IRAQ: Leaked memos vindicated

[sodaseller]

More revisionist history from the revisionist party.

Notice the perfect conformity to the talking points

THE PRESIDENT: “While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

the Veep of Torture

“The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history,” said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq’s weapons program.

As Josh noted at Link

There's one point that's important to remember about the White House's pushback to cover up its collective dishonesty about Iraq. We've noted before that in scandals or political nominations the decisive issue is not the number of opponents, the intensity of their opposition or even the quality of their arguments. The decisive issue is most often whether the scandalee or the nominee has some committed base of support, even if it only amounts to a distinct minority.


But that doesn't matter. The White House doesn't need to win any debates. What they need is for their core supporters to have something to say. Anything. And to be able to say it loudly. The one thing that would be fatal for the White House from its defenders would be silence.

Unthinking and obedient adherents - the perfect warriors

 

[sodaseller]

More revisionist history from the revisionist party. A look at the historical record from 4 years ago would clearly put Iraq at the top of the threat list for an overwhelming majority of the prominent politicians in this country.

And you can spare me the dishonesty crap....

Cherrypicking the intelligence to make a case that the Bush Administration cherrypicked the intelligence is not only ironic, it's gotten tiresome.

If it's tiresome, respond to it, substantively, demonstrating knowledge.

Here's a primer on syllogistic reasoning.. Try to establish a conclusion without a conclusion, but with independent reasoning

 

[bsnyder]

If it's tiresome, respond to it, substantively, demonstrating knowledge.

Here's a primer on syllogistic reasoning.. Try to establish a conclusion without a conclusion, but with independent reasoning

It's tiresome precisely because I have responded to it. And all you've done is spout the "Bush lied" talking point over and over again.

Try presenting some proof.

 

[wvrevy]

It's tiresome precisely because I have responded to it. And all you've done is spout the "Bush lied" talking point over and over again.

Try presenting some proof.

Ok...Just for giggles:

Bush said, in, I believe, the infamous SotU speech, that we knew Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nucular (sic) program, since he had tried to purchase aluminum tube use in centrifuges.

The lie was given to that when it surfaced that these tubes he had purchased (or was trying to purchase, whichever) were completely unsuitable for that use, and there were additional intel reports stating that simple FACT that were available WELL before Bush used the line in his speech.

So...Since he had the intel debunking this, why did he use the line ?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Ok...Just for giggles:

Bush said, in, I believe, the infamous SotU speech, that we knew Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nucular (sic) program, since he had tried to purchase aluminum tube use in centrifuges.

The lie was given to that when it surfaced that these tubes he had purchased (or was trying to purchase, whichever) were completely unsuitable for that use, and there were additional intel reports stating that simple FACT that were available WELL before Bush used the line in his speech.

So...Since he had the intel debunking this, why did he use the line ?

Why do I sense a request for a link, followed by silence?

 

[bsnyder]

Ok...Just for giggles:

Bush said, in, I believe, the infamous SotU speech, that we knew Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nucular (sic) program, since he had tried to purchase aluminum tube use in centrifuges.

The lie was given to that when it surfaced that these tubes he had purchased (or was trying to purchase, whichever) were completely unsuitable for that use, and there were additional intel reports stating that simple FACT that were available WELL before Bush used the line in his speech.

So...Since he had the intel debunking this, why did he use the line ?

Because there was conflicting intel. That's usually the nature of intel. it's not cut and dried. Somebody ultimately has to make a judgement call.

I clearly remember reading about the dissenting views (on the tubes) in the NY Time and other places, before the war. In fact, I think it was a heated part of some of the debates here on the DIS at that time.

Yet the leading Democrats who voted FOR the war (Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller, etc) NOW say they were misled.

What actually happened is they cast their votes with political calulcation as their overriding concern. If the war turned out to be a romp, they didn't want to be on the losing side of the vote. Better to burnish those national security credentials for any future Presidential aspirations.

But it wasn’t a romp. And now they’re trapped. So they resort to the cowardly approach: “He made me do it.” Most Americans have better memories.

 

[What the Heck]

Notice the perfect conformity to the talking points

the Veep of Torture
Unthinking and obedient adherents - the perfect warriors

Yep. I was following this talking point perfectly for the last year. Perhaps it's a talking point because it's true? No, that can't be, even though there are tapes of many of the Democrats calling for the war, of a certain Democratic President saying we need to do something - oh thats right, we aren't supposed to mention him.

