Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 06-12-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kinross
That is my point exactly. Everybody drank the Kool-Aid.

That still doesn't explain who is lying? I'm not hearing any of the people you quoted, with the possible exception of Byrd, saying that the WMD didn't exist. What I am hearing is the accusation that misleading and exaggerated statements were made.

The rest is just typical political heat.

eldar1011 · 06-12-2003, 06:49 AM

I see little point in pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians. I've always taken that as a given. After all, where were the Republican hawks in Congress when the Clinton Administration claimed an Iraqi WMD threat? Furthermore, are the Republicans now giving the Democrats credit for sounding the alarm *before* September 11th? Like I said, there's nothing to be gained by this exercise in rhetoric. Politicians are hypocrites. It's the very nature of politics, I believe.

I think some here are making a pretty big assumption by assuming that those who are accusing Bush of "overstating" the Iraqi WMD threat would have supported the war if the Democrats held the White House. As I recall, the Clinton Administration got hammered for suggesting an Iraqi war during a Townhall Meeting in Ohio. I would imagine that many people opposed to war then are the same as those opposed to the war now.

Personally, I can't make the same claim. It wasn't until this Administration that I've become politcally aware and active. Until this Administration, I was apathetic and content. Now, I'm angry and afraid.

I don't believe that Saddam's Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. However, I do question whether or not the Bush Administration "overstated" the imminent threat in their path to war. I do question whether or not the Bush White House exerted influence and undue pressure on intelligence agencies to slant the evidence in favor of war.

If the US is going to embark on a policy of pre-emptive war, then the evidence prompting an invasion must be rock solid. It has to be airtight. War isn't a fact-finding expedition. You don't just put our troops in harm's way, risk civilian "collateral damage" and destroy outmatched enemy forces for the sake of forged evidence, exaggerated claims and hawkish rhetoric.

War is serious business and should never be entered into lightly.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 06-12-2003, 06:59 AM

Guess what? 80% (or thereabouts--I don't know for certain though) of Americans think that there are WMDs in Iraq. No surprise as to the % of politicians who believe that shite.

Also, on virtually all of the 1998 quotes, they refer to programs, not actual weapons. The only actual use of weapons mentioned is the weapons given him by the US.

No one denies that he was looking for them in the past--but the view now is that he likely scrapped them before the US gave its ulitmatum.

Kinross · 06-12-2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
That still doesn't explain who is lying? I'm not hearing any of the people you quoted, with the possible exception of Byrd, saying that the WMD didn't exist. What I am hearing is the accusation that misleading and exaggerated statements were made.

The rest is just typical political heat.

Nobody is lying, that is the point. The OP is in response to those calling for the impeachment of Bush for lying to congress about WMD.

There was credible reason to believe that Iraq had WMD and people from both sides of the political spectrum thought so.

If one is going to blame Bush for lying about WMD then they need to look at those in thier own camp as well.

Was there an intelligence failure on the current state of Iraq's WMD? Very possibly but the failure wasn't just with the US but with many other nations as well.

I believed that Iraq had WMD and it wasn't because of George Bush. All evidence pointed to it and Iraqs actions to the UN inspecters pointed to it. I didn't believe that validated going to war but that is besides the point.

LeftCoast · 06-12-2003, 07:05 AM

Josh Marshal has an excellent piece on this very topic today.

Quote:

(emphasis mine)
The president's defenders want to frame the argument like this: the president said there was WMD; his critics said there was WMD. If he's wrong, everybody was wrong. If there was a 'plot' to deceive the American people, as Kagan would have it, even the president's critics were in on the plot. So what kind of plot would that be?

This is just a head-fake with an advanced degree and it's deeply dishonest.

The public didn't get sold on this war because Saddam had nerve gas, or botulinum or even anthrax. True or not, a lot of people believed that.(I believed it -- and I still have a very hard time believing Saddam doesn�t have chemical munitions stored somewhere.) The public got sold on the war because the administration argued consistently and vociferously that Saddam was on the brink of amassing far more fearsome weapons -- particularly nuclear weapons ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") and that he had gorwing operational ties to terrorists to whom he might give these weapons or even some of his less threatening chemical agents.

So, the question is not what anyone believed, but what they did with that belief. Bush drug America into a war that was unnecessary from the git-go and we are now ensnared in a looming quagmire of epic proportions.

Kinross · 06-12-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LeftCoast
JSo, the question is not what anyone believed, but what they did with that belief. Bush drug America into a war that was unnecessary from the git-go and we are now ensnared in a looming quagmire of epic proportions.

Going to war with the approval of congress is not an impeachable offense.

06-12-2003, 07:32 AM

I think all of this hoopla has more to do with the liberal's hatred for Bush. I think they've hated him since he won the election. (Sour Grapes) They complained then about it. And they hated him even more because he acts for decisively. (compared to a Gore or Clinton).

They won't be happy until they drag him thru the mud and try to change everyone's mind about his character. Then and only then will the next election be on an even keel.

Right Liberals???

eldar1011 · 06-12-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kinross
Going to war with the approval of congress is not an impeachable offense.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" can be whatever the House managers want it to be. But, I don't think they'll impeach Bush. I doubt there's even political will on the Democratic side to impeach Bush, despite the rhetoric from some of the more strident Bush opponents in the public.

It'll be a handy political attack ad during the '04 campaign.

I think LeftCoast's larger point is that belief that Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD was sufficient to maintain a policy of containment and inspections. However, if you are going to escalate the policy into full-fledged war, the thread had better be imminent. That is a monumental policy shift and the evidence must justify such a drastic change. From all evidence to date, it would appear the threat did not justify an invasion. So, the question is, did the Bush Administration truly believe there was an imminent threat or was it simply a way of maniuplating public opinion towards the war? And if that is the case, then what were the real reasons for the invasion?

