# Bush: It's wrong to jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542 "2004-10-27T21:11:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/21 "2004-10-28T00:01:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I got nothing. Can you say that with a Texas accent? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/22 "2004-10-28T00:16:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The Democrats have focused on the meme “Bush lied!” about the WMD, and pretty much ignored the true (well, IMO) path of…so what if Iraq had WMD, or if Bush and everyone else thought they did. Why the hell did we need to INVADE Iraq just because they had (or didn’t have) WMD??? As a liberal Kerry supporter, I tend to agree with you… but not because Democrats are dumb, or uninformed, or dishonest, or what have you… but because it’s a frickin’ political campaign, in which everything (or so it is commonly believed) needs to be presented in as simplified a fashion as possible. “Bush lied about WMDs” is a lot punchier than “Bush rushed into action without exhausting all diplomatic channels, and he trumped up the evidence for invasion, including, but not limited to, overexpressing his level of certainty about the presence of WMDs”. (Although I think the whole Powell-at-the-UN thing should not be overlooked… even if “Bush Lied” isn’t necessarily literally true, “Bush was disastrously wrong, for whatever reason” is) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/23 "2004-10-28T03:34:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > If you stick to this NARROW issue (which is all that was asked in the OP), then I don’t see the hipocracy…Bush (and Kerry) both thought there were weapons. So? > > -XT There is one minor problem with this argument. At the time of the invasion, the UN inspectors had been to many of the sites the CIA (or Chalabi, actually) had identified as holding WMDs. They found nothing. Blix, who thought there were weapons also, became convinced that they were not there, at least not to the extent claimed by the US. Bush knew this. (Or should have.) So, what to do if you are going to war because of the imminent threat posed by WMDs. Wait to see if there are indeed any, or rush to war faster before the evidence that you were full of crap becomes too clear. No prizes for the correct answer. BTW, though Iran was of course against the invasion, does any one doubt they were laughing their asses off that the Great Satan took care of their biggest enemy for them? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/24 "2004-10-28T04:40:43Z")
> [@](#): > > He had to convince the WHOLE world Iraq had WMD? Wow, news to me. And here I thought the majority opinion was pretty much they they had them. And here I thought Kerry was ALSO on the record as thinking Iraq had WMD…wasn’t he in the world at the time too? Well, the reason many of us were convinced Iraq had WMD’s was because the President of the United States told us they did and we didn’t think he’d lie about a thing like that. I presume George Bush isn’t claiming he heard himself swear it was true. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/25 "2004-10-28T04:46:10Z")
And if George Bush made a mistake this size once how do we know what mistakes he might make in another four years? What if he’s reelected and sometime around 2006 someone convinces him there’s a good reason to declare war on China? Are we supposed to believe he’s learned his lesson now and won’t declare another war unless he’s really really sure he’s got the facts right? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/26 "2004-10-28T04:57:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > BTW, though Iran was of course against the invasion, does any one doubt they were laughing their asses off that the Great Satan took care of their biggest enemy for them? I doubt it. While I’ve little doubt they’re pleased that Saddam’s no longer around, I’ve also little doubt that they’re more than a little nervous about the fact that the Great Satan has a couple divisions of mechanized troops uncomfortably close to their border. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/27 "2004-10-28T07:58:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero I would say they thought it was possibly true. But again, Bush contended that it was absolutely true. > > Kerry’s early statements (when he was running against Dean at least) seemed to show he was pretty sure as well. Non sequitur. The word “they” in my sentence refers to “the whole world”, as it is a direct reponse to your earlier post. You responded as though “they” refers to Kerry. > [@](#): > > ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero I don’t know that that’s true. It’s certainly what the Bush Admin. would like people to think, but I don’t think it’s supported by the evidence. > > I think its pretty much a slam dunk that there were many nations that wanted to keep the status quo for various reasons. We can put this on hold until after the investigations of the Oil for Food program are completed of course, but even if all the nations come clean there were other reasons for wanting to keep the status quo…or drag their feet as I said. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? I’m familiar with the _claims_ that Chirac said he would never support military action in Iraq, and the conjecture that it was because of France’s ties to Iraq, if that’s what you’re referring to, but that has been debunked. > [@](#): > > ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero I don’t think it quite worked that way. We have a much different picture from Richard Clarke and others, where Bush worked with the intelligence agencies behind closed doors, with the intent of building a case for invading Iraq. It wasn’t as you present it at all - the FBI and CIA didn’t just present raw data to Bush AND to Congress, and let everyone form their own conclusions. > > Well, I don’t want to get into this here, but I think you are wrong. Bush didn’t go to the intellegence community and tell them what to present to congress/senate. Oh, I disagree. He very much did. In fact IIRC, the Bush Administration set up their _own_ seperate organization to make the case for Iraq, did they not? > [@](#): > > The Senate Intellegence sub-committee is supposed to see pretty much the same data as the President see’s. Its set up that way because Congress/Senate is supposed to be our ears and eyes for stuff too sensitive for the the public…and the sub-committee’s in both houses are set up to see stuff to sensative for the full houses to see, but still remain representative of ‘the people’. Kerry was on such a sub-committee, so he basically saw the same data the president saw…without the president somehow massaging said data first AFAIK. I don’t think the president personally “massaged” the data. Cherry-picked is a better description, perhaps. What he did was meet with various officials and strongly urged them to come up with a reason to invade Iraq. I’m not really following you regarding the sub-committee; are you saying that took place _before_ Bush began trying to make a case for invading Iraq? I don’t see how, since according to Clarke and O’Neill, that started from the very beginning of Bush’s presidency. > [@](#): > > If you have actual evidence that he DID do this I’d love to see it as I’m unaware of even the implication this happened (well, of any credible source saying this happened…I remember one time rjung…well, never mind.). I guess that depends whether you consider Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill to be credible sources [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml) > [@](#): > > And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations. > > “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. > > “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says [author] Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” > > As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked. > > “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” I can quote Clarke if you like, but I’m sure you know what he’s had to say on the subject, so I don’t want to waste everyone’s time. > [@](#): > > ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero Hmmm…I thought that was what they’re doing. > > The Democrats have focused on the meme “Bush lied!” about the WMD, and pretty much ignored the true (well, IMO) path of…so what if Iraq had WMD, or if Bush and everyone else thought they did. Why the hell did we need to INVADE Iraq just because they had (or didn’t have) WMD??? As I’ve said before in these threads I don’t think Bush ‘lied’ about whether Iraq had WMD (we’ve argued about this ourselves in numerous threads). I ALSO don’t think its relevant…we didn’t NEED to invade Iraq and tie down so much of our military whether Iraq had Chem or Bio WMD (nukes would be different, but there was zero evidence he had done more than look at how he could start thinking about maybe someday establishing a program to research ways he could perhaps think about making a nuke, blah blah blah). Simple as that. Well I certainly agree with you that there was no compelling reason that we just HAD to invade Iraq at the moment we did. But I didn’t really think the democrats were ignoring that point. Kerry’s meme has been “Bush RUSHED to war without a plan”. Surely you’ve heard him say that; he’s said it a million times. Isn’t that precisely the point you’re making? That Bush rushed to war? Not so much the fact that he lied, but the fact that he didn’t need to go to war in the first place? I’m just not seeing where democrats are ignoring that point. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/28 "2004-10-28T17:26:26Z")
