# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/281 "2005-11-16T18:11:20Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > May I please have a citation or several re this that I may use in the future? Well, [here](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1104-01.htm) is a Los Angeles Times article, on the day after the Presidential election, giving what was basically the last word on the looting of the Al Qa’qaa weapons facility. As you may recall, this story broke the week before the election and the administration spent the next days trying to spin the story or distract people in various ways…until Bin Laden helped them out by bouncing the story off the front pages. As the article notes, al Qa’qaa, besides containing these high-grade explosives useful in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and tagged by the IAEA, also was one of the top 200 suspected WMD sites. I’ll also note that the administration has not even made any attempts to try to demonstrate any sort of special operations and precautions that they took in order to secure potential WMD sites. We do know, by contrast, that they sent special forces in to secure some of the oil fields and prevent them from being lit aflame. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/282 "2005-11-16T18:36:54Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, … lit aflame. Is al-Qaqaa it? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/283 "2005-11-16T18:52:37Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Is al-Qaqaa it? It is the only specific case that I have heard about. However, I think the ball is in the administration’s court now. If they wanted to demonstrate to us how careful they were, and what lengths they went through, to secure WMD sites then they can start explaining this…and also explain why this somehow failed in the one case of al-Qaqaa. They certainly had the opportunity to do that when the al-Qaqaa story broke. I don’t think it is up to us to show that extraordinary (or even rather ordinary!) precautions weren’t taken; it is up to them to show that they were. (Hell, forget “show”; I’d settle for a vague claim that they were at this point, at least as a start!) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/284 "2005-11-16T19:15:10Z")
Are there any cites with corroborationg evidence that prove the president didn’t lie (about anything at all)? Are there any cites or proff that Bush hasn’t ONCE AGAIN shifted to yet another set of manufactured stories and excuses? Are there any cites or proof that the backlash against Bush IS wrecjing the war effort and endangering the troops? The bottom line is this. Bush pushed for war. Bush rushed everyone to war based on several different reasons and stories and slogans (which still keep changing even now). Bush sold the war to the Congress, the country, and tried to sell it to the UN. It’s his war. He made it happen. Trying to blame anyone else now is cowardly in the extreme and worthy of contempt. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/285 "2005-11-16T19:24:50Z")
Brainstorm. Free enterprise is the solution. We pull all foreign government personnel out of Iraq immediately. Everyone of those from the so-called coalition leaves. Chaos ensues and the multinational oils can’t have that. Royal Dutch Shell and BP would straighten out the mess in two weeks. We all live happily ever after. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/286 "2005-11-16T20:59:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How about you just _ask_? Well, unless there is a one-on-one discussion, that seems a bit impractical. In a protest, if someone doesn’t have a sign, it seems reasonable to assume that he agrees with the overall message, plus he agrees with at least some of the specific messages to varying degrees. I do not think it is fair to automatically equate any one _individual_ with the most extreme messaging, but it is fair to say that all messages are part of the overall movement or protest. Naturally, if someone is carrying a sign with an fringe message, it is safe to assume that he believes in that message. There is little reason to believe that someone at the other end of the march agrees with that message, but if someone is walking next to them, the assumption is reasonable. It can easily be wrong, but it is reasonable. In a debate thread much the same occurs. As long as the participants argue mainstream points, there is no reason to attribute extreme views to anyone—until someone volunteers such an opinion. But once the issue is on the table, everyone is free to comment on it. It is likely that the opposition will attack it, for obvious reasons, the least of which is that he doesn’t agree with it at all. If the message truly is that extreme, it is also likley that those on his own side will attack, for one of two reasons. One: they find it too extreme and offensive. Two: They do not want the overall discussion to hinge on such an extreme view, as it will muddle, dilute, and weaken their stronger points. If you review this thread that is precisely what happened. An extreme point of view was offered, to which I voiced objection. But so did one or two others that found it objectionable. Others remained silent. So what camp are they in? Hard to say. On the one hand, I doubt all, or most, of them agree with the view, because I do beleive it is an extreme one. On the other hand, their objection to the extreme view—if they do object to it—is certainly not as strong as those who raised their hands and noted their objections. So do those who remained silent agree with it? Some probably do. How many? I have no way of knowing. Plus, maybe the view in