ZiprHead · 06-12-2003, 07:37 AM

In all those quotes, only the one from Gebhardt specifically claims to follow President Bush's lead in addressing the Iraq issue, and this quote is dated, IIRC, prior to Bush being denied UN authorization for assault on Iraq. Everone knew Saddam was a bad guy and everyone wanted him gone. So what?

The Bush administration claimed countless times that they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD, that they knew where they were at, that Hussein was prepared to use them, and that we couldn't wait any longer, no matter what the UN said. The evidence he used to make these claims was not just wrong, but was forged.

Thousands of people died, many thousands more will die, just so we can now have our oil-man president sitting on top of one of the largest concentrations of oil in the world. The American people were scammed and now they're getting righteously pissed about it.

seanie · 06-12-2003, 07:43 AM

Hold on a sec.

The pre-eminent reason given for the war was Iraq's possession of WMD's. It presented a clear and imminent danger. He could hook up with terrorists or whatever. Tony stood up in parliament and told us he could launch his weapons in 45 minutes.

Now if, and it's by no means certain at the moment, but if it turns out that Iraq had no WMD's it means one of two things.

1. We were told an untruth in good faith.

2. We were told an untruth in bad faith.

If the former it means our security and intelligence agencies DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING.

If the latter our political leaders ARE LYING DUPLICITOUS FUCKERS.

And whilst neither of those conclusions is exactly earth shattering at the very least the matter deserves a little more scrutiny.

06-12-2003, 07:32 AM	#17
Laci Guest Posts: n/a	Will Do Nothing Not to Embarass Bush I think all of this hoopla has more to do with the liberal's hatred for Bush. I think they've hated him since he won the election. (Sour Grapes) They complained then about it. And they hated him even more because he acts for decisively. (compared to a Gore or Clinton). They won't be happy until they drag him thru the mud and try to change everyone's mind about his character. Then and only then will the next election be on an even keel. Right Liberals???

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2003, 06:49 AM	#12
eldar1011 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,074	I see little point in pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians. I've always taken that as a given. After all, where were the Republican hawks in Congress when the Clinton Administration claimed an Iraqi WMD threat? Furthermore, are the Republicans now giving the Democrats credit for sounding the alarm before September 11th? Like I said, there's nothing to be gained by this exercise in rhetoric. Politicians are hypocrites. It's the very nature of politics, I believe. I think some here are making a pretty big assumption by assuming that those who are accusing Bush of "overstating" the Iraqi WMD threat would have supported the war if the Democrats held the White House. As I recall, the Clinton Administration got hammered for suggesting an Iraqi war during a Townhall Meeting in Ohio. I would imagine that many people opposed to war then are the same as those opposed to the war now. Personally, I can't make the same claim. It wasn't until this Administration that I've become politcally aware and active. Until this Administration, I was apathetic and content. Now, I'm angry and afraid. I don't believe that Saddam's Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. However, I do question whether or not the Bush Administration "overstated" the imminent threat in their path to war. I do question whether or not the Bush White House exerted influence and undue pressure on intelligence agencies to slant the evidence in favor of war. If the US is going to embark on a policy of pre-emptive war, then the evidence prompting an invasion must be rock solid. It has to be airtight. War isn't a fact-finding expedition. You don't just put our troops in harm's way, risk civilian "collateral damage" and destroy outmatched enemy forces for the sake of forged evidence, exaggerated claims and hawkish rhetoric. War is serious business and should never be entered into lightly.

06-12-2003, 06:59 AM	#13
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Guess what? 80% (or thereabouts--I don't know for certain though) of Americans think that there are WMDs in Iraq. No surprise as to the % of politicians who believe that shite. Also, on virtually all of the 1998 quotes, they refer to programs, not actual weapons. The only actual use of weapons mentioned is the weapons given him by the US. No one denies that he was looking for them in the past--but the view now is that he likely scrapped them before the US gave its ulitmatum.

06-12-2003, 07:37 AM	#19
ZiprHead Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SagNasty. Posts: 3,034	In all those quotes, only the one from Gebhardt specifically claims to follow President Bush's lead in addressing the Iraq issue, and this quote is dated, IIRC, prior to Bush being denied UN authorization for assault on Iraq. Everone knew Saddam was a bad guy and everyone wanted him gone. So what? The Bush administration claimed countless times that they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD, that they knew where they were at, that Hussein was prepared to use them, and that we couldn't wait any longer, no matter what the UN said. The evidence he used to make these claims was not just wrong, but was forged. Thousands of people died, many thousands more will die, just so we can now have our oil-man president sitting on top of one of the largest concentrations of oil in the world. The American people were scammed and now they're getting righteously pissed about it.

06-12-2003, 07:43 AM	#20
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Hold on a sec. The pre-eminent reason given for the war was Iraq's possession of WMD's. It presented a clear and imminent danger. He could hook up with terrorists or whatever. Tony stood up in parliament and told us he could launch his weapons in 45 minutes. Now if, and it's by no means certain at the moment, but if it turns out that Iraq had no WMD's it means one of two things. 1. We were told an untruth in good faith. 2. We were told an untruth in bad faith. If the former it means our security and intelligence agencies DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING. If the latter our political leaders ARE LYING DUPLICITOUS FUCKERS. And whilst neither of those conclusions is exactly earth shattering at the very least the matter deserves a little more scrutiny.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.