Actually the British maintain that their evidence is separate and independent of the forged document. The Brits have not shared their evidence, so we cannot verify their assertion.
Yeah. I’m sure it’s real solid evidence.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=425057
This is like watching people clinging to the remains of a Titanic wall panel, at 3.00am, in sub-zero water.
Dear Tin-Foil Republicans, It’s over folks, the only question is whether your beloved war leaders can survive what will surely come . . .
Well, if by “the British” you mean Blair and a couple of his backgrounders, that is technically true. He keeps insisting that the British had independent evidence. However, despite leaked stories and suggestions that the “good” information was supplied by the French (who refused to allow the U.S. to see it), no member of British Intelligence (or anyone else outside Blair’s office) has stepped up to support a claim of independent evidence, so we actually have only Blair’s rather vague claims to assess. His “possible error” comment on the floor of the U.S. Congress would not be a good sign that he was heartily endorsing the position, himself.
Actually, while Blair may be in trouble, Bush is quite secure unless the economy goes back into the tank or the body count in Iraq starts up precipitously.
I would also say that it is premature to claim that there were/are no weapons of mass destruction. The point is more that if there are, then Bush should have used better evidence (rather than lying about aluminum tubes or uranium from Niger) and should have actually encouraged the armed forces to secure the suspected sites, rather than blithely leaving them open to looting (and transfer to al Qaida) in the way that was done. By lying about the evidence and then failing to secure the suspect sites, he makes it appear that he did not actually believe the stories he was spinning. Which brings us back to the lie of a threat.
I accept it’s a judgment call but I don’t think there is now any doubt that Blair is in desperate trouble. I invite you to peruse tomorrow’s (UK) Sunday papers – which will be absolute corkers - in order to see how close the pack of hounds is getting to their prey.
I’d also say the US is a little behind the UK for various reasons (perhaps a month at the moment). Quite whether pressure will mount on the same kind of curve, whether it’ll take a different path and whether other events will intervene is impossible to predict. But there’s a wave building off shore and it’s heading towards Bush.
Given the way this US Administration has been able to bury serious issues in the past (Enron, for example), one has to have doubts but this is now constitutional. It’s quite different in character. Maybe the erstwhile subservient US press will find it’s head, or even the democrats . . . .
Premature ? Goodness. The WMD argument has been conceded on both sides of the pond, as best I understand – there aren’t any and no ones looking for them any longer. We’re now arguing about the evidence that led Bush and Blair to claim there were said weapons, which is where the Niger yellowcake comes in, or not.
“Unless the economy goes back in the tank”?!?
Where have you been living, under a rock? The economy is in the tank. Deficits are out of control (again); unemployment highest in 20 yrs.; markets still a mess; corporate fraud still taking its toll; sales still suffering. Just because there is no (technical) “recession” does not mean that the economy is just fine, and that the American people are not astutely aware of this.
And have you not been watching as the death toll in Iraq mounts, as every day seems to bring more and more losses?
But hey, have fun with this mess in 2004:)
No doubt someone will deal with the rest of it, but this one is easy:
Just take a quick look at this graph. Your claim simply isn’t true.
Quite right…make that ten years. (Should have recalled, of course, who was in the White House last time…;))
Thanks for reinforcing my point!
No I do not.
This is my position:
-
Bush went to war because his country’s intelligence services told him there was a serious threat to the nation.
-
There was no conspiracy. No one lied. This is not all about oil. This is not about a Machiavellian Dick Cheney pulling the puppet’s strings. This is not about Haliburton. It is what it is: A judgement to go to war for what the leaders believed was in the best interests of the country. You can have a serious debate about whether that judgement was correct, but the conspiracy adn hidden motivation stuff is just out there.
-
It wasn’t just the U.S. intelligence agency that believed that Iraq had WMD. Britain, Australia, Canada, France… All of these intelligence agencies believed it. Where these countries differed was in what was to be done about it - not in the essential facts of what Saddam was up to.
-
Since the war ended, WMD have not been found. That is indeed a mystery, and one that needs to be solved. There are many possible explanations for this: Saddam intentionally deceived the world for some purpose, Saddam destroyed them on the eve of war, they are still there, but well hidden, or the intelligence agencies of the world were simply wrong.
-
Until the mystery is solved, I reserve judgement.
You guys are letting your Bush-hatred blind your normal rational faculties. I think it’s hilarious that people can spin wild theories about conspiracies, hidden agendas, secret power players behind the scenes, etc. and get taken seriously, and yet when some of us come here and offer a direct reading of the evidence, we’re told to take our bullshit packing, or that we’re ideologues, or that we’re stupid, or whatever.
Unfortunately, you guys are all saying what you want to hear, and this place is turning into a Bush-hating echo chamber. You’re becoming blind to the fact that YOUR theories are the ones being uttered without evidence.
