Perhaps rjung should have said “Any person in that position wishing to discover the truth, and with an average amount of skepticism and curiousity would know the claims were Bushit, or could have found out easily.” Is that better?
As for how to do it, in the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK did not blockade Cuba or go to the UN because he thought there were missiles - they showed pictures that were indisputable.
Damn, thats pretty harsh…I wouldn’t say that the average congressman was below average in skepticism or curiosity (ok, I really think the ‘average politician’ of any stripe is an idiot, but it sounds good), but if you want to go there…
Perhaps rjung should have said “Bush cherry picked the data to make the case for WMD stronger than it really was given the sketchy and even contridictory data in the possession of US intellegence at the time”, in which case I could have simply replied with “agreed”. Or rjung could have made an OP asking “Why the hell did we invade Iraq in the first place”, which I’d be interested in seeing. But rjung wants (needs?) to make the case that Bush absolutely knew the data was complete bullshit, that he is evil incarnate and that he lied LIED LIED!! Sorry, the facts don’t support that assertion.
And the Bay of Pigs? Ah politics…
-XT
Playing up data for political gain? Playing up data for political gain? Playing up data for political gain? What the hell are you talking about? Is that your take on why pushed the Iraq war? For political gain?
And here I thought it was to avert an imminent threat. With a precedent like you suggested, no telling what will happen if GW happens to be behind in the polls come mid-October.
Yes.
ROFLMAO!! Show me a politician of any stripe that DOESN’T do everything for political gain. Precident?!? Gods thats funny!!
-XT
Lot of nuances, there, xt, yer shades of grey, y’know?
Like when The Politician leans over to kiss the baby, I’m pretty sure he isn’t that anxious to kiss a baby, get his nose full of that baby-urp smell. Most grown men have to put up with that smell at some point in our lives, but none of us like it, it ain’t nostalgic. He’s kissing the baby for political gain. Cynicism factor: 0.04.
But The Poltician, he stubbornly follows his “gut instinct”, operating under the delusion that he is a Leader of Men, and leads us straight into the shit swamp. Then tries to tell us that he’s done a good thing for us, while alligators nibble at our children. Said that just the other day, said he would have done it all over again, if he knew what he knows.
Now if he’s telling the truth, he’s an honest fellow who is simply to stupid for the job. But if he’s lying, for political gain, cynicism factor 9.73.
Nuances. Shades of grey.
Yup, I agree elucidator…shades of grey. To slightly modify your paragraph:
If The Politician is looking at myriad reports, some of which conflict with each other, he will probably come down on the side that he is pretty much pre-disposed too unless something really solid comes up to change his mind. Simple human nature that. And there was no silver bullet from the intellegence community showing conclusively (or any other way) that there were no WMD in Iraq. The intellegence was mixed and conflicted.
Now, if said leader makes a call and is wrong and leads us into said shit swamp he should certainly pay for his fuck up. I’m all for it. Bush made the call, Bush fucked up, Bush is responsible and if the American people feel that this warrents him being booted from office I will be happy (while still being sad that this means I get Kerry for 4 years instead).
Look, what it comes down to in the end (for me at least) is this: Bush exaggerated how solid the data for WMD was…there simply is no debate there IMHO…but there were too many indications from too many different sources to say he KNEW there were no WMD or lied about it all. He wouldn’t have stuck his neck out so far if he REALLY didn’t think that Iraq had WMD, nor would the rest of them…these are politicians after all, not exactly known for their bravery in the face of public displeasure.
As to the various decenting opinions cited myriad times, you know as well as I do that on ANY issue dealing with government if you care enough to dig hard enough you will find someone who will disagree with any administrations policies or positions, or were the lone voice of reason, blah blah blah…especially if its a really juicy and hot issue with the public.
Or, conversely, it could be those pesky shades of grey again. He might be a very dishonest fellow who is exaggerating or shading things to appear a certain way to strengthen his case while still believing that he is right and will be vindicated in the end…i.e. telling the not lie, certainly for political gain…my own cynicism factor is off the charts, but I’m a bipartisan cynic.
-XT
I must agree with Mr. Simmons.
Playing up data for political gain is deplorable when it involves things like the country’s economic projections for the next four years.
It is monstrous, loathesome and vile ‘play’ up data for political gain when thousands of lives are on the line.
It is a distinction that seems to be lost on some war apologists.
There are few things more serious. I don’t know how much more irresponsible a human being can be than to be ‘less than earnestly forthright’ (if you will) in a matter of such monumental consequence.
What about you?
What can you think of that would be a more irresponsible thing to be "less than earnestly forthright’ about?
They reported things that were highly suspect as if they were instead certainties.
