So the Neocons had no real evidence of WMD in Iraq.

[DSeid]

Oh in case anyone doesn’t remember Bush’s pre-election guidelines for the use of US force, here it is from one of the debates: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html

JIM LEHRER: One of you is about to be elected the leader of the single most powerful nation the world-- economically, financially, militarily, diplomatically, you name it. Have you formed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous power?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I have. I have. The first question is what’s in the best interest of the United States? What’s in the best interest of our people? When it comes to foreign policy, that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation’s interests?

[Sam_Stone]

December, ElJeffe:

Sorry, but I’ve got to agree with elucidator and the rest on this. Sure, other factors were mentioned as justifying the war. But the fact is, we were sold on this war for the MAIN purpose of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and the potential to build nuclear weapons in the reasonably not-to-distant future.

Now, I also supported the war for other reasons. I thought it would be good for world stability and the middle east. I still do. I believe that this was a moral, just war, and I think the world is a much better place today for its having been fought.

However, I have to be honest and admit that I am troubled by the major disconnect between the claims of WMD before and after the war. And this war would never have happaned had it not been for those claims. There would not have been the public support.

Now, I’m still holding open the door for final judgement until I hear all the facts, but if it turns out that the Bush administration intentionally mislead the American people in order to capture their support, then heads should roll.

[elucidator]

Oh, that’s a bit radical, Sam. One head will be quite sufficient.

[december]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**December, ElJeffe:

Sorry, but I’ve got to agree with elucidator and the rest on this. Sure, other factors were mentioned as justifying the war. But the fact is, we were sold on this war for the MAIN purpose of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and the potential to build nuclear weapons in the reasonably not-to-distant future. **

I have already admitted in another thread that I was wrong in my belief that WMDs would have been found by now. I do agree that we were sold on WMDs as the key reason for the war, particularly the fear of nukes.

“We were sold” is the passive voice. Who sold us on WMDs? The answer is: Just about everybody!

Saddam sold us by his resistance to UN inspections and his past behavior. Hans Blix sold us by reminding us that Iraq had known stores of WMDs in 1998 and there was no evidence that they had been destroyed. Bush, Cheney, Powell and the whole administration sold us. Tony Blair sold us. I recall a clip of Blair telling other heads of state that their own spies were telling them about Iraq’s WMDs. None of them disputed his point. So, it appears that spy systems of many countries believed in Saddam’s WMDs.

I resent blaming this on “the neoconservatives,” particularly by means of a doctored quote. I resent the term “neoconservatives” itself, since it has a tinge of meaning “Jewish advisors who secretly control US policy.” Regardless of how one defines the term, it’s clear that the belief in Saddam’s WMDs extended far beyond the “neoconservatives.”

Where did the mistake occur? Were Bush and Blair and Wolfowitz lying? I believe they were sincere. I think that the misktake was made by our spy agencies. Why? Because Britain’s spy agencies were telling Blair the same thing. These spy agencies were wrong, and we ought to find out why. Let’s not use the “neoconsevatives” as scapegoats.

[elucidator]

Huh? Whaaaa? Since when does the pejorative “neoconservatives” have even a hint of Jewish implication? Wolfowitz et. al are arrogant assholes with delusions of Bismarck. Whether or not they know a pupik from a hole in the ground is entirely irrelevant.

[december]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Huh? Whaaaa? Since when does the pejorative “neoconservatives” have even a hint of Jewish implication? **

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030525-100933-7428r.htm

Hitting at what may be a new low in the “neocon” code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a “news” story that practically screamed “Jew”— without saying the word at all…

But in the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use neocon as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. Mr. Dunham’s Business Week piece at first only seems to be doing the former. Using neocon interchangeably with “superhawk,” he further writes, “The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called extremists, warmongers, American imperialists — and even a Zionist cabal.”

Also

The neocon label gets folded, spindled, and mutilated in any number of ways, every day. But there are four enduring misapplications of the word. These myths are: (1) the idea that neoconservative means “pro-war”; (2) the idea that neoconservative means “foreign-policy hawk”; (3) the idea that neoconservative means Jewish; and, (4) the idea that neoconservative refers to ex-liberals. Some of these used to be true, none of them are reliably so anymore.

[elucidator]

The Washington Times? The Moonie Loony Science Monitor?

[Python] 'Owls of derisive laughter, Bruce![/Python]

[Desmostylus]

december, some of the neocons happen to be Jewish.

I’ve seen the claims in the tabloids that equate this fact with Jewish control of the administration. Paranoid tabloid claims do not equal reality.

Neocons are neocons. If they deserve the blame, so be it. The mere fact that a couple of them are Jewish is neither here nor there.

[december]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**Neocons are neocons. If they deserve the blame, so be it. The mere fact that a couple of them are Jewish is neither here nor there. **

What’s your definition?

P.S. Are Britain’s Labour Party “neo-cons”?