question is not as extreme as I had thought. Hence, our discussion. > [@Miller](#): > > Of course I agree. And of course I’ve weighed the consequences of my actions. Guess what? I came to different conclusions than you have! I truly cannot comprehend how criticizing George Bush is in anyway disrespectful to the troops. You haven’t read what I’ve been saying. Criticize him for spending, FEMA, the state of the borders, education, healthcare, take your pick. My point has been, simply, that while we have young men and women in a war zone, we should not denegrate their service. When someone rants about war for oil, illegitimate war, etc., you sap the morale of the troops. Put yourself over there in the shithole. Would you rather believe you are fighting for a noble cause or that your a schmuck that just lost an arm for no reason. And I’m not intimating that we lie about anything. Not only can the case be made the the war in Iraq is a noble _effort_, and we owe to the troops to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the cause is almost immaterial. They serve the country, you and I. They do not—cannot—evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the mission they are sent on. They simply follow orders. Their country has sent them there. They are in harm’s way. We owe them what little support we can give them. Part of that, which asks more of the war opponents than proponents, is to focus on the nobility of their service and the nobility of the _idea_ they are risking their lives for. I would think that most of us—pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Bush, any everone in between—can see the nobility in their service if they choose to; the nobility in the idea they are fighting for, if they choose to. It has often been pointed out that this war doesn’t ask the populace to do anything, to sacrifice anything. While I see the point, I don’t think it is correct. I think, like in any war, it asks us to keep foremost in our minds the real-life nightmare that war is and our young men and women that we have sent into it. > [@Miller](#): > > Oh, and I’m sorry, but if you got your legs blown off in Iraq, you did lose it for nothing. It’s horrible, it should never have happened, it’s quite literally a national tragedy. But it’s the truth, at least as near as I can tell, and I think that if I really respect the troops, I owe them the that, at the very, very least. I think we disagree greatly on how much we owe our troops. But be sure to relay your sentiments to the first 20-year-old returning vet you see who is missing a leg. Just try not to use the word “schmuck”, he might find it redundant. We each have our own views on Bush and the war, but wouldn’t be nice if when those kids returned they felt appreciated? That felt that they were part of an honorable and noble effort? Why would you not want to give them that? I think about those mena nd women returning and I want to be able to walk up to them, shake their hands and thank them for their sacrifice. I make sure to do this whenever I come across someone in uniform in an airport. Maybe I’m kiddiing myself, but I think it helps. A little. It makes them feel like people back here know what they’re going through. I makes them feel like they are part of somehting good and noble. Maybe it makes them a little stronger, and they take that strentgh back to Iraq with them. Maybe it helps make their snatches of sleep a little more sound. > [@Miller](#): > > The people who disrespect the troops are in the definite minority, and are mostly ignored by the mainstream left. They’re not ignored out of tacit support, but out of a differing philosophy in how to manage fringe opinions. That is a choice they make. And like all choices it has pros and cons. One con is that by not clearly and strongly disavowing what they believe to be a fringe element, they dilute, muddle, and obfuscate their own message, not to mention subject their whole organization to ridicule. That is just the way the world works. The reality is the message that is received, not the one that is sent. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m not saying he’s unique, but jeez, if you were so surprised to run into someone with these opinions after this long, doesn’t that argue that his opinion is extremely rare? If it were at all common, wouldn’t you hear it all the time? I was surprised to run into the opinion on a debate board such as SDMB. And maybe that’s my mistake. I live in San Francisco, which is Ground Zero (or, at leat across the bay from it) for the Hate America crowd. I guess there are more of them about than I previously thought. I hope I’m wrong. > [@Miller](#): > > If the over-all march is anti-war, you can safely assume he’s anti-war. Or he’s looking to score with some hippie chicks. Anything else is an unfair assumption. So, I should just ignore all the signs that people made—to be read. And ignore the proximity of him to those sign-holders. Asking people to suspend there powers of observation and how the process information is asking a lot, don’t you think? > [@Miller](#): > > Have I not done that in this thread? YOU have. And becuse you did I know where YOU stand. Now you want me to assume everyone in the thread holds your opinion? Isn’t that what your gripe with me was originally? The only thiings I can assume are: there is a range of opinions regarding the war; some of them are extreme; logically, fewer people will hold the extreme opinions. So I don’t know if one person holds that extreme view or if more do. When it was offered, my guess was one. Now, I’d say that assumption was incorrect. > [@Miller](#): > > Because it attracts more attention to those messages, and subtracts time spent on the message I want to communicate. It also leads to factionalizing and splintering of our base. We don’t have to like these assholes, but we still need their votes. Just like Republicans and the religious right. That is a trade off any individual or organization is stuck with. If you spend “time on those messages” you benefit by making clear precisely what you are trying to cimmunicate. If you do not, you increase the likelihood that people will think you stand for things that you do not. If you leave it up to them to decide and they attribute beliefs to you that you don’t hold, should you blame them? Especially when there are actions you can take and choose to not take them? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/287 "2005-11-16T21:00:50Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Brainstorm. Free enterprise is the solution. We pull all foreign government personnel out of Iraq immediately. Everyone of those from the so-called coalition leaves. > > Chaos ensues and the multinational oils can’t have that. Royal Dutch Shell and BP would straighten out the mess in two weeks. > > We all live happily ever after. Free enterprise at its finest. I suggest too, that in the interest of free unfettered commerce, we borrow a page from classical libertarianism. Whatever they get, they keep. All of it. If they get knee deep in “the shit”, in true libertarainism and laissez faire, they can dig themselves out with no bailouts of any sort, no rescue sorties, no prisoner exchange, nada. All or nothing. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/288 "2005-11-16T21:16:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you review this thread that is precisely what happened. An extreme point of view was offered, to which I voiced objection. But so did one or two others that found it objectionable. Others remained silent. So what camp are they in? Hard to say. On the one hand, I doubt all, or most, of them agree with the view, because I do beleive it is an extreme one. On the other hand, their objection to the extreme view—if they do object to it—is certainly not as strong as those who raised their hands and noted their objections. So do those who remained silent agree with it? Some probably do. How many? I have no way of knowing. Plus, maybe the view in question is not as extreme as I had thought. Hence, our discussion. So where is this concern for complete and absolute “moderation” on the opposite side of the fence? I haven’t noticed it. Their (the Right) wingnuts are quoted, paid extremely well, and even defended. Their rancid bile is sometimes used as cites and justifications and as “evidence”. > [@magellan01](#): > > You haven’t read what I’ve been saying. Criticize him for spending, FEMA, the state of the borders, education, healthcare, take your pick. My point has been, simply, that while we have young men and women in a war zone, we should not denegrate their service. When someone rants about war for oil, illegitimate war, etc., you sap the morale of the troops. Put yourself over there in the shithole. Would you rather believe you are fighting for a noble cause or that your a schmuck that just lost an arm for no reason. The same rationale then. Back Bush because we are at war. We are at war BECAUSE of Bush. I will not back someone because we are at war, when he caused the war to begin with. That is circular logic and we ain’t gonna play. As far as the war being a noble cause, if it is so noble, why was it pushed so hard for reasons that were untrue? Why was the American public lied to? Why did the reasons keep changing? Why is the blame now being thrown at someone else? (Re the cartoon where Bush says I didn’t mislead, you misfollowed"). Why try to blame other people for HIS war, if it was a just and noble war? A NOBLE war, a JUST war, would not need lies, misrepresentations, and secret memos to sustain it. A noble war would have met the various accusations with fact instead of personal attack and venom (Wilson and Plame). A Noble war would have stood on its own merits. > [@magellan01](#): > > We owe them what little support we can give them. Part of that, which asks more of the war opponents than proponents, is to focus on the nobility of their service and the nobility of the _idea_ they are risking their lives for. I would think that most of us—pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Bush, any everone in between—can see the nobility in their service if they choose to; the nobility in the idea they are fighting for, if they choose to. We also owe them the truth. We owe them clear direction and orders. We owe them adequate guidance, training and equipment. We owe them the bonuses that were “mulliganed”. We owe them their VA benefits. We owe them decent pay. > [@magellan01](#): > > I think we disagree greatly on how much we owe our troops. But be sure to relay your sentiments to the first 20-year-old returning vet you see who is missing a leg. Just try not to use the word “schmuck”, he might find it redundant. CITE? Re-read this thread. Most of us would never greet them that way. I reserve that word and many better ones for the people who caused them to have been sent in the first place. ---
