commission's report is readily available, and (2) the New York Times requires a subscription. So, verifying the article's claim was made more problematic than was necessary, and I wondered why. I mean, don't get me wrong. This wasn't a deal-breaker by any means, but it did cause me immediately to slow down and read very carefully. And I'm really surprised that Rjung and others did not catch this and tilt their heads as well, since they call out all and sundry who cite portions of Fahrenheit 9/11 while getting their information from other reports about it. I would have thought that they would hold that standard generally, and thus call out anyone who cites portions of the 9/11 Commission Report while getting their information from the New York Times.

Well, let's move on. The article says:

As the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was “no credible evidence” of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The phrase in quotation marks is linked to the New York Times. I can't access the New York Times article, but I do have the entire 585 page report from the 9/11 Commission, and the phrase "no credible evidence" appears five times, none of them in the context the article quotes. There is (1) no credible evidence that "Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States"; (2) no credible evidence that "any person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance"; (3) no credible evidence that Omar al Bayoumi "believed in violent extremism or knowingly aided extremist groups"; (4) no credible evidence of "of specific plans to attack U.S. civil aviation"; and (5) no credible evidence "to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing." The last one appears in a footnote. So can someone please tell me what the New York Times article is talking about exactly?

Then I ran into where the article said this:

As CBS News reported, “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.”

I followed the link to the CBS News report, and the article quoted it accurately. However, the CBS News report summation of the note is a bit of a logical leap. It quotes the note as saying that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." S.H. presumably means Saddam Hussein. But that does not say to come up with plans for striking Iraq; it says to find out whether the best information justifies a strike on Iraq. There is nothing about drawing up any plans; it is about gathering the best information to see whether it points to Saddam. So can someone please tell me whether there is some other source stating that Rumsfeld instructed the military to begin making plans to strike Iraq?

One final question. The article said this:

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

I read the CIA report that it references, titled "Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2000". The article does quote the portion that it quotes more or less accurately (the actual quote uses WMD), except that it left off an entire dependent clause. The article puts a period inside its quotation marks, but there is no period after "programs"; there is a comma. The entire sentence says, "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely." (Emphasis mine.) Moreover, the very next sentence says, "We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months." So can someone explain how the actual complete sentences in the CIA report (and not the fragment quoted in the article) does not imply that intelligence believes Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely?

I've stopped reading the article after running into these questions since naturally, if the underlying premises are faulty, then whatever inferences that may follow would be faulty as well. I'll finish it if someone can help me out here. Thanks.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Liberal

(5) no credible evidence "to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing." The last one appears in a footnote. So can someone please tell me what the New York Times article is talking about exactly?

Bet'cha it's that one.

The entire sentence says, "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely." (Emphasis mine.) Moreover, the very next sentence says, "We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months." So can someone explain how the actual complete sentences in the CIA report (and not the fragment quoted in the article) does not imply that intelligence believes Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely?

The war wasn't based on claims that "Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely," Lib. Likewise, Bush didn't fall back on lines about 'WMD-related activities' and 'programs' and 'capability' until the initial claims (Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is working to reconstitute its nuclear program) fell through. I think part of this story is the way the administration interpreted sentences like that one: they turned guarded assessments like "must be regarded as likely" into worst-case scenarios to hype the threat.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The war wasn't based on claims that "Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely," Lib. Likewise, Bush didn't fall back on lines about 'WMD-related activities' and 'programs' and 'capability' until the initial claims (Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is working to reconstitute its nuclear program) fell through. I think part of this story is the way the administration interpreted sentences like that one: they turned guarded assessments like "must be regarded as likely" into worst-case scenarios to hype the threat.

Sure they did. I don't think many peope are disputing that the administration played up the evidence, exaggerated, etc. However, the OPs assertion (which most, including you, have gushed over in lemming like lockstep) is "Bush KNEW Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" (emphasis mine). Playing up data for political gain does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie. It is a position that seems to be lost on many on this board unfortunately.

-XT

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Sure they did. I don't think many peope are disputing that the administration played up the evidence, exaggerated, etc. However, the OPs assertion (which most, including you, have gushed over in lemming like lockstep) is "Bush KNEW Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" (emphasis mine). Playing up data for political gain does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie. It is a position that seems to be lost on many on this board unfortunately.

I love the shades of gray we've explored with this administration. 'It's dishonest spinning of information for political gain, but it's not lying.' Call me a lemming all you want. They were informed something was possible, and told the public it was definitely true in order to justify an action they wanted to carry out regardless.

