Yellowcake as Evidence of WMD Threat

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So, this ex-congressman was honest upon questioning. Dontcha think that if this one-term guy knew that, the rest of fucking Congress knew that? Some guy who served all of one-term would likely have less knowledge than someone anyone in Congress, right?

You're saying the obvious, save to those who want to keep it as a political divider...

BUT this thread was not supposed to be rehashing the thing yet again, but to answer one very explicit question.

[Trent 0]

Quote

So, this ex-congressman was honest upon questioning. Dontcha think that if this one-term guy knew that, the rest of fucking Congress knew that? Some guy who served all of one-term would likely have less knowledge than someone anyone in Congress, right?

Naaaah... you're making it up! Everyone just KNOWS that Bush is a bloodthirsty warlord who just couldn't wait to have thousands of his own troops killed to return a favor to his oil buddies.

Riiiight.

Seriously, Law... you just can't win. I think it's a chemical imbalance.

Oh, hello again!

[rhys 0]

Quote

Naaaah... you're making it up! Everyone just KNOWS that Bush is a bloodthirsty warlord who just couldn't wait to have thousands of his own troops killed to return a favor to his oil buddies.

seriously, you hit the nail on the head, the rest (well most of it) of the world could see that 5 years ago.

America is only waking up to the fact now.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I think, sir, if you read said Joint Resolution, you will find that many of the reasons listed for the authorization were, in fact, lies claims made based on faulty intelligence by the Bush administration that were, unfortunately, taken at face value. Without those lies that faulty intelligence, it is highly doubtful the resolution would have passed.

So in less than two minutes of questioning a one-temr congressman who had just left office I was able to get the answer to why we were going there. And within the next few minutes had the full story.

See, anyone with a minimum of thought process would see that terror threats, etc., would have NoKo at the top of that list. He laughed that there was no way we could win a war with Korea without nukes, and any move would mean that a million man army would sweep through the DMZ and take Seoul in 3 days. He spoketh the truth.

Thus, Iraq was winnable, in the opinion of the Administration AND Congress. So, I told him, elimination of terrorism wasn't the first priority.

After another minute, he explained that we were foing there to "clean up the block" and help to put in a democracy in the Middle East. This would cause a good place to be that other countries would emulate, and thus stabilizing the whol area with democracies - eventually.

So I asked him why not just say that? To which he replied that the american public wouldn't support the deployment, but would support it for the terrorist and Hussein aspect. He stated that he believed that there was a weapons program, but unlike NoKo, there really isn't any containment in the Middle East.

So, this ex-congressman was honest upon questioning. Dontcha think that if this one-term guy knew that, the rest of fucking Congress knew that? Some guy who served all of one-term would likely have less knowledge than someone anyone in Congress, right?

And now none of them will go out with the announcement that the war was for anything else. They had their story and they'll stick with it.

When was the last time a politician said, "Hey. Sorry guys. I was wrong."

And you didn't think to question the logic of how destroying a country's infrastructure and inviting chaos and borderline anarchy, as well as inciting a civil war could be considered "clean[ing] up the block"?

It sounds more like he felt he needed something to say to get you to stop questioning him.

Excellent way to completely avoid addressing my post, BTW.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Your poll is skewed by the use of the word "immediate".

On what basis do you make a claim for ambiguity rather than precision?

Not liking or not agreeing with the results is personal opinion; not liking the results is not bias or "skew."
One needs an objective (rather than subjective) reason/rationale ito support such a claim of "skew."

A couple folks have noted the rhetorical political context. Others have mentioned technical capability requirements.


VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Without those lies that faulty intelligence, it is highly doubtful the resolution would have passed.

Yes, but I see it as a different thing than you see it. The Congress, like the President, NEEDED those lies. Congress wanted to go to war as much as the POTUS did. Congress knew the value of the intelligence as much as the POTUS did.

How is it that Congress takes any action at all? In order to take a grand action, they need some big thing to blame. Back in the 90's, they were looking for a reason to get rid of Hussein, i.e., the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. But they had nothing solid to generate support.

Then 9/11 happened. The nation was in an uproar and out for vengeance. Saddam made a good target. We hated him. So play upon the fears and go in.

Note that nobody seems to accuse Bush himself of fabricating the evidence. In other words, Bush was no more culpable than Congress. But both Bush and Congress KNEW that the evidence wasn't there, so they had to spin it.

As this poll suggests, yellowcake does not support any sense of an imminent threat. Congress knew that. I hadn't even heard the term "yellowcake" until the buildup had begun. I didn't know what it is, but it's uranium, and that's bad.

The resolution would not have passed without having the "intelligence" to blame. Had they not had the "intelligence" they would have come up with some different "intelligence."

So in that sense, I agree with you. Where I differ from you is in your belief (my inference) that Congress didn't know the intelligence was bad. I believe, based upon my conversation, research and some common sense, that Congress was well-aware of the shoddiness of the intelligence. They took it at "face value" because they WANTED to. They didn't want to ask the questions.

Note - it was a Republican Congress and I blame them.

Quote

And you didn't think to question the logic of how destroying a country's infrastructure and inviting chaos and borderline anarchy, as well as inciting a civil war could be considered "clean[ing] up the block"?

It ISN'T! Frankly, the US military and government were cocky and arrogant in thinking it would be simple and easy. "Mission Accomplished." They'd kick Saddam out and then everybody would have their democracy. Piece of cake.

The dumbasses failed to consider many things. First and foremost, there is a large number of people who don't want democracies. The civil war is a power struggle to who will emerge as leader now. It's not about religion. It's about power.

Quote

It sounds more like he felt he needed something to say to get you to stop questioning him.

Yep. That in hindsight makes perfect sense. Thus, the reason why there is no clearly defined mission.

Quote

Excellent way to completely avoid addressing my post, BTW.

I did address it. You didn't like it, but I did.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhys 0]

Quote

The Congress, like the President, NEEDED those lies.

So you are saying what a lot of us have been saying for 5 years, all this is a crock of shit, oh and it has done what alot of us said it it would do...

... flush your economy down the toilet.

so the motto of the story is....

Pull you head out of the sand America. Get those republican bullshit artists out and start focusing on your own country.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[stitch 0]

All this from a person that has an old Bombproof logo as their avatar.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

To me that stuff is evidence of his desires.

That would indicate a very low standard for evidence. If you see ammonia under someone's sink, do you automatically assume they build bombs? If their medicine cabinet has Sudafed in it, does that imply they cook meth?

If you go by the Bush (insert USA president) doctrine (logic). I wonder where he got all that crap to start w/? What about IRAN? As long as the puppets we install around the world are behaving all is good. Don't be a puppet (sheep)http://www.nobeliefs.com/freethinkers.htm

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Congress knew the value of the intelligence as much as the POTUS did.

I'm sure some in Congress did, while some didn't. I don't think all Congresspersons have access to classified versions of intelligence reports. Some do, but I think most do not.

Quote

Then 9/11 happened. The nation was in an uproar and out for vengeance. Saddam made a good target. We hated him. So play upon the fears and go in.

Agreed. People are easily manipulated via fear.

Quote

Note that nobody seems to accuse Bush himself of fabricating the evidence. In other words, Bush was no more culpable than Congress. But both Bush and Congress KNEW that the evidence wasn't there, so they had to spin it.

Bush and some in Congress perhaps, but as a single entity, no, they didn't know what he knew.

Quote

I didn't know what it is, but it's uranium, and that's bad.

Why is that bad? I have no problem with Iraq (or Iran or any other country) having a nuclear energy program. I also have no problem with them having nuclear weapons, but that's a whole different topic.

Quote

The resolution would not have passed without having the "intelligence" to blame.

Agreed. That was the point I made. If Bush had not lied made statements based on faulty intelligence, Congress would not have passed the resolution.

Quote

Had they not had the "intelligence" they would have come up with some different "intelligence."

Yes, I agree that Bush was going to have his war, Congress be damned.

Quote

So in that sense, I agree with you. Where I differ from you is in your belief (my inference) that Congress didn't know the intelligence was bad.

As a whole, they didn't. Some individual Congresspersons may well have known the claims of Iraq posing a threat were BS, but as a group, I don't think Congress did. They simply don't have the same access to intelligence reports that the President has.

Quote

They didn't want to ask the questions.

You make a good point there. They could have and should have asked tougher questions.

Quote

The civil war is a power struggle to who will emerge as leader now. It's not about religion. It's about power.

Agreed.

Quote

I did address it. You didn't like it, but I did.

With this post, you addressed it well. Thanks.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!