ReBirth 0 #176 December 7, 2005 No...he didn't know which intel was correct. He had an agenda, the same agenda that's been PUBLISHED by his staff and advisors (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, his dad, etc) since the early 90's. He picked out the intel that supported that agenda and presented it to congress and the public. Again...it's been covered a million times. Feel free to disagree with me, but why try to twist my position into something that it's not? At least try to counter my view as opposed to twisting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #177 December 7, 2005 QuoteOr are you just parroting what Howard Dean is screaming during his lunatic fits. I haven't heard one thing out of Dean's mouth since he lost the nomination. QuoteIt may have in fact been bad intel but that does not mean that anyone manipulated it. How do "YOU" know this? None of us know the truth, if we did there wouldn't be a debate. But plenty of people have come forward with information about how the intel that conflicted with the agenda was marginalized and turned into footnotes in reports. And it's well known that standard practice in Washington is for congressman to read conclusions of reports only, not all the pesky details and footnotes. I'm not saying that's right, but the Bush team knew that's how it works and took advantage of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #178 December 7, 2005 QuoteAre you familiar with the Code of Conduct? Extremely. Spent some time out at McCall.... QuoteKnow that I've got an in here. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I just find it hard to believe that agencies are willing to risk assets on targets of questionable value. Not to mention the funding required for such missions... sheesh! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #179 December 7, 2005 They are politicians, aren't they? Manipulation is their business. Thing that surprises me is how many still defend them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #180 December 7, 2005 QuoteAh yes. I am reminded of all the people here who said "Don't you think the military/CIA KNOWS Saddam Hussein has WMD's? We have the best intelligence in the world!" This is a debate in itself. I'm not going to defend bad intel, but I'm certainly not going to concede that since we didn't find weapons, they never existed. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #181 December 7, 2005 So are you saying Bush lied? Because he has actually admitted that they didn't have the WMD that he claimed he thought they did. Did they do such a good job that you STILL believe it, even after they've admitted it was wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #182 December 7, 2005 QuoteNo...he didn't know which intel was correct. He had an agenda, the same agenda that's been PUBLISHED by his staff and advisors (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, his dad, etc) since the early 90's. He picked out the intel that supported that agenda and presented it to congress and the public. Again...it's been covered a million times. Feel free to disagree with me, but why try to twist my position into something that it's not? At least try to counter my view as opposed to twisting it. Let me just say this, and then I gotta go. Bush was presented with overwhelming evidence that SH had WMDs. He was also presented with some opinions that the evidence might not be 100% correct. So, he was faced with a decision of what to believe. Should he go with what the CIA and FBI Directors believed? Should he go with what those before him like Bill Clinton believed? Or should he go with what was truely a very small minority who had a descenting opinion believed? All leaders whether Govt. or Business are faced with these decisions. Sometimes they are very tough to make, but when you have to make a critical decision, you tend to go with what the overwhelming majority are telling you. That's my view of what Bush did. At this point it appears he was wrong, but it wasn't just him. It was almost every politician who believed we were doing the right thing at the time. What you are doing is exactly what you are accusing Bush of ie. cherry picking what supports your agenda and ignoring the findings of the Robb-Silberman Report. Thats why it's easy for you to believe Bush did it. http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #183 December 7, 2005 There were plenty of people BEFORE the war telling him that he was wrong. Take a look at some of the posts on here from 1/03 and you'll see that a lot of us were saying the info was being skewed back then. There were plenty of people in authority saying it as well, not just a small minority. You're right, other politicians are to blame as well, for following his lead. I may be cherry picking data, but I'm doing it based on what logically makes sense, not an emotional agenda. I don't have an anti-Bush agenda other than the fact that everything he does seems to be anti-me. I'm anti-Bush-doing-shit-I-don't-like. Unfortunately, that seems to be the majority of what he does. You assume I attack what Bush does because I don't like Bush. It's actually the opposite. He does what I don't like, therefore I don't like him. I very much wish I could be behind our