But this is what it comes down to? The defense is 'they didn't know it was bullshit, they just chose to tailor a questionable set of facts to their liking to create a bullshit case and sway public opinion???' That's complete disregard for the truth, isn't it?

Am I alone, or does this go way beyond "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is?"

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Bet'cha it's that one.


The war wasn't based on claims that "Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely," Lib. Likewise, Bush didn't fall back on lines about 'WMD-related activities' and 'programs' and 'capability' until the initial claims (Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is working to reconstitute its nuclear program) fell through. I think part of this story is the way the administration interpreted sentences like that one: they turned guarded assessments like "must be regarded as likely" into worst-case scenarios to hype the threat.

I thin Lib's main problem is not so much with the claim itself, as with the article's cavlier use of it as supporting evidence.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I love the shades of gray we've explored with this administration. 'It's dishonest spinning of information for political gain, but it's not lying.' Call me a lemming all you want. They were informed something was possible, and told the public it was definitely true in order to justify an action they wanted to carry out regardless.

Welcome to reality, American politics style. Sorry that its taken the Bush administration to make you aware of this reality.

Originally Posted by Marley23

But this is what it comes down to? The defense is 'they didn't know it was bullshit, they just chose to tailor a questionable set of facts to their liking to create a bullshit case and sway public opinion???' That's complete disregard for the truth, isn't it?

Who is defending them? I think that reguardless of whether there was WMD or not, we were STILL wrong to go into Iraq. We didn't need the Iraqi foriegn adventure and it took us away from our REAL fight...namely that of curtailing AQ and other terrorist organizations. However, the OP was stating, and you and the rest uncritically just bumped along with it, that Bush KNEW that there were NO WMD and he and his administration completely lied about them. Sorry, this just isn't reality. Did they exaggerate? Sure they did. Did they do it for political reasons? Again, this is a no brainer. But they didn't make this stuff out of whole clothe, no matter how much the rabbidly anti-Bush crowd wants it to be that way. And THATS what I was taking exception too.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Am I alone, or does this go way beyond "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is?"

Funny you should mention that. Can I assume you really were previously aware of the current state of US politics before Bush??

-XT

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

I thin Lib's main problem is not so much with the claim itself, as with the article's cavlier use of it as supporting evidence.

Yes, I understand that. I've actually got the new Newsweek in front of me, and they say it the way the Times probably should've -

The commission's report found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was behind the 1993 attack - and no Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

It's misusing the quote, but I think Lib is being overdramatic.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Bet'cha it's that one.

If it is, then it is a stretch. An awful lot can happen in eight years. I've never understood the alleged ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to be concerning the '93 attack. If there's something out there saying otherwise, I'm open to hearing it.

The war wasn't based on claims that "Iraq WMD reconstitution was likely," Lib.

Maybe not, but the claims made in the OP's article ARE based on that. It is in fact the portion of the sentence that it quoted. It is the article, and not I, that cited the CIA report.

It's misusing the quote, but I think Lib is being overdramatic.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but all I've done is ask some questions and explained why I have them. To me, "Bush knew Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" is rather melodramatic — even if essentially true. I suppose you can dismiss my questions as melodramatic, but only at the expense of being rather inconsistent.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Liberal

...I've stopped reading the article after running into these questions since naturally, if the underlying premises are faulty, then whatever inferences that may follow would be faulty as well. I'll finish it if someone can help me out here. Thanks.

You are making an incorrect assumption that because the Commission Final Report didn't include the reference of "no credible evidence" linking Iraq to Al Qaida, that the quote is being mis-attributed to the commision or is a mis-quote of an actual commission report statement, casting doubt on everything that follows.

The quote is not from the Final report, but from an interim report released in June. Google -- iraq relationship commission "no credible evidence". You will find a whole slew of stories around June 16-17, well before the final report was issued, using this exact quote, including Fox.

[Sevastopol]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Sure they did. I don't think many peope are disputing that the administration played up the evidence, exaggerated, etc. However, the OPs assertion (which most, including you, have gushed over in lemming like lockstep) is "Bush KNEW Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" (emphasis mine). Playing up data for political gain does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie. It is a position that seems to be lost on many on this board unfortunately.

-XT

To see how wrong this is, one needs only consider the policy alternatives that were current; namely

- invade Iraq; or
- continue the UNMOVIC Inspections to determine the facts.