The unthinking and obedient adherents are from the left in this - even with proof that the leaders from the left are now trying to revise history, if it's pointed out the right is just doing a talking point, nothing to worry about.

As for the point that wvrevy brings in, looking back it is easy to see that he shouldn't have mentioned it. After all, since he is such a perfect president in the opinions of the Democrats, it couldn't have been a mistake, it must have been intentional - he's so smart. As BSnyder points out, there is always many sides to intelligence data. There is always someone saying that A will happen and someone else saying no, it will be B, and another saying you are both wrong it will be C, and someone else saying all of you are right, but it will be because of D, etc ad infinatum. The administration made a mistake - a mistake is not lieing. It was a foolish mistake, one that was found out very quickly (if I remember correctly - and I could be wrong in that), but the Democratic leadership puts on as if they just discovered it! Wow, and they claim George isn't very bright.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

It would be so nice to hear what our military men and women think of this war. Not the ones sitting at home giving their spin on what we should have done or should be doing. I'm just thankful that Bush is no weak individual who caves in when the going gets rough. That is why we our considered a super power. We have to be strong at all times. Not when it fits a particular parties agenda.

 

[bsnyder]

Edited

 

[sodaseller]

As BSnyder points out, there is always many sides to intelligence data.

This is perhaps the firmest evidence of the moral corruption this Administration has wrought - the lapse into relativism. Truths are not relative, they are not a function of personal belief.

To use an example, the tubes were not suitable for centrifuging. Having the zealous belief in the malevolence of Sadaam Hussein does not alter the laws of physics or the physical properties of those tubes. Just because Sadaam is bad does not mean they are for use in a nuclear program. But even if one indulges this defense, that doesn't make the Administration's statements truthful. If the vast majority of the intelligence estimates believe that supposition A is false but some outliers believe A is true, it is not truthful to state that the intelligence community belives A is true, just because you really, really think there must be something bad about Sadaam that is yet undiscovered.

One thing the Right was correct about in the 90s - character matters. Now we see the harm that can result from a President with truly malformed character

 

[sodaseller]

It's tiresome precisely because I have responded to it. And all you've done is spout the "Bush lied" talking point over and over again.

Try presenting some proof.

Are you serious - you were humiliated before - do a search. You have never shown the slightest understanmding or capacity to discuss anything relevant. Are you just trying to be provocative with such an obvious falsehood or do you believe what you are stating? You really are like your President.

 

[drakethib]

It would be so nice to hear what our military men and women think of this war. Not the ones sitting at home giving their spin on what we should have done or should be doing. I'm just thankful that Bush is no weak individual who caves in when the going gets rough. That is why we our considered a super power. We have to be strong at all times. Not when it fits a particular parties agenda.

You know, I was just thinking the exact same thing. What do our soldiers in arms think about this. I am a former soldier but have never had to go to Iraq while I was serving my time, so I can't speak for them.

I will say that I think th world is a safer place without SH in power but I hope they catch Osma (spelling) as well.


I support Bush but I will say there has been some things that have been done that I disagree with, but all in all I still support him.


I do think some of his staff should resign as they have had some bad decisions being made.

 

[dcentity2000]

Because there was conflicting intel. That's usually the nature of intel. it's not cut and dried. Somebody ultimately has to make a judgement call.

I clearly remember reading about the dissenting views (on the tubes) in the NY Time and other places, before the war. In fact, I think it was a heated part of some of the debates here on the DIS at that time.

Yet the leading Democrats who voted FOR the war (Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller, etc) NOW say they were misled.

What actually happened is they cast their votes with political calulcation as their overriding concern. If the war turned out to be a romp, they didn't want to be on the losing side of the vote. Better to burnish those national security credentials for any future Presidential aspirations.

But it wasn’t a romp. And now they’re trapped. So they resort to the cowardly approach: “He made me do it.” Most Americans have better memories.

I'm not sure if this applies to the USA or not, but...

Here in the UK, intelligence reports concluded that:

...the case [for war] was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran

Even worse, it was also concluded that:

...intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy...

That policy being:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD

Now, in the UK at least, we were told otherwise on all counts, even when those in charge had been appraised of the situation by British Intelligence. Tony Blair came up with what is popularly known as the "dodgy dossier" which described the case for war as solid and strong and even went as far as to say that Saddam could launch WMDs against the western world within 45 minutes or an order being made.