President 100%. But I just can't be when 90% of his actions piss me off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #184 December 7, 2005 Quote>Torture doesn't work. It worked on John McCain. Have you read his book? Edit: the argument that it doesn't work is a red herring from people that think it's morally wrong and are grasping for more justification. I much prefer the position that it's wrong and we shouldn't do it - "regardless of whether it's effective or not". This, "oh by the way, and it doesn't work in some scenarios either, so that also backs up my main argument" approach really draws away from the true argument" Much like anti-abortion types arguing that abortion takes away from the tax base by reducing population.....It's a goofy side track that dilutes what's really important in the argument. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #185 December 7, 2005 QuoteThey all believed the intel. "The intel" is a misleadingly definite term to a highly amorphous piece of product. Please remember these things whilst you discuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,079 #186 December 7, 2005 >Seems to me that most (Senators/Reps (Democrat/Republican) & > foreign leaders) were on-board with this thing in the beginning. They > all believed the intel. They did during the Gulf of Tonkin incident as well. When you tailor information for a specific group of people, and they rely on you for it, it is easy to mislead them. It's a little harder to mislead everyone in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #187 December 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow would you feel about taking a couple of bad guys for a helicopter ride? If you convince someone you are going to quickly kill them and they believe it, most likely they will talk. No physical torture. I wouldn't agree with it, for two reasons:I wouldn't want the enemy feel justified or empowered to do the same to our troops.It violates Geneva Convention III.QuoteHolding some insurgent by the neck and indicating to him "talk or die", but not following through is fair game down at squad level. Then you can pass him up to battalion level. Where do you get that idea? Fair game? Sounds like fodder for more abuse scandals to me... I can't see our guys taking Ahkmed to MacDonalds for coffee before questioning. humorDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #188 December 7, 2005 I can now see how our conduct in Abu Ghuaid prison has come back to haunt us. Just read the last 2 sentences.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-120605saddam_lat,0,4303847.story?coll=la-home-headlinesDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #189 December 7, 2005 QuoteSo are you saying Bush lied? Because he has actually admitted that they didn't have the WMD that he claimed he thought they did. Did they do such a good job that you STILL believe it, even after they've admitted it was wrong? Sadaam had WMD's - he used them against his own people years ago. At what point he destroyed them, or shipped them to Syria, who knows... You are correct, we used WMD's as justification for removing a dictator that was considered a threat - to U.S. interests, as well as to the citizens of Iraq. The end result was achieved (so far), and it is good. I think the quesiton is: does the means justify the end? JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #190 December 7, 2005 QuoteSadaam had WMD's - he used them against his own people years ago. At what point he destroyed them, or shipped them to Syria, who knows... The UN. They said that they were accounted for. We said they were wrong...they weren't...we were...we've admitted that. At least the administration did. If you're going to believe their lies, you ought to keep up with which one they're currently on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,079 #191 December 7, 2005 >You are correct, we used WMD's as justification for removing a > dictator that was considered a threat - to U.S. interests, as well as to > the citizens of Iraq. The end result was achieved (so far), and it is > good. I think the quesiton is: does the means justify the end? Yes, that's the ultimate question. But the means did NOT accomplish the end, which was removing Saddam's WMD arsenals. It did accomplish several ends we switched to later. But using standards like that, you could claim the Vietnam war was successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #192 December 7, 2005 QuoteThe UN. They said that they were accounted for. The UN?!?!? Are you frickin' kidding me?!?! You're using the organization that spawned the Oil for Food scandal as an authority on accounting? I would trust Arthur Andersen's accounting before the UN! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #193 December 7, 2005 QuoteBut the means did NOT accomplish the end, which was removing Saddam's WMD arsenals. The end that the Bush Administration had in mind all along was removing Sadaam from power. If it wasn't WMD's, it would have been some other reason. We were looking for a reason to invade... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #194 December 7, 2005 So...you're saying they did lie? And you're ok with that? Yet you criticize the UN, who happened to be telling the truth. Clear as mud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #195 December 7, 2005 QuoteSo...you're saying they did lie? No. I'm saying they found something that they believed was true at the time, and used it as a reason to invade. If they found with reasonable certainty that there were no WMD's, they would have found another reason to invade. That's not lying.... far cry from it actually. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,079 #196 December 7, 2005 >The end that the Bush Administration had in mind all along was >removing Sadaam from power. If it wasn't WMD's, it would have been >some other reason. We were looking for a reason to invade... OK, so you're saying they did not tell the truth in terms of the objectives of the war; the 'real' objective did not emerge until later. I agree there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #197 December 7, 2005 And if they would have just given us the real reason in the first place...they wouldn't have been lying. But they didn't. They said what their reasons were, then later said that they really had other reasons. That's called lying. You seem to be ok with that, that's your prerogative. But at least admit that they lied and you support their lies. If I recall the timeline correctly, this was all during the "Kerry's a flip flopper" propaganda machine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #198 December 7, 2005 QuoteOK, so you're saying they did not tell the truth in terms of the objectives of the war; the 'real' objective did not emerge until later. I agree there. Your wording, (i.e. 'real' objective) sounds as if the WMD was a completely false accusation, simply to justify a war. I don't believe that to be the case. My point is: Sadaam needed to be removed from power (for many reasons), and we found what we believed (at the time) to be a very legitimate cause. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,079 #199 December 7, 2005 >Your wording, (i.e. 'real' objective) sounds as if the WMD was a >completely false accusation, simply to justify a war. I deliberately did not say "lie" to avoid the negative connotations surrounding that word. How about this, then - they said there was one reason for a war, but there was really a different (but somewhat similar) reason they wanted the war. Fair? >Sadaam needed to be removed from power (for many reasons), and > we found what we believed (at the time) to be a very legitimate cause. If you believe the ends justify the means, then that's true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #200 December 7, 2005 QuoteThey said what their reasons were, then later said that they really had other reasons. That's called lying. You seem to be ok with that, that's your prerogative. But at least admit that they lied and you support their lies. Huh? You want to accuse others of manipulations, read what you're posting! Holy cow! Not 'other reasons', 'additional' reasons! <- Billvon: response to above message Bush DID give us the many other ('real' in your words) reasons! The media was more interested in covering WMD's than human rights and political corruption. Blame them! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,079 #186 December 7, 2005 >Seems to me that most (Senators/Reps (Democrat/Republican) & > foreign leaders) were on-board with this thing in the beginning. They > all believed the intel. They did during the Gulf of Tonkin incident as well. When you tailor information for a specific group of people, and they rely on you for it, it is easy to mislead them. It's a little harder to mislead everyone in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #187 December 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow would you feel about taking a couple of bad guys for a helicopter ride? If you convince someone you are going to quickly kill them and they believe it, most likely they will talk. No physical torture. I wouldn't agree with it, for two reasons:I wouldn't want the enemy feel justified or empowered to do the same to our troops.It violates Geneva Convention III.QuoteHolding some insurgent by the neck and indicating to him "talk or die", but not following through is fair game down at squad level. Then you can pass him up to battalion level. Where do you get that idea? Fair game? Sounds like fodder for more abuse scandals to me... I can't see our guys taking Ahkmed to MacDonalds for coffee before questioning. humorDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #188 December 7, 2005 I can now see how our conduct in Abu Ghuaid prison has come back to haunt us. Just read the last 2 sentences.