# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/101 "2005-11-12T19:08:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It happened. It has been testified on both the SDMB and on Fathom by men to whom it happened. > > The attempt to pretend that it did not happen was the result of some really sloppy methodology by a couple of guys who set out to “debunk” it as legend. They did not actually make the attempt to determine whether it happened. > > As to spitting hippies sent to hospitals, I have had several of those stories related to me, as well… Inciting to hijack, one count. I’m surprised at you, **Tomn**. I call for a cite on the “sloppy methodology” remark. What I’ve read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em. “…I have heard several of these stories.”? I’ve heard stories of people being kidnapped by aliens and subjected to probes up their Nixon. Don’t make it so. ---
**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 12, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/102 "2005-11-12T19:11:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The question right now is not, “should we have gone to war?”. The question is: we have 150k troops in Iraq, what should we do with them—based on the situation right now? No it is not, you are just acknowledging that you are hijacking the thread, Deal with the OP. > [@](#): > > In the meantime, young men and women are in harm’s way and I don’t think that any of us should do anything that might encourage the enemy or make them less safe. Obviously, not all agree. We are creating more of the enemy by remaining there. > [@](#): > > But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard. > **Der Trihs** and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don’t just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended **Der Trihs** for his honesty and the light it provides. That is the light of a straw man argument, if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine. (some on the extreme right do spit on soldiers that oppose the war) But saying that “others have proven that it is a lie that everyone [on the left] supports our troops.” is not correct: no one here made the statament that everyone on the left support our troops, unlikely that Der Trihs would have said that anyhow, therefore it is a straw man argument. And I have to say that the majority that I have encountered that oppose the war, do not think like **Der Trihs**. ---
**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 12, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/103 "2005-11-12T19:18:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Inciting to hijack, one count. I’m surprised at you, **Tomn**. > > I call for a cite on the “sloppy methodology” remark. What I’ve read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em. > > “…I have heard several of these stories.”? I’ve heard stories of people being kidnapped by aliens and subjected to probes up their Nixon. Don’t make it so. I am also surprised at **Tomndebb** , IIRC the most reliable testimonial from the SDMB came from old **Triscademus** , but it was to describe how right-wingers that were upset that he was a soldier protesting the Vietnam War spit on him! ---
**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 12, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/104 "2005-11-12T19:27:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness, elucidator** : Yes, yes, yes. There is much lacking in what I offered. I do not propose to have all the answers. 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. I support the troops, too. That’s why I oppose the war, and that’s why I oppose George Bush. One war protestor does more to support the troops than a hundred thousand magnetic car ribbons. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing in the world that you could do that would more support the troops than bringing down the Bush administration. I’m not acting out of partisan politics, here, but out of a concern for this country and its citizens that is every bit as strong as your own. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that, at least once. It feels quite a bit like you aren’t listening to anyone else in this thread. > [@](#): > > I think it falls to us to find a way to voice our opposition in a way that doesn’t either cause them more anxiety or encourage their enemies—even inadvertently. That responsibility lies on us. And what if there is no way to do that? Do we keep quiet, and let an intolerable situation persist, because we cannot find a perfect solution? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/105 "2005-11-12T19:35:02Z")
For those of you who may not have seen it, here is the [full text of Colonel Wilkerson’s blasting of “the Cheney cabal”.](http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/Transcript_WilkersonOnCheneyHijacking.html) Some juicy quotes: > [@](#): > > And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time.\*\* And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence.\*\* Read it some time again… > What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [inaudible] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made… > Read George Packer’s book The Assassin’s [inaudible] if you haven’t already. George Packer, a New Yorker, reporter for The New Yorker, has got it right. I just finished it and I usually put marginalia in a book but, let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on. > And I wish, I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he’s got. But if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. > And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a $30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. > …So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either. > And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal, **and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal process.** So, given the bolded part, I’d say he’s neither got huge balls nor is he delusional. He’s just too weak willed, too weakminded, too just plain stupid to be President, and too stupid to know it. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/106 "2005-11-12T19:37:19Z")