[xenophon41]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Oh, that’s a bit radical, Sam. One head will be quite sufficient. **

Neocon philosophy is a hydra, you fool… You gotta take out the heart. We (us screamin’ libruls) have to get the conservatives as angry as we are; we’ve got to get them mad as hell that the right-wingers have coopted a party based on the careful and respectful political philosophy of conservativism and joined it to ideals which are neither careful nor respectful. We have to get people like Sam and even december, who honestly believe those higher principles of conservativism are still being upheld to realize that the neocons are anything but conservative!

If we can get the conservatives to grok the nature of “neo-conservativism”, get them to realize that the term crypto-fascist was invented for these fuckers, then perhaps they can take back the soul of the Republican party.

For damn sure, the Democrats won’t change anything.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by december *
**What’s your definition?

P.S. Are Britain’s Labour Party “neo-cons”? **

The members, supporters and contributors to the PNAC, for example.

If I choose to label them as arrogant, deceitful, powermad, bloodthirsty and ultimately stupid assholes, rest assured, it isn’t because of their religion.

The Brits just don’t fit the mold.

[december]

This top marine says it our intelligence was wrong..

The top U.S. Marine commander in Iraq said Friday that U.S. intelligence was “simply wrong” in its assessment that Saddam Hussein intended to unleash chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces during the war, but he stopped short of saying there was an overall intelligence failure.

Amid the mounting criticism, CIA Director George Tenet took the unusual step of issuing a statement Friday denying that the agency’s assessments on Iraq were politicized.

“Our role is to call it like we see it - to tell policymakers what we know, what we don’t know, what we think, and what we base it on,” Tenet said. “That is exactly what was done and continues to be done on intelligence issues related to Iraq.”…

In a separate press briefing Friday, Dayton appeared to acknowledge that it is possible that Iraq deliberately misled U.S. intelligence agencies, making them think that weapons were being produced and deployed even as they were secretly being destroyed.

Desmostylus, what’s the PNAC? Also, can you provide other examples of your definition of “neocon”?

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

Britain’s Labour Party are not neo-cons (though I think it was either Richard Perle or Paul Wolfwitz in a BBC documentry on thew neocons who semi-jokingly labelled Tony Blair a neocon), their politcs are very, very different. There was a clear coming together of the thinking of the Labour leadership and the neocons over the war in Iraq, but both are far more broad based political movments. In fact the politics of Britains Conservative party are far more nearer to the politics of the neocons, except the Conservative party are clearly more reactionary.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

The neoconservative movement is made up of a series of think tanks such as the PNAC which have heavily overlapping membership. They DO have a distinct and recognizable politcal ideology that extends far beyond just support for the war in Iraq and indeed the middle-east.

[Desmostylus]

december, the PNAC is the Project for the New American Century. Look carefully at the signature list on this letter to Clinton

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams; Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett;

Jeffrey Bergner; John Bolton; Paula Dobriansky;

Francis Fukuyama; Robert Kagan; Zalmay Khalilzad;

William Kristol; Richard Perle; Peter W. Rodman;

Donald Rumsfeld; William Schneider, Jr.; Vin Weber;

Paul Wolfowitz; R. James Woolsey; Robert B. Zoellick

[elucidator]

I hear Bill Bennet was giving 5 to 1 on victory in Iraq.

[december]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
december, the PNAC is the Project for the New American Century.

Thank you.

[samclem]

STOP THE PRESSES

They found the WMD. Guess I’ll have to apologize. :rolleyes:

Bush, however, speaking to a Polish television network in advance of a visit to Poland on Friday and Saturday, insisted that: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. . . . And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them."

From http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/5986497.htm (or just about any major news source).

Geez. First they let Wolfowitz out for a walk and he blabs off. Now Bush goes out without HIS handlers, and starts adlibing.

Sounds like there’s trouble in paradise.

[elucidator]

What! No kidding? Well, that certainly settles that! The Leader is right, as always. I stand ready to support our troops in Iraq! and Iran! and Afghanistan! and Columbia! and the Phillipines and Klaandathu!..

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

About the existence of WMD’s and its being the main concern of Bush and company for the war against Iraq, may I suggest that the posters here who are on opposite corners check on their sincerity index, to find out who are more sincere, honest with themselves.

In psychology I learned about the personality profile tests which are so constructed that there are questions placed in them not really to study the personality traits of the subject as to find out whether the answers can be generally taken seriously. If not then the test administered is jettisoned as not reliable.

Questions like the following, something like them:

Have you ever told any lie in your life?
Have you ever touched yourself for pleasure?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you eve cheated in school examinations?
Have you ever been envious of any sibling or family member?
Have you ever tortured any cute kitten or any pet?
Have you ever felt guilt for any discourtesy or unkind words?
Do you always apologize for any wrong against others?
Do you believe that all men are entitled to equal opportunities?
Have you ever felt any hatred against any ethnic groups?

If the subject answers all such questions scattered in the test and could be repeated in other words to his own credit of being a noble righteous altruistic person, then the test is rejected, the results of the test as not being reliable for any finding on the personality of the subject.

So, shall we all consider taking personality profile tests in order to learn of our not so much personality as our sincerity index?

Susma Rio Sep