**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 16, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/289 "2005-11-16T21:18:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Would you rather believe you are fighting for a noble cause or that your a schmuck that just lost an arm for no reason. So you like the idea of killing innocent people and being _lied to_ about it ? You like the idea of being mutilated for the profit of another and being _lied to_ about it ? > [@magellan01](#): > > Not only can the case be made the the war in Iraq is a noble effort, and we owe to the troops to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the cause is almost immaterial. No, it requires radical rewriting of history to make this noble. Given that is was obvious to most of the world, we owe them no “benefit of the doubt” at all. The cause is _not_ immaterial; the cause is all that can justify a war. > [@magellan01](#): > > They do not—cannot—evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the mission they are sent on. Of course they can; haven’t you ever heard of criminal orders and war crimes ? > [@magellan01](#): > > Part of that, which asks more of the war opponents than proponents, is to focus on the nobility of their service and the nobility of the idea they are risking their lives for. I would think that most of us—pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Bush, any everone in between—can see the nobility in their service if they choose to; the nobility in the idea they are fighting for, if they choose to. Service in an evil cause is not noble, and the only “ideal” they are serving is the power madness of the neo-cons. > [@magellan01](#): > > We each have our own views on Bush and the war, but wouldn’t be nice if when those kids returned they felt appreciated? That felt that they were part of an honorable and noble effort? Why would you not want to give them that? Because it would be a lie, and further insult to all the people we’ve murdered in this stupid, vile indulgence of Bush. > [@magellan01](#): > > I think about those mena nd women returning and I want to be able to walk up to them, shake their hands and thank them for their sacrifice. I wouldn’t want to breath the same air, much less touch them. > [@magellan01](#): > > I makes them feel like they are part of somehting good and noble. Except they aren’t. > [@magellan01](#): > > Maybe it makes them a little stronger, and they take that strentgh back to Iraq with them. So that they can brutalize and kill more innocent people. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/290 "2005-11-16T22:31:53Z")
Joe Biden: > [@Biden](#): > > “The only regret I had voting for the war is that I never anticipated how incompetent the administration would be in using the authority we gave them to avoid war.” Note: How many times have I used that very word? A lot I bet. John Edwards: > [@Edwards](#): > > “Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told – and what many of us believed and argued – was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. > It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn’t make a mistake – the men and women of our armed forces and their families – have performed heroically and paid a dear price. … The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president – and that I was being given by our intelligence community – wasn’t the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.” Note: The Downing Street Memo used the words “fix the data”. As I said (somewhere) just today, a just (or at least somewhat justifiable) war would stand on its own merits without any “doctoring”. Joining Libby on the hot seat for outing CIA agents or at least perjury, is National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley ,who will probably be indicted next. Could it be, that the investigations by Fitzgerald, and the next round of indictments are simply following the chain of command right on up the ladder? Could be. Jimmy Carter has said - there isn’t"any doubt" the American people were misled about the war in Iraq and that President George Bush’s policy on the war is a “radical departure from the policies of any president.” Joining in slamming the administration is Bill Clinton - “The United States made a big mistake when we invaded Iraq.” Carter: > [@Carter](#): > > “If the investigation would go ahead and proceed, as Democrats have been trying to in the Senate now for more than 18 months, then we will know the circumstances under which the American people – and I think an entire world – was misled about what was going on in Iraq,” Same deal. Just war needs no “manipulation” of data. Hmmmmm. There has been a bit of stonewalling,delaying, and prevarication on the part of the “folks in power”. Now they are using the “I didn’t mislead, you misfollowed” ploy. Carter also said that the administration’s pre-emptive strike doctrine directed against the possible future use of weapons of mass destruction is a spurious basis for a war when there is no immediate threat to America’s security. > [@Carter](#): > > “We’ll bomb, strafe and send missiles against their people even though our security’s not directly threatened,”. “This is contrary to international law. It’s also contrary to what every president has done in this country for more than 100 years, Democrat or Republican.” > [@The secret Downing Street memo](#): > > C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. **Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.** The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. > … > The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. > … > The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. > > On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. Note: The decision had already been made to attack, but this memo clearly states that the information needed to be generated or “fixed”. and there was no plan for what to do after we were greeted with flowers and praise. A just war would again need no fixing, and there would be no need for secret schemes to find or invent a legal justification for force, it would be right out in the open. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/291 "2005-11-16T22:58:45Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > We also owe them the truth. We owe them clear direction and orders. We owe them adequate guidance, training and equipment. We owe them the bonuses that were “mulliganed”. We owe them their VA benefits. We owe them decent pay. Then argue for more pay, for better benefits. I have not been arguing the merits of the war, the reasons for the war, or the competency of it’s prosecution. Simply that we are in a war, with people in harms way and that fact—and that fact alone—dictates certain behavior on our part. So criticize Bush for other things. Criticize specific instances of the war’s mismanagement—Abu Graib, the unprotected weapons depo, things that will help improve the prosecution of the war—but it serves ill purpose to denegrate the nobility of the effort or the soldier’s Commander in Chief’s decision to go there. I get the impression that some people are more interested on shitting on the President than they are in supporting the kids that are in a war zone. And I think that sucks. As I demonstrated with my letter that **Miller** requested, I think one can make a more effective plea to bring the troops home (assuming that is what one wants to do) by not shitting on Bush. Read the letter (which by no means do I think cannot be improved) and tell me if you think the strategy it represents would be more or less effective in bringing the troops home than the current one. Regarding the war, our primary concern should be about about the troops in harms way, not about Bush. The decicson whether to go or not to go is history. We are there. Our young men and women are being killed and maimed. Their service to this country is honorable. Acknowledge that. Support their effort. Why wouldn’t you want to do that? Because it expends calories not spent slamming Bush? If the answer is “Yes”, I suggest you take a long, hard look at your priorities. > [@SteveG1](#): > > CITE? Re-read this thread. Most of us would never greet them that way. I reserve that word and many better ones for the people who caused them to have been sent in the first place. My response was a direct one to what **Miller** had written. And while I believe that most of you wouldn’t greet them disrespectfully, or even withhold respect, it is plain that some would. That is not okay with me. Can I change their minds? Maybe, maybe not. But I can try. Certain people, no doubt, are lost causes. But I believe there is a range of feelings and I am just trying to make consideration for our troops and the realization the our actions and speech have consequences rise to the top of the list of things to be considered. ---
**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 16, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/292 "2005-11-16T23:07:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Simply that we are in a war, with people in harms way and that fact—and that fact alone—dictates certain behavior on our part That’s a mindset any dictator would love. > [@magellan01](#): > > but it serves ill purpose to denegrate the nobility of the effort What in the world is noble about this festival of stupidity, corruption and brutality ? > [@magellan01](#): > > Their service to this country is honorable. No, it is evil. If I believed in souls and Hell, I’d say that was were they’d be going. > [@magellan01](#): > > Regarding the war, our primary concern should be about about the troops in harms way, not about Bush. No, it should be the victims, not the killers. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/293 "2005-11-16T23:16:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then argue for more pay, for better benefits. I have not been arguing the merits of the war, the reasons for the war, or the competency of it’s prosecution. Simply that we are in a war, with people in harms way and that fact—and that fact alone—dictates certain behavior on our part. So criticize Bush for other things. No. Absolutely not. That argument has been used by presidents before. It has been usd by various kings and tyrants before. No. I will not let the “rules of engagement” for discourse be stacked against what is right and is also A right in this country, guaranteed by the Constitution and by all the fine words this country supposedly stands for. The best way to show support for the troops is to DEMAND that they not have to throw their lives away on a wrong or lost cause. Once again, Bush refuses to accept any responsibility for a situation of his own making, while others die for his mistakes. How is allowing that any way to support the troops? This is what has been stirring the pot lately. It is an attempt to silence dissent and doubt, wave the flag, paint everyone but Bush as the villain, and shift blame for HIS decisions (mislead vs. misfollow?). > [@Bush Veterans Day Speech](#): > > “The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.” Here is a response. > [@The response](#): > > The ‘demoralizing our boys and comforting the enemy’ line is a last ditch, McCarthy-lite gambit that doesn’t work in this country. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used it to fill their credibility gaps, without success. It was cheap and cowardly then and it still is now. > > Furthermore, it’s not crystal clear who exactly the “ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life” is. Is it the Sunnis blowing up the Shiites in Iraq? Or the Shiites blowing up the Sunnis? Or is it the Shiites and the Sunnis when they are blowing up Americans? Or Jordanians blowing up Jordanians? Or is it the prisoners in secret CIA prison camps? > > Who exactly are these people getting the wrong message and encouragement from the speeches of Harry Reid, John McCain and Chuck Hagel? (Here’s Hagel on the administration’s new counter-offensive: “The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.”) > > The administration is especially perturbed that some critics still believe the case it made for war lacked integrity and still want a proper investigation into the policy uses of pre-war intelligence. Then on the the final sentence which sums it all up perfectly > [@The response](#): > > That is manipulating intelligence and misleading the American people. Saying otherwise, twisting what major reports have said and questioning the patriotism and honor of critics is a sure way to stay holed up in Credibility Gulch. > [@From The American Prospect](#): > > The speech was humiliating to Bush and the United States of America on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin. OK, actually, I do. I’ll begin with the outright lie. > > My critics, Bush whimpered, “are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.” > > No such thing ever happened. That bipartisan investigation — the so-called “Phase II” probe into administration manipulation of pre-war intelligence — is ongoing right now. It’s taken this long to start because, as Laura Rozen reported in our October print issue, Senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts dragged his feet; and, as Murray Waas reported in The National Journal online, once Roberts did haltingly begin the probe, Dick Cheney and his staff refused to turn over crucial documentation. The delays and stonewalls, of course, are exactly what led the Democrats to call the closed session of the Senate. The probe is finally proceeding — but it sure hasn’t “found” anything. > > There is no other way to interpret Bush’s sentence: It is a direct, unmediated, Nixonian lie. What kind of pathetic man would utter such a lie on Veterans’ Day, when over 2,000 U.S. soldiers have died? From 50 years ago, during World War 2, when we were facing TWO far more powerful enemies - world class powers, Japan and Germany, at their peak strength: > [@Robert Taft](#): > > As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. These words were spoken by a Republican, just a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. What you are arguing for is merely a Readers Digest condensation of Bush’s speech, which I personally found offensive on many levels. His speech, and the insistence that we all accept it - shut up and support the troops, is a gross insult to them and to us. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/294 "2005-11-16T23:25:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As I demonstrated with my letter that **Miller** requested, I think one can make a more effective plea to bring the troops home (assuming that is what one wants to do) by not shitting on Bush. Read the letter (which by no means do I think cannot be improved) and tell me if you think the strategy it represents would be more or less effective in bringing the troops home than the current one. I thought it was an excellent and well written letter. You said several important things, with the sort of tact that I would usually fail to have. Well done. ---
**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 16, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/295 "2005-11-16T23:40:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, unless there is a one-on-one discussion, that seems a bit impractical. In a protest, if someone doesn’t have a sign, it seems reasonable to assume that he agrees with the overall message, plus he agrees with at least some of the specific messages to varying degrees. I do not think it is fair to automatically equate any one _individual_ with the most extreme messaging, but it is fair to say that all messages are part of the overall movement or protest. Naturally, if someone is carrying a sign with an fringe message, it is safe to assume that he believes in that message. There is little reason to believe that someone at the other end of the march agrees with that message, but if someone is walking next to them, the assumption is reasonable. It can easily be wrong, but it is reasonable. I don’t see how that’s remotely reasonable. Just because a guy standing next to me is holding a stupid sign, that means I agree with him? What am I supposed to do if I’m in a crowd and a guy walks up next to me with a “Screw the Troops” sign? Bolt for the other side of the crowd? Grab his sign away from him and stomp on it? Knock his teeth out? > [@](#): > > In a debate thread much the same occurs. As long as the participants argue mainstream points, there is no reason to attribute extreme views to anyone—until someone volunteers such an opinion. But once the issue is on the table, everyone is free to comment on it. It is likely that the opposition will attack it, for obvious reasons, the least of which is that he doesn’t agree with it at all. If the message truly is that extreme, it is also likley that those on his own side will attack, for one of two reasons. One: they find it too extreme and offensive. Two: They do not want the overall discussion to hinge on such an extreme view, as it will muddle, dilute, and weaken their stronger points. I disagree as a general point of message board ettiquette. Once a viewpoint has been sufficiently debunked, responding to repeat the exact same points bloats the thread unnecessarily and makes it harder to discuss other, pertinent issues. You seem to be disappointed that the thread didn’t immediately turn into a dogpile on **Der Trihs**. Well, sorry, but if that’s what you want, I recommend once again that