Borrowing from Wesley Clarke and inserting a few of my own ideas: [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that Saddam was partially to blame for 9/11[/ul] [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that there was a working Saddam/Al Qaeda relationship[/ul] [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that Saddam was this close to a nuclear bomb (remember the tubes?)[/ul] [ul]Bush (well, Cheney) jumped to the conclusion that we would be greeted as liberators[/ul] [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion about “mission accomplished”[/ul] [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that you could impose democracy on people who are being unwillingly occupied[/ul] [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that inspections wouldn’t work and pulled out Blix and company to start his damn fool war[/ul] Let’s think of some more! ---
**Author:** ![5que](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/3bc359/32.png) [@5que](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5que)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/29 "2004-10-28T17:38:18Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I doubt it. While I’ve little doubt they’re pleased that Saddam’s no longer around, I’ve also little doubt that they’re more than a little nervous about the fact that the Great Satan has a couple divisions of mechanized troops uncomfortably close to their border. True, so let’s consider how they might make themselves less nervous. Oh, I don’t know, maybe Develop Nuclear Weapons??? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/30 "2004-10-28T17:59:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > BTW, though Iran was of course against the invasion, does any one doubt they were laughing their asses off that the Great Satan took care of their biggest enemy for them? Well, if [this](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001935950_iranchalabi22.html) and [this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html) story are to be believed (and I admit that they haven’t been shown to be true, but they haven’t been falsified either), then behind the scenes Iran might not only have been for the invasion but might have been helping to engineer it: > [@](#): > > “Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program (ICP) information to provoke the United Sates into getting rid of Saddam Hussein,” said an intelligence source who was briefed on the conclusions of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). > > … > > Patrick Lang, former director of the DIA’s Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues that Chalabi’s U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. “They (the Iranians) knew exactly what we were up to,” he said. > > He described it as “one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history.” > > “I’m a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work,” he said. > [@](#): > > “It’s pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner,” said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. “Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi.” > > Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: “When the story ultimately comes out we’ll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy.” > > Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as “a lie, a fib and silly”. He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib. As this story broke back in May and then disappeared, I was hoping we would hear more about it before the election. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/31 "2004-10-28T18:41:20Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Non sequitur. The word “they” in my sentence refers to “the whole world”, as it is a direct reponse to your earlier post. You responded as though “they” refers to Kerry. I misunderheard you then…I thought you were refering to Kerry et al, not The World™ here. > [@blowero](#): > > Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? I’m familiar with the claims that Chirac said he would never support military action in Iraq, and the conjecture that it was because of France’s ties to Iraq, if that’s what you’re referring to, but that has been debunked. Well, I’m unaware its been ‘debunked’, but no…thats not what I was refering too here. I can’t believe you want a cite that there were countries out there who were dragging their feet or wanted to keep the status quo in Iraq as opposed to an invasion. To me this is a frivolous request for a cite so I’m going to ignore it. As to the ‘debunked’ part, my understanding was the investigation into the Oil for Food program was ongoing…funny that you have debunked this before the investigation is done. Can you read the future perhaps?? > [@blowero](#): > > Oh, I disagree. He very much did. In fact IIRC, the Bush Administration set up their own seperate organization to make the case for Iraq, did they not? They very well might have…however, whether Bush et al set up their own separate organization to make a case for Iraq or not (and I have no idea if they did or not), the Senate and Congress still get their info from the CIA/NSA, etc…just like the president does. They don’t get their information directly from Bush, which is what it seems to me you are implying. > [@blowero](#): > > I don’t think the president personally “massaged” the data. Cherry-picked is a better description, perhaps. What he did was meet with various officials and