Given those alternatives the Bush Administration has 2 ways of representing the evidence:

- In accordance with the advice it was receiving from its own intelligence services that the evidence was fragmentary and ambiguous; or
- In accordance with advice with a known ideological or tendentious bias, that the evidence was absolute.

What then is the problem with representing the evidence as absolute? In short, why does it matter? It matters because the way it was represented foreclosed the option of continuing the UNMOVIC Inspections. Bush et als representations were in effect declaring that the Inspections were redundant.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Liberal

If it is, then it is a stretch. An awful lot can happen in eight years.

However, as the commission went on to say, it didn't.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but all I've done is ask some questions and explained why I have them. To me, "Bush knew Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" is rather melodramatic — even if essentially true. I suppose you can dismiss my questions as melodramatic, but only at the expense of being rather inconsistent.

Boyo Jim explains perfectly why I said what I did. It's a poor editing choice that does not actually cast any doubt on anything that follows.

[Sevastopol]

When a candid representation of the evidence would have been a compelling argument for the continuation of the Inspections process.

[Voyager]

Perhaps rjung should have said "Any person in that position wishing to discover the truth, and with an average amount of skepticism and curiousity would know the claims were Bushit, or could have found out easily." Is that better?

As for how to do it, in the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK did not blockade Cuba or go to the UN because he thought there were missiles - they showed pictures that were indisputable.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Perhaps rjung should have said "Any person in that position wishing to discover the truth, and with an average amount of skepticism and curiousity would know the claims were Bushit, or could have found out easily." Is that better?

Damn, thats pretty harsh...I wouldn't say that the average congressman was below average in skepticism or curiosity (ok, I really think the 'average politician' of any stripe is an idiot, but it sounds good), but if you want to go there...

Perhaps rjung should have said "Bush cherry picked the data to make the case for WMD stronger than it really was given the sketchy and even contridictory data in the possession of US intellegence at the time", in which case I could have simply replied with "agreed". Or rjung could have made an OP asking "Why the hell did we invade Iraq in the first place", which I'd be interested in seeing. But rjung wants (needs?) to make the case that Bush absolutely knew the data was complete bullshit, that he is evil incarnate and that he lied LIED LIED!! Sorry, the facts don't support that assertion.

Originally Posted by Voyager

As for how to do it, in the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK did not blockade Cuba or go to the UN because he thought there were missiles - they showed pictures that were indisputable.

And the Bay of Pigs? Ah politics...

-XT

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Sure they did. I don't think many peope are disputing that the administration played up the evidence, exaggerated, etc. However, the OPs assertion (which most, including you, have gushed over in lemming like lockstep) is "Bush KNEW Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t" (emphasis mine). Playing up data for political gain [bold added] does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie. It is a position that seems to be lost on many on this board unfortunately.

-XT

Playing up data for political gain? Playing up data for political gain? Playing up data for political gain? What the hell are you talking about? Is that your take on why pushed the Iraq war? For political gain?

And here I thought it was to avert an imminent threat. With a precedent like you suggested, no telling what will happen if GW happens to be behind in the polls come mid-October.

[XT]

Originally Posted by David Simmons

What the hell are you talking about? Is that your take on why pushed the Iraq war? For political gain?

Yes.

Originally Posted by David Simmons

And here I thought it was to avert an imminent threat. With a precedent like you suggested, no telling what will happen if GW happens to be behind in the polls come mid-October.

ROFLMAO!! Show me a politician of any stripe that DOESN'T do everything for political gain. Precident?!? Gods thats funny!!

-XT

[elucidator]

Lot of nuances, there, xt, yer shades of grey, y'know?

Like when The Politician leans over to kiss the baby, I'm pretty sure he isn't that anxious to kiss a baby, get his nose full of that baby-urp smell. Most grown men have to put up with that smell at some point in our lives, but none of us like it, it ain't nostalgic. He's kissing the baby for political gain. Cynicism factor: 0.04.

But The Poltician, he stubbornly follows his "gut instinct", operating under the delusion that he is a Leader of Men, and leads us straight into the shit swamp. Then tries to tell us that he's done a good thing for us, while alligators nibble at our children. Said that just the other day, said he would have done it all over again, if he knew what he knows.

Now if he's telling the truth, he's an honest fellow who is simply to stupid for the job. But if he's lying, for political gain, cynicism factor 9.73.

