Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 14 of 27
Actually Finn, I'd love your take on the yellow cake comment. No matter how you dice it, Bush worked very hard to work that into a speech even though it was cut previously as unsubstantiated. Do you genuinely believe Bush was being 'honest and forthright' about that item? If you say 'no', then I will say 'Why then should I trust Bush's explanation?' If you say 'yes', I'll leave you with that final word; however, this is the essence of our disagreement; I do not believe he was being honest and forthright. You may insult me as you wish, but it will not change my opinion on the matter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, first of all I’m not insulting you. That I think you’re portrayal of Bush as some sort of two-dimensional villain in a B-movie is a sophomoric argument is not a reflection of what I think about you, whom I actually like. There is a trend these days to despise people we disagree with, but I assure you that I don’t participate in that particular fad.
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually Finn, I'd love your take on the yellow cake comment. No matter how you dice it, Bush worked very hard to work that into a speech even though it was cut previously as unsubstantiated. Do you genuinely believe Bush was being 'honest and forthright' about that item? If you say 'no', then I will say 'Why then should I trust Bush's explanation?' If you say 'yes', I'll leave you with that final word; however, this is the essence of our disagreement; I do not believe he was being honest and forthright. You may insult me as you wish, but it will not change my opinion on the matter.
As far as the Yellowcake in the State of the Union Address, Bush is not the only person involved in writing it. In fact, Bush is just the man in charge; he delegates speech writing to other people, whom hopefully are experts on the topics or in consultation with the experts. So I’m not sure that this reflects on Bush as directly as some may hope.
However, as I’ve said repeatedly, I think Bush and many of his advisers were certain of WMD in Iraq, something that at the time was certainly deemed a possibility, but which quite frankly, the White House or anyone else couldn’t possibly have known. What is also true is that the position of some in the IC on the Yellowcake issue seemed to waffle considerably in 2002, but as late as September of that year both the DIA and CIA claimed that Saddam was in fact attempting to acquire 500 metric tons of yellowcake from Niger. This position was stated in a DIA intelligence assessment and later confirmed by the CIA. Also in September, British intelligence confirmed what the CIA and DIA had claimed. In October the CIA was cautioning that a statement in the SOTU draft addressing the Yellowcake should be removed because it overstated the issue. I don’t know exactly why the CIA seemed to reverse their position on this in October, but what I do know is that as late as September the Yellowcake issue looked pretty strong with both the DIA and the CIA agreeing and with corroboration from a trusted foreign intelligence source. Maybe the CIA realized in October that the issue had been overstated in US assessments or they got new information that caused them to reverse their position or maybe their position was solid, yet the statement in the SOTU draft (which I've never seen) was indeed overstated and changed. But whatever the reason, the Yellowcake was already well confirmed as fact in at least the minds of the SOTU speech writers.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your original post was not clear that the 'sophomoric' was intended to refer to my 'portrayal' as opposed to myself; I'll accept your clarification in good faith.
A villain? Again, it is not what I said. I believe that Bush believed that the US would be well served by toppling a hateful, despotic, murdering, monster. I believed he felt the actions he was taking would serve well his party and his vision of where the US should be. (It hasn't, but that's a different problem.) What I am not clear is that Bush truly believed what he used when he indicated WMD were present in Iraq. I believe he used whatever he thought he could to 'sell the war.' I understand you accept that Bush's statements were an honest mistake. It is still not clear to me this was the case.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was right- there were no WMD. What should I correct?
Subject to correction? Since when? You were as certain in 2003 as you are now. Sounds like conviction to me
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been trying to figure out why this item irritates me so much. Here's why:
Basically, I felt, going into Iraq, Bush stood up and swore that there were WMD in Iraq; and this being the sole justification of those given I felt was a 'legitimate' reason to invade, I gave tacit approval for this reason. I even spoke to a few friends suggesting they cut the President some slack on the issue. The President claimed that to reveal the details of the issues would compromise national security. However, I 'went' into the situation thinking 'they dang well better find the WMD's'. This is the main reason I am so seriously displeased with Bush; this was an item he -had- to be right about, and I do not believe the events have supported the claims he made.
There were -plenty- of reasons to doubt the validity of Bush's claims (as there's many reasons to give why Bush might have been justified in believing). Everything from Bush's tendency to surround himself with 'yes men' to many nations not 'signing on' with Bush to help in the invasion of Iraq. However, I 'signed on' for the reason Bush said 'trust me.' I did.
So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented; however, I've already summarized what I now believe to be Bush's motives previously; though I left out 'Iraq is sitting on a heap of oil', that really does deserve to be mentioned. I also believe that in similar circumstances had there not been a heap of oil involved, Bush would have declined to go in.
For the record, I tend to believe Sig and Rue had excellent intuitive insight to the situation at the time. I now believe the information was there and had I dug a bit more, I would not have been misled by Bush (even if he was merely wrong instead of making deliberate misstatements, it is still a failure of leadership).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, Bush is just the man in charge;
Good damned point! And the buck stops where now?
Are you honestly arguing that Bush can't be held accountable for the things he says, because, hey, he's just the guy in charge?
Are you seriouse???
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I've been trying to figure out why this item irritates me so much. Here's why:
Basically, I felt, going into Iraq, Bush stood up and swore that there were WMD in Iraq; and this being the sole justification of those given I felt was a 'legitimate' reason to invade, I gave tacit approval for this reason. I even spoke to a few friends suggesting they cut the President some slack on the issue. The President claimed that to reveal the details of the issues would compromise national security. However, I 'went' into the situation thinking 'they dang well better find the WMD's'. This is the main reason I am so seriously displeased with Bush; this was an item he -had- to be right about, and I do not believe the events have supported the claims he made.
There were -plenty- of reasons to doubt the validity of Bush's claims (as there's many reasons to give why Bush might have been justified in believing). Everything from Bush's tendency to surround himself with 'yes men' to many nations not 'signing on' with Bush to help in the invasion of Iraq. However, I 'signed on' for the reason Bush said 'trust me.' I did.
So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented; however, I've already summarized what I now believe to be Bush's motives previously; though I left out 'Iraq is sitting on a heap of oil', that really does deserve to be mentioned. I also believe that in similar circumstances had there not been a heap of oil involved, Bush would have declined to go in.
For the record, I tend to believe Sig and Rue had excellent intuitive insight to the situation at the time. I now believe the information was there and had I dug a bit more, I would not have been misled by Bush (even if he was merely wrong instead of making deliberate misstatements, it is still a failure of leadership).
Which is why I think Colin Powell resigned when he did. He made a leap of faith, and found he was made into a puppet. In five or ten years, I hope he writes a tell all about who told what lie and who betrayed whom. He likely will not unless he thinks it is in the country's best interest to have it out in the open, but I hope it happens.
The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd say 10-15, at best.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Leadb, I totally admire the fair and balanced tone of your posts! Kudos for stayin' off the edge, as Mal might say.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s your story. I’m not the one pretending a belief based on cynicism and mistrust is falsifiable.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was right- there were no WMD. What should I correct?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME