No, this is the Show-Me-What-Post-You’re-Referring-To Defense.
When did I call anyone a traitor? All you have to do is supply the post. It’s a simple request.
Because Republicans will be elected in 2006.
…what?
No - but I believe the burden of proof to establish the evil rests on the proponent of the claim. When elucidator said to me (paraphrased) “…if you want anyone else to believe you, you have to supply such-and-so.” It was in response to this that I pointed out the majority of people that ALREADY believed as I do. This doesn’t prove it’s right; it DOES mean that the burden is not on me to prove I’m right.
This evidence is not particularly strong. It fails to implicate the President or any particular senior-level administration officials. We already KNOW there was a substantial failure in the intel gathering and analysis process that caused inaccurate conclusions to be reached. Where we apprently disagree is on how much, if any, of that was the result of deliberate cherry-picking, or outright falsification, of data by the President or his senior staff.
Much more likely, in my view, is that the President leaned a particular way, and by so leaning created the perception that intel favoring his view would be welcome. This created a desire by analysts to skew the information in order to have their analyses used (and be recognized) at higher levels. This condition heterodyned itself, as skewed intel received positive responses and created yet more incentive to ignore non-conforming data.
This is a serious failure of the process, to be sure… but it is light-years away from deliberate lying, which is the general charge levelled against the President in this and other threads, and is what I regard as completely unproven.
I think there’s a timeline:
{--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}
| | | | |
One year Six months Three months One
before war before war before war week BW
| | | |
Simple conditions Stronger Very strong Saddam out
conditions conditions
There was a point at which Hussein could have complied with the original UN resolutions, accepted inspectors with no BS, restricted flying in the no-fly zone, and that would have prevented hostilities. His continued intransigence caused the conditions to increase… indeed, what would be the point of doing it any other way? This wasn’t a negotiation – Iraq was bound to observe the no-fly zone by the peace agreement that ended the first Gulf War, a war started by Iraq’s naked aggression. There was no reason to demand compliance with those conditions, be faced with an Iraqi refusal, and then weaken the conditions for compliance!
So I guess I don’t see what you mean when you refer to a contradiction. It’s true that no that we’ve found no WMD, we’re saying that the war was nonetheless positive because it ended Hussein’s regime. But that doesn’t mean that was the goal all along – it means that although the original goal was based on information we now know was flawed, we have not ended up with an undesirable result.
Not surprising, since you appear to handwave all evidence in support of the assertion away. In fact, the next time someone raises another bit of evidence, this memo won’t even enter your awareness, I am sure, and that evidence will be scoffed at as proof of nothing.
Let me ask you this: What evidence do you have that Bush did not lie? Why do you choose that assumption over another, and make ad hominem attacks when a new piece of evidence is brought to your attention? Why do you apparently choose to regard this bit of evidence independently of all other available evidence? To wit:
As if the entirety of the argument that Bush intentionally deceived us about the rationale for war stood or fell on the basis of this memo. Perhaps you should be asking whether this memo is consistent or inconsistent with the weight of the available evidence. (failing to let the UN inspectors finish or direct them to the known locations of the WMD, the OSP, failing to try to secure any potential WMD sites, “we’ve found the weapons of mass destruction,” Niger’s yellowcake, the anodyzed coating of the aluminum tubes, the non-existant NAEA report, the collaboration with al Queda, “the President is not a fact checker,” the post-hoc rationalization for the war…)
And that sampling doesn’t even begin to detail the lies that Bush has engaged in on topics other than Iraq. There are clear patterns with plenty of objective evidence that Bush often makes false statements which are always in support of his desired goal, on a variety of topics and particularly with regards to Iraq. Yet, you would look at this memo and say “IF…IF…IF, well then that is disturbing, but I won’t make those assumptions. I’ll just assume that Bush tells the truth. And oh by the way, I won! I was right! Hurrah!”
(You should remember the admonition of Lou Holtz by the way. Otherwise, one might think you had never been right about something before.)
For Og’s sake Bricker!. Why have you not addressed the point that Sadaam couldn’t have accepted inspectors ‘with no BS’ because we were sneaking in CIA agents along with legit inspectors!?!. Espionage is not ‘no BS’. We were bargaining in bad faith.
This is not a trivial fact, and you are ignoring it. Why ?
Lookit, there’s nothing new under the sun here. One could fairly argue that the basic political groundwork was laid for the invasion of Iraq back in 1998, based on the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton. In fact, in 1998, Clinton was preparing for invasion himself (after basically gutting the Military, I worked DoD through 1997, I saw it first hand) after the first round of weapons inspections were being blocked by Hussein. He saw the threat then, but worked out a compromise with the UN, and Hussein was given the benefit of the doubt (undeservedly) until Bush decided to placate his base, and move forward to thrust our priapic American idealism into a region that neither likes or wants it under the mantle of homeland security, which, if the intel from 1998 is accurate, wasn’t as bad as everyone likes to believe it is.
Sound like i’m talking in circles? I am, because the situation did the same thing.
Sure, invasion and war have a high price, they ALL do. Both Gulf Wars, Serbia, Somalia, all high prices paid by those involved. Still, did Bush lie? Probably. Did Clinton? Probably. They’re politicians, they lie like they breathe. The lies aren’t the point, what IS the point, is that our people, our countrymen are doing a job they volunteered to do, and dying in the process and as a result corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton can reap incredible rewards. I don’t have a problem with keeping assholes like Hussein in check, I have a problem with the way we did it.
I don’t agree with how things are being done, but
Until “just before?” Did I say that?
If I did, then that was wrong. There certainly was a point when Bush had definitively decided to invade. It was NOT months or years before the attack, as this thread’s OP suggests. But I agree it wasn’t mere hours before, either.
No, I haven’t been provided with “ample evidence” that my position is false. You believe the evidence is “ample” – I don’t. HERE is where the public perception is relevant… you and I are looking at the same evidence, and drawing different conclusions. It’s relevant to point out that most people seem to be viewing the evidence my way. This doesn’t PROVE my view is correct, but when the issue is how compelling the evidence is, it’s VERY relevant that it’s not convincing to a large segment of the population.
Let’s clear up the confusion: starting a war based on lies is morally reprehensible.
I DON’T AGREE THAT HAPPENED. I contend that Mr. Bush’s actions were based on sincerely-held, but mistaken, beliefs.
Not at all. I merely point out that if your side wishes to carry this debate in any meaningful way, you have to muster sufficient compelling evidence to sway the public. If you could sway ME, I’d be on your side. I mention the public perception to show that I’m not alone in being unconvinced – it’s not a unique, obsteperous stubborness that holds me, alone, from agreeing with you. There’s a whole bunch of us – are we all “in lock step” with the evil Bushco?
A poll that sjows a majority of Americans think things are going badly in Iraq, and they disapprove of the President’s handling of the situation, is not rleevant to the claims we’re discussing here. Show me the poll that says a majority of Americans believe the President LIED to get us into war, and I will accpet your correction.
[quoye]4. You continue to suggest that the only true measure of sincerity is the willingness to put money on it, and that your own willingness makes your position “fact”. Once again, you refuse to consider that there may be other measures - or perhaps you are simply incapable of such a thought.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m stuck on this one. If you are really convinced that the GOP will lose seats, it baffles me that you won’t put up some cash. It suggests to me your position is insincerely held.
Then I hold Bush accountable for mismanagement. Preemptively invading a country is hands down the most serious course of action a nation can undertake. He needed to tell these guys he needs intel for and against, and make a decision once all the facts are in place. None of this projecting a desire for things to go one way or another bullshit. Incompetent or evil, in this case the results are the same.
I start with the position that the President of the United States would not lie to Congress and the American people, because he is a constitutional officer, the chief executive, and he is aware of his unique and weighty role in our government.
It’s to YOU to overcome that presumption with compelling evidence.
There certainly has been evidence presented – but it falls short of compelling. When there are two interpretations of evidence, one allowing for lying and one for good-faith mistake, I choose “good-faith mistake.”
Nor is this partisan. When Mr. Clinton was accused of lying, I took the exact same position, and I only accepted his lie when the DNA test proved it. I was absolutely unwilling to assume that a sitting president would deliberately, unambiguously lie until strong evidence overcame the presumption.
All of these may be explained by the good-faith mistake – that Mr. Bush was relying on intel that ultimately was wrong. Certainly he bears responsibility for creating an environment in which there was no perceived pressure by his staff to slant intel one way or another, but this is a far cry from a deliberate lie.
Agreed completely.
Here is where I disagree.
In criminal law, we make a sharp distinction between the man who deliberately sets out to do evil, and the man who makes a mistake and bad results follow. Both are liable, but the deliberate evil-doer much more so.
Well he hasn’t mentioned Iraq being a mistake, so…<shrug>
All I know if he is some incompetent boob who can be manipulated and doesn’t step back to think for himself once in awhile, he shouldn’t be in office. You can apply this to anyone btw, not only Bush.
What, you want to go from “neener-neener” to “Come, let us reason together!”? Just like that?