Compare what Bush and his supporters say (Stay the course, God is on our side) to what **his own church** says about this situation > [@Fox News](#): > > **Methodist Bishops Repent Iraq War 'Complicity’** > Thursday, November 10, 2005 > WASHINGTON — Ninety-five bishops from President Bush’s church said Thursday they repent their “complicity” in the “unjust and immoral” invasion and occupation of Iraq. > “In the face of the United States administration’s rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent,” said a statement of conscience signed by more than half of the 164 retired and active United Methodist bishops worldwide. … “The only solution seems to be to stay the course. But if you’re on the wrong course, you don’t stay the course,” Carder said. “At the heart of the Christian faith is the willingness to acknowledge mistakes.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/107 "2005-11-12T19:41:53Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > For those of you who may not have seen it, here is the [full text of Colonel Wilkerson’s blasting of “the Cheney cabal”.](http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/Transcript_WilkersonOnCheneyHijacking.html) > > Some juicy quotes: > > So, given the bolded part, I’d say he’s neither got huge balls nor is he delusional. He’s just too weak willed, too weakminded, too just plain stupid to be President, and too stupid to know it. That is a freaky and scary parallel to what Kwiatkoski (Lt Col, retired) said years ago. All about the “Iraq desk” in the Pentagon, the infusion or invasion of the Pentagon by neocons, and the deliberate manufacture of "evidence " for war. It also meshes well with the CIA, the Downing Street Memo, and all the OTHER documents that the Bush supporters **willfully** and **consciously** and **deliberately** ignore. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/108 "2005-11-12T19:56:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m genuinely confused by **magellan** ’s “write your congressmen, but don’t protest publically” idea. We write our congressmen, and if they ignore us, we vote them out. Which could take up to six years, if we’re talking about Senators. But only two if it’s a Representative! How many more troops are going to die between now and 2011, if we follow your advice, **magellan**? In war, people die. Unfortunate. True. By until the war is over, the idea is to have as few of them die—particulalry those on your own side—as possible. Isn’t it possible, especially if the facts are on your side, to make the decision to bring troops home without pissing on the decision to go to war. Isn’t it possible that it may be wise to go to war AND wise to withdraw at a certain time? What I am saying is that if you believe that the war should end, that you owe it to our troops to couch it in those terms. After their home and we can have a less emoptyional discussion we can then evaluate the reasons, our leaders, etc. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m also dumbfounded by your insistence that protests at home make _more_ enemies for us, rather than less. Especially in light of your mention of John Adams defending an English soldier against a murder charge! Can you not understand how this exact same scenario applies to our current conflict? If you were invaded and conquered by a foreign army, if your friends and neighbors and family members were being grabbed off the streets, whisked away to secret prisons where they were tortured, raped, and murdered, you would fight back against them, right? Now, you hear that your enemies citizens are outraged at the actions of their military and leadership, and are staging protests and taking to the streets to protest the way your people are being treated. Would that make you hate them _more_? You would, in that situation, rather hear that your enemey’s citizens don’t give a shit, or even actively support what’s happening to you? I doubt that very much: such information would drive most people to even greater acts of violence or barbarity. You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you’re fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends’ aid. At this poiont, I don’t know about you, I’m all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how “right” we thought we were. That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force. > [@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 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. > [@Miller](#): > > You’ve used this strawman several times in this thread, and I doubt you’ll stop using it any time soon, but the people who protest this war support the troops every bit as much as you do. Most of them, anyway. That’s why they’re protesting the war: because they see it is as the best way to prevent more troops from dying. Pretending otherwise does nothing but destroy your own credibility. What strawman? I’m a little confused by this paragraph. Can you explaiin further? I will say that until **Der Trihs** revealed the sentiments he did, I was operating under the assumption that everyone supported the troops. I doubted it’s varacity, but I was giving all the benefit of the doubt. I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with **Der Trihs**. The fact that more people haven’t both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought? ---
**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 12, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/109 "2005-11-12T19:59:23Z")
From my long post that \*\*magellian01 \*\* and other administration defenders are purposely ignoring: [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm) > [@](#): > > Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration’s and Tenet’s own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports. I forgot to remark on that: here is the demonstration that Democrats actually now how to keep secrets even if their party will be hurt; Republicans, as the Plame case shows, just can not keep a secret or manipulate it if it will benefit them. Party before country. ---
