Dueling Rallies

19 thoughts on “Dueling Rallies”

1. But calling Bush a war criminal isn’t rhetorical.
   It’s factual.

   Sorry, Susie. But, with the utmost respect, it is not factual.

   If if it was true that the Iraq war was begun under false pretenses (which it has been proven it wasn’t) that still wouldn’t rise to the level of War Crimes.

   Being wrong does not a lie make. If it did, the Obama has been lying since he took office. 😀

   Three separate and bi-partisan committees concluded that there was no intentional deception on the part of the Bush Administration.

   At the time, the Bush administration acted in good faith on bad intelligence. And so did practically every Democrat in Congress.

   That is what is factual…

   Michale32086

2. Sorry, but I don’t buy for a moment the “bad intelligence” excuse. President Bush asserted that we somehow knew Iraq had WMDs and to support that sent Colin Powell to the U.N. to lamely try and sell a skeptical world that claim. Contrast that with Adlai Stevenson going to the U.N. back in 1962 to claim the Soviets had put nuclear missiles in Cuba and actually presented convincing evidence.

3. Don’t pretend to be so gullible, Michale. It doesn’t suit you.

4. Starfleet,

   First off, I have to say that I simply LOVE your posting moniker! 😀 Any fellow Trek Geek is a friend of mine!! 😀

   Regardless, the bad intelligence point is more than an excuse, it’s the facts.. This is supported by the (also) fact that many Democrats also bought into the bad intel..

   Our government was united in the belief that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons and was coming close to getting them.

   The fact that this turned out to be wrong is simply Monday Morning Quarterbacking… It’s easy to be dead on ballz accurate (an industry term. :D) in the face of 20/20 hindsight…

   Chris,

   Don’t pretend to be so gullible, Michale. It doesn’t suit you.

   MSNBC?? You might as well quote CBS and the infamous National Guard story.. 😀

   Sorry, I’ll take the word of three bi-partisan committees (2 American and 1 British) over biased journalists any day of the week… 😀

   Having some experience in the intelligence field, I can assure you that it is quite easy to build on bad intel. Assets develop tunnel vision and tend to focus on what the initial intel shows, rather than maintaining objectivity. It also doesn’t help when the higher ups are signaling their agenda, either overtly or covertly.

   But the facts are these. The entire government of the United States signed off on the intelligence and handed Bush a (for all intents and purposes) blank check.. Read the Iraq AUMF…

   The fact that the intel was wrong is not relevant to this discussion.

   Personally, getting rid of a pyschotic scumbag like Hussein is a sufficient case for the Iraq war. But that’s just my personal opinion..

   Michale32086

5. Chris,

   Here’s the telling point of that entire article you posted.

   “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

   No one is denying this…

   The only point of contention is did Bush KNOW that it was erroneous information at the time it was used to justify the military action against Iraq?

   No one has been able to give any compelling evidence that would support the accusation that Bush knew the intel was false.

   Was Bush wrong?? Yes he was.. So was the vast majority of the government, both Democrat and Republican….

   But, as I said in the beginning, being wrong != lying.

   Michale32086

6. “Our government was united in the belief that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons and was coming close to getting them.”

   No, it wasn’t united on that point, and no one seriously thought Iraq was anywhere near getting nuclear weapons. The fervor about yellowcake from Niger was deliberately ginned up and President Bush’s infamous sixteen-word claim in his 2003 State of the Union speech was doubted during the run-up to the war. Which, as you may recall, involved pulling the rug out from under the U.N. inspections that were coming close to defusing the WMD issue that Bush had used to sell the war to the American people. Oh, and those aluminum centrifuge tubes? Those were actually stock for making hand-held rocket launching tubes, and that was also brought out well before the war started.

7. “The only point of contention is did Bush KNOW that it was erroneous information at the time it was used to justify the military action against Iraq?”

   What a lame question. Either you KNOW something is true or you don’t. Going to war on the basis of assumptions is wrong, period.

8. Michale,

   It’s an AP article. If you would prefer to read it on a site other than MSNBC, I’m sure that can be arranged. It just happened to be the first one I grabbed.

   But the facts are these. The entire government of the United States signed off on the intelligence and handed Bush a (for all intents and purposes) blank check.

