Its not offered as a “reasonable assumption”, it is offered as a reason to go to war. With that all important proviso, “preemptive”.
Its is an equally “reasonable assumption” that Al Queda has connections with Libya. As well as Iran. We are not being stampeded towards war with those two. Though there is far more reason to connect Al Queda with Iran.
The Bushistas are attempting to mute criticism that they are appropriating attention and resource to Iraq that are more urgently required in the war on terror. They do this by merging the issues: Al Queda is with Iraq, therefore war on Iraq is war on Al Queda.
I get the feeling that the Bushistas have made the big jump: they are now so convinced that they are right that the means have become secondary. It’s ok to mislead the people if its for thier own good is the principle.
While the principle is perhaps arguable, I strenuously object to thier presumption in making that judgement.
And would anyone care to guess what people would be screaming if Saudi Arabia launched a terror attack against the United States? Oooops.
The argument is entirely speculative. In the past 11 years Iraq has been implicated in one terrorist operation against the U.S., namely an attempt against Bush I, IIRC which was on Saudi soil, and the link to Iraq tenuous. Hussein has been laying very low with respect to the U.S. If there was evidence, credible or otherwise, that Iraq was a significant and imminent threat to the U.S., lawmakers with an entitlement to see it who are not affiliated with the administration would have seen it and said it is there. They haven’t.
The fact is that preemptive attacks without U.N. sanction are violations of international law, and war crimes.
While I think that Saddam Hussein is Hitler-lite, I think that international law requires that the U.N. approve removing him. While Bush I demonstrated the skill to convince the U.N. to form such a coalition, Bush II is so fucking inept that he is not even trying. The immense loss of U.S. credibility among our friends and allies around the world (not to mention confirming the accusations of those who have hated us) by adopting the complete miliatary supremacy doctrine against all comers and the preemptive regime change against those we “feel” are a threat to us is so superlatively damaging to our security in the short and long term as to leave me moaning: “WHAT ARE THESE FUCKING IDIOTS UP TO?”
Coincidence. Just posted this to another thread, regarding the alleged attempt to murder Bush the Elder. The case is much less credible than we have been led to believe. An excellent article by Seymour Hersch of the New Yorker is cited here. It is too long to excerpt meaningfully, but, absent clear refutation and facutal rebuttal, makes a strong case that no such thing ever happened. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
Define “credible evidence.” In a post-attack world, anything even remotely sounding like it foreshadowed the attack will have people screeching that someone should have done something beforehand. Do you honestly think that the folks at the various alphabet agencies have gotten their acts together to the point where one can say for certain that all data has been carefully scrutinized? I’m not willing to bet on it. Nor am I willing to claim that Bush, et. al have hard evidence which proves that Iraq is an immediate threat to the US or its allies. There’s been a lot of talk that Bush is trying to save the mid-term elections, perhaps he is, but he might also be trying to save his re-election in '04 by doing something so that if we get hit with another big attack before then, he can say that he’s been working on stamping out terrorism.
Of course, the Dems might use that against him by saying that if the administration had been so focused on Iraq they could have prevented the second attack. Additionally, if Bush does order our troops into Iraq and they turn up nothing, then the Dems can hammer away at that point in '04.
Credible evidence is anything that you can get someone else to believe.
The President has taken to heart the words of H. L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know… has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
Honestly, how big a bat do you people need to be whacked over the head with, before you realise that Bush is lying to your face.
This is the fucking CIA telling you that what the president is saying is NOT TRUE!!!
‘Pfft’, you go, ‘That’s only one opinion.’
‘Sad how this might be misused by those evil democrats and creepy liberals to discredit our Holy Leader.’
‘No, our Holy Leader must have other information.’
‘So secret it cannot be shared with anyone else, not even the CIA.’
Don’t you see how big this is?
The CIA coming out and telling people that they are being pressured to construe evidence.
If your Holy Leader was privy to other “higher” evidence, why would it be necessary to fabricate more?
What will it take for you to fucking wake up to what’s going on?
More than the word of a show business figure whose major qualification is that he looks pretty reading off a Tele-prompter.
It is in the interests of those who oppose war on Iraq to maximize the differences between what Bush says, and what the CIA says in public. Just as it was in their interests to maximize the differences between what Bush said, and what other prominent conservatives said, such as Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was presented as if he were strenuously opposed to any military action against Iraq. He wasn’t, but you couldn’t tell that from what was said about what he said.
Maybe Bush knows something about the anthrax attacks that we don’t. Maybe he knows something the NSA tells him that we don’t. I personally feel the case for action against Iraq is sufficiently supported by Saddam’s refusal to allow full access to his WMD development sites by inspectors. And regime change in Iraq is going to be bad news for all terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere, al-Quiada and other.