When people in Great Debates can state that Bush is a puppet, driven by the evil Dick Cheney, and that they trumped up a case for war and forced it down the throat of their own intelligence agencies without anyone speaking up about it, and they convinced Colin Powell to buy into the conspiracy for some reason, and Saddam was innocent, and yada yada yada, and get taken seriously, then it tells you just how ideologically driven this place has become.
We used to demand facts. Now if we refuse to draw conclusions without facts, we’re told to take our bullshit packing. An interesting change.
We have clearly been in a recession (with various slightly conflicting indicators of when it began and when or if it has ended). However, aside from the unexpected spike in unemployment, recently, the trends have been toward a glacial move out of the recession. A lot of people are still hurting (including the tomndebb family), but it will take a direct reversal of the current modest gains to turn the electorate against Bush.
L_C, Constitutional crises in the U.S. are generally determined by the apparent popularity of the president. No one dared attack Reagan for Iran-Contra. Clinton was only attcked because the Republicans thought they could get enough votes in Congress, but the issue was never popular with the electorate. In fact, if the Democrats attempt to make this an impeachment issue, I suspect that it will strengthen Bush in the polls as “our president is under attack during this time of crisis.” (Of course, if comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam start showing up, that support could ebb.)
I’ll accept pretty much all your other poiints, but there is simply no evidence for this statement. Bush had reports tailored to put the most grievous spin on them to justify an action he had already declared he wanted to take. There is no evidence that the intelligence community took the initiative to go to Bush and warn him of a threat. Every agency except the Department of Defense has spent the last eight months backing away from the claims attributed to them and the report released, in part, yesterday shows a pretty clear picture of mangement patching together the weakest pieces in the best light to make the boss happy.
Yes, it’s an interesting change.
Not sure who the “we” is that you refer to. If you mean rabid Bush supporters, then it’s very interesting.
Before the invasion, everything was certain. Saddam has X, and he’s hiding X in this very spot! Saddam bought Y, which he’ll use in program Z!
Now that all of that has been shown to be bullshit, you want to reserve judgement, just in case something turns out to be true.
And you wonder why you get told to take your bullshit packing?
What planet are you from? Go back ten years, then. Clinton was president. The unemployment rate was still higher than now. Sheesh.
It’s not the intelligence community’s job to tell the president what to do. They are supposed to be dispassionate reporters of fact. What they do is give regular briefings to the President and Congress, telling them what they believe is happening in the world. It is up to the elected politicians to decide how to act on it.
When Clinton received those same briefings, he took them seriously enough to launch Operation Desert Fox and bomb a bunch of places in Iraq, in defiance of the U.N. So did Britain.
So if you’re going to claim that Bush tailored those reports and spun them to show a threat that didn’t exist, are you willing to claim that Clinton did the same thing? Or is perhaps the most reasonable explanation that two very different presidents came to the same conclusion because it was the most logical conclusion to draw? Do you think this is a radical theory? Isn’t it worth keeping in mind that there is other evidence these two men had, that we don’t?
And if Clinton was willing to take military action, don’t think that post-9/11 the threat may have looked even more ominous? Three thousand dead civilians tend to put threats against a country into stark relief. If there’s any bias here, it’s the natural bias of re-evaluating threats after being attacked.
Desmostylus said:
Oh, I must have missed the bulletin. Where was it shown to be bullshit again? Please provide cites to the absolute proof that there was no threat, and that Saddam didn’t have WMD.
And that’s really all the argument that you’ve got. A reversal of onus of proof.
There’s no absolute proof that there was no threat. And precious little evidence that there was any threat.
I personally find the situation GWB and his supporters have put themselves in quite laughable. They’ve bet the farm that something would turn up, and it hasn’t. And now you’re asking for absolute proof that nothing will ever turn up? What would satisfy you? Infinite time? Or just breathing space until the election?
Interesting concept. That would explain why the National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by administration officials (politicians, not the intelligence community) using selected materials from the intelligence community rather than using the actual intelligence information.
Clinton took action to interrupt activities in the region. Bush lied and claimed that the threat was to the U.S. The WTC/Pentagon attacks had nothing to do witrh Iraq. If Bush believed that they did, then why did Bush not insist that the Army secure the suspected weapons sites in the way they secured the oil fields and oil ministry.* Clinton took action as the inspectors were being pushed out. Bush forced out the inspectors by taking action.
- I am not making a claim that “this is about oil.” I am noting that where the U.S. believed there was a potential for harm (sabotage of the oil fields or destruction of oil records) the U.S. took action to prevent harm–yet no action was taken to secure potential weapons sites, indicating that the administration did not seem to believe that there was any potential for harm.
Allow me to repeat:
>>we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering.
How about the inhuman carnage and suffering in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq? Are they any less humans?
Does anyone has any count of how many people US has killed in past 50 years or so compared to anyother so called terrorist regimes?
Let’s not our reasons get molded by rhotorics.