   It’s true they handed him a blank check, but it’s hardly true that the entire government signed off on the intelligence used to justify the war. The Airforce, the State Department and the Energy Department, to name three, all presented intelligence and/or analysis which disputed specific portions of the intelligence. Look, if Colin Powell’s vial of deadly baking soda scared you into believing the shit he was peddling, that’s fine, it seemed to have that effect on a lot of people, but let’s not pretend that it was all an innocent mistake.

   Lastly, if a Democrat does something stupid or evil, it doesn’t make that something any less stupid or evil. That should be a fairly easy concept for you to internalize.

9. Starfleet,

   No, it wasn’t united on that point, and no one seriously thought Iraq was anywhere near getting nuclear weapons.

   The facts say different…

   “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
   –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

   “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
   –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

   “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
   –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

   “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
   –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

   “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
   Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
   — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

   “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
   -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

   “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
   — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

   “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
   Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
   — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

   “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
   — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

   “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
   — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

   “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
   — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

   “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
   — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

   “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
   — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

   “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
   — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

   “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
   — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

   “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
   — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

   “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
   — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

   “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
   — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

   “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
   — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

   What a lame question. Either you KNOW something is true or you don’t.

   Really??

   Do you know there is life on other planets???

   I don’t think you do. I know that I don’t.. I THINK there is life on other planets, but I don’t know if it’s true..

   Going to war on the basis of assumptions is wrong, period.

   Unfortunately, in the world of intelligence, assumptions is often all one has to go on..

   If our intelligence and military services waited around til they absolutely KNEW something for a fact, it’s likely we would all be speaking Japanese or German now.. If the US even existed at all..

   Chris,

   It’s an AP article. If you would prefer to read it on a site other than MSNBC, I’m sure that can be arranged. It just happened to be the first one I grabbed.

   Fair enough… I am a firm believer in attacking the message and not the messenger. I should not have pooh-poohed it away, simply because it came from MSNBC. Mea culpa…

   Regardless, the question before us is, “Did Bush lie.”

   There is simply no conclusive evidence to say this is fact. I would go so far as to say that there isn’t even any compelling evidence, but that is simply my opinion.

   It is VERY easy to play Connect-The-Dots when one has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. As a veteran of two of our country’s Armed Forces plus nearly two decades as an FSO, I can say with complete and utter conviction that when things are happening, one doesn’t have the luxury of relying on hindsight. In this field, one has to assume the worst and plan for preventing.

   Michale32086

10. Regardless, the question before us is, “Did Bush lie.”

    Avoiding NBC and CBS links, here’s something from a Murdoch owned paper that may help you resolve your question.

    at the beginning of 2003 MI6 sent one of its top agents, Michael Shipster, to the region. Mr Shipster held secret meetings in Jordan with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence. The meetings were confirmed by Nigel Inkster, former assistant director of MI6.

    Mr Inkster also confirmed that Mr Shipster was told by Mr Habbush that there were no illicit weapons in Iraq. Mr Inkster refused to comment last night.

    Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British Intelligence, was also interviewed by Suskind. The author said that Sir Richard confirmed the Shipster meetings and report. He added that he asked why Mr Blair had not acted on the intelligence.

    Sir Richard was quoted as saying that the mission was an eleventh-hour “attempt to try, as it were, I’d say, to diffuse \ the whole situation”. He added: “The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough.”

    Suskind wrote that Sir Richard flew to Washington in February 2003 to present the Habbush report to George Tenet, then the Director of the CIA. The report stated that according to Mr Habbush, Saddam had ended his nuclear programme in 1991 — the same year that he destroyed his chemical weapons programme — and ended his biological weapons programme in 1996. These assertions turned out to be true.

    Mr Tenet briefed Mr Bush and Condoleezza Rice, at the time his National Security Adviser.

    Suskind wrote: “The White House then buried the Habbush report. They instructed the British that they were no longer interested in keeping the channel open.”

    Rob Richer, a former CIA officer in the Near East division, told Suskind: “The Brits wanted to avoid war — which was what was driving them. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in office.”

    Also, I love all the quotes from Democrats. Again, just because a Democrat says something stupid and/or evil, it doesn’t magically make that stupid, evil thing any less stupid or evil.

11. Here’s the history of WMDs as an excuse to go to war in Iraq:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    The claim that we didn’t know before the war that the intelligence about Iraq’s WMDs was flawed is a self-serving lie.

12. What each of you point out is simply one piece of evidence that is interlaced, sifted and regurgitated with thousands upon thousands of other pieces of evidence.

    For example… Hitler assuring Neville that he (Hitler) had no designs on the Sudetenland was simple one piece of evidence in the vast thousands of pieces of evidence available in the run-up to WWII..