Nuances. Shades of grey.

[XT]

Yup, I agree elucidator...shades of grey. To slightly modify your paragraph:

Originally Posted by elucidator

But The Poltician, he stubbornly follows his "gut instinct", operating under the delusion that he is a Leader of Men, and leads us straight into the shit swamp. Then tries to tell us that he's done a good thing for us, while alligators nibble at our children. Said that just the other day, said he would have done it all over again, if he knew what he knows.

If The Politician is looking at myriad reports, some of which conflict with each other, he will probably come down on the side that he is pretty much pre-disposed too unless something really solid comes up to change his mind. Simple human nature that. And there was no silver bullet from the intellegence community showing conclusively (or any other way) that there were no WMD in Iraq. The intellegence was mixed and conflicted.

Now, if said leader makes a call and is wrong and leads us into said shit swamp he should certainly pay for his fuck up. I'm all for it. Bush made the call, Bush fucked up, Bush is responsible and if the American people feel that this warrents him being booted from office I will be happy (while still being sad that this means I get Kerry for 4 years instead).

Look, what it comes down to in the end (for me at least) is this: Bush exaggerated how solid the data for WMD was...there simply is no debate there IMHO...but there were too many indications from too many different sources to say he KNEW there were no WMD or lied about it all. He wouldn't have stuck his neck out so far if he REALLY didn't think that Iraq had WMD, nor would the rest of them...these are politicians after all, not exactly known for their bravery in the face of public displeasure.

As to the various decenting opinions cited myriad times, you know as well as I do that on ANY issue dealing with government if you care enough to dig hard enough you will find someone who will disagree with any administrations policies or positions, or were the lone voice of reason, blah blah blah...especially if its a really juicy and hot issue with the public.

Originally Posted by elucidator

Now if he's telling the truth, he's an honest fellow who is simply to stupid for the job. But if he's lying, for political gain, cynicism factor 9.73.

Or, conversely, it could be those pesky shades of grey again. He might be a very dishonest fellow who is exaggerating or shading things to appear a certain way to strengthen his case while still believing that he is right and will be vindicated in the end...i.e. telling the not lie, certainly for political gain...my own cynicism factor is off the charts, but I'm a bipartisan cynic.

-XT

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Playing up data for political gain does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie.

I must agree with Mr. Simmons.

Playing up data for political gain is deplorable when it involves things like the country's economic projections for the next four years.
It is monstrous, loathesome and vile 'play' up data for political gain when thousands of lives are on the line.

It is a distinction that seems to be lost on some war apologists.


There are few things more serious. I don't know how much more irresponsible a human being can be than to be 'less than earnestly forthright' (if you will) in a matter of such monumental consequence.
What about you?
What can you think of that would be a more irresponsible thing to be "less than earnestly forthright' about?

[PatriotX]

They reported things that were highly suspect as if they were instead certainties.

Maybe they knew that these thinsg were highly suspect, maybe they didn't. Often the information that certain informants (esp from those supplied by the INC's intel program run by a known Iranian spy) were at best dodgy or even known fabricators was available top them had they looked. It was known that the stuff was unreliable and/or false.

If the Bush Admin didn't know that the stuff was bad, it was because of a lack of due dilligence on their part. A lack of due diligence in a matter as important as war is unforgivable.

Mendacity or Incompetence

Pretty fucked up choice to have to make about your own government.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Playing up data for political gain does not equate to KNOWING the information was bullshit and telling it anyway KNOWING it was a lie.

What I think is so ironic, this is what Senator Kennedy has been saying the Bush Admin has done.

It's amusing (or frightening) that xtisme apologia is merely an echo of the accusation.

Here's Senator Kyl's opinion about the gravity of the charges that xt has all but levelled at the Bush Admin:

Iraq: Intelligence, Facts, and Fantasies
U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, D.C.
March 12, 2004

It is especially troubling that Senator Kennedy hints that the Bush administration took us to war for political reasons: "The politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts," he says. That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason--suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm's way for no purpose other than politics. Such a charge would not only sap the morale of the troops who are fighting even now; it would undercut our entire position in the war on terror generally and in Iraq specifically.

[Squink]

That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason

Sure, but how much incompetence is credible even for this crowd?
If it were just Bush, Rove, and Condi then maybe. But Cheney and Rumsfeld too? They strike me as pretty darned sharp.

[XT]

I'm unsure exactly what you meant by this, SimonX:

Originally Posted by SimonX

What I think is so ironic, this is what Senator Kennedy has been saying the Bush Admin has done.

It's amusing (or frightening) that xtisme apologia is merely an echo of the accusation.

Here's Senator Kyl's opinion about the gravity of the charges that xt has all but levelled at the Bush Admin:

If you are saying I'm some kind of Bush apologist I can only snort with derision.

Originally Posted by SimonX

It is a distinction that seems to be lost on some war apologists.

Great characterization of me there SimonX!! I'm really just a warhawk in sheeps clothing! Thanks...I really didn't know. Here I thought I was against the thing...

Originally Posted by SimonX

They reported things that were highly suspect as if they were instead certainties.

The intellegence was 'highly suspect'? Was that the over all consensus, or the opinion of various analysists? What role did these folks that 'highly suspected' the data play...and where were they PRIOR to the invasion.

If there was such a solid consensus of folks that 'highly suspected' the data why didn't Congress make more noise about this prior to the invasion. Congress (or at least Congressional subcommitties) vetted the same information that Bush had and they gave it a pass too. Did the intellegence folks in the UK also 'highly suspect' the data? What was their concensus?

Where were these masses of intellegence analysists who 'highly suspected' the data prior to the war? Showing the quotes of one or two (or 10 or 20 for that matter) who 'highly suspected' the data doesn't really mean much SimonX...its the consensus that counts, because thats what decisions were based on. What exactly WAS the consensus for WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

The intellegence was mixed, not 'highly suspect' across the board, and opinion was divided into various camps. Yes, Bush spun this data in its best light to strengthen his case for war...again, there can be little doubt about that. Thats what politicians do. There was Bosnia for Clinton, the first Gulf War for Bush I and Grenada (sp?) for Regan. I can't say I can think of anything for Carter off the top of my head, or Ford either, but there was plenty of this kind of spinning for Nixon and Johnson...and Kennedy. Hell, there was this same kind of spinning from Roosevelt prior and even during WWII.

If you are going to mouth piously about Bush being evil (i.e. "It is monstrous, loathesome and vile 'play' up data for political gain when thousands of lives are on the line.") I think you need to take a good look at politicians in general and US presidents in particular from both parties throughout history.

Bottom line and I'm done with this thread unless something interesting pops up: I've seen no real evidence that Bush knew that the WMD data for Iraq was false, though I have no doubt that he knew it wasn't as solid as he tried to make it seem. I think its a slam dunk case that Bush spun the data to make his case for war stronger, but I see nothing new in that...presidents do it all the time.

My major problem with Bush with reguards to Iraq isn't his spinning of WMD data to make his case stronger (I'm sorry, but I EXPECT presidents of either party to do such things without a second thought), but the stupid fucking fixation on invading Iraq in the first place when we have much more important things we vitally need to be doing (i.e. huntin AQ and other terrorist organizations, destroying their monetary networks, rooting them out of the various nation states they are operating in, etc). THAT is the major fuckup that Bush will have to account for to the American people. Either the majority of Americans will feel that it was justified to tie down so much of our military and cost so much money and US lives for Iraq or they won't. The rest is partisan bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

-XT

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Lot of nuances, there, xt, yer shades of grey, y'know?

Like when The Politician leans over to kiss the baby, I'm pretty sure he isn't that anxious to kiss a baby, get his nose full of that baby-urp smell. Most grown men have to put up with that smell at some point in our lives, but none of us like it, it ain't nostalgic. He's kissing the baby for political gain. Cynicism factor: 0.04.

But The Poltician, he stubbornly follows his "gut instinct", operating under the delusion that he is a Leader of Men, and leads us straight into the shit swamp. Then tries to tell us that he's done a good thing for us, while alligators nibble at our children. Said that just the other day, said he would have done it all over again, if he knew what he knows.

Now if he's telling the truth, he's an honest fellow who is simply to stupid for the job. But if he's lying, for political gain, cynicism factor 9.73.

Nuances. Shades of grey.

Those who revel in Rush and feed on Fox are numb to nuances.

Skepticism is one thing, extreme political cynicism is disgusting. If everyone thinks that politicians should and do tie all their actions to partisan political advantage then the American experiment in self-government might be in the process of failing.

[Rashak Mani]

I would warrant that by "Bush" most here mean the Bush government. Bush himself probably never went through intel or went through the small letters in the briefs.