you start a pit thread. I’m sure the dogpile will arrive shortly thereafter. In a GD thread, it would be inappropriate. > [@](#): > > You haven’t read what I’ve been saying. Criticize him for spending, FEMA, the state of the borders, education, healthcare, take your pick. My point has been, simply, that while we have young men and women in a war zone, we should not denegrate their service. Criticizing the war does not denigrate the service of those fighting it. Not even remotely. That’s a patently ludicrous assertion. The service of any soldier stands apart from the purpose to which their service has been perverted. > [@](#): > > When someone rants about war for oil, illegitimate war, etc., you sap the morale of the troops. Yes, I suppose it does, but is the blame for that on the person who points out the immoral nature of the conflict, or is it on the person who conceived those immoral purposes in the first place? > [@](#): > > Put yourself over there in the shithole. Would you rather believe you are fighting for a noble cause or that your a schmuck that just lost an arm for no reason. What a strange question. I would want to _know_ why I was there. I’d _hope_ it was for a nobel cause, but the absolute last thing I’d want is to be lied to about why I was there. I’d rather be spit on and called a baby killer. The opinion may be reprehensible, but at least it’s honestly held. > [@](#): > > And I’m not intimating that we lie about anything. But when you tell me not to say that this war is a senseless, immoral waste of life, that’s exactly what you are telling me to do. > [@](#): > > Not only can the case be made the the war in Iraq is a noble _effort_, and we owe to the troops to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the cause is almost immaterial. They serve the country, you and I. They do not—cannot—evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the mission they are sent on. They simply follow orders. Their country has sent them there. They are in harm’s way. Exactly right. Which is why I don’t understand your insistance that criticising the motives behind the war is somehow insulting to the service of those fighting it They are two seperate issues, entirely. > [@](#): > > I think we disagree greatly on how much we owe our troops. But be sure to relay your sentiments to the first 20-year-old returning vet you see who is missing a leg. Just try not to use the word “schmuck”, he might find it redundant. I don’t think we disagree at all about what we owe the troops. We just have different ideas of what “respect” means. To me, patronizing them is about as far from respect as you can get. And I don’t know where you’re getting this nonsense about soldiers being schmucks because the president is a duplicitous, corrupt war-monger. It’s not like he was elected solely by members of the armed services. To the extent that he duped any given soldier, he also duped 51% of the electorate. I don’t see how that reflects on anyone’s military service. > [@](#): > > We each have our own views on Bush and the war, but wouldn’t be nice if when those kids returned they felt appreciated? They are. > [@](#): > > That felt that they were part of an honorable and noble effort? Why would you not want to give them that? Because they weren’t. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest, and disrespectful. > [@](#): > > I think about those men and women returning and I want to be able to walk up to them, shake their hands and thank them for their sacrifice. Why do you think being opposed to the war itself means that I can’t - or won’t - do exactly the same? > [@](#): > > I was surprised to run into the opinion on a debate board such as SDMB. And maybe that’s my mistake. I live in San Francisco, which is Ground Zero (or, at leat across the bay from it) for the Hate America crowd. I guess there are more of them about than I previously thought. I hope I’m wrong. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > So, I should just ignore all the signs that people made—to be read. And ignore the proximity of him to those sign-holders. Asking people to suspend there powers of observation and how the process information is asking a lot, don’t you think? No, I’m just saying don’t assign the messages of the sign holders to people who aren’t holding the signs. And no, I don’t think that’s asking a lot. I do it every day, when I don’t assume that someone who is, say, a Christian hates gays, despite the fact that the overwhelming message being sent by most Christian churches on the subject of homosexuality tends to be either hate, or silence. > [@](#): > > YOU have. And becuse you did I know where YOU stand. Now you want me to assume everyone in the thread holds your opinion? No, I don’t want you to assume _anything_ about their opinions, except for what they’ve explicitly stated. > [@](#): > > The only thiings I can assume are: there is a range of opinions regarding the war; some of them are extreme; logically, fewer people will hold the extreme opinions. So I don’t know if one person holds that extreme view or if more do. When it was offered, my guess was one. Now, I’d say that assumption was incorrect. Why? There’s been exactly one person in this thread who has offered that opinion, and multiple posters have disagreed with it. Why on Earth would you assume that anyone holds that opinion other than the one person in this thread who actually stated it? That’s totally irrational! > [@](#): > > That is a trade off any individual or organization is stuck with. If you spend “time on those messages” you benefit by making clear precisely what you are trying to cimmunicate. If you do not, you increase the likelihood that