    Stalin (if I recall correctly) assured Roosevelt (or was it Churchill??) that he (Stalin) had no designs on Eastern Europe…

    OK, that second one might be from a novel I read once, but the point is still valid…

    Which is all of these little bits of evidence suddenly have meaning…

    But ONLY in hindsight…

    No one can point to ANY “smoking guns” that was irrefutable and conclusive prior to March of 2003 that would unambiguously prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the WMD threat from Iraq was non-existent…

    Such evidence simply does not exist…

    Even if such evidence DID exist, for you to prove that Bush lied, you would have to show that Bush knew this irrefutable, conclusive and unambiguous evidence that proved, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the Iraq WMD threat was non-existent. You would have to show unequivocally that Bush knew about this alleged evidence, but chose to ignore it..

    Unless and until you can prove that such evidence existed and that Bush et al knew such evidence, your claim that Bush lied is merely an opinion…

    And an unsubstantiated opinion at that..

    Regardless of ALL of the afore, even if you COULD prove that Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War, NOTHING about such an act would constitute a War Crime…

    Michale32086

13. Chris,

    Also, I love all the quotes from Democrats. Again, just because a Democrat says something stupid and/or evil, it doesn’t magically make that stupid, evil thing any less stupid or evil.

    True..

    But it DOES indicate that, if Bush did lie (as ya’all claim) then he convinced a LOT of different people. And, those people are THAT gullible, then they have no business being involved in ANYTHING to do with the government….

    Wouldn’t you agree???

    On the other hand, let’s employ Occam’s Razor…

    Which is the most likely explanation?

    1. The Bush Administration set out to fabricate an elaborate and very real-sounding threat involving Al Qaeda, Iraq and Nuclear Weapons in an effort to justify an invasion of Iraq. They suborned thousands of people all over the world to advocate and conceal the conspiracy and yet not ONE SINGLE shred of paper or eyewitness testimony would indicate that the vast conspiracy existed..

    OR

    2. Many many people inside and outside the government took a look at the raw intelligence from many different sources, both techint and humint and determined that there was a very real possibility of an NBC threat from Iraq…

    Now, employing Occam’s Razor, which explanation is the most likely to be true???

    Even if you accept #1 as being the truth, what possible reason would there be???

    Michale32086

14. And, those people are THAT gullible, then they have no business being involved in ANYTHING to do with the government….

    Wouldn’t you agree???

    I do agree!!! I’ve said (and written) so. Many times! Their judgement was so completely flawed that were any of them to visit my home I wouldn’t allow them use the restroom without supervision for fear that they would shit in my sink and wash up in the toilet.

    I have a pretty decent track record in this area. Here’s something that’s four years old, here’s something my evil Obamabot phase on this site, here’s something else that proved I was an Obamabot, and here’s a pretty clear example, although I had clearly been brainwashed by the Obama campaign at that point.

15. although I had clearly been brainwashed by the Obama campaign at that point.

    Welcome to the club… I STILL kick myself for having voted for Obama… 😀

    Michale32086

16. Well, no. I may have been confusing here. I was, at times, accused of being an Obot – a drooling brainwashed sycophant – during the primaries. Looking back on those posts, it just reminded me of how completely fucking stupid those accusations were. I don’t regret my vote at all. I regret the choices I was presented with.

    Shouldn’t have inside jokes with myself. Sorry.

17. Chris,

    No worries..

    I should have actually READ the links before I commented… 😀

    Speaking for myself personally, I regret the hell out of my Obama vote..

    I do have an idealistic streak that was touched upon by what Obama promised..

    I actually believed he was something different…

    Something special…

    But, as Scotty once said…

    “Fool me once, shame on you… Fool me twice, shame on me.”

    And, despite conventional wisdom, that saying was NOT ‘inwented’ in Russia… 😀

    Michale32086

18. While Clinton felt that Saddam would have loved to have a nuke a two, he didn’t think directly attacking or invading was the answer to the problem. I don’t think Clinton would have done it even after 9/11. He would have gone after the Taliban and gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan, but he would not have invaded Iraq. Clinton wanted to change Iraq from within even though that’s extremely difficult to do. But I honestly don’t think Clinton would have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11.

19. Babba,

    Oh come’ on… Let’s be serious here…

    Clinton wasn’t thinking past the next blow job….

    You give the man WAY too much credit….

    Michale32086

Comments are closed.