# Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676 "2005-11-12T03:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/221 "2005-11-14T16:14:39Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, I halfway agree with you. I think that they expected to find **something** that they could point to justify the invasion. That they found **nothing** probably did come as a surprise. You might even notice that once the invasion began there was a continual lowering of expectations. No longer were we looking for hundreds of tons of this and that…all of a sudden one or two drums of some decaying chemical agent would have sufficed. (Of course, in the end what sufficed was some “WMD program related activities”.) > > But, I don’t believe they believed themselves in regards to there being a real danger from Iraq’s WMDs or some analogous threat. Certainly, they don’t seem to have been at all concerned about them falling into the hands of terrorists. Or else, they were so mind-numbingly inept that it is beyond my comprehension to understand. To the extent Bush can point to an honest (though IMO somewhat incompetent) failure of US intelligence, and not cherry picked or manipulated intelligence, this may be the one area where he is somewhat justified in doing so. Saddam had worked hard to convince everyone that the had WMDs. There have been several stories that have come out over the last few years about the extent of this three card monte disinformation shuffle and the bluffs he quite successfully implemented. Even those in his inner circle were convinced he had \*something \* hidden away. The main rationale for this at the time was not to deter the US, which he never imagined as being a real invasion threat, but to maintain his standing as a threat and power to his potential adversaries in the region. If someone had taken the time to unravel this elaborate web of deceptions they would have seen there was less there than met the eye (and some intelligence did mention this as a real world possibility) but for someone with an impulsive inclination to take him on, and not inclined to parse the fine details or look beyond the surface, it was bluff that worked all too well. The problem was that this eager and impulsive person was the President of the United States whose aggressive attitudes WRT to Saddam were buttressed by others with various MENA (Middle East North African) agendas of their own. There are so many players in this debacle, and it almost reads like some wild assed, speculative work of fiction that would never happen in the real world. One day someone is going to write a comprehensive history of all this and I’ll be first in line to buy that book. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/222 "2005-11-14T16:20:30Z")
> [@astro](#): > > There are so many players in this debacle, and it almost reads like some wild assed, speculative work of fiction that would never happen in the real world. One day someone is going to write a comprehensive history of all this and I’ll be first in line to buy that book. Forget buying the book, I’d prefer to see the guilty go to prison for it. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/223 "2005-11-14T16:53:12Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Forget buying the book, I’d prefer to see the guilty go to prison for it. As incompetent as the process may have been that got us to this point (and that’s my main gripe with Bush on this issue) I don’t think there’s ever going to be a point where you can point to a person or group and say definitively. > [@](#): > > You **knew** this was shit intelligence and you still encouraged us to go to war! The problem is that I don’t thing anybody _really_ _knew_ what was up with Iraq’s WMD status other than Saddam himself. At best your could accuse someone of filtering and cherry picking intelligence, but whether this rises to the level of a prosecutable offense I have no idea. I doubt anyone will ever go to jail over the issue of how the intelligence was gamed in the build up to the occupation of Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/224 "2005-11-14T17:18:22Z")
Today [Juan Cole](http://www.juancole.com/) has some timely observations on the manipulation of intelligence: > [@](#): > > … > By the way, the allegation that some, including Sen. John McCain, keep making that “the whole world” thought that Iraq had WMD is wrong for two reasons. First, most of the world depended on the US for its intelligence on Iraq and did not have a way of making an independent judgment. Second, the French ministry of defense demurred, as did several of the most important and experience arms inspectors, including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix > … > > ’ France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . “Nothing today justifies a war,” Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. “This region really does not need another war.” He said France did not have “undisputed proof” that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction. ’ > … > > It is not true that most of the Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. Democrats in Congress have told me that most of what they knew about Iraq before the war came via briefings from Bush administration and Pentagon officials. They say privately that they now feel that they were consistently lied to. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/225 "2005-11-14T17:45:33Z")