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-120605saddam_lat,0,4303847.story?coll=la-home-headlinesDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #189 December 7, 2005 QuoteSo are you saying Bush lied? Because he has actually admitted that they didn't have the WMD that he claimed he thought they did. Did they do such a good job that you STILL believe it, even after they've admitted it was wrong? Sadaam had WMD's - he used them against his own people years ago. At what point he destroyed them, or shipped them to Syria, who knows... You are correct, we used WMD's as justification for removing a dictator that was considered a threat - to U.S. interests, as well as to the citizens of Iraq. The end result was achieved (so far), and it is good. I think the quesiton is: does the means justify the end? JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #190 December 7, 2005 QuoteSadaam had WMD's - he used them against his own people years ago. At what point he destroyed them, or shipped them to Syria, who knows... The UN. They said that they were accounted for. We said they were wrong...they weren't...we were...we've admitted that. At least the administration did. If you're going to believe their lies, you ought to keep up with which one they're currently on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #191 December 7, 2005 >You are correct, we used WMD's as justification for removing a > dictator that was considered a threat - to U.S. interests, as well as to > the citizens of Iraq. The end result was achieved (so far), and it is > good. I think the quesiton is: does the means justify the end? Yes, that's the ultimate question. But the means did NOT accomplish the end, which was removing Saddam's WMD arsenals. It did accomplish several ends we switched to later. But using standards like that, you could claim the Vietnam war was successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #192 December 7, 2005 QuoteThe UN. They said that they were accounted for. The UN?!?!? Are you frickin' kidding me?!?! You're using the organization that spawned the Oil for Food scandal as an authority on accounting? I would trust Arthur Andersen's accounting before the UN! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #193 December 7, 2005 QuoteBut the means did NOT accomplish the end, which was removing Saddam's WMD arsenals. The end that the Bush Administration had in mind all along was removing Sadaam from power. If it wasn't WMD's, it would have been some other reason. We were looking for a reason to invade... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #194 December 7, 2005 So...you're saying they did lie? And you're ok with that? Yet you criticize the UN, who happened to be telling the truth. Clear as mud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #195 December 7, 2005 QuoteSo...you're saying they did lie? No. I'm saying they found something that they believed was true at the time, and used it as a reason to invade. If they found with reasonable certainty that there were no WMD's, they would have found another reason to invade. That's not lying.... far cry from it actually. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #196 December 7, 2005 >The end that the Bush Administration had in mind all along was >removing Sadaam from power. If it wasn't WMD's, it would have been >some other reason. We were looking for a reason to invade... OK, so you're saying they did not tell the truth in terms of the objectives of the war; the 'real' objective did not emerge until later. I agree there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #197 December 7, 2005 And if they would have just given us the real reason in the first place...they wouldn't have been lying. But they didn't. They said what their reasons were, then later said that they really had other reasons. That's called lying. You seem to be ok with that, that's your prerogative. But at least admit that they lied and you support their lies. If I recall the timeline correctly, this was all during the "Kerry's a flip flopper" propaganda machine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #198 December 7, 2005 QuoteOK, so you're saying they did not tell the truth in terms of the objectives of the war; the 'real' objective did not emerge until later. I agree there. Your wording, (i.e. 'real' objective) sounds as if the WMD was a completely false accusation, simply to justify a war. I don't believe that to be the case. My point is: Sadaam needed to be removed from power (for many reasons), and we found what we believed (at the time) to be a very legitimate cause. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #199 December 7, 2005 >Your wording, (i.e. 'real' objective) sounds as if the WMD was a >completely false accusation, simply to justify a war. I deliberately did not say "lie" to avoid the negative connotations surrounding that word. How about this, then - they said there was one reason for a war, but there was really a different (but somewhat similar) reason they wanted the war. Fair? >Sadaam needed to be removed from power (for many reasons), and > we found what we believed (at the time) to be a very legitimate cause. If you believe the ends justify the means, then that's true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #200 December 7, 2005 QuoteThey said what their reasons were, then later said that they really had other reasons. That's called lying. You seem to be ok with that, that's your prerogative. But at least admit that they lied and you support their lies. Huh? You want to accuse others of manipulations, read what you're posting! Holy cow! Not 'other reasons', 'additional' reasons! <- Billvon: response to above message Bush DID give us the many other ('real' in your words) reasons! The media was more interested in covering WMD's than human rights and political corruption. Blame them! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