I don’t think you need to make a case that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 to justify military action against Saddam. I am perfectly willing to classify Saddam as a terrorist, and his country as a supporter of terrorism, based on actions which are public knowledge. FWIW, I think it is a tactical error for Bush to push Iraqi-al Quiada links as a justification for military action.
Although I hardly think “the official position of the CIA is that we have no hard evidence of direct links between Iraq and al Quiada”, and “I think Saddam is a terrorist and should be kicked out”, is a lie on one side or the other.
And I am more willing to take Bush’s word for it than I am Peter Jennings.
Very Bush-like, Shodan. Now, according to you, this is about Peter Jennings. Peter J. is of no consequence to this conversation whatsoever. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
“…I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country…”
Maybe.
Again, maybe. Don’t much like “maybe” when offered as a cause for war. Much prefer facts, when it comes to stuffing body bags. Solid facts, undeniable facts. There appears to be a paucity of such facts, but Our Leader is not about to let that slow him down.
Pure conjecture. An equally plausible case is to the effect that such a war will be the best recruiting device ever. Just as Al Queda found itself deeply devoted to the Palestinian cause when that proved convenient, Al Queda’s long standing antipathy toward Saddam bin Laden will vanish as well.
Well, thats certainly one way to phrase it. “Bald faced lie” might be another.
In which the aforementioned straw man is restuffed and clobbered again. Rather than like a Mexican birthday pinata. Except the blindfold is permanent.
This is exactly the sort of thing I objected to, and thank you for providing so apt an example.
Kissinger speaks out against “a prolonged occupation”, but elsewhere in favor of military action. You quote him as if he were opposed to military action.
As I mentioned, it is in the best interests of those who oppose military action to play up the differences amongst those who support it.
And of course you would label every statement Bush makes with which you disagree as a “bald-faced lie”. Like that’s something new. :rolleyes:
It’s not BUSH VS JENNINGS, it’s BUSH VS the CIA. Like elucidator said, Jennings is a straw-man here. I prefer to use Occam’s razor in a dispute like this. What is the simplest explanation? That the White House is exaggerating the threat of Iraq for a number of self-serving political reasons, or that the CIA is deliberately sabatoging national security for reasons as yet unexplained. I don’t even think that GWB knows he’s lying, necessarily. He isn’t smart enough to be devious. I think he just believes what he’s told to believe by Cheney, Rove, et al, and reads what they put on the teleprompter for him.
Just imagine if the CIA had contradicted CLINTON on an issue of this magnitude.
I can appreciate that Bush would not want the public to know how he knows al Qaeda and Iraq are intertwined, for security reasons (especially to preserve the lives of informants).
I suppose I can, barely, appreciate that Bush has resources other than the CIA, who would lead him to a different conclusion to the CIA. Sensible people can reach different conclusions based on the same facts.
I would hope that Bush isn’t playing the al Qaeda card simply to bolster domestic support for an attack on Iraq. There are plenty of good reasons to depose Saddam without resorting to that kind of crap.
elucidator argues an oblique point to this, which I wish to comment upon:
I think it is pure conjecture, but the consequences are very important, and conjecture is all we have. The Economist argues that a regime change in Iraq might unsettle the Middle East in a positive way - some dissidents abroad want a federal democracy, and this bothers the Sauds. More conjecture on consequences, and perfectly valid. Did anyone see the excellent and appropriate quotation of Pericles from Thucydides’ book on the Peloponnesian War in the letters page of New Yorker, 7 Oct. 2002? “We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been fully debated.”
Peter Jennings juxtaposed the contradiction. He made no editorial comment whatsoever. I made no reference to Mr. Jennings views, real or imagined, nor have I any idea as to what Mr. Jennings views are. You have manufactured the “Jennings issue” out of whole cloth: to what end, I cannot imagine.
Please note futher: the preface “aside” before the quote from Mr. Kissinger. Rather like the word “hi-jack”, “aside” implies that the quote to follow has no direct bearing on the matter at hand. I did not quote him “as if”, in fact, made no comment whatsoever. The “spin” is your own: you stuff words in my mouth and withdraw them as proof of your own conjecture. Weak.
Classic ad hominem. Ought to be pickled in a jar as a specimen of the pure form of false argument. Please let us know if you stumble across any actual arguments.
Why, thank you! How very kind of you to notice. Your post is, as well, very true to form.
A “straw-man” is a weak or unimportant rhetorical target constructed in order to make it appear as though weak argument has more substance. Peter Jennings is a “straw-man” because the issue of HIS credibility is not relevant to this discussion. It is the credibility of the CIA as opposed to the POTUS. This wasn’t a difficult point to sort out Scylla, maybe YOU don’t know what the fuck the word means.
“Occam’s razor” is a philosophical proposition that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. The simplest explanation in THIS case, is that the White House is (like every other WH) is behaving in a POLITICAL manner as opposed to an honest one. The CIA is not political, and would have no motive to be dishonest about national security. This, again is not a difficult point to grasp. Are you sure that YOU understand what the word means?
SAT’s are not indicative of any real intellect. GWB has said any number of moronic things in his short political career which are more than enough to suggest that he is not a genius (e.g. “Do you have blacks here too?” when he visited Brazil)
Please explain to me exactly which terms were misused and exactly HOW they were misused. Also, what “facts” did I avoid?
So you post an OP asking, “Who should I believe, President Bush or Peter Jennings?” Then you cannot understand how people might answer, “President Bush”.
Or maybe the question was, “What is going on here?” The answer supplied is, “Those who oppose the war, and/or have an interest in stirring up controversy, are maximizing differences amongst the Bush administration, the CIA, and other Republicans”.
If you want to know which talking head to believe, posted have been some reasons why you should choose one or the other.
Knowing what I do about your attitudes and reactions, I have no doubt that you believe without a second’s hesitation, that every word out of Bush’s mouth is a lie, and that therefore any word which contradicts his must be accepted as gospel from On High. There are others here who do not necessarily take the same view. That’s why it’s called a discussion board.
If you post meaningless irrelevancies, you must be ready to forgive those who make the natural mistake that your posts are striving towards coherence. If you didn’t mean anything in particular by any portion of your post, and you didn’t want anyone to try to draw conclusions from it, you might want to spare the hamsters and not include it. Or at least enclose it in some appropriate tags, like
[drivel]A random thought from the Illuminati[/drivel].
I’d be glad to. FYI, I didn’t find any in your OP.
I think that perhaps elucidator’s OP could have been phrased better. (Who should I believe, Bush or Jennings?") I think by “Jennings” he just meant the news itself as opposed to the (irrelevant) source of the news. Unfortunately the phrasing of the qquestion has given the likes of Scylla and Shodan an excuse to ignore the REAL conflict between the CIA vs. the POTUS and focus on the STRAW MAN of Jennings.
Let me rephrase the question (if elucidator doesn’t object) Who should we believe, Bush or the CIA?
A strawman is a when an argument is falsely attributed so that it can be rebutted.
**
You really should have looked these things up before you posted. I just did, even though I was sure of myself. I did it because I wanted to make sure I didn’t look really stupid, the way you are about to.
Occam’s razor suggests that when you have no other criteria to choose between two or more substantially equal explanations, the one with the fewest suppositions is the better choice.
The scores are.
**
Your refutation is ridiculous. Sat’s examine any number of the components that we attribute as intelligence; verbal skills, comprehension, logically deduction and induction, mathematical ability, as well as general knowledge.
You have refuted this (by assertion only,) and you seek to replace this measure of overrall intellectual aptitude with…
…incidence of verbal faux pas in public context?
I wasn’t aware of any theory whatsoever that suggest verbal miscues were deleterious indicator of intelligence. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that was true.
**
Done and done.
That’s like a fisherman coming back emptyhanded from the sea and asking “what fish didn’t I catch?”
As to the Kissinger thing: I recall the incident to which you allude. It is quite correct that some persons misrepresented his statements as signifying a complete breach with the Administration as regards Iraq policy. This was clearly not so.
Your statement as regards Kissinger might as easily been misconstrued as to suggest that Mr. K marches in lockstep with the Administration plans for “regime change”. I thought it worthy of mention, as an aside, wherein Mr. Kissinger is at variance with Admin position. Please note: no editorial comment was made by me whatsoever, I did not suggest then, nor do I suggest now, that you were intentionally misleading. How Mr. Bush’s policy might be implemented without a “prolonged occupation of a Muslim country” is your problem, not mine.
It may well be that a worthwhile strategy for war opponents to take is to maximize the variance within the Admin as to the feasibility or conduct of the upcoming war. I am more concerned with the apparent fact that such variance exists. I am very concerned, to the point of outrage, that Our Leader blithely presents his opinions as established truths, when they are not.
You will recall, I am sure, when Our Leader brandished a report supporting his contention as to Saddam bin Laden’s nuclear capacity, despite the rather embarrassing fact that no such report exists, or ever did. Further, as mentioned above, his insistence that Saddam bin Laden attempted to murder Bush the First is also subject to skeptical scrutiny.
If Our Leader will lead us to war and horror, I insist that it be based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Is that so difficult to understand?