True enough, but not true enough to absolve them. They caved, to a large degree, with the prominent exception of our own Sen. Wellstone, who had the stones to stand up on his hind legs and bark truth to power. Its true enough that they were dependent upon intelligence from executive sources, but there were enough hints, there were sufficient reasons for caution, reasons to demand accountability. Our representatives failed us, they failed to take the unpopular stand. Not as culpable as those who engineered this disgrace, to be sure. But a share of the blame lies with them, as well. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/226 "2005-11-14T19:30:33Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, if that’s possible, let’s see you do it. Pretend you’re an anti-war liberal, and sell bringing the troops home right now without mentioning that every single justification for going to war has been false, that the execution of the war has been criminally mismanaged since before our boots hit the ground over there, that the administration has regularly made decisions designed to enrich a select cadre of cronies at the expense of the lives of our men and women over there. I’d suggest something like this, which, I would add, has the enormous added benefit of bringing some of the opposition onto your side: Dear Congressman, I am writing to express my strong insistence that you do everything you can to get our troops home from Iraq. Because the sooner they are home, the sooner the reports of more of them dying will stop. Whether we should have sent out troops to Iraq in the first place is now beside the point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the President did not have an agenda for going into Iraq prior to 9/11. Let’s also assume that he did not seek to mislead the American people and that based on the best information he had at the time the case for going to war was a good one. That was the past. Now it is 2005, and the information set we have now is completely different than it was two and a half years ago. There are no WMD to be concerned with. Saddam, a truly evil despot, is no longer ruling over his people with an iron fist. The people in Iraq have not welcomed us with rose petals, or with the open arms of the French people as we ousted the Germans from their country during WWII. It is clear that the insurgency is not disheartened by our overwhelming strength, or the rate at which we kill and capture their members. Their estimation of victory is not to win the war, but to win each small battle. And every time they can convince a member to blow himself up and take either Coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqi civilians with them, they chalk it up as a victory. It should be painfully evident by now that being able to stop such actions by individuals is unrealistic in the extreme. Hopefully, over 2,000 dead servicemen and -women have taught us that much. It has also become evident that our continued presence in Iraq is not deterring terrorists or causing their numbers to diminish. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Our presence has inflamed opposition sentiment and emboldened them to kill as many soldiers and innocents as they can. Our presence has also become a magnet for terrorists from neighboring countries, not to mention an effective recruitment tool for the terrorists to swell in numbers and prolong their insurgency. So, BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY NOW ARE, I must insist that you do the wise thing and oppose our continued involvement in that war at every turn. I insist that you use the position that we entrusted you with and use every vote to stop or withdraw funding for it, and to introduce legislation that will make it harder for the administration to continue our futile efforts. I understand that speaking out against a war can, politically, be a difficult thing for a congressman to do. But that is not the issue now. The issue now, is how long will we continue down a road that we know to be a dead end? No one should look down upon the U.S. for the noble intentions many of us had regarding Iraq. It could have turned out differently. But it didn’t. It is incumbent upon us now to look at the current situation honestly and to act accordingly. It seems that we owe the American people that much. We owe it to the Iraqis and the rest of the world. We owe it to the 2,000 young men and women in uniform that have lost their lives, and to the tens of thousands more who have lost limbs or who will otherwise have to carry the scars of war with them for as long as they live. But most important, we owe it to the 130,000 U.S. and Coalition troops who are honorably serving their country and following orders that come, indirectly, from us. We owe it to them to not have them die for what is now clear to be a fantasy. Wanting the best for our troops is not a partisan issue. And the best thing we could want for them is for them to remain among the living and the healthy. So, I ask you—no, I insist—that you do everything in your power to bring our young men and women home immediately. Please know, that I am not alone in this sentiment. And if you cannot or do not respect the wishes of the people you represent, we will find someone who will. Bring the troops home now. Regardless of what has transpired politically in the last few years, it is the wisest course of action for the current reality. Sincerely, John Doe Anytown, USA Or something like that. The point is that I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to show that to a returning soldier who had lost a limb. It doesn’t question the righteousness of the war or degrade his service or mock his loss. It simply is a call to make the wisest decision