people will think you stand for things that you do not. If you leave it up to them to decide and they attribute beliefs to you that you don’t hold, should you blame them? Especially when there are actions you can take and choose to not take them? Here’s the thing. Only one person has come in here and said they don’t support the troops. And you assume that means that many other people on his side agree with him. Only one person in this thread has trouble understanding what message the anti-war crowd is trying to communicate. But I’m not assuming that everyone else on his side doesn’t understand the message. In fact, a quick look at the polls seems to indicate that the majority of the people in this country not only understand the message, but agree with it. Sometimes, when a message isn’t properly understood, it’s the fault of the sender. And sometimes, it’s the fault of the receiver. I think, at this point, it’s pretty clear where the fault lies in this particular thread. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/296 "2005-11-16T23:48:24Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > These words were spoken by a Republican, just a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. > > > [@Robert Taft](#): > > > > As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. > > What you are arguing for is merely a Readers Digest condensation of Bush’s speech, which I personally found offensive on many levels. His speech, and the insistence that we all accept it - shut up and support the troops, is a gross insult to them and to us. As a matter of fact “the troops” themselves did a lot of criticizing. It was a common barracks debate point of those who didn’t like FDR that he knew all about Pearl Harbor in advance but kept that knowlede for the Pearl Harbor command. And that he had in fact goaded the Japanese to attack because he wanted us in the war. Another point made was that “the Jews” had maneuvered us into the war because Hitler was making it impossible for them to control German finance. Some guys even said that FDR wanted us in the war because he was “a Jew” and that his family name was originally Rosenfeld. None of this debate made a lot of difference in performance. “The troops” were a lot more concerned about day-to-day occurences right were they were than about political debates either among themselves or back home. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/297 "2005-11-17T01:43:54Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > As a matter of fact “the troops” themselves did a lot of criticizing. It was a common barracks debate point of those who didn’t like FDR that he knew all about Pearl Harbor in advance but kept that knowlede for the Pearl Harbor command. And that he had in fact goaded the Japanese to attack because he wanted us in the war. Another point made was that “the Jews” had maneuvered us into the war because Hitler was making it impossible for them to control German finance. Some guys even said that FDR wanted us in the war because he was “a Jew” and that his family name was originally Rosenfeld. Considering you were there and flew bombers Mr Simmons, as always, I’d rate your observations higher than almost anyone elses. Nothing beats “I was there” historical perspective I find. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/298 "2005-11-17T02:18:36Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > Considering you were there and flew bombers Mr Simmons, as always, I’d rate your observations higher than almost anyone elses. Nothing beats “I was there” historical perspective I find. Yes and no. It’s only one individuals take on the matter and is colored by one individual’s biases. And we buck-ass privates in the rear rank didn’t get much of an overview of the grand scheme of things. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/299 "2005-11-17T03:02:25Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > May I please have a citation or several re this that I may use in the future? [As reported on May 8, 2003](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=654), 30 days from the fall of Baghdad and one week after President Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished!”. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/300 "2005-11-17T03:14:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Put yourself over there in the shithole. Would you rather believe you are fighting for a noble cause or that your a schmuck that just lost an arm for no reason. Couldn’t help but pipe in on this one. I agree with you that there is a strong human nature to want to believe that the cause that you are participating in (whether you want to or not) is just. I think this desire to believe this **does** affect the troops and their families. In fact, I heard a commentary on NPR by the mother of a soldier when Terry Sheehan was in the news where she said something to the effect of having to believe that the cause is just. And, you know, it is the pathetic sick chicken-hawks like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld who cynically use this natural feature of human nature to their advantage for their own twisted ends. See, when I think about how the troops are in the position where they have to try to believe in an illusion, I don’t get mad at those who may be trying to shatter the illusion in order to get them out of that hellhole sooner. Instead, I just get pissed as all hell at the low forms of life who put them into that hellhole and who are now using the fact that troops and families have a natural tendency to want to believe this in order to defend their heinous crimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=16)