strongly urged them to come up with a reason to invade Iraq. I’m not really following you regarding the sub-committee; are you saying that took place before Bush began trying to make a case for invading Iraq? I don’t see how, since according to Clarke and O’Neill, that started from the very beginning of Bush’s presidency. Well, I agree with you and have said so before…I think the President and his merry men also cherry picked through the data, taking the stuff that made their case and ignoring stuff that didn’t. I also agree that after 9/11 Bush focused (stupidly) on Iraq and set out to make a case against them as a reason for war. I’m not denying any of that blowero. However, the data and analysis that the President looked at about WMD was the same that was available to the Congress and the Senate. Said intellegence sub-committee’s are always there to look at stuff too sensative for the full house and Senate, so yes, they were certainly there before Bush decided to go to war with Iraq. Bush didn’t MAKE them (i.e. the intellegence sub-committee’s) just to go to war with Iraq blowero, which is how I’m reading your paragraph. They are ALWAYS there. And the data/assessments that they can request from our intellegence organs is exactly the same as whats presented to the president. Your cite from Clark and O’Neill is irrelevent…it just says Bush et al had an agenda as far as Iraq goes. So what? What you’d need to cite, if you can, is something showing that Congress/Senate received massaged or false data from the President (or at the Presidents instructions…or from anyone else for that matter) that showed WMD data different than their overall TRUE assessment…i.e. that the data and the assesment they (the intellegence sub-committee’s) were seeing was ‘cherry picked’ or flat out made up. Do you have such a cite because again, I’m unaware of it. > [@blowero](#): > > I guess that depends whether you consider Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill to be credible sources Well, in fact I DON’T believe everything Clark/O’Neill has to say, but its irrelevant in any case as its not what I was asking you for. Whether or not Bush et al had an Iraq agenda (which I think they DID after 9/11), the data and analysis of our various intellegence organs was available to the Senate and Congress, same as the President. They both drew the same conclusion (i.e. that Iraq had WMD) from that data. Why this is important I still don’t know. You claim that Democrats aren’t focused on the ‘Bush Lied!’ meme, yet you persist with this. What DIFFERENCE does it make if the President and Congress/Senate thought there were WMD in Iraq? If there were WMD would justify the invasion? > [@blowero](#): > > Well I certainly agree with you that there was no compelling reason that we just HAD to invade Iraq at the moment we did. But I didn’t really think the democrats were ignoring that point. Kerry’s meme has been “Bush RUSHED to war without a plan”. Surely you’ve heard him say that; he’s said it a million times. Isn’t that precisely the point you’re making? That Bush rushed to war? Not so much the fact that he lied, but the fact that he didn’t need to go to war in the first place? I’m just not seeing where democrats are ignoring that point. Well, you say this, yet you still persist in the ‘Bush Lied’ meme above…i.e. somehow Bush was able to show false or massaged data to Congress and the Senate about Iraq having WMD. I know WHY they do it…its because it plays to the more radical element of their base, yet also to the moderates (i.e. If we only had a plan, etc etc). Look at your own statement above…“Bush RUSHED to war without a plan”. Think about that statement for a second. To me it says that the war was OK if we only had a plan. Certainly its not saying ‘Bush Lied!’, but its still along the theme…this time that Bush lead us to war without a plan…but the WAR was still ok. I also heard Kerry, several times in the debates, say that Bush led us to war on false pretenses…i.e. ‘Bush Lied!’. But none of it gets to the true point…whether Iraq had WMD or not the US STILL DIDN’T NEED TO INVADE IRAQ! And I haven’t seen many Democrats hitting that theme…probably because they think that message will play badly with the moderate centrists and independants. -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/32 "2004-10-28T18:48:27Z")
> [@braintree](#): > > [ul]Bush jumped to the conclusion that Saddam was partially to blame for 9/11[/ul] Strike this one. I’d wager good money that Bush _knew_ Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but tied the two merely to sell the war. Bush and his NeoCon buddies have been targeting Iraq long before 1/20/2001… ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/33 "2004-10-28T19:19:02Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Strike this one. I’d wager good money that Bush _knew_ Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but tied the two merely to sell the war. Bush and his NeoCon buddies have been targeting Iraq long before 1/20/2001… Aw, Jeez. You may be right but, since Bush is at least pretending he thought that, I think it’s only fair we get to hold it against him. Politicaly speaking this one’s a lot easier to put accross and, besides, the speculative truth — that he knowingly and deliberately lied about it in order to con us into a war — isn’t exactly an improvement from the Republican standpoint. And, if you’ve — heaven help you — read my other posts, you ought to have a pretty good idea of my estimation of Bush’s truthfullness. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/34 "2004-10-28T20:02:04Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I can’t believe you want a cite that there were countries out there who were dragging their feet or wanted to keep the status quo in Iraq as opposed to an invasion. Oh, well sorry I asked you for evidence to back up your bald assertions. I thought this was Great Debates. 😉 I didn’t say there were no countries that didn’t want to invade; that’s beyond obvious. I asked you for a cite on your implication that there was some sort of malfeasance with respect to certain countries refusing to support an invasion because they were corrupt. If you make such an implication, I expect you to at least provide some details. > [@](#): > > To me this is a frivolous request for a cite so I’m going to ignore it. Your choice. It doesn’t speak well for your argument, though. Not only can’t you come up with a cite, you haven’t even _named_ the countries you are accusing of malfeasance. > [@](#): > > As to the ‘debunked’ part, my understanding was the investigation into the Oil for Food program was ongoing…funny that you have debunked this before the investigation is done. Can you read the future perhaps?? Strawman. > [@](#): > > They don’t get their information directly from Bush, which is what it seems to me you are implying. Strawman. > [@](#): > > Well, I agree with you and have said so before…I think the President and his merry men also cherry picked through the data, taking the stuff that made their case and ignoring stuff that didn’t. I also agree that after 9/11 Bush focused (stupidly) on Iraq and set out to make a case against them as a reason for war. I’m not denying any of that blowero. However, the data and analysis that the President looked at about WMD was the same that was available to the Congress and the Senate. Again, I disagree. Bush, in effect told the intelligence agencies, “Find me a way to invade Iraq.” You would have us believe that this had no effect on the intelligence that they would come up with. To the extent that you’re arguing Congress should have been more savvy with respect to the ‘evidence’, and should have opposed Bush, I agree. But I disagree with your characterization that both Bush and Congress were presented with the same “raw data” and both formed the same conclusion independently. That’s just not how it went down. > [@](#): > > Said intellegence sub-committee’s are always there to look at stuff too sensative for the full house and Senate, so yes, they were certainly there before Bush decided to go to war with Iraq. Well then they would have had to have met during Clinton’s tenure, since Bush was _always_ planning to invade Iraq. > [@](#): > > Bush didn’t MAKE them (i.e. the intellegence sub-committee’s) just to go to war with Iraq blowero, which is how I’m reading your paragraph. Strawman. > [@](#): > > They are ALWAYS there. And the data/assessments that they can request from our intellegence organs is exactly the same as whats presented to the president. Your cite from Clark and O’Neill is irrelevent…it just says Bush et al had an agenda as far as Iraq goes. So what? I don’t understand how you can say it’s irrelevant. You _specifically_ asked me if I had any evidence that Bush influenced the intelligence agencies to make a case for invading Iraq. We have not one, but TWO former members of the administration who say that Bush DID. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Bush told them to make a case for invading Iraq FIRST, then they came up with the intelligence. You’re presenting it backwards. > [@](#): > > What you’d need to cite, if you can, is something showing that Congress/Senate received massaged or false data from the President (or at the Presidents instructions…or from anyone else for that matter) that showed WMD data different than their overall TRUE assessment…i.e. that the data and the assesment they (the intellegence sub-committee’s) were seeing was ‘cherry picked’ or flat out made up. Do you have such a cite because again, I’m unaware of it. Sorry, I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. > [@](#): > > Well, in fact I DON’T believe everything Clark/O’Neill has to say, I suspected as much. And that raises the question of what evidence, if any, you _would_ accept. I have my doubts that it’s possible for _anything_ to make you change your mind. > [@](#): > > but its irrelevant in any case as its not what I was asking you for. Well, no - it may not be what you _thought_ you were asking for, but the way you worded it certainly didn’t make it clear. > [@](#): > > Whether