Tony Blair has since apologised for this.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

It would be so nice to hear what our military men and women think of this war. Not the ones sitting at home giving their spin on what we should have done or should be doing. I'm just thankful that Bush is no weak individual who caves in when the going gets rough. That is why we our considered a super power. We have to be strong at all times. Not when it fits a particular parties agenda.

Yeah, all those vacations he takes really require nerves of steel



Rich::

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

It would be so nice to hear what our military men and women think of this war. Not the ones sitting at home giving their spin on what we should have done or should be doing.

You soon will be able to and think that you may be a little surprised. I wish that I could remember the film's name, but there is a new documentary coming out filmed by one of the reporters assigned to a platoon of soldiers a year ago who filmed not only the battle, but listened to the opinions of the actual soldiers. He offers no personal opinions and does not even speak in his film, he just lets the troops speak. Speaking under the conditions that the filmmaker would not release the film until after the soldiers in his platoon were sent home, he got some honest answers about the direction of the war and the soldiers' opinions of the President. Many were for what we are doing in Iraq, many were against and did not understand what we were even doing in Iraq. That's the thing about our soldiers, they actually have minds of their own. Some on the Right think that they all blindly agree with the Republican party line, that their party owns the hearts and minds of our brave men and women of the armed services. Those who feel that way are sadly mistaken.

 

[richiebaseball]

Unthinking and obedient adherents - the perfect warriors

Coming from you, this is pretty rich. Heal thyself hypocrite.

 

[bsnyder]

Are you serious - you were humiliated before - do a search. You have never shown the slightest understanmding or capacity to discuss anything relevant. Are you just trying to be provocative with such an obvious falsehood or do you believe what you are stating? You really are like your President.

I'm always fascinated by your technique. Present your argument in the most strident of tones possible as a fait accompli over and over and over again. Then throw in a few insulting remarks about a poster's intelligence.

As I usually do, when confronted on the DIS with such bullying tactics from an overinflated ego, I can't help but wonder if this person is really as obnoxious in person as they come across in cyberspace. But in the case of this particular poster, that's not just a time-wasting exercise. Since we have in common a number of aquaintences, I've long been tempted to sastify my curiosity and ask one of them if he's as much of a pompous jerk in person as he is on the internet.

 

[wvrevy]

Conflicting reports ?!? We knew what the tubes were, and science tells us that they can NOT be used for the purpose Bush was saying they could be used for. What is there to conflict ?

As for Bush "making mistakes", I've said it before: he's either incompetant (meaning he saw only the intel he wanted to see), or he's a liar (and used only the intel that supported his case, hiding or burying the intel that disagreed with his stated position of Saddam as a threat). There is no middle ground.

And Bet, I'm just guessing, but I'd say you're probably just a BIT past the "line" in terms of personal attacks. Hard to maintain the moral high ground when calling a poster on this board an "obnoxious jerk".

 

[JimB.]

I wish that I could remember the film's name, but there is a new documentary coming out filmed by one of the reporters assigned to a platoon of soldiers a year ago who filmed not only the battle, but listened to the opinions of the actual soldiers.

The film's name is "Occupation: Dreamland".

I saw a feature about it recently. It looks pretty neutral, just letting the soldiers speak for themselves. An important point (IMHO) put forth by the film's creators is that the DoD gave them absolutely unfettered access to the troops they were with. They also stated the troops were absolutley professional and forthcoming in their interactions.

I saw a couple of "snippets" of the soldiers speaking. The opinions were (IMHO) genuine & honest and covered a pretty wide spectrum ( as would be expected).

Should be an interesting film to watch................

 

[What the Heck]

I'm not sure if this applies to the USA or not, but...

Here in the UK, intelligence reports concluded that:



Even worse, it was also concluded that:



That policy being:



Now, in the UK at least, we were told otherwise on all counts, even when those in charge had been appraised of the situation by British Intelligence. Tony Blair came up with what is popularly known as the "dodgy dossier" which described the case for war as solid and strong and even went as far as to say that Saddam could launch WMDs against the western world within 45 minutes or an order being made.

Tony Blair has since apologised for this.



Rich::

That being the same Downing Street memo that moved our congressional elections from November to January?