for RIGHT NOW. I think it would be more effective than all the anti-Bush-ant-war ranting because it is non-partisan. It would increase the odds of the troops actually being brought home. And that is the point, isn’t it. Yes it necessitates you don’t piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters. > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t see one single way your analogy applies to the situation in Iraq, except for the implicit violence. How about, instead of crappy analogies, you answer my original question, using the actual situation in Iraq? If the insurgents know that not all Americans hate Iraqis and want to see them tortured, if they know that a significant portion of Americans want us out of Iraq altogether, do you think they will be more vicious and angry, or less? Do you think they will be more likely to commit terrorist acts against civilians, or less? I do not agree that the analogy is “crappy”, or even poor. Unless I’m mistaken, a great deal of U.S. military strategy is based maintaining overwhelming force. Because if you have it people or less likely to want to fuck with you. This seems like common sense. I don’t kow why you’re arguing with it. To answer your question in a way you seem to prefer, I think the insurgents are moreemboldened when they see a fractured enemy. They want us out of Iraq. They are opushing us out. If they sense that there is a force that is pulling us out, as well, that I think encourages them to contiunue—or step up—those activities that have gotten the this far. Th bombings in Jordan will, I think—HOPE—have a positive effect. That is, that more of the Muslim world will unite in oppostion to the terrorists. We will see. > [@Miller](#): > > On the contrary, in that situation, fighting only seems to be the only way out, because there is no one on the other side who gives a shit about what happens to you. They want something: power. Using force is one way to get it. Negotiation is another. The more futile using force looks, the more attactive negotiation becomes. I think the recent election in Iraq bodes well in this regard. > [@Miller](#): > > What? That makes no sense, unless you assume that every president is as corrupt and incompetent as George Bush. To recap, you said: > [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, there are some people on the left who don’t support the troops like Der Trihs. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The thing to remember is that there are people on the right who don’t support the troops, either. One of them is George Bush. Of the two, which do you think is going to get the most troops killed? I answered: > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops. You were comparing the consequences of the actions of someone from the extreme left with those of the President. The action of the President that unquestionably has resulted in death to out troops is his decision to send them into war. Consequently, your point seems to be that whoever sends the troops into war is most responsible for causing them harm (okay) and least supportive of them. And that is simply ridiculous. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m refering to your constant statements like, “But the point I was really trying to make is that we owe support to our men and women in uniform once they are in the field of battle. On this I am firm and unapologetic.” The clear implication being that your opponents _do not_ support the troops. This is bullshit, and damned insulting, to boot. It is a fact that _some_ people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe. > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t have time to pick a fight with every single person on the board I disagree with. I’ve got my hand full dealing with you. You have a problem with **Der Trihs** , you deal with him. You can pick a fight with whomever you like. But I would offer, just like the peace-loving moderate Muslims who keep silent as their religion is hijacked, those of any ideology who do not act to separate themselves from a disease-minded fringe does their own ideology a disservice. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/227 "2005-11-14T19:48:17Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Who are these “we”? I think american people abuse of the “we”. Were you consulted about the war? Did you vote in favor of it? Did you even vote in favor of a candidate supporting it? No. But is there more I could have done? Yes. I, personally was not as engaged as I should have been. But I am willing to take some responsibility for that. > [@clairobscur](#): > > If you believe so, what support were you ready to offer to Iraki draftees at the beginning of the war? It wasn’t their business to decide, either,was it? What makes them less deserving of your support? I’m not sure who you are referring to? If you mean those who had to fight initially, my sympathy needs to be applied on a case-for-case basis. I’m sure there were those, who ahd no desire to fight and to attempt to keep the country under the oppresive thumb of Saddam. They have my support. Other will doubt fall to the other end of the spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/228 "2005-11-14T19:50:31Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Somebody asserted on another thread that helping real people now was _absolutely_ (i.e. exempt from the usual weighing of options to see which is likely to do the most good and least evil) more important than helping hypothetical people in the future. I think it will suffice to recycle my rebuttal of that argument: I would agree that it is not_absolute_. That said I think you confuse hypothetical victims with anonymous ones. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/229 "2005-11-14T19:57:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is not the complaint: your statement was indeed referring to the “lie” that “everyone” on the left was saying that “everyone [on the left] supports the troops”, unless you can point to all here opposing the war saying that “all the left supports the troops”, the only conclusion is that what you are saying is not true. No one was saying that “everyone [on the left] supports the troops”, just you. To say that the left is lying in this context requires that someone here was proposing that war opponents are like a monolith. Thank you for the explanation. I think you are correct and that no one here as asserted that “all people on the left support the troops”. I was working under a general impression. If that offends you, so be it. But I know that the criticism that vocal opposition to the war is often—or sometimes—tied to no support for the troops is often screamed down with a similar generality: that those that support the war still support the troops. I guess it brings to light the problem with generalities. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/230 "2005-11-14T20:06:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The problem I’m having with you is that every single other thing you’ve said in this thread stands in contradiction to what you just wrote. I do not see any contradiction. Can you point them out. I just ask that you go by what I wrote and not what you might have inadvertently read into it. > [@Miller](#): > > No, I doubt we could actually topple the administration. But we can hamstring it so that it lacks political pull, and can’t continue to make the sort of mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place, or that make the price we’re all paying for those mistakes higher and higher, every single day. Understood. I just ask that—especially in light of the reality oyu perceive of Bush staying in office—you weigh the potential benefit with the potential ill it might do. I would then ask that you give priority to the men and women that are currently in harm’s way. Reasonable? > [@Miller](#): > > A nitpick, but Senators are congressmen. And you think that the people in congress aren’t paying attention when protestors march on the White House? You think they aren’t paying very careful attention to every poll that measures Bush’s spiraling popularity, and weigh their support for his policies accordingly? What does Bush’s popularity matter at this pointy. He can’t be reelected. Cheney isn’t running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/231 "2005-11-14T20:17:19Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] “No matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road, turn back.” It’s a Turkish proverb, and it applies. **magellan** , when you say things like [QUOTE=magellan01] I much prefer having you around to hold up as a shining example of the hate-filled left. Please, stay healthy. In fact, if I were a wealthy person I’d give you your own radio show. The more people are aware that the extreme left is filled with such “progressive” thoughts the better it will be for everyone. [QUOTE] you are exaggerating to the point of a lie. A desire to see more US troops die is extremely rare on the left; it is as if I took an abortion-doctor murderer to be an example of the hate-filled right. If you will reread you will notice that in both instances that “the left” was referred to, it was qualified. First with “hate-filled”, and then with"extreme". So where is the exaggeration and where is the lie? > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That said, I disagree with you that once war has begun, we should hope to see as few people die, **especially those on our side**. I hope to see as few people die, but **especially those who didn’t choose to fight**. That is, I think the highest priority in a war ought to be on not killing civilians, especially when both armies fighting comprise volunteer forces. > > It’s a horrible choice, but if the choice is between an American soldier dying and a 17-year-old Iraqi kid on his way to school dying, I’d rather the American soldier die. Yes, his family will miss him; yes, it will be devastating; but he made the choice to join a military and put himself in harm’s way. The Iraqi on his way to school did not make such a choice. And the Iraqi kid’s family will be just as devastated by his death. > > Daniel Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more “right to continued life” than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm’s way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/232 "2005-11-14T20:20:53Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You BITCH!!! Bitch!?!? Bitch!?!?! I’ll claw you eyes out you hussy! 😃😃😃 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/233 "2005-11-14T20:22:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What does Bush’s popularity matter at this pointy. He can’t be reelected. Cheney isn’t running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue. At this “pointy” only his pointy headed stubborness. 🙂 But the fact that the republican leadership is rolling with the Bush deceptions means that we cannot trust Republicans to do the right thing: [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) > [@](#): > > RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, now with twice the lying power! > > Here’s the clip from Mehlman’s appearance this morning on the Russert show. And I honestly found it hard to keep up with the full number of lies and half-truths that rolled out of his mouth. > > I know that some of my more cautious readers will blanch at my use of the “L” word. But when so many falsehoods and misleading statements are rolled atop each other, there’s really no other description that fairly categorizes what the man is doing. As for why he’s doing so, it’s not just that he has to as head of the RNC. He was part of the deception and perfidy to the constitution. So like the president and his advisors, Mehlman’s dishonesty today is just self-protection. > > Let’s catalog a few of them. > > One was that the Senate intel report exonerated the administration of any effort to mislead the American people over Iraq. Wrong. They specifically did not look at that question. > > He also said the Silbermann/Robb Commission concluded the same thing. Wrong. They too were specifically not authorized to examine that question. > > He said the British Butler Report said the same thing. First of all, who cares what a Report written to cover Tony Blair said? Second of all, it said no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/234 "2005-11-14T20:24:47Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Today [Juan Cole](http://www.juancole.com/) has some timely observations on the manipulation of intelligence: > > It is not true that most of the Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. Democrats in Congress have told me that most of what they knew about Iraq before the war came via briefings from Bush administration and Pentagon officials. They say privately that they now feel that they were consistently lied to. I’ve been “informed” that this is just a bold and evil lie, put forward by the America hating traitors. Even der Bush said in his Veterans Day speech that this is a lie (probably being spread by traitors and haters). Yeah right. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/235 "2005-11-14T20:26:11Z")
Your agenda is showing, **Mag**. > [@](#): > > …Yes it necessitates you don’t piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters… By which you imply, but do not actually state, that those who blame Bush (rightly!) for this disgrace have underhanded motives, that somehow our sincerity must be adjudged less than your own. It all lies in the coy definition of “Bush haters”, which you would like us to believe is that set of people who place their disdain for Bush above concern for our troops. As demonstrated by this: > [@](#): > > …It is a fact that some people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe… This did not suddenly occur to you, you have stated similar views before. You imply that you are dragged to accept the notion that such thinking as this is common to your rhetorical opponents. Such declarations of reluctance appears disingenuous when you seize upon such scant evidence with the eagerness of a starving dog on a poisoned pork chop. ObL is undeniably an opponent of Bush policy, need I declare my hostility to his viewpoint on every occassion merely to protect your regard for me? Or worry that by failing to do so, I offer you to imply that my views and his coincide? You have no special sanction to determine who my allies are, **Red Shirt** or no. By that same token, you have no such privilege to determine who’s views I need to publicly denounce in order to earn your regard, except for yourself. Even amongst us who most definitely place the blame where it belongs, there remains considerable argument over the best course of action. I have relucatantly come to the opinion that our presence in Iraq does more harm than good, and have abandoned my previous “we broke it, we fix it” stance. Please note that such an argument does not even consider Bush’s culpability, it is not relevent. We are left to conclude you would have us soften our denunciations of Bush’s failings for other reasons, and to guess what they might be. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/236 "2005-11-14T20:26:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more “right to continued life” than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm’s way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises. Really. You mean “risks” like killing any within a hundred feet, killing people who are just getting out of cars, torturing people and raping children ? Those kinds of “risks” ? I see no evidence that American soldiers even regard Iraqis as human, much less worry about killing them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/237 "2005-11-14T20:38:21Z")
**Red Shirt** , you’ve simply _got_ to be kidding. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/238 "2005-11-14T20:41:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Red Shirt** , you’ve simply _got_ to be kidding. About what ? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/239 "2005-11-14T22:31:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Or something like that. The point is that I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to show that to a returning soldier who had lost a limb. It doesn’t question the righteousness of the war or degrade his service or mock his loss. It simply is a call to make the wisest decision for RIGHT NOW. I think it would be more effective than all the anti-Bush-ant-war ranting because it is non-partisan. It would increase the odds of the troops actually being brought home. And that is the point, isn’t it. Yes it necessitates you don’t piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters. Okay, great. That’s one letter. Is a congressman going to change his position based on one letter? Of course not. He’s only going to do that when he sees that the weight of public opinion is turning against the war. How do I reach the mass of American voters, to make _them_ see why this war is a mistake, and convince them to write their congressman? > [@](#): > > I do not agree that the analogy is “crappy”, or even poor. Unless I’m mistaken, a great deal of U.S. military strategy is based maintaining overwhelming force. Because if you have it people or less likely to want to fuck with you. This seems like common sense. I don’t kow why you’re arguing with it. It’s a crappy analogy because nothing that ever happens in a bar brawl is worth dying over. It’s a crappy analogy because backing down from a bar brawl doesn’t cost you anything except for maybe a loss of face. And it’s a crappy analogy because if my friend starts acting like an asshole in a bar and picking fights with people who haven’t done anything to him, I’m going to damn well let his idiot ass get stomped, in the hopes that next time we’re out in public, he doesn’t embarass me like that again. None of those situations are remotely comparable to Iraq. > [@](#): > > To answer your question in a way you seem to prefer, I think the insurgents are more emboldened when they see a fractured enemy. They want us out of Iraq. They are pushing us out. If they sense that there is a force that is pulling us out, as well, that I think encourages them to contiunue—or step up—those activities that have gotten the this far. That did not answer either of my questions. Not even remotely. > [@](#): > > They want something: power. Using force is one way to get it. Negotiation is another. The more futile using force looks, the more attactive negotiation becomes. I think the recent election in Iraq bodes well in this regard. What on Earth do they have to negotiate _with_? We own their country. They don’t have a single thing that we can’t simply take. > [@](#): > > You were comparing the consequences of the actions of someone from the extreme left with those of the President. The action of the President that unquestionably has resulted in death to out troops is his decision to send them into war. Consequently, your point seems to be that whoever sends the troops into war is most responsible for causing them harm (okay) and least supportive of them. And that is simply ridiculous. Ridiculous is right. Where are you getting the idea that my criticisms of the way Bush has handled this war are in anyway comparable to how we’ve handled other wars in the past? I think George Bush is an awful president. Do you assume that I think all American presidents are awful? I think George Bush has not supported our troops; indeed, that he has been callously indifferent to their welfare and their lives in favor of his private interests and vendettas. Why on Earth are you assuming that I feel that way about every American president? Do you understand that, when I say Bush is the worst American president in living memory, it means that every other president has been _better_? > [@](#): > > It is a fact that _some_ people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe. So who in this thread, precisely, are you accusing of secretly agreeing with **Der Trihs**? Please be specific: talk of silent majorities gives me painful stomach gas. > [@](#): > > You can pick a fight with whomever you like. But I would offer, just like the peace-loving moderate Muslims who keep silent as their religion is hijacked, those of any ideology who do not act to separate themselves from a disease-minded fringe does their own ideology a disservice. I reject the basic postulate of this statement. I don’t expect moderate Muslims to reject extremist Muslims with any greater fervor than any other civilized human. I don’t expect **Polycarp** to answer for Fred Phelps just because they’re both Christian, and I don’t expect you to answer for George Bush just because you’re both conservative. Don’t expect me to answer for **Der Trihs** just because we’re both liberal. This entire concept is infuriating to me, and strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Instead of debating your opposition honestly, you highlight the most extreme element among them and attack him as if he were representative of the whole. It’s bullshit. You have a problem with **Der Trihs** , open a pit thread about him. This isn’t that thread; don’t expect those responses to show up here. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/240 "2005-11-14T22:49:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Understood. I just ask that—especially in light of the reality oyu perceive of Bush staying in office—you weigh the potential benefit with the potential ill it might do. I would then ask that you give priority to the men and women that are currently in harm’s way. Reasonable? Why do you assume that I haven’t already done that? > [@](#): > > What does Bush’s popularity matter at this pointy. He can’t be reelected. Cheney isn’t running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue. Bush is dangerous so long as he is in a leadership position. Right now, he’s massively unpopular. This limits his ability to lead: other politicians are unlikely to align themselves, lest those negative poll numbers start to rub off on themselves. Hammering on Bush’s flaws reduced his ability to lead. And if he can’t lead at all, he certainly can’t lead us into further misadventures like Iraq. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=13)