Maybe they knew that these thinsg were highly suspect, maybe they didn’t. Often the information that certain informants (esp from those supplied by the INC’s intel program run by a known Iranian spy) were at best dodgy or even known fabricators was available top them had they looked. It was known that the stuff was unreliable and/or false.
If the Bush Admin didn’t know that the stuff was bad, it was because of a lack of due dilligence on their part. A lack of due diligence in a matter as important as war is unforgivable.
Mendacity or Incompetence
Pretty fucked up choice to have to make about your own government.
What I think is so ironic, this is what Senator Kennedy has been saying the Bush Admin has done.
It’s amusing (or frightening) that xtisme apologia is merely an echo of the accusation.
Here’s Senator Kyl’s opinion about the gravity of the charges that xt has all but levelled at the Bush Admin:
Iraq: Intelligence, Facts, and Fantasies
U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, D.C.
March 12, 2004
It is especially troubling that Senator Kennedy hints that the Bush administration took us to war for political reasons: “The politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts,” he says. That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason–suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm’s way for no purpose other than politics. Such a charge would not only sap the morale of the troops who are fighting even now; it would undercut our entire position in the war on terror generally and in Iraq specifically.
Sure, but how much incompetence is credible even for this crowd?
If it were just Bush, Rove, and Condi then maybe. But Cheney and Rumsfeld too? They strike me as pretty darned sharp.
I’m unsure exactly what you meant by this, SimonX:
If you are saying I’m some kind of Bush apologist I can only snort with derision.
Great characterization of me there SimonX!! I’m really just a warhawk in sheeps clothing! Thanks…I really didn’t know. Here I thought I was against the thing…
The intellegence was ‘highly suspect’? Was that the over all consensus, or the opinion of various analysists? What role did these folks that ‘highly suspected’ the data play…and where were they PRIOR to the invasion.
If there was such a solid consensus of folks that ‘highly suspected’ the data why didn’t Congress make more noise about this prior to the invasion. Congress (or at least Congressional subcommitties) vetted the same information that Bush had and they gave it a pass too. Did the intellegence folks in the UK also ‘highly suspect’ the data? What was their concensus?
Where were these masses of intellegence analysists who ‘highly suspected’ the data prior to the war? Showing the quotes of one or two (or 10 or 20 for that matter) who ‘highly suspected’ the data doesn’t really mean much SimonX…its the consensus that counts, because thats what decisions were based on. What exactly WAS the consensus for WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?
The intellegence was mixed, not ‘highly suspect’ across the board, and opinion was divided into various camps. Yes, Bush spun this data in its best light to strengthen his case for war…again, there can be little doubt about that. Thats what politicians do. There was Bosnia for Clinton, the first Gulf War for Bush I and Grenada (sp?) for Regan. I can’t say I can think of anything for Carter off the top of my head, or Ford either, but there was plenty of this kind of spinning for Nixon and Johnson…and Kennedy. Hell, there was this same kind of spinning from Roosevelt prior and even during WWII.
If you are going to mouth piously about Bush being evil (i.e. “It is monstrous, loathesome and vile ‘play’ up data for political gain when thousands of lives are on the line.”) I think you need to take a good look at politicians in general and US presidents in particular from both parties throughout history.
Bottom line and I’m done with this thread unless something interesting pops up: I’ve seen no real evidence that Bush knew that the WMD data for Iraq was false, though I have no doubt that he knew it wasn’t as solid as he tried to make it seem. I think its a slam dunk case that Bush spun the data to make his case for war stronger, but I see nothing new in that…presidents do it all the time.
My major problem with Bush with reguards to Iraq isn’t his spinning of WMD data to make his case stronger (I’m sorry, but I EXPECT presidents of either party to do such things without a second thought), but the stupid fucking fixation on invading Iraq in the first place when we have much more important things we vitally need to be doing (i.e. huntin AQ and other terrorist organizations, destroying their monetary networks, rooting them out of the various nation states they are operating in, etc). THAT is the major fuckup that Bush will have to account for to the American people. Either the majority of Americans will feel that it was justified to tie down so much of our military and cost so much money and US lives for Iraq or they won’t. The rest is partisan bullshit as far as I’m concerned.
-XT
Those who revel in Rush and feed on Fox are numb to nuances.
Skepticism is one thing, extreme political cynicism is disgusting. If everyone thinks that politicians should and do tie all their actions to partisan political advantage then the American experiment in self-government might be in the process of failing.
I would warrant that by “Bush” most here mean the Bush government. Bush himself probably never went through intel or went through the small letters in the briefs.
My great concern is that its obviously a government that is not willing to hear dissent or views that don’t match their own. Anyone trying to tell them otherwise will be disregarded, demoted or isolated. If it was a “honest” mistake… it won’t be the last then. If they disregarded on purpose the intel then they are reckless and lying… and they got away with it. The US loses both ways.