My great concern is that its obviously a government that is not willing to hear dissent or views that don't match their own. Anyone trying to tell them otherwise will be disregarded, demoted or isolated. If it was a "honest" mistake... it won't be the last then. If they disregarded on purpose the intel then they are reckless and lying... and they got away with it. The US loses both ways.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by xtisme

If you are saying I'm some kind of Bush apologist I can only snort with derision.

Well, sometimes I deserve it.
I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Great characterization of me there SimonX!! I'm really just a warhawk in sheeps clothing! Thanks...I really didn't know. Here I thought I was against the thing...

Well, I tried to put this one into a if the shoe-fits-format.
Also, see above.

Originally Posted by xtisme

The intellegence was 'highly suspect'? Was that the over all consensus, or the opinion of various analysists? What role did these folks that 'highly suspected' the data play...and where were they PRIOR to the invasion.

Both the CIA and the INR cut funding to the INC's information collection program. Civilians at the Pentagon chose to continue the programs funding despite the other two agencies experiences. If the yforgot to ask teh CIA and the INR about why they had dropped the INC's ICP, that's almost as bad as having taken on the INC's program with full knowledge of its reliability.

Originally Posted by xtisme

If there was such a solid consensus of folks that 'highly suspected' the data why didn't Congress make more noise about this prior to the invasion. Congress (or at least Congressional subcommitties) vetted the same information that Bush had and they gave it a pass too.

No actually they didn't. The reports that were prepared for Congress, on at least one occasion, had caveats and dissenting opinions left out.
Second, I'm not sure if the history of the INC's information collection program was included in the briefings that Congress received. It was not included in the unclassified version of the NIE.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Did the intellegence folks in the UK also 'highly suspect' the data? What was their concensus?

I'm discussing some specific material that arrived via INC suppplied sources.

Originally Posted by xtisme

What exactly WAS the consensus for WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

That the US IC wasn't sure what exactly Hussein was up to in this regard. They suspected that he was up to no good.

The consesnus presented in a subsequently declassified section was that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US with WMD (directly or by proxy) in the foreseeable future.
The consensus doesn't get discussed much by the Bush Admin.

Originally Posted by xtisme

The intellegence was mixed, not 'highly suspect' across the board, and opinion was divided into various camps.

While this may be true for the intelligence 'across the board' it's not true of all of it in particular.
I unclearly referenced some more specific instances. I wasn;t trying to characterize the whole thing.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Yes, Bush spun this data in its best light to strengthen his case for war...again, there can be little doubt about that. Thats what politicians do. There was Bosnia for Clinton, the first Gulf War for Bush I and Grenada (sp?) for Regan. I can't say I can think of anything for Carter off the top of my head, or Ford either, but there was plenty of this kind of spinning for Nixon and Johnson...and Kennedy. Hell, there was this same kind of spinning from Roosevelt prior and even during WWII.

While I'm not as familar with these other instances, I'd say if they were doing similar things then they are shitstains.

Originally Posted by xtisme

If you are going to mouth piously about Bush being evil (i.e. "It is monstrous, loathesome and vile 'play' up data for political gain when thousands of lives are on the line.") I think you need to take a good look at politicians in general and US presidents in particular from both parties throughout history.

Alright. As time permits.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Bottom line and I'm done with this thread unless something interesting pops up: I've seen no real evidence that Bush knew that the WMD data for Iraq was false, though I have no doubt that he knew it wasn't as solid as he tried to make it seem.

Here in a minute*, I'll find you some more specific reference that pertains to the Bush Admin. I don't know about Bush in particular. I can't show which members of the Bush Admin knew what when, but it is demonstrable that certain thinsg were knowable and that memeber of the Bush Admin could be reasonably expected to know them if they had practiced due diligence. if they did not knwo these things, then they did not treat the endeavor of leading the nation into war with the level of earnestness that it deserves. So you'e still left with a decision to make. The same one as usual- mendacity or incompetence.

Originally Posted by xtisme

I think its a slam dunk case that Bush spun the data to make his case for war stronger, but I see nothing new in that...presidents do it all the time.

New or not (I'll not debate) it's loathesome and reprehensible to mislead a nation into war. The fact that it may have happened more than once is tragic.
I suspect that the internet has something to do with this war getting a greater amount of scrutiny than conflicts past.

Originally Posted by xtisme

My major problem with Bush with reguards to Iraq isn't his spinning of WMD data to make his case stronger (I'm sorry, but I EXPECT presidents of either party to do such things without a second thought), but the stupid fucking fixation on invading Iraq in the first place when we have much more important things we vitally need to be doing (i.e. huntin AQ and other terrorist organizations, destroying their monetary networks, rooting them out of the various nation states they are operating in, etc). THAT is the major fuckup that Bush will have to account for to the American people. Either the majority of Americans will feel that it was justified to tie down so much of our military and cost so much money and US lives for Iraq or they won't. The rest is partisan bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

That's a biggie.

I have to say that I agree with Senator Kyl (or at least with what came out of his mouth) about the gravity of spinning to sell an unecessary war. It's close to treason.

It's frightening that you're willing to imply that this sort of thing's acceptable behavior for our poiticians. We're the only one who can reign them in.

[Sevastopol]

I've seen no real evidence that Bush knew that the WMD data for Iraq was false, though I have no doubt that he knew it wasn't as solid as he tried to make it seem.

See, this is the bit I don't get. Whether the data was solid or not was the big question. There is a simple algorithm.

Solid data = Invasion.

Uncertain data = UNMOVIC Inspections.

So the administration said the data was solid and therefore that evidence-based policy compelled the US to war.

How is that not knowing falsehood? Clearly evidence-based policy would have compelled the continuation of UNMOVIC Inspections.

Insofar as I get what XT' is arguing, s/he is saying the data they had wasn't out-and-out fabrication by Bush's team and that nothing short of that is knowing falsehood.

That was never the argument and no-one has ever said so. Which is why I think XT' is missing the point. In trivialising how certain the data was XT' has neglected that certainty was the very bone of contention and that the "Bush lied" argument has always been that he fudged the certainty of the evidence so as to avoid continuing UNMOVIC Inspections.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Damn, thats pretty harsh...I wouldn't say that the average congressman was below average in skepticism or curiosity (ok, I really think the 'average politician' of any stripe is an idiot, but it sounds good), but if you want to go there...

I meant average human being, and you bring up congresscritter. Humph.

Perhaps rjung should have said "Bush cherry picked the data to make the case for WMD stronger than it really was given the sketchy and even contridictory data in the possession of US intellegence at the time", in which case I could have simply replied with "agreed". But rjung wants (needs?) to make the case that Bush absolutely knew the data was complete bullshit, that he is evil incarnate and that he lied LIED LIED!! Sorry, the facts don't support that assertion.

If a drug company does 10 studies, 5 of which report that a new drug works, 5 of which say it doesn't work, and then they report to the FDA that evidence indisputably shows that the drug works, they ain't cherry picking, they are lying. If a CEO, who knows there are 10 studies, gets reports on 5 and never asks about the other 5, he's not strictly lying, but if the FDA finds out he's is for sure going to get his butt fired.

Yup, the Republicans are running the country like a business - unfortunately that business is Enron.



And the Bay of Pigs? Ah politics...

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by sevastopol

See, this is the bit I don't get. Whether the data was solid or not was the big question. There is a simple algorithm.

Solid data = Invasion.

Uncertain data = UNMOVIC Inspections.

So the administration said the data was solid and therefore that evidence-based policy compelled the US to war.

How is that not knowing falsehood? Clearly evidence-based policy would have compelled the continuation of UNMOVIC Inspections.

And the evidence that he knew he was lying is that he said that doing the invasion was urgent, that there was no time for further inspections. Now there was intelligence for and against the presence of WMDs, but I'm not aware of any intelligence, any at all, that Iraq was an imminent threat to anybody. From the preliminary inspections the Administration knew he case for WMDs was fading fast, so they'd better invade quickly before they lost support.

And I forgot to comment on xt point on the Bay of Pigs. Yes, it was a mistake. And JFK admitted it. But old I never did anything wrong Bush is too much of a coward to admit his mistake.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Voyager

As for how to do it, in the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK did not blockade Cuba or go to the UN because he thought there were missiles - they showed pictures that were indisputable.

Since this is Straight Dope and all, Kennedy did blackade Cuba, both by air and by sea. He did go to the UN. And Bush had pictures too.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Since this is Straight Dope and all, Kennedy did blackade Cuba, both by air and by sea. He did go to the UN. And Bush had pictures too.

Were the things in Kennedy's pictures actually missiles? If they were, I think the comparison doesn't quite work.

[Liberal]

Well, there were spots and squiggles. It typically requires some expertise to interpret satellite photos (especially ones from that era), but you can judge for yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/cuba.htm

[Harborwolf]

Of course, the embargo in the cuban missile crisis worked and the missiles were pulled. If we'd simply invaded Cuba during the crisis....

As for the OP, I know great debates isn't much fun without inflammatory statements, but must we say things we can't prove.

Xtisme said it best. Bush had loads of reports stating various things about Iraq. He picked the intel that suited his ideas best and went to war on a really shaky case. Did he know that the claims were bullsh*t? That hasn't been proven.

Did he put American lives at risk on info he knew was far from rock solid? Yep. Did he set back the war on terror by removing soldiers from said war and creating a terrorist breeding ground. Oh yeah. Does he deserve to have his monkey butt booted out of office for this? Yes.

Has it been conclusively proven that he knew the claims were outright falsehoods and went to war anyways? Not to my standards.

Hate Bush for being an idiot. Hate him for being tremendously incompetent. Just don't try to make him into some kind of evil warmonger.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

Bush had loads of reports stating various things about Iraq. He picked the intel that suited his ideas best and went to war on a really shaky case.

And that differs from the two sides in this debate exactly how?

[Harborwolf]

Just pointing my opinion. Bush did not know that his intel was bs. It was suspect due to the conflicting claims and he should've waited to find out for sure, but he didn't know that it was false.

[Liberal]

That gives me an opportunity to express once again my own opinion, namely that Bush is a tyrant for reviewing any of the options and weighing anything at all besides whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Screw UN resolutions. Screw whether Iraq had WMDs. He wasn't the only dictator who did, and the US has plenty. An awful lot of time, energy, expense, and lives have been wasted for an unethical invasion. He should have been doing his duty to secure our rights; instead, he has done his best to abridge and trample them. Good riddance to him, and welcome to our next Liar in Chief. [...sigh...]

[ElvisL1ves]

Harborwolf, it's worse than that. If Bush didn't know it was BS, it was because he actively avoided considering that it might possibly be BS, and denigrated the motives of anyone who tried to tell him. That's hardly an honest mistake.

But let's quote the Bard from "Henry V":

Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.

But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.

[Harborwolf]

I'm not trying to excuse the guy anything. I just think that the assumption that he went to war knowing the info was false and, for all intents and purposes, murdering US troops is an extraordinarily harsh one and not yet supported by any information.

I hate Bush as much as anyone, but he's not that bad.

[ElvisL1ves]

My point was that not caring about the facts is worse than simply not knowing them, or being excusably mistaken. It may be a harsh judgment on him, but it's becoming increasingly unavoidable and widespread. And yes, the information we do know, the accounts we've been given by an increasing number of people who were there, the factual record we do have outside of that, do support it as the likeliest conclusion.

Unlike you and many others, though, I don't hate the man. I hate what he's done, but I pity him. The severest scorn goes to those who insist on believing and following him anyway, even knowing what they do now.

[elucidator]

"Karl? Karl, its George. Listen, I just saw something on the SDMB, make a great campaign slogan....what?.....no, they haven't banned him yet.....No, december is still gone.....yeah, unfair, I know, but they're all.....yeah, I know...anyway, saw something make a great campaign theme! Y'ready? "George W. Bush! Not all that bad!"

So, whaddaya think, Karl? What, did I say something funny? Karl, you drunk again?...."

[Sevastopol]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

...I just think that the assumption that he went to war knowing the info was false and, for all intents and purposes, murdering US troops is an extraordinarily harsh one and not yet supported by any information.

Knowing the info was false is not what it is about. Nobody has said that is the problem. The problem is knowing the info was not certain.

Does this seem like a minor difference? It isn't. Because imagine if he had said:

- "The info is not certain"

then he would have had to continue with the UNMOVIC inspections There would not have been a war when the inspections found there were no weapons. No troops would have died.

Instead he said

- "The info is certain"

All the time knowing, as an absolute fact, without the slightest shade of doubt, that the info was instead fragmentary and ambiguous. That is the lie that concerns us. In this deliberately deceitful way he got his war.

[Harborwolf]

Actually, the thread title is "Bush knew Iraq WMD claims were bullsh*t." That is what I was referring to.

As for Bush:Not that bad, it's clearly taken out of context. I feel like a movie reviewer

It's just as good as Kerry:Better than the alternative.