**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 12, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/110 "2005-11-12T20:04:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with **Der Trihs**. The fact that more people haven’t both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought? I don’t think there is a lot like **Der Trihs** , but I already posted why your insinuation here is a straw man, and there you go again with the continuation of this hijack. Deal with the issue at hand. ---
**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 12, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/111 "2005-11-12T20:11:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you’re fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends’ aid. At this poiont, I don’t know about you, I’m all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how “right” we thought we were. > > That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force. A more accurate version would involve the bigger crowd waving weapons, they’ve just murdered your father, and some in the background are raping your 12 year old sister. Oh, and they include the police chief and mayor, so you can’t go for help and expect any. Do you back down and try reason, or do you try to hurt and kill as many as possible before they kill you ? > [@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. It’s a obvious reference to the fact that Bush and friends keep betraying the troops. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/112 "2005-11-12T20:12:15Z")
Gigo, we’ve all provided cites that support our views. I feel like I’m being ignored here too. I think it’s time to put up or shut up. **magellan01** , do you have any reliable cites to support what you are saying? Do you have anything at all besides beer hall analogies? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/113 "2005-11-12T20:17:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No it is not, you are just acknowledging that you are hijacking the thread, Deal with the OP. Bush has big balls. Happy? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > We are creating more of the enemy by remaining there. Your opinion is noted. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is the light of a straw man argument, if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine. (some on the extreme right do spit on soldiers that oppose the war) But saying that “others have proven that it is a lie that everyone [on the left] supports our troops.” is not correct: no one here made the statament that everyone on the left support our troops, unlikely that Der Trihs would have said that anyhow, therefore it is a straw man argument. And I have to say that the majority that I have encountered that oppose the war, do not think like **Der Trihs**. To quote what I wrote: > [@](#): > > But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard. > Der Trihs and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don’t just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended Der Trihs for his honesty and the light it provides. It says that the idea that “everyone” supports the troops is a lie. Even you seem to agree that **Der Trihs** proves this point. It says that “there are those on the left who don’t just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country.” You say that “if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine.” Please show me where those two statements are in conflict. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/114 "2005-11-12T20:26:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But PLEASE, stay healthy…Let as many people as possible know how you feel. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > A more accurate version would involve the bigger crowd waving weapons, they’ve just murdered your father, and some in the background are raping your 12 year old sister. Oh, and they include the police chief and mayor, so you can’t go for help and expect any. Do you back down and try reason, or do you try to hurt and kill as many as possible before they kill you ? Thank you for fulfilling my request. Please continue. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/115 "2005-11-12T20:29:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unless by “undercutting” the troops’ efforts you mean bringing them home, yes, it is a horrible thing. We sent them to a dangerous place. We owe them full support while they are there. 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? War is an outstandish decision to take in a democracy. It changes overnight hundred of thousands of people in state-sponsored murderers and cannonflesh. That the one decision I deny the government the legitimacy to make in my behalf. That’s why I’m a conscientious objector. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has any right to tell me for what cause I should kill or be killed. I never sent nor will ever send anybody to a war. I owe these people nothing, except if I personnally support the cause they’re fighting for. > [@](#): > > But, again, what determines if the war is unjust? My conscience. Nothing else and nobody else. > [@](#): > > And how do you think that it is justifiable to send a twenty-year-old kid into a war zone and then undercut his efforts while he is there? It is not. Either they should be there and should be supported, or they shouldn’t be there at the first place and shouldn’t receive support. > [@](#): > > And then to say that him being shot is a good thing? Even assuming you are correct in that this hypothetical war is unjust, I didn’t make any statement about this particular war. I’m extremely reluctant about making this kind of statement. > [@](#): > > do you really think it is right to punish that kid for following orders? It’s not the most right thing. The lower you’re in the food chain, the smaller your personnal responsability. But not having a large share of responsability doesn’t mean that you deserve support. It might even mean that you have to be shot at, as sad as it might be. Aren’t they themselves shooting at people who don’t deserve it, either? Why would it be more “right” to support an american solidier than an Iraki one? If any, the Iraki probably deserves more sympathy because he didn’t even have the choice to enlist or not at the first place. Once again, war is an outstandish decision and situation. Sharing the same citizenship becomes irrelevant in such a situation, and only who’s fighting for “good” side (assuming someone actually is) matters in the same way being from the same neighborhood or