It would have been so simple. Just a “heck, let my temper get the best of me. Sorry 'bout that, can we just forget that one?” And it would have been so. What a pity, a bright intellect adorns shoddy character.
Still can, you know. Isn’t that hard, I myself have eaten more crow than steak. Just a suggestion. Wanted to make that clear before I make any more smug assertions. You say “mea fuckup”, we say* “Egotist te absolvo”, * we snack on a bit of fatted calf, and that’s that.
Sure, I let my temper run away with me a bit on that post, above. I’d say it happened at about the “fellate the leader” post.
This is in the Pit, so I didn’t self-censor as much as I otherwise might.
But I’m not yet at the mea culpa stage. Why must I be a model of restraint, and suffer the insults of others without ever replying in kind? Why have a crowd of people told me how terrible my post was, and not one word of reproach offered to the poster who suggested I was metaphorically swallowing the Presidential Staff?
The problem is that we cannot choose from a long list of possibles. Every four years, there are essentially two choices for the person who will fill that position. It is not a case of claiming that Mr. Bush is the Bestest President Ever, but that, of the choices offered, he was the better choice. On balance, I believe that true both for 2000 and 2004, despite the management failure described in this thread.
For the same reason he’s ignoring the evidence given by Hans Blix about the inspectors being able to conduct professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq pre-war. Because it completely devestates the case that immediate war was the only way to disarm a Saddam Hussein determined to hold on to his secret WMD stashes. Resistance to inspectors based on the completely rational basis of keeping spies out of his country would give a credible alternative to the motivation of having something to hide which was a major component of the case for war.
Along Bricker’s timeline above you could add a row showing ever increasing co-operation with inspectors and another showing decreasing confidence in the US and UK’s intelligence estimates based on the first-hand reports from the inspectors. Of course any number of rows could be added. The increasing irrationality of the pro-war camp in declaring Blix an anti-US/UK demagogue. Declaring France an enemy because they refused to support war on basis of the evidence.
Much like the spiral into madness(which is a very apt comparison actually). If there is a contradictory data point one must invent conspiracies to explain it because you couldn’t possibly be wrong. France must be getting paybacks on the sly and that’s why they’re refusing to support war(like Russia and China). Blix is saying he hasn’t found anything, so he must be lying so he “should put the smoking gun to his own head”(as a commentator in the UK said).
Again we see it in this very thread. The only people who have offered outside sources, primary sources like the official record, NIEs, etc. have been derided as “the insular left”. Yep. That’s it. They’re all out to get you. They hate your freedoms.
Enjoy,
Steven
In effect, yes. None of your goalpost-shifting, now, you know that doesn’t work here.
Then, as the proponent of that claim, it’s up to you to support it, innit? Better get started, then.
Horse, meet water.
It’s also false. But you know that, no matter how loudly you claim otherwise.
Would that there were evidence to support that. Got any, as the proponent of that claim? We Dopers have, as you well know, discussed that in detail in GD. Did any of that sink in, or are you still in foolish denial?
True, and that has already happened to enough of a degree to put us in the majority.
Tautology.
Nobody said it’s you, alone. There are quite a few more reflexive partisans around than you.
No less than we “simple Bush haters” are in lock step, to continue to use your own terminology. :rolleyes:
Really? That from a guy who has proudly crowed the fact that Bush was reelected by a majority as evidence of something? Come on now.
Would that really change your attitude? Would that affect your own moral judgment on the matter, if you are in fact capable of making one? Be careful what you wish for:
So much for the casus belli. Those numbers, to a bitter-end loyalist like yourself, constitute a sweeping mandate.
And that’s the problem. In Brickerland, money and power are all that matter. Nothing else exists. Any other idea baffles you.
He had a responsibility not to do it, therefore he didn’t do it. Very compelling argument, Counselor. :rolleyes:
For you, there would be no such thing.
“Fuck Saddam, I’m taking him out.” - GWB
So, was Iraq deliberately lying, or were they trying their best to convey the truth to the US and we chose to ignore them?
You stated that much of the comments in this thread boil down to heresay and not direct evidence of much.
The burden of truth lies on the accusers, you said. Did we supply ample burden of truth on Iraq before we invaded?
And just so you guys don’t think I’m loosing my mind, I’ll add this;
Was I the only one to see the irony in this statement?
Elvis, I found those Gallup polling results as well. However, knowing Bricker, he will simply point out that they reflect a plurality, but not a majority, and as you clearly know, he demanded evidence that a majority agree with him so you failed.
Want to bet on it?
It is getting a little warmer here in my office, however. Some handwaving might feel pretty nice right about now.