or not Bush et al had an Iraq agenda (which I think they DID after 9/11), the data and analysis of our various intellegence organs was available to the Senate and Congress, same as the President. They both drew the same conclusion (i.e. that Iraq had WMD) from that data. I understand how you could disagree, but I _don’t_ understand how you think it’s irrelevant if Bush _told_ the intelligence agencies what evidence to look for. Clarke was supposed to be the person IN CHARGE of that, and he contends that he _specifically_ told Bush and Rumsfeld that we didn’t need to go after Iraq, and that Bush persisted ANYWAY. I just can’t see how you think that’s irrelevant - how you think that would have no influence on what the CIA was doing in their intelligence gathering. > [@](#): > > Why this is important I still don’t know. I don’t follow you. > [@](#): > > You claim that Democrats aren’t focused on the ‘Bush Lied!’ meme, yet you persist with this. Well, no - I said democrats aren’t _ignoring_ the other point, which was your contention. > [@](#): > > What DIFFERENCE does it make if the President and Congress/Senate thought there were WMD in Iraq? If there were WMD would justify the invasion? Well, yes - I believe that was the reason Bush played up the WMD angle. I think he did that for exactly that reason - to justify the invasion. You and I know it still wouldn’t have justified it, but that doesn’t change the fact that _Bush_ reasoned that it did. > [@](#): > > Well, you say this, yet you still persist in the ‘Bush Lied’ meme above…i.e. somehow Bush was able to show false or massaged data to Congress and the Senate about Iraq having WMD. I’ve explained my reasoning very clearly, yet you persist with this strawman. Why? > [@](#): > > Look at your own statement above…“Bush RUSHED to war without a plan”. Think about that statement for a second. To me it says that the war was OK if we only had a plan. Well I think an invasion of Iraq _would_ have been o.k., but only if we had gone through the right process. Bush’s fatal error was that he _tried_ to work with the UN, wasn’t immediately successful, and then just basically said, “Screw you guys, I’m gonna do it anyway.” That was a HUGE mistake. Bush even said himself, before he was elected, that he was against “nation building”. Unilateral nation-building is just a bad idea. IF you’re going to use military force for the purpose of “liberating” people, you HAVE to have international support. > [@](#): > > Certainly its not saying ‘Bush Lied!’, but its still along the theme…this time that Bush lead us to war without a plan…but the WAR was still ok. I also heard Kerry, several times in the debates, say that Bush led us to war on false pretenses…i.e. ‘Bush Lied!’. I don’t understand why you don’t think he should be allowed to make _both_ points. He’s saying that THE WAY BUSH DID IT was wrong, not that ousting Saddam was ipso facto wrong. What’s wrong with making that distinction? > [@](#): > > But none of it gets to the true point…whether Iraq had WMD or not the US STILL DIDN’T NEED TO INVADE IRAQ! And I haven’t seen many Democrats hitting that theme…probably because they think that message will play badly with the moderate centrists and independants. Yeah, well I do see your point here. Obviously Kerry can’t say that we _never_ should have invaded Iraq, because that would be at odds with his vote to give Bush the authority to do so. Additionally, as you say, it would most likely alienate the centrists. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/35 "2004-10-28T20:17:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I agree with you and have said so before…I think the President and his merry men also cherry picked through the data, taking the stuff that made their case and ignoring stuff that didn’t. I also agree that after 9/11 Bush focused (stupidly) on Iraq and set out to make a case against them as a reason for war. I’m not denying any of that blowero. However, the data and analysis that the President looked at about WMD was the same that was available to the Congress and the Senate. > … > > What you’d need to cite, if you can, is something showing that Congress/Senate received massaged or false data from the President (or at the Presidents instructions…or from anyone else for that matter) that showed WMD data different than their overall TRUE assessment…i.e. that the data and the assesment they (the intellegence sub-committee’s) were seeing was ‘cherry picked’ or flat out made up. Do you have such a cite because again, I’m unaware of it. I don’t have time to find the cites now, but there was some discussion about this issue in regards to the aluminum tubes issue after the New York Times published their long tome on this a few weeks ago. I think the article said or implied that the Congress was not made aware of the debate regarding the aluminum tubes issue…or at least not fully aware of it. And, at that time, in subsequent articles, it was reported that some of Kerry’s security advisors were pointing out (on one of the Sunday morning talk shows as I recall) that indeed Congress is not privy to all of the intelligence that the President has. Maybe someone can dig this whole discussion up. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/36 "2004-10-28T20:25:42Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I don’t understand how you can say it’s irrelevant. You _specifically_ asked me if I had any evidence that Bush influenced the intelligence agencies to make a case for invading Iraq. We have not one, but TWO former members of the administration who say that Bush DID. We also have some N.Y. Times articles written before (or right at the start of) the war. See [here](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/middleeast/20040526CRITIQUE.html) and look under “Raising Doubts about Intelligence” and look at the March 23rd, 2003 article titled “C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports” along with some of the other articles there that were written prior to that. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/37 "2004-10-28T21:15:58Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Yes, when Bush says Saddam would still “control all those weapons and explosives and could have shared them with our terrorist enemies”, he also needs to take credit for delivering those weapons and explosives into the hands of terrorists. Surely it is uncertainty that creates the most danger in international relations. So Bush’s decisive action has removed the uncertainty of the situation (Saddam may or may not have given the weapons to terrorists) and moved to a far more certain, and therefore less dangerous situation (terrorists walk off with weapons) 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/38 "2004-10-28T22:18:05Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > We also have some N.Y. Times articles written before (or right at the start of) the war. See here and look under “Raising Doubts about Intelligence” and look at the March 23rd, 2003 article titled “C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports” along with some of the other articles there that were written prior to that. Registration is required on that cite. ☹ > [@jshore](#): > > I don’t have time to find the cites now, but there was some discussion about this issue in regards to the aluminum tubes issue after the New York Times published their long tome on this a few weeks ago. I think the article said or implied that the Congress was not made aware of the debate regarding the aluminum tubes issue…or at least not fully aware of it. And, at that time, in subsequent articles, it was reported that some of Kerry’s security advisors were pointing out (on one of the Sunday morning talk shows as I recall) that indeed Congress is not privy to all of the intelligence that the President has. Is this the full Congress or the intellegence sub-comittee? Certainly the full Congress wouldn’t have the same intellegence as the President. My understanding though is that the intellegence sub-committee is privy to pretty much everything. blowero, I just lost a long post in reply to your last post…I’ll try and re-create it tonight time permitting. -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/39 "2004-10-28T23:37:55Z")
Looks like [Kerry wasn’t “jumping to conclusions” after all…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5423713&postcount=282) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542/40 "2004-10-29T00:09:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Registration is required on that cite. ☹ Oh, geez…Suck it up, man! It’s the New York Times. It is worth the (free) price of admission. Here’s a little preview from the March 23, 2003 article: > [@](#): > > The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said. > > Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies. > > For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda. > > … > > Several analysts have told colleagues they have become so frustrated that they have considered leaving the agency, according to government officials who have talked with the analysts. > > “Several people have told me how distraught they have been about what has been going on,” said one government official who said he had talked with several C.I.A. analysts. None of the analysts are willing to talk directly to news organizations, the official said. > > A senior official of the agency said no analysts had told C.I.A. management that they were resigning in protest over the handling of Iraqi intelligence. At the State Department, by contrast, three foreign service officers have resigned in protest over Mr. Bush’s policies. > [@xtisme](#): > > Is this the full Congress or the intellegence sub-comittee? Certainly the full Congress wouldn’t have the same intellegence as the President. My understanding though is that the intellegence sub-committee is privy to pretty much everything. I think the claim is that they are not but I have to admit that I am not sure on that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-its-wrong-to-jump-to-conclusions-without-knowing-all-the-facts/271542.md?page=3)