not becomes irrelevant in a case of homicide. Only who killed whom and did he have a legitimate cause to do so (like self-defense) is. > [@](#): > > I think that is cheap and cowardly. If the war is unjust (factually) then the people who should pay are those who sent him there. Definitely. They should pay. A leader who lied in order to wage a war should receive the harshest punishment available. A leader who was just mistaken should immdiatly resign or be impeached. War is _not_ usual business. There’s absolutely no acceptable room for deceit or mistake. This still doesn’t mean that the people who were sent to fight should receive support if the cause is unjust. They deserve, once again, less support than the people who were sent to fight for the just cause (the “ennemy”, IOW). That’s a sad state of things, but aren’t the ennemy soldiers in the same situation.? Why wouldn’t they deserve support? > [@](#): > > I think the only morally defensible position for the sentiments you express is to be against all wars at all times. Then, I’d say, you would be able to rightly criticize troops for being part of the war machine. Absolutely not. Many of my great-uncles fought and some died for a stupid cause. One fought and died for a just one. My grandfather was a “traitor”, and my father both voluntereed for a just war and latter became a traitor, and ended up in an Very Bad Place ™ as a result. They deserved support not because they were following a french flag, or pissed on said flag, but because they made the right choice (or just randomly happened to find themselves on the good side). There is such a thing as a just war. A lot of people who fought in unjust or pointless ones deserves pity. But the only ones deserving support are the ones fighting and dying for a just cause. And once again, I’m the only person I allow to decide on whether a war is just or not. I do not feel morally held by a decision made by anybody else on this issue. And certainly not by someone who happens to have been elected by 50.01% of my fellow citizens because he had a nicer tie. > [@](#): > > But if you believe that war can be necessary and good, then you agree that we need to have an effective fighting force. And if you believe that, then you should uunderstand that it is not—and cannot be—the business of troops to weigh in on the justness or unjustness of any particular war. Ultimately it is up to them. “I was following orders” isn’t always a valid defence. There has always been desertors, refuzniks, traitors, simply people who “didn’t fire a shot” or even people who choose not to enlist. Even more true for a professionnal army as opposed to draftees who had even less choice a the forst place. Obviously, having the choice between a firing squad and fighting in an unjust war largely diminishes one’s responsability, by comparison with the general ordering you to do so. But if you’re dropping bombs on some city, you can’t be absolved of all responsability. What are you doing in this plane at the first place? Were you put in it at gunpoint? 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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/116 "2005-11-12T20:29:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I call for a cite on the “sloppy methodology” remark. What I’ve read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em. Neither Beamish nor Lembcke ever interviewed an actual human being, yet they published “findings” that were based on newspaper surveys. Perhaps that is not “sloppy” so much as “limited.” Nearly every testimony of a vet regarding having been spit upon is related in the context of a personal confrontation between two people, not in the context of mobs of protestors that would actually inspire a news story. (The testimonies regarding beatings by angered vets (both by the vets and their victims) have similarly been on the order of two or three individuals having a brief encounter that would not have made the news.\*) If the claim is that protestors never lined up at airports and spat volleys of phlegm at returning vets, then I would say that Beamish and Lembcke provided the evidence to support that limited claim. However, their reports do not support the wider claim adopted by various people that “spitting” _never happened_ and I have yet to see a clarification by either of them regarding the difference between _what_ they studied and what has since been _reported_. (I hold Lembcke in particular disdain on this point. Beamish simply made a study to discover whether an event had been reported; Lembcke used a similar study as the basis for a significant portion of a book on the topic in which he chose to never seek any other sources–I call that sloppy.) \*(I have never paid attention to general claims that returning vets were beating up people. On the other hand, I have noticed among several vets and protestors of my acquaintance brief references to violent responses to individual acts of scorn, either in the context of “I clocked some guy who insisted on getting in my face and calling me baby-killer at Joe’s bar” or in the context of “I made the mistake of getting in some guy’s face at Al’s Pub and he decked me.” I do not have hundreds of such anecdotes, perhaps a half dozen, but none were told in the manner of bragging and I have no reason to doubt that some conflict occurred, even if it was not as conclusive as the tellers would have made it.) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/117 "2005-11-12T20:29:44Z")