Well, sometimes I deserve it.
I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.
Well, I tried to put this one into a if the shoe-fits-format.
Also, see above.
Both the CIA and the INR cut funding to the INC’s information collection program. Civilians at the Pentagon chose to continue the programs funding despite the other two agencies experiences. If the yforgot to ask teh CIA and the INR about why they had dropped the INC’s ICP, that’s almost as bad as having taken on the INC’s program with full knowledge of its reliability.
No actually they didn’t. The reports that were prepared for Congress, on at least one occasion, had caveats and dissenting opinions left out.
Second, I’m not sure if the history of the INC’s information collection program was included in the briefings that Congress received. It was not included in the unclassified version of the NIE.
I’m discussing some specific material that arrived via INC suppplied sources.
That the US IC wasn’t sure what exactly Hussein was up to in this regard. They suspected that he was up to no good.
The consesnus presented in a subsequently declassified section was that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US with WMD (directly or by proxy) in the foreseeable future.
The consensus doesn’t get discussed much by the Bush Admin.
While this may be true for the intelligence ‘across the board’ it’s not true of all of it in particular.
I unclearly referenced some more specific instances. I wasn;t trying to characterize the whole thing.
While I’m not as familar with these other instances, I’d say if they were doing similar things then they are shitstains.
Alright. As time permits.
Here in a minute*, I’ll find you some more specific reference that pertains to the Bush Admin. I don’t know about Bush in particular. I can’t show which members of the Bush Admin knew what when, but it is demonstrable that certain thinsg were knowable and that memeber of the Bush Admin could be reasonably expected to know them if they had practiced due diligence. if they did not knwo these things, then they did not treat the endeavor of leading the nation into war with the level of earnestness that it deserves. So you’e still left with a decision to make. The same one as usual- mendacity or incompetence.
New or not (I’ll not debate) it’s loathesome and reprehensible to mislead a nation into war. The fact that it may have happened more than once is tragic.
I suspect that the internet has something to do with this war getting a greater amount of scrutiny than conflicts past.
That’s a biggie.
I have to say that I agree with Senator Kyl (or at least with what came out of his mouth) about the gravity of spinning to sell an unecessary war. It’s close to treason.
It’s frightening that you’re willing to imply that this sort of thing’s acceptable behavior for our poiticians. We’re the only one who can reign them in.
See, this is the bit I don’t get. Whether the data was solid or not was the big question. There is a simple algorithm.
Solid data = Invasion.
Uncertain data = UNMOVIC Inspections.
So the administration said the data was solid and therefore that evidence-based policy compelled the US to war.
How is that not knowing falsehood? Clearly evidence-based policy would have compelled the continuation of UNMOVIC Inspections.
Insofar as I get what XT’ is arguing, s/he is saying the data they had wasn’t out-and-out fabrication by Bush’s team and that nothing short of that is knowing falsehood.
That was never the argument and no-one has ever said so. Which is why I think XT’ is missing the point. In trivialising how certain the data was XT’ has neglected that certainty was the very bone of contention and that the “Bush lied” argument has always been that he fudged the certainty of the evidence so as to avoid continuing UNMOVIC Inspections.
I meant average human being, and you bring up congresscritter. Humph.
If a drug company does 10 studies, 5 of which report that a new drug works, 5 of which say it doesn’t work, and then they report to the FDA that evidence indisputably shows that the drug works, they ain’t cherry picking, they are lying. If a CEO, who knows there are 10 studies, gets reports on 5 and never asks about the other 5, he’s not strictly lying, but if the FDA finds out he’s is for sure going to get his butt fired.
Yup, the Republicans are running the country like a business - unfortunately that business is Enron.
And the Bay of Pigs? Ah politics…
And the evidence that he knew he was lying is that he said that doing the invasion was urgent, that there was no time for further inspections. Now there was intelligence for and against the presence of WMDs, but I’m not aware of any intelligence, any at all, that Iraq was an imminent threat to anybody. From the preliminary inspections the Administration knew he case for WMDs was fading fast, so they’d better invade quickly before they lost support.
And I forgot to comment on xt point on the Bay of Pigs. Yes, it was a mistake. And JFK admitted it. But old I never did anything wrong Bush is too much of a coward to admit his mistake.
Since this is Straight Dope and all, Kennedy did blackade Cuba, both by air and by sea. He did go to the UN. And Bush had pictures too.
Were the things in Kennedy’s pictures actually missiles? If they were, I think the comparison doesn’t quite work.
Well, there were spots and squiggles. It typically requires some expertise to interpret satellite photos (especially ones from that era), but you can judge for yourself: