And rams them down your throat

Bush and co. really believed that Iraq was moving much closer to nukes?!?!? Apart from some hearsay from Wilkerson about DGSE or whatever French intel agency, Pohoretz has no evidence on that, but simply moves back and forth between WMD (broadly speaking) claims and nukes. The IAEA wasn’t buying the nukes claim in the lead up to war.

We may “greatly over estimate these sorts of threats”, but the mechanism through which we did so in this case seems to be deception.

Refuting Podhertz is like refuting an ID proponent. Open mockery works better.

Given the distressingly high number of people who disbelieve evolution, it’s readily apparent that open mockery isn’t working better in any meaningful sense (or any sense at all other than allowing the mocker to feel better about himself…)

Is there really any doubt that they lied? No lawyering can change it, so enough already.

Yawn.

Let him defend this one, just for laughs:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html
…I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction–specifically chemical and biological–but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States?

Dear Glenn Reynolds: please do lecture other people on political expediency. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine.

One problem of many with the current argument that the Bush administration “duped” democrats by lying to them is that the Clinton administartion would be guilty of the same thing.

Substantial parts of the intelligence was wrong. That is not the same thing as lying. The investifation of that intelligence revealed that there was no pressure put on the intelligence agancies by the administration to twist their reporting.

The allegation seems to be a very unprincipled one driven more by a need for political cover than anything else.

One problem of many with the current argument that the Bush administration “duped” democrats by lying to them is that the Clinton administartion would be guilty of the same thing.

Um, unless you’re saying that Bush and Clinton were president at the same time and did the same thing to support the same policy: no. “Lied us into war” refers to the present war, you know.

Substantial parts of the intelligence was wrong. That is not the same thing as lying.

Which is a good thing, since it’s not the accusation. Having been told that their information was bunk, they continued to use it. That’s called “lying.”

The investifation of that intelligence revealed that there was no pressure put on the intelligence agancies by the administration to twist their reporting.

I’m sorry, when was this investigation of which you speak? That’s right. I saw Kristol try the same trick a few nights ago. You’re either dumb enough to fall for it, or dishonest enough to use it.

See? This is what I mean by “done with these people.” They’re either ignorant or dishonest, but I really don’t care which.
.

Henry, It seems to you, that Bush lied like a policeman, isn’t a very convincing argument.

Abb1, that somebody else feels Bush lied isn’t exactly proof that Bush lied.

Much more importantly the issue of did Bush lie is quite irrelevant in yet another way. It really doesn’t matter if there are examples of instances where Bush clearly lied, and I don’t know of a single one. (And please remember it seems to you and hey this person also believes Bush lied don’t constitute instances of Bush lying.)

On the substantive question of did Iraq have a lot of really, really, dangerous stuff it is pretty clear that Bush genuinely thought so. He might have lied about this or that specific and that might not be, I don’t think it would be, acceptable behavior, but it is pretty clear that that on the whole on the important substantive question of did Iraq have a lot of really, really, dangerous stuff it is pretty clear that Bush(and pretty much everyone else) genuinely thought so.

And it is also pretty clear that absent whatever exaggerations and lies you imagine Bush committed, if presented with a case for war with Iraq, based upon just the stuff that was believed to be true about Saddam’s decision making and WMD, we still would have gone to War with Iraq.

And again to cackling fools who make ‘wingnuts’ look reasonable, I couldn’t care less about Bush, my issue is that Bush lied is a side issue, that detracts from the bigger issue of what the F went wrong. It is an easy out to a tough question.

grand moff texan:
Having been told that their information was bunk, they continued to use it. That’s called “lying.”

Your argument is bunk. I presume you will now stop using it.

The problem is, there was conflicting evidence that called for interpretation. The tricky part is to (a) set aside one’s partisanship, and (b) not use ex-post-facto information to assess pre-facto decisionmaking. The problem is that many people on both sides of this argument (assuming two primary “sides”) insist only the information that cuts their way is valid. Alas, not true.

Your argument is bunk. I presume you will now stop using it.

Gee, after that refutation how could I aught else?

My reasoning is not ex post facto. I was aware of the continued use of disinformation at the time. I was also aware of a quasi-creationist vetting of such “conflicting evidence” in order to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. In fact, I’ve already mentioned the two NIE’s. Is it possible that your grasp of the basic facts mirrors your mastery of basic logic.

Blaming “partisanship,” btw, is an attacking the bias fallacy.

I’m sorry, did you have anything substantive to say? Were you planning on starting any time soon?
.

Abb1, that somebody else feels Bush lied isn’t exactly proof that Bush lied.

Say what? Are you saying that the absurd ‘Iraqi drones attacking eastern seaboard cities’ story wasn’t a lie?

Abb1, that somebody else feels Bush lied isn’t exactly proof that Bush lied.

Say what? Are you saying that the absurd ‘Iraqi drones attacking eastern seaboard cities’ story wasn’t a lie?

No, he’s not saying that. He’s changing the subject to something totally irrelevant (i.e., someone’s “feelings”).

I wonder why?
.

Grand Moff Texan,

Why not just provide the link? I don’t know this MoD’s phone number. If by adequate information, you mean I haven’t gulliblely swallowed every bit of minutia you are convinced supports your case, you are correct.

If you mean I haven’t read stuff like the Downing Street Memo you are incorrect.

Yes the plans pre-dated Bush. They were on the Clinton agenda. Talk about not being adequately informed.

Link, bma? In case you don’t remember, there wasn’t a single piece of Brit or Aussie armor equipped for NBC combat. US infantry was inadequately prepared for same. I’m sorry if you didn’t get the reference, but I’m not running a remedial class. Yes, you were not adequately informed. Now you are.

And if you’re going to take a Congressional statement of standing support for the removal of Saddam Hussein as being the same thing as an invasion Clinton didn’t launch (or to equate different policies based on different intel) then I think you’ve answered my question about whether you are ignorant or merely dishonest.

“Gullible”? “Minutia”? If you need to wave your hands like that then you really haven’t brought anything to this fight, have you?
.

My God. Sometimes it’s like trying to reason with a bunch of four-year-olds.

Playing dumb and changing the subject to issues of tone are really the only spider-holes they have left. Poor dears.
.

‘Clinton didn’t take us to war. Bush did.

This is not a trivial detail.’

Actually given the context it is a completely trivial detail. The discussion isn’t should we have gone to war?, the discussion is did Bush believe Iraq had a bunch of really, really nasty stuff?

That Clinton had a plan to invade, indicates that both Clinton and Bush, thought the answer to this question was yes.

Well, I agree that it is entirely plausible that Bush more or less believed such nonsense, but who cares? Somebody was running the show. Somebody was leaking nonsense to the newspapers to escalate fearmongering. Somebody had to dig out those Iraqi exiles, bathe them, shave them, and feed them to Judy Miller. Someone did it, someone in Bush’s administration. Nixon was drunk all the time, but it didn’t help him get off the hook.

BMA some new information arose in late 2002 and early 2003. UN inspectors were readmitted, went to the sites nominated by intelligence, and found nothing.

Bush and Blair responded by presenting new, fabricated evidence which managed to convince most people that there was a real threat.

Well, I agree that it is entirely plausible that Bush more or less believed such nonsense, but who cares?

And when, exactly, is he supposed to have formed this belief? Was it before or after he discussed invading Iraq in 1999? Was it before or after his State Department publically declared that Iraq wasn’t a threat even to its neighbors?
.

And when, exactly, is he supposed to have formed this belief?

He doesn’t exactly seem like an analytical type. I suppose his adviser or his ‘gravitas’ VP tells him every morning what the truth is today and that’s it. Why do you think he’s aware of what his State Department declares or what the State Department is for that matter.

John Quiggin,

So? Bush was looking to make a sale. I am not denying that. Clinton/Gore whoever might or might not have decided to invade. (Clinton, much too his credit, has been very good about stating, that his administration pretty much shared Bush’s threat assessment regarding Saddam.)

But at very least there is strong possibility that they would have given the believed information. And even if Bush had played it ‘straight’ he would have made his sale.

What? Another team always makes such narrow judegement calls correctly? Nonsense. Perhaps( I doubt it) but just perhaps that one call. But not over and over again.

So what placed us in a position where at best we are relying on a very narrow judgement call. What is wrong with us and our systems that we ended up in such a place?

That seems to me to be the bigger more interesting question. And Bush lied is a distraction from it.

Clinton, much too his credit, has been very good about stating, that his administration pretty much shared Bush’s threat assessment regarding Saddam.

Yes. They were the same. Clinton just didn’t need to exaggerate selected portions of it in public after being told not to by his own intelligence services in support of an invasion he didn’t undertake.

Other than that: peas in a pod.

Previous teams had, in point of simple fact, made this narrow judgment call correctly, so we don’t need to speculate.

As for the notion that Bush would have made the sale without the straining of the evidence that you are now apparently conceding (unless I misread you earlier), this is wrong. There was no majority support for the invasion of Iraq until the shooting actually started. Moreover, much of what minority support there was was based on the widespread but mistaken belief that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

The problem with us and our systems is that they were not able to compensate for a knot of individuals hell-bent on a policy that was both unjustified AND ill-conceived. Making this sale, as you put it, is not a distraction. It’s why we’re here now.
.

I’m sorry about your SAT’s, bma, but you’re still equating speculation with certainty.

This deficiency of your reading would certainly explain the poor quality of your offerings here.

I have now indeed done better than “semantic hand waving,” and you have yet to contruct an argument on this thread.

Wanna see it again?
.

Mushroom clouds. I especially enjoyed that one.

BMA has yet to explain why, if the adm so fervently believed in the threat of WMD in Iraq, they failed to prepare for it. Strange how my interpretation not only accounts for the whole of the content of the documents bma is trying this very moment to don as a fig leaf, it also does not require ignoring the facts, deeds, and outcome of the invasion itself, which have in the meantime taken place in something sometimes referred to as “the real world.”

I also don’t need to alternate between denying and conceding that the truth was stretched to meet a particular end. That’s because I actually know what I’m talking about. I find it helps.

I suspect, uncle kvetch, that this is indeed the most constructive use to which he can put his modest talents: an unceasing rearguard action to delay the inevitable realization that he was fooled and we weren’t. He can pretend to want to get the bottom of what went wrong, but so long as he has to avoid the importance of misinformation in this whole affair, he’ll continue wandering in the wilderness.
.

Grand Moff Texan,

Again the speculation is about how he would use his WMD not about if he had them. Either CT comments readers are smart enough to see that or they aren’t. At this point there is nothing more I can say that will change that.

Please, remind me of time, when after a massive terrorist attack on US soil, Clinton was faced with the decision of invading Iraq.

What was that Senate vote again?

Again your say so that they failed to prepare for WMD attacks on US troops doesn’t really convince me. Let alone the following jump from any such imagined failure to proof positive Bush didn’t believe Saddam had WMD. Why not just provide a link?

Uncle Kvetch, I am pretty sure Abb1 and Grand Moff Texan are trolls who don’t believe 1/2 of what they say. But I worry that you really do only see in caricature vision.

As I have repeatedly stated in the past, I was never really on the war bandwagon, and I am not now. (Are you or have you ever been a war supporter? Don’t bother answering commie, we know your a liar.)

NY Times, November 6, 2005:

A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document. […] Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

You know this as well as I do, BMA. And you know I could supplement the above with a dozen more examples of “the facts being fixed to fit the policy” in about 10 minutes. And somehow I’m the “caricature.”

Breathtaking.

For those of you arguing that there has been no investigation of whetehr pressure was put on the intelligence community to “flavor” their analysis to support the administration. There are two reports currently available: The Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the report of The commission headed by the former Secreatry of Defense under Clinton.

The Senate Report had as its “jurisdiction” these questions:
* the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;
* the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community;
* whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policy makers in the Executive Branch and Congress;
* whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives; and
* other issues we mutually identify in the course of the Committee’s review.

During the investigation the following issues were added for “Phase II”:

* the collection of intelligence on Iraq from the end of the Gulf War to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom;
* whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information;
* the postwar findings about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments;
* prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq;
* any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
* the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).

The critical finding in Phase I, agreed to unanimously (including Carl Levin and other critics):

“TERRORISM PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq’s links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community’s assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship was, according to its Scope Note, “purposefully aggressive” in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support/or Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.”

Chairman Roberts has subsequently stated:

As part of a report released last year by his committee that found widespread intelligence failures on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, “we interviewed over 250 analysts and we specifically asked them: ‘Was there any political manipulation or pressure?’ Answer: ‘No,’ ”

2. Phase II of the report is not yet released and is rancorous. Part of the delay has been non-coooperation by the DOD after murmurs were made that it had illegally conducted intelligence operations. Part of the delay was a fierce squabble when the Republicans introduced some 500 statements to be “assessed” with the authors unidentified. Some were by democratic senators and former administration officials. The Democrats vigorously protested having to assess the statements without authors identified.

Uncle Kvetch,

My fault. Thank you for your courtesy.

I think the notion that our institutions aren’t hollow suits, that the character of the men, starting with the president, who make up those institutions is important, is a very conservative one. So I certainly understand your point of view.

I am not trying to blame the war on Clinton. I just feel that given the circumstances and Clinton’s documented dealings with Iraq, that there is a very real probability, 25%? – 75%? a Clinton or Gore or whoever would have gone to war. Which leads me to believe the issue is less related to Bush’s lack of character and more a systematic issue.

I just feel that given the circumstances and Clinton’s documented dealings with Iraq, that there is a very real probability, 25%? – 75%? a Clinton or Gore or whoever would have gone to war.

Yeah, I highly doubt it. The Cheney Administration had to publicly dismantle, intimidate, browbeat and circumvent its own bureaucracy and intelligence community to an extent that bespoke a near-psychotic commitment to the Iraq adventure. It weathered unprecedented broadsides and expressions of doubt from within its own party and even from within the serving military in order to make the invasion a reality. It exposed itself to serious legal jeopardy (though perhaps unwittingly so, in that they didn’t foresee an actual non-partisan prosecutor getting past the Justice Department) the better to silence dissenting voices.

I, for one, find it difficult to imagine a Democratic administration going to all of that trouble to invade Iraq. This is not, of course, to say that there weren’t serious and systematic problems with America’s Iraq policy before Cheney. And of course, the fact that the Cheney Administration was able to happen in the first place bespeaks pretty serious problems with the US political system that will need addressing. But Operation: Mission Accomplished was not, in fact, a logical and near-inevitable continuation of what went before it, and I don’t think it’s helpful to frame it that way.

John: red herring. Findings not in keeping with the predetermined conclusion were simply ignored.

Thank you for playing.
.

Real quick.

The notion that Bush needed to intimidate the CIA int believing that Saddam had a lot f serious stuff doesn’t pass the laugh test. Not CT’s lame and over used laugh test but a real laugh test.

And finally provide the fing link. No? Didn’t think so troll.

Here yea go –

‘Yeah, I highly doubt it. The Cheney Administration had to publicly dismantle, intimidate, browbeat and circumvent its own bureaucracy and intelligence community to an extent that bespoke a near-psychotic commitment to the Iraq adventure.’

Yea you didn’t actually say intimidate. Heck you didn’t even type it but you did type browbeat and circumvent its own intelligence community.

Pardon me if I summarized that as intimidate. What ever was I thinking? How horrible unfair of me.

Say — has anyone on this thread actually read the Iraq War Resolution? You know, the authorization from congress (JR 114) that allowed Bush to actually fight the war?

Why do you hate America?

hp’s right. To swallow the admin’s line took *wilful* ignorance – that is what I absolutely cannot forgive war supporters for. That and the abuse directed at anyone who said the emperor had no clothes – “treason”, “idiotarian”, “Islamo-fascist fellow traveller”, “objectively pro-Saddam”, etc. (though of course the abuse simply highlighted the strength of the abusers’ will to believe).

To those who supported the war, the best way you can atone for it is to boycott Rupert Murdoch’s media, to vote the war criminals out, and to be deeply, deeply suspicious of politicians who try to manipulate your patriotism and your fears.

Hp.

I think you reasoning would prove that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jaques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, the UN inspectors, Tony Blair, John Kerry, William Cohen, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, George Tenet, Joseph Lieberman, Joseph Biden, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and assorted others were all irrational hawks.

All concluded that Saddam had WMD programs BEFORE G.W. Bush was president and presumably had the ability to work his wicked seductive delusions upon them.

Or is the question one of becoming anticipatorily duped?

“the case for regime change,” that is