Rumfeld admits to no WMD's

[Gadarene]

Evil One:

Gadarene, I saw the report just where you would expect me to…Fox News.

Can I have a link?

As for the dim and stubborn cite, for many of us that is evident in thier everyday behavior. If you disagree with someone idologically, you are naturally going to think they are ignorant to some degree. I admit to this predjudice. Do you?

Not to the degree you do, with your hyperbolic examples. You sound like Blackadder: “Baldrick, you wouldn’t know a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked upon a harpsichord singing ‘Cunning Plans are Here Again.’” That is, stop giving your opponents less credit than you would give yourself. It means you’re either underestimating their intelligence or overestimating yours.

There would be no better way to embarrass us than to remove evidence of the primary reason we ended his regime.

And this is just ridiculous. “They’ll raze my cities, burn my land, firebomb my palaces, oust me from power, and kill my citizens and my family…but that’s okay, 'cause I’ll make 'em look foolish after the fact! Heh heh heh.”

[ticker]

*Originally posted by MSU 1978 *
**Did Bush know it was a lie or was he being lied to? **

I don’t know about Bush, but today’s news (in the UK) is full of claims from ‘the intelligence services’ that the Blair government rewrote the WMD dossier produced in Sept. 2002 for political reasons:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2945996.stm

He said “most people in intelligence” were unhappy about the changes because they “didn’t reflect the considered view they were putting forward”.

[Mambo]

Let’s not forget that Bush has presented forged documents, which were hurried thhrough the intelligence community.

Blair presented a plagiarized graduated paper without bothering to even correct spelling or punctuation while bothering to change certain words and terms to suggest Iraq was linked with al-Qaeda.

This will be seen as one of the greatest conspiracies in history.

Before the war:

U.S.A.: “So, where are the weapons?”

Inspectors: “Give the inspections time to work.”

U.S.A.: “We don’t have time, he can use his weapons within 45 minutes and so forth.”
After the war

World Community: “So, where are the weapons?”

U.S.A.: “Give the inspections time to work.”

[Gadarene]

Thanks for the link, Demostylus. And good point, Bricker. Consider the thrust of my earlier post amended.

[minty_green]

Hey, I like the new sig, RickJay.

[plnnr]

“If they were destroyed”

If they were destroyed, why we there?

“God damn it! We told you to destroy those weapons and you went and did it!”

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the war room!”

[light_strand]

MSU, the problem is not that Bush was lied to, it’s that the Bush/Rumsfied/Wolfowitz team wanted to be lied to. It’s a classic case of CYA. To this end they set up an intelligence team that would tell them what the wanted to hear.

In October they of 2002 the Defense department set up their own five person team to look for links between Iraq and al qaeda

A five-person intelligence team was established by Douglas J. Feith, the Under- Secretary of Defense for Policy and a strong advocate for military action against Saddam Hussein. The team was formed not long after the Sept. 11 attacks to take on special assignments in the global war on terror Currently they are focused on finding links between Iraq and al Qaeda leaders.

<snip>

        As noted in a previous WIN, Intelligence at its best  aspires to be objective (non-politicized) so that hard-nosed policymakers can deal with the best picture of reality available. But especially before a war, there is also a need for War-Justifying intelligence, which shades into psychological information operations.  If objective intelligence does not justify the war, then suitable intelligence  must be enhanced  from a subjective perspective, or even fabricated, as has happened in the past. In the present case the Defense Department (with 80% of the nation's intelligence resources) is said to be challenging the "cherished beliefs and assumptions" that they believe are preventing DCI analysts from focusing on certain information. They also contend that intelligence in the final analysis is informed information, subject to various interpretations, and that the ultimate risk assessments should be left to the policymakers. 

        Bottomline, one way or the other, justification for the war  will be created. The policy has been set. Intelligence that supports it is sought, and will be accepted. Other intelligence will be considered and used. (Jonkers) (NYT 24 Oct 02, p. 1 //E. Schmitt & T. Shanker)

Iraq War Justification Intelligence

Wolfowitz commented about this team that they were

“not making independent intelligence assessments” and referred to "a phenomenon in intelligence work, that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won’t, and not see other facts that others will.

“The lens through which you’re looking for facts affects what you look for.”

Clearly this policy of war justification landed on WMD for “political” reasons, and not because they actually existed to the degree the Administration would have liked us to believe. However you see it, the American public was misled at best, and outright deceived at worst.

[MSU_1978]

Thank you light strand, I believe you are on target. Why is there no outrage over this? If Clinton did this, Rush Limbaugh would be on it like ticks on a hound dog.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Bakhesh *
Clinton nearly got impeached for lying about a blowjob. What are the chances to Bush being impeached for lying to get the US into a war?

Technically speaking, Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office because after the impeachment by the House, there is still the trial by the Senate and he was not convicted.

My reading of the political scene here is that Bush is in no real danger over this…for reasons that I can’t honestly fathom. But, maybe the mood will change?

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
If WMD’s were hidden, they haven’t been found yet. If they were destroyed, evidence of thier existence may never be found. Saddam knew we were coming for months. There would be no better way to embarrass us than to remove evidence of the primary reason we ended his regime.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was an extreme danger to the United States, justifying overthrow, because he might embarrass us?!?

[KidCharlemagne]

How does any of that article imply we were lied to rather than our intelligence was poor/incorrect or that the Iraqi’s destroyed the WMD’s before the war?

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Hey, I like the new sig, RickJay. **

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery and so forth. Don’t let it go to your head.

I’m looking to replace it with one of Bush’s gems about “thirty thousands tons of anthrax” but I want to get it right, so I’m searching for the text of the speech.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
**That alone is a rather massive admittance of dishonesty, since they spent a year saying they were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN the WMDs were there. Thousands and thousands of tons of sarin gas, anthrax, you name it. They had evidence, much of it secret, that proved it.

**

Note the word “were”. We still maintain the WMD WERE there, prior to the Invasion. SH had plenty of time to hide, move & destroy the MWD. SH did have WMD at one time- even Blix said so. He had no evidence of those being destroyed- even Blix said that was fishy. Sure, I guess SH could have destroyed them prior to the new inspections- and then deliberately shredded the paper trail of said destruction, and also wouldn’t show any other evidence of said destruction.

Gadarene- exactly. SH wasn’t stupid, he knew he could not beat us in a conventional war. But he clearly though he could win. Thus, he must have thought that turning Bagdad into a “stalingrad” and lots of guerrilla warfare would defeat us- if 1.the war kept dragging on, 2. our body bags started coming home, AND 3. WE DIDN’T FIND ANY MWD. It was a damn good plan, that almost worked- except for the “stalingrad” part. :smack: ;j

[rjung]

So you’re telling me that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the Numero Uno Axis of Evildoer, a guy so vicious that he not only gassed his own folks but also tried to take out GeeDubya’s dad, when confronted with 300,000 troops amassing on his border for what’s obviously going to be a war for his head, decides to be a nice guy, destroy all his WMDs, and let the U.S. forces stroll into Baghdad without even a by-your-leave?

Am I the only person who finds this scenario incredibly hard to swallow?

[Cerowyn]

So, DrDeth, you’re proposing that Saddam had ample time to eradicate the vast numbers of WMDs, including any evidence that they’d ever existed, but started after the U.S. obtained conclusive proof?

Interesting.

[RickJay]

DrDeth, let me be absolutely clear on this: you’re trying to tell us (or, really, the Administration is floating the idea that) Iraq possessed THOUSANDS OF TONS of chemical and biological weapons, and that in the days leading up to the war he somehow destroyed them in a way that left no trace whatsoever of their existence? Along with the factories you would need to produce weapons in such large volumes? And that no trace, not a single eyewitness, remains?

And I’m to swallow this amazing story despite the Bush administration’s assurances that these weapons were actually ready to use, a real threat, but instead of using them at the one time he most needed to, Saddam Hussein chose instead to just destroy them in this magical, no-trace-of-evidence manner?

This scenario isn’t “incredibly hard to swallow.” It’s friggin’ stupid. You would have to be insane to believe such transparent idiocy; it’s such a blatant lie, the only people who could ever come up with it would be politicians.

I mean, I’ve gotta ask; just what would they have to say to convince you they’re lying? You know they’ve been lying about this on many other matters - it’s a documented fact. When does the skeptical part of the brain kick in here?

“They have nuclear weapons! Look, they bought uranium from Nigeria!”

“Okay, the Nigerian uranium story was a lie, but we didn’t know it was a lie! Now they have Death Ships!”

“Okay, they don’t have Death Ships, but they were connected to 9/11!”

“Okay, maybe not, but they do have chemical weapons! Tons and tons of them! We have secret evidence that proves it! We’re invading right now!”

“Okay, uhh, the chemical weapons are in Syria! And forget about all that secret evidence stuff!”

“Okay, they’re not in Syria… they’re in Iran!”

“No, they destroyed them all! That’s the ticket!”

“Uhhh… we never said this was about WMDs! Yeah, that’s it!”

How long is this going to go on? Are you going to nod and agree if they say the chemical weapons were shipped to Belgium? Fiji? Mars? “Saddam Hussein had a secret space program! The aluminum tubes are on Ganymede!”

[Avalonian]

And of course, it doesn’t bother anyone that we’ve yet to see any of the “conclusive proof” the U.S. supposedly has against Hussein regarding WMD… and we’re just now going to ignore the rhetoric that sold the war to the American public and say it was “bad intelligence.”

sigh Nope, that shouldn’t bother anyone at all. We’ll just keep inventing excuses until one works.

[Avalonian]

Or, what Rickjay said.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
If WMD’s were hidden, they haven’t been found yet. If they were destroyed, evidence of thier existence may never be found. Saddam knew we were coming for months. There would be no better way to embarrass us than to remove evidence of the primary reason we ended his regime.

Let me see if I understand this…

Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. He could have remained in power had he destroyed them in compliance with the UN mandate. Instead, he kept them until the U.S. invasion was imminent. THEN, instead of keeping the weapons to use against the invading army, he quickly destroyed them all without telling anyone, thus allowing the invaders to quickly overrun his forces and put him out of power. And this was done just to “embarrass” the United States.

Oh yeah, that makes sense…:rolleyes:

[blowero]

Crap! Rickjay so beat me to the punch.