Here’s some real support for the troops. > [@DailyKOS](#): > > How do those politicians who rush to send our soldiers off to war, yet fail to adequately support them, dare look at themselves in the mirror each morning? > Too often, these are the very same hyprocites who strut about and fervently shout that all life is sacred, then demonstrate they don’t give a damn what happens to anyone but themselves and their own family members once birth takes place. … Here is Rumsfeld’s comment when asked by a soldier about the missing but needed armor: > “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” > Rumsfeld went on to blame the problem on physics and then said everything was being done to alleviate the shortage. Of course,this was another set of lies as the manufacturer of such armor later said his company could easily increase output but hadn’t been asked to do so. > Any Secretary of Defense worthy of his position and the respect of his troops would have resigned for such improprieties. … Owing to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of veterans receiving compensation for PTSD has increased by almost 80 percent in the last five years. By comparison, the number of veterans receiving compensation for all other types of disabilities increased by only 12 percent. Under the guidelines of the current review, soldiers who cannot prove that a specific incident, known as a “stressor,” was sufficient to cause PTSD, their benefits will be revoked. Given the nature of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not surprising that many returning soldiers are suffering from mental illness. … Although the number of soldiers suffering from PTSD is high, Dr. Hoge’s study found that a majority of veterans are not seeking treatment. Only 40 percent of returning soldiers acknowledged that they need mental health care, and only 26 percent were actually receiving care. Therefore, the number of veterans approved for PTSD compensation by the VA is relatively small. Yet the VA believes that too many soldiers were approved for PTSD disability compensation and is now seeking to deny soldiers this benefit…" > **So slap that ‘Support Our Troops’ bumpersticker on your SUV and wave your flag. After all, what more could be expected to show your support with George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as your exemplars**? ---
**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 12, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/118 "2005-11-12T20:29:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In war, people die. Unfortunate. True. By until the war is over, the idea is to have as few of them die—particulalry those on your own side—as possible. Isn’t it possible, especially if the facts are on your side, to make the decision to bring troops home without pissing on the decision to go to war. Isn’t it possible that it may be wise to go to war AND wise to withdraw at a certain time? What I am saying is that if you believe that the war should end, that you owe it to our troops to couch it in those terms. After their home and we can have a less emoptyional discussion we can then evaluate the reasons, our leaders, etc. 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. After you take all that off the table, what is there left? And how do you counter the continuing lies from the other side about why we’re over there and what we’re doing, if pointing out the fact that these reasons are lies is somehow damaging or disloyal to our troops? What arguments are left? “War sucks?” That wasn’t enough to stop us going in the first place; I think we need something more substantial than that to bring a halt to this royal clusterfuck. > [@](#): > > You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you’re fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends’ aid. At this poiont, I don’t know about you, I’m all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how “right” we thought we were. 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? > [@](#): > > That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. What? That makes no sense, unless you assume that every president is as corrupt and incompetent as George Bush. This is, thankfully, empirically impossible. The Bush administration has made decision after decision that has put our troops in danger _for no reason_. There’s no reason not to supply our troops with body armor. There’s no reason to conquer the country without securing gigantic ammo dumps, giving effectively unlimtied arms and material to the insurgents. There’s no reason to disband the Iraqi army without disarming them, creating a huge force of unemployed, disaffected men with military training and tools to oppose us, while we lack sufficient manpower to close the borders and prevent terrorists from entering the country. There’s no reason to allow the rampant looting and destruction of the nation’s water and electricity plants, destroying the quality of life for every Iraqi and creating even more disaffected and angry natives who want a reason to hit back. Bush has fucked up every single aspect of this invasion: he is a menace to every American stationed in Iraq, not just because he sent them there, but because he lacks the abilities and the resolve to lead them properly. > [@](#): > > What strawman? I’m a little confused by this paragraph. Can you explaiin further? I will say that until **Der Trihs** revealed the sentiments he did, I was operating under the assumption that everyone supported the troops. I doubted it’s varacity, but I was giving all the benefit of the doubt. 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. > [@](#): > > I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with **Der Trihs**. The fact that more people haven’t both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/119 "2005-11-12T20:36:12Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > What bothers me the most is the refusal of some people to face the fact that they are undercutting the troops when they are undercutting the president. Nope. > [@Theodore Roosevelt](#): > > The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/120 "2005-11-12T20:38:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force. Seems like one more mistaken lesson from Vietnam. The British had no serious protests against the Boer war until late in the conflict, yet the Boers campaigned until they were overwhelmed. There were no visible protests in Germany between 1939 and 1945, yet the French, Dutch, and others continued to resist in the face of a “united” opponent. When the U.S.S.R. went into Afghanistan, there were no protests at home for several years, yet the Afghanis continued to resist (and recruit outside help) throughout the long period prior to the first fledgling protests in Russia and its associated states. There is simply no evidence that protests in the invading country actually have much effect on resistance. The claim that protests “strengthen” resistance appears to be merely one more way to suppress dissent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=7)