Not directly applicable to any of the well-reasoned comments from either side here so far, but singularly àpropos in my opinion, is the following quote I ran across:
Here’s the entirety Dr Rices learned commentary in question(.pdf) - Promoting the National Interst
& for good measure
Congressional Record
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . the probability of [Hussein] initiating an attack … in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Quite. But not laughable either.
A fair and honest opinion. How long would you have waited if the intelligence situation did not change, BTW.
Finally, the question as to this OP, why do you demonize those who disagree by calling them liars? Your mitigating factors are certainly reasonable. But do they amount to proof beyond all reasonable doubt that rational people could disagree with your threat assessment and intelligence analysis?
BTW, sorry about the quote mixup in my last post. I quoted you and did not correctly attribute it.
No, just that it is not laughable.
Yeah; I was just pointing out that there are (hypothetical) stockpiles which pose war-worthy threats, and “stockpiles” that serve only as flimsy rationales for damn fool wars.
Hmmmm. Bio-chem warfare at a Baghdad Agricultural school, and then a mad cow outbreak in Britain and America.
Coincidence?
The President’s own WMD commission is about to tell us how crummy the Iraq intelligence was.
The Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, has decided not to do its promised examination of “how the Bush Administration used–or abused–the prewar intelligence to build support for the Iraq invasion.”
Duct tape over intelligence failures will not fix a broken executive. Of course we don’t even want to know how badly the executive is broken. That might disturb us.
I wonder why this is.
I’m making plans to visit with some of these folks in person now that I’m here. I’ve just got to finish saving up for my digital recorder so’s I can post their responses to the internet.
But he said it’s that darn postelection environment. When you couple the perils of that with the events of 9/11, I’m just not sure that America could handle the truth. 
If you’re serious then I would like to donate to this cause. I am 100% serious here.
pervert The reason I feel comfortable saying “Bush lied” is twofold. Firstly, because the situation was, as I roughly sketched above, a complex situation. No honest analysis could have rendered it into what Bush said in his “48 hours” address to the nation.
Emphasis mine.
At every step of the way one of my numbered points must have been staring him in the face, and he must, simply must, have made a conscious decision to refuse to accept the first-hand reports of the inspectors. The unconfirmed suspicions of collaboration with Al Qaeda. Yet nothing in this speech, on the eve of the war and broadcast to the nation, even HINTS of ANY uncertainty. I don’t see ANY honest analysis of a situation which included the facts I enumerated in my last post, all of which were available pre-war to anyone who did their homework as I did, which could have produced the statements in that speech.
My second reason is a bit more conspiracy-like. It has to do with the Office of Special Plans and pre-9/11 emphasis on Iraq by key administration officials. That is too deep a discussion to get into here at the moment.
So, for these two reasons I feel the label of lying son of a bitch is plainly applicable to George W. Bush.
Enjoy,
Steven
Please believe that I understand and except this entirely. But if you look carefully, I was not really asking why you think Bush lied. Just why you think there is no way to come to the other conclusion.
If you don’t mind I’d rather not get into parsing Bush’s or his administrations statements from that time. I’d only ask you to relook at them and check again your conclusions about them. Again, not at all with the idea that you might change your mind, only that you might see how someone else might honestly come to the opposite conclusion.
That’s probably enough for this issue.
I happen to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I have considered other options with an open mind, even with a mind inclined towards dark conspiracies. (I used to be bit paranoid, but they stopped following me and I got better…).
Now, I could re-examine the evidence, with any eye towards lending a degree of plausibility to other theories, other elaborate conjectures that maybe, just maybe, Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot Kennedy.
But there’s no way I can wrap my mind around the suggestion that Kennedy wasn’t shot.
Why, gladly. Consider yourself corrected.
On the other hand, these exercises of close critical reading aren’t really necessary. It’s relevatory to look at the big picture, cast your mind back to the pre-war months. The deal was as I’ve stated it; Weapons or Lying. Those were the terms of the discussion. This ‘perhaps it was an honest mistake’ confectionary is just after-the-fact unsporting behaviour.
Honest mistake, oh yes? Show me someone trying out that line before Feb 2002 and then we’ll talk.
If I recall, Ahmed Chalabi tried floating that particular balloon, declaring the alliance of his band of patriots and the Bushivik Admin as “heroes in error”.
If only Barbara Tuchman were still with us, what fun she could have…
Pervert:
Which of the following do you think best characterises the approach of the US administration pre-war.
(A)
US: We have evidence that Iraq may still have these weapons.
Some people: Well, we’re not sure, going to war is a pretty big step.
US: Here’s what we’ve got, some people have told us this, this picture our analysts think shows that.
(B)
US: Iraq has wmd, we know they have them, we know where they are.
Some people: That doesn’t sound good, but are you sure?
US: God, weren’t you listening? Do you want terrorists sending you anthrax? Look, here’s some pictures of the actual sites where they make the weapons. Now do you think I’m making it up? These are facts.
(A) would constitute a mistaken analysis (assuming that the information had not been deliberately misskewed), (B) is a lie.
I didn’t move halfway across the country only to do what I was doing in AR. I came to DC with a purpose.
How very odd! Suddenly I hear the theme song for Pinky and The Brain.
I does seem to me that we ought to be able to expect more of political leaders than that they couldn’t actually be convicted of perjury in court. Their decisions cost lives and a considerable amount of the national wealth and they shouldn’t be pardoned for slipping by on the basis of legalisms.
We’re obligated to expect more.
Not all “fighting for freedom” involves bloodshed. Not all vigilance is against external enemies.
Not trying to lecture you, just my nickel’s worth.
I’m sorry, I should have been more specific. Would you kindly refer me to any person who agreed with the invasion and agreed before the invasion that if no WMD were present that would constitute a lie on the administration’s part?
Honestly, I am more inclined to choose the A. I do not follow any columnists anymore, so I get that impression from reading speeches rather than summaries of them afterward. But it was my impression that the intelligence was given to members of congress. Some of whom had access to intelligence analysts for direct questioning. Additionally, in almost every speech in which a sentence or two can be shown to be inflamatory ala (B), there is usually a sentence or two which is more cautionary as well. JMHO of course.
Just for the record, PatriotX, and David Simmons I never said that concluding that Bush did not lie meant exhonorating him of all wrong doing. I have many objections to the war and how it was carried out. But that we were tricked into it simply does not seem to be that reasonable to me. Again, JMHO.