October 03, 2005
Bush lied - NOT
A recent study at Factcheck.org explains better than I could about what the President (and almost everyone else) thought about Iraq. About the Bush lied ads you probably have seen (and seen paraphrased all over the place), factcheck.org says, ” … it is now clear that much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading.” Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Bush supporters also will not love this article, but it does put the facts in context.
Posted by Jack at October 3, 2005 04:49 PMLooks like hair splitting to me Jack. Fact Check is a reputable organization because they pay attention to the hair splitting details. But, when taken together, there is no question the administration painted a picture with their carefully couched context which was not accurate to the perception they knew their words would create in the minds of public which had nothing but their words to rely upon.
It was sophistry at its worst. They created false impressions and in my book, that equals lies, since the intention to create those impressions was deliberate, and the consequence of creating those impressions were to benefit the administration. To intentionally deceive and create false impressions with technical truth, as any parent of clever children knows, is still dishonest and equivalent to lying.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 05:28 PMAfter reading that blurb, my first thought was “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
I thought these guys ran on a platform of accountability and integrity. What weasling! These guys are so, SO far worse than the group they were criticizing it’s not even funny! Surely you Red listers are just aghast at your leaders, despite the good face you put on.
I gave up trying to win people over to my views after the downright wicked campaigns they waged. If the American people will listen to a war supporter who dodged the war and then called a man who volunteered though was against the war a coward and a liar, then its all over. Give the barbarians at the gate the keys to the city - we’re already defeated.
Wave the flag. Fold your hands, bow your head and pray. Then denigrate the opposition and pillage the public resources. Treasury pocketed by cronies and big business. Kripes!
I decided in frustration that logic and reason is out and that perhaps things needed to go down this road we are on to convince people that these are not good people.
Maybe they can wiggle out of what this ad is claiming with weasle-words and the super spin factories they have built over time. But there is no doubt that the current adminstration doesn’t want you to know what is really going on. They don’t have to speak the lie. They ARE the lie.
Posted by: Rick at October 3, 2005 05:36 PM“but it does put the facts in context”
Thats where you lost every lefty Jack.
“I gave up trying to win people over to my views after the downright wicked campaigns they waged”
I know, but we must take michael moore, jesse jackson and the moveon.org ilk with a grain of salt. It will be ok.
“If the American people will listen to a war supporter who dodged the war and then called a man who volunteered though was against the war a coward and a liar, then its all over”
Why are you bringing up clinton and Dole? Oh, wait, clinton only supported war when it created a distration for him.
“They are the lie”
So much for being openminded enough to accept facts.
David,
Who created the false impressions though, them or the media who reported on what they said?
It looks to me, from reading the FULL text of what they said, that they were not trying to create any kind of false impression, however what the media REPORTED is very misleading. (Obvious answer, because it is more sensational and gets more advertising money).
What is the real problem? The politicians or the media who are reporting on them? Have you ever considered what phrases taken from one of our posts would look like if it was cut up just the right way to give a certain view? Would that be our responsibility or the one who used the quote?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 05:46 PMJack,
By the way, huge story concerning Iraq came out today, and it’s been overlooked in all the hoopla surrounding the SCOTUS crony nominee.
The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government passed a resolution. For the constitutional referendum on 10/15, the constitution can only be rejected if three provinces have 2/3 vote against it. The 2/3 is not of actual votes, but of all registered voters.
Using the new criteria of 2/3 of all registered voters, the constitution is guaranteed to pass.
See Iraq today? It is what it is. The last chance for meaningful change just went out the window.
Posted by: phx8 at October 3, 2005 05:50 PMJack,
Did you read that factcheck article? It stinks to high heaven! The article ignores intent, extends the broadest possible definitions to find ways to favor the president, something like the old meaning of ‘is’ strategem… playing ‘six degrees of OBL’ with Saddam Hussein. Sweet Jesus, anyone reading that article will have to hold their nose for the rest of the day.
From the website:
The full quote makes clear – as the ad’s blurb does not – that Cheney is stating his own “belief.” Thus, the statement would be true if that’s what Cheney actually believed at the time.
So it’s not a lie if you actually believe something that’s not true. We have another word for that …
Subsequent events have proved Rumsfeld wrong.
No comment necessary.
What Rice said then is an accurate summation of what the US Intelligence community was saying at the time.
And ended up being wrong.
Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 05:56 PMDavid
As I read the factcheck article, it is not favorable to Bush in the sense that it says what he said was inaccurate, but it goes on to say, “To say Bush and the others “lied,” however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea.”
We all now know that the intelligence was wrong, but most of us (and the President) didn’t know it then. He made his decision, as we all must, in a atmosphere of uncertainty. He was telling the public what he thought was the truth. That is not splitting hairs.
Rick
They did not use weasel words. They said what they thought very openly. We can’t expect them to know then what we know now. If I could go back a couple of years with today’s knowlege, well … things would be different.
Phx8
When you say the article ignores the intent, you ignore the facts in evidence. They believed what they said. What intent could there be?
Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 06:00 PMClinton did NOT support the Viet Nam War so he fits in a different catagory than someone like Bush who supported the war, but wouldn’t go. Clinton didn’t want anyone to die in the VNW, Bush just wanted SOMEONE ELSE to die in that war. I don’t recall Clinton’s campaign attack Dole as a chicken and a liar. Bush and Rove and the GOP had no such qualms. Can you really support that kind of tactic and face your Maker without some shame?
I don’t necessarily support Michael Moore’s assertions regarding Bush and Cheney. That’s why the Democrats will never win against Republicans unless Republicans shoot themselves in the foot. There are some Dems who are willing to stoop low and fight dirty, there are just not enough of the regular Dems who are willing to go along with it.
No such discretion is shown by the vast majority of the Repub party from what I see.
I hear very little if any criticism of Bush/Cheney from Repubs so I assume you all agree with his actions and policies. History will not be kind to this man or these times.
Posted by: Rick at October 3, 2005 06:01 PMGreat article Jack. It is clearly more useful to the left if they can say Bush lied. Even though until we went in there everyone, including Clinton, Chirac, and probably Michael Moore believed there were WMD.
If Bush ‘lied’ then obviously Clinton lied, Kerry lied, and Albright lied, etc. etc.
Posted by: esimonson at October 3, 2005 06:13 PMThe problem is that the left has hung their hat on the ‘bush lied, people died’ method of politics for so long that they don’t realize just how off of the beaten path they are. And as a result they aren’t concerned in fixing the breakdowns in intelligence that happened, which is worrisome. Because if there were actual breakdowns in intelligence then Bush ‘has an out’ and they don’t like that.
Of course, we end up with things like Able Danger and the knowledge that Clinton COULD have had Osama a decade ago, but excuses are made. In the meantime they point to Bush, who was in office for 8 months, as being the reason for 9/11, etc…
It’s enough to make me wonder what they are smoking at the DNC?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 06:23 PMWe all now know that the intelligence was wrong, but most of us (and the President) didn’t know it then.
So all the reports of influencing the intelligence community, and taking into account how old the intelligence was, and the convenient “intelligence” office (new to this administration, but couldn’t possibly have been for their own purposes) that was created, all have no bearing on this?
I for one don’t believe for a minute that they “believed it”. They fudged it, used it, manipulated it, because they knew what they wanted to do, leaving themselves the out that they could blame poor intelligence.
Intelligence failure my ass.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 3, 2005 06:26 PMJack, so you are saying the President had no obligation to verify his assumptions, or acquire all available intelligence from the community before making the decision to put our troops in harm’s way?
Preposterous defense, Jack. Simply preposterous.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 06:39 PMI am enjoying this. I post something from factcheck.org, which until now most people on this blog have considered balanced, maybe even a litte to the left, and suddently facts don’t matter. I thought our lefty friends were less religious, but it seems they get their information via revelation, because facts don’t enter into the equation.
The Bush lied train has run out of track. You can still say he was wrong if you want, but that doesn’t seem to be enough.
Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 06:41 PMDavid, phx8, Rick, womanmarine — it’s hysterical, is it not?
Jack — Downing Street Memos —they were “fixing the facts around the intelligence” = they were lying.
Just admit it and move on, m’kay? Really, it’d be so refreshing.
Also, phx8 is spot-on. After that resolution, Iraq must now officially be considered a complete and utter wash-out.
David
that is why they call it intelligence and not news. It is uncertain. Pakistan managed to build and test an atomic bomb, and we didn’t know. We missed Pearl Harbor. Many people thought communism was working. You can test and countertest, but we live in an uncertain world.
Bush aquired all the intelligence the intelligence community reasonably had. The community, not only in the U.S. but Middle East, Russian and the UK, believed it. Not acting would have been preposterous.
Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 06:45 PMJack,
When a President sends the men and women of this country on a ‘pre-emptive’ war to kill and fight and die, he doesn’t get the benefit of doubts. ‘Believing’ isn’t good enough. And if factcheck suggests that OBL and Saddam had ties, and that by the same reasoning you & I have ties as well, well, I’m sorry, that doesn’t cut it either.
A lot of news today- another DeLay indictment, a person of just so-so qualifications nominated to the SCOTUS- what the heck is that?!!!-
But yes, Adrienne, that decision by the Iraqi Shiites to set the voting bar so high, the constitution is guaranteed to pass, is perhaps the biggest story of all. We’re absolutely screwed in Iraq. That was the last chance to change course.
Posted by: phx8 at October 3, 2005 06:59 PMJack, I for one, don’t question the veracity of FactCheck.Org. I already admitted that technically they are correct. But, their intent is not to evaluate political sophistication and manipulation of public perception. Their intent is to evaluate the facts. As you well know, facts alone rarely tell a whole story when it comes to human beings, and as anyone who has studied communications knows, it is not hard to deceive with the facts, a few of them, some of them, and sometimes with all of them.
A huge part of politics is massaging the facts so as to create a positive impression of their reporting. I am confident you are well aware of that. The Bush administration played the media and the public very adroitly in creating a perception that the world would later come to reject as honest or valid. And that is why conservatives are still expending so much energy trying to defend the administration’s actions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 07:17 PMPresident Bush and everyone else thought Iraq has WMDs, and I’m still not so sure they don’t. When that first SCUD was fired into Kuwait, I was in a bunker with my heart pounding and my mask on so tight my face hurt, praying. I thanked God when the patriot battery knocked it down (along with every one that came our way). EVERYONE was expecting us to get hit with chemical weapons. I again thank God they didn’t have them, or at least didn’t use them. If the President thought Iraq had WMDs, he wasn’t lying, so lets Move On…pun intended.
However, every day GIs uncover weapons caches over there hidden for a rainy day. I would expect WMDs to be hidden better than a few AK-47s, so it is entirely possible they’re out there rusting in the desert somewhere. Trust me, there’s lots of hidey-holes in Iraq.
Posted by: NotNutts at October 3, 2005 07:37 PMJack — Downing Street Memos —they were “fixing the facts around the intelligence” = they were lying.
*sigh*
Adrienne.
The ‘Downing Street Memo’ (there was only 1) was the opinion of ONE PERSON and is in no way proof of anything.
Or, are you suggesting the president should call up the advisor to Jack Straw any time he gets some information (Some of it FROM the UK intelligence community) and ask him his opinion?
The Downing Street Memo pretty much useless since Ted Kennedy was saying the same thing. It was hogwash then and it is now. Just because it was written down in a briefing memo gives it no further weight.
Bush did not lie, we have gone through the evidence, Factcheck has gone through the evidence. It just didn’t happen. Just admit it and move on, m’kay?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 07:58 PMDavid,
Well said. Anyone who has raised children knows you can turn a fact on its ear with the right inflection/distraction. “Yes, Mom, her parents will be there.” (i didn’t say ‘where’ there was!)
Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 08:01 PMYeah Jack. We have the facts. The President DIDN’T lie. He only manipulated the facts to kill innocent American and Iraqi people, according to the left. BTW, If I ever have to go to court, I want the President’s team on my side. If they can lie by using the truth then they HAVE to be good.
It seems strange. If we state an opinion the left wants facts to back it up. when we give them facts, they claim we were “technically” correct, but that’s suddenly not good enough.
People keep on talking about Bush’s “intent”. The facts seem to indicate that he believed what he said. His intent was to say what he believed and to convince them that they should believe it too. This is a perfectly reasonable and truthful thing to do. If you believe something is true and your intent is to convince others, how is that even technically dishonest? Isn’t what honest people do every day? If you believe you percieve a gathering danger isn’t it your duty to try to warn others?
When you talk about “intent” you imply he is being dishonest, which is precisely what the facts DO NOT show.
Jack,
If Clinton really believed he was not having sex, then he wasn’t lying, technically or otherwise. You can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 09:01 PMwomanmarine,
What was the motivation for the “lies”?
Saddam used WMD’s on his own people and the Kurds. He had them and boasted of getting more. Where they all went is not known to the public. IMO Syria has them. Previous admins have said the same thing about WMD’s and there was no question about them. All of a sudden there is an attack on our soil and the admin decides that it will take the battle to them rather than have another attack on our soil. After all they have been attacking us around the world for a number of years. The President said we must bring this thing to a close and went after Saddam and his WMD’s. By the time the battle was launched, Saddam had plenty of time to hide the WMD’s through his Syrian friends or on Iraqi soil. We will know some day before too long. President Bush did not lie concerning the war process. There may have been some faulty intelligence, but we the public do not know which intelligence was faulty and which was not.
We all can continue to believe what we want but when the facts are laid out and are proven in the historical period, we can adjust whatever needs to be adjusted in our memory and files.
Rhinehold:
“The ‘Downing Street Memo’ (there was only 1) was the opinion of ONE PERSON and is in no way proof of anything.”
You really have no idea what you’re talking about here, Rhinehold.
Those memo’s ARE the smoking gun — even though the media and the press in this country have desperately attempted, and for the most part succeeded, in downplaying their importance. The same appears not to have been the case in the UK.
(Along with better coverage of the Iraq war, this is just one more reason I’ve found myself reading their newspapers and websites more frequently than I do our own.)
And contrary to the impression you seem to have gotten, there were indeed two main memos, as well as several others which turned up later — and which added further context and detail to the first two.
No doubt you’ll want to read this article since you obviously took a short newsbreak, and missed the others: What the ‘Downing Street’ memos show
Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 09:46 PMJack:
“If you believe you percieve a gathering danger isn’t it your duty to try to warn others?”
Oh, you mean like Joe Wilson, or Scott Ritter?
Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 09:49 PMwomanmarine,
What was the motivation for the “lies”?
adrienne,
Joe “Clown” Wilson was put up to the trip to Nigeria by his wife, Valerie Plame. The trip was unpaid and no report was filed.
His observations amounted to asking a bunch of Nigerians (hoping for US assistance) if they had worked against the US by negotiating with Saddamy Hussein for enriched uranium.
If I was a Nigerian, guess what my answer would be?
Jack, you have got to be kidding.
The factcheck.org article you have all led us to does NOT put the facts in context. The only thing it does is equivocate…in the worst possible way.
For example, when Bush stated, “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” factcheck has the temerity to state “Since the word “ties” can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth.”
What’s next? A debate on the word “had?” Give me a freaking break.
Look, I know it’s hard for a lot of conservatives to call Bush out for his clear and obvious failures. But how can you in good conscience say that he did not lie about Iraq when he has said:
“Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised†and “has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda.â€
—March 17, 2003 — In a televised address to the nation
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
— Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the General Assembly
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
— State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
You’ve heard and read the quotes, too, Jack. How can you in good conscience defend this man? The facts do show dishonesty, Jack. At the highest and most troubling levels. Your defense absolutley astounds me.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 3, 2005 10:10 PMJack:
Well done! You’ve managed to use a source that the left has been praising, and now they feel the need to throw stones at it.
Too many on the left are simply too hysterical in their belief that George Bush is an evil genius (or a stupid fool led by the nose by an evil genius Rove)to understand how easily you have refuted their whines and complaints. And have done so simply by utilizing factual information from an unbiased source.
Look at the caterwauling you’ve created just by pointing out the truth. Well done. Well done. Well done.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 3, 2005 10:13 PMJo
If Clinton believed he wasn’t having sex, than he wasn’t lying. But I don’t think he would have shared that definition with Hillary and I wouldn’t suggest you try his definition with your spouse. I never had a problem with Clinton having sex with “that woman”, except that it was pretty stupid for such a smart man. I guess the little head was doing the thinking for both of them.
Adrienne
If Joe Wilson believed there was a danger, he had the duty to tell people, but it might have been more appropriate to bring it up before the fact when his information might have done more good instead of saving it for the political season.
Reasonable people can disagree about policies and actions. Just because you disagree with the President doesn’t make him a liar. The evidence seems to be that he made an honest error based on generally accepted information that was in error.
adrienne,
be careful about your references. they might be checked, as I did.
The Christian Science Monitor is a responsible publication, but you have twisted every conclusion that the Monitor posited.
To wit:
“This second document appears to contradict somewhat the insistence of the first that military action was “inevitable.”
There are NO references to additional memos. Maybe some remedial reading might help.
The “Downing Street Memos” controversy is so full of holes that even Dan Rather would be ashamed to push it. It’s a fairy tale straight from the far left blogosphere which is deservedly ignored by serious left wing pundits and media figures who would otherwise be too happy to lend credence to an anti-Bush story. And that’s because they don’t want to be laughed out of town.
The memos contains absolutely nothing that wasn’t already widely reported and conjectured about in the media. They predate several UN resolutions which sought to resolve the standoff with Hussein, and they predate Bush’s prewar ultimatums—which, if complied with, gave Hussein an out and the means to avoid war, which would have easily frustrated any drive for a war no matter what.
What’s more, drawing up preparations for the contingency of war were entirely consistent with Bill Clinton’s official policy of regime change in Iraq, and were entirely prudent considering the enforcement of no-fly zones and other conditions imposed after Gulf War I.
Saying that the Downing Street Memos are a smoking gun is like saying that making emergency preparations for a hurricane means you’re hoping for a hurricane—in other words it’s completely absurd.
What’s more, look at this quote from Adrienne’s link about what the memos supposedly show. And then make up your own mind.
The memo does not say specifically that Mr. Bush, or indeed any US official, saw war as inevitable. And at the time, the media was rife with commentary that war was most likely coming. If seen in that general sense, the conclusion was unsurprising.Nor did the document offer details of what intelligence was being fixed around what policy.
Some smoking gun!
Posted by: sanger at October 3, 2005 10:27 PM“The evidence seems to be that he (Bush) made an honest error based on generally accepted information that was in error.”
This is not an “honest” error, Jack. It is an error of epic proportions. Or perhaps, like factcheck, we should debate the word “honest.”
“This second document appears to contradict somewhat the insistence of the first that military action was “inevitable.â€
There are NO references to additional memos. Maybe some remedial reading might help.
Actually reading the link might help you:
A second memo, published in the Times of London on June 12, concluded only that US government military planning for action against Iraq was “proceeding apace.”Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 10:45 PMThis memo, produced for British cabinet’s consideration at a July 22, 2002, meeting, reiterated the point that the US appeared to have given little thought to a war’s aftermath. “In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it,” concluded the memo’s uncredited author.
But wait … was war inevitable?
This second document appears to contradict somewhat the insistence of the first that military action was “inevitable.” But it was prescient in its view of what might happen in the months after victory. “A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point,” said the July 22 cabinet memo.
A series of other leaked memos reported at various times in the British press has added context and supplied detail to these two main papers.
Addrienne, so what’s the point there? It’s as clear as mud.
So what if the memos author was “prescient” about things to happen a year later—things that have no relevance to the use of the Downing Street Memos as a document showing what did happen as opposed to someone’s guess about what would happen AFTER the war? That’s a completely different issue anyway.
Posted by: sanger at October 3, 2005 10:57 PMAdrienne,
Yes, I read the links, I’ve investigated the story and I’ve come to the conclusion of many many many other people that the memos are what they appear to be. The opinion of a person.
So, what does that prove?
Please, here’s your forum since you want us to accept that this is proof of something, please tell us how the documents PROVE that the Bush administration was ‘fixing the evidence’? After all, that is the assertion, that this is a smoking gun, right? Only, all I’ve ever heard was ‘this is the smoking gun’ and expecting the memos to speak for themselves. But they don’t to the intellectually honest.
So, please, we are all waiting for this wonderful, succinct and overwhelming explanation.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 10:58 PMJack:
“If Joe Wilson believed there was a danger, he had the duty to tell people, but it might have been more appropriate to bring it up before the fact when his information might have done more good instead of saving it for the political season.”
I realize what is happening here. You rightwingers have been so busy reading your GOP talking points in an attempt to deny everything, that you haven’t really been reading the news at all.
According to Wilson, he did talk to many people in the government and in the intelligence community before the war — but they ignored him and what he was saying — because all of them already knew that Bushco had long ago been planning for this war and it was basically a done deal. When Wilson finally realized that no one in authority was interested in what he knew to be the Truth, that was when he decided to take his story to the People by writing his NYT editorial:
What I Didn’t Find in Africa
Adrienne
And the date of that editorial? Was that before the war started or after it didn’t make any difference to that outcome?
Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 11:00 PM“The memo does not say specifically that Mr. Bush, or indeed any US official, saw war as inevitable. And at the time, the media was rife with commentary that war was most likely coming. If seen in that general sense, the conclusion was unsurprising.”
No, it said Bush was determined to go to war and the evidence was being fixed around the policy. BIG difference. But this argument seems to spin it into Bush just reacting to media reports. If you understand meeting minutes, this is what Downing Street interpreted Bush’s intentions as, not an account of Bush’s interpretations of an American media he’s claimed he pays no attention to. Google meeting minutes and see what comes up.
“Nor did the document offer details of what intelligence was being fixed around what policy.”
And if I tell you I’m hungry for a peanut butter sandwich, it doesn’t count unless I include a recipe? If you’re complaining the memo didn’t include enough details, then I say, welcome to how liberals have felt for 5 years.
And give up the Clinton tripe. Comparing Clinton to Bush is like comparing a bank robber to a rapist. Lower the bar, lower and lower and lower, then say, well at least he’s not a bank robber! Isn’t he wonderful?
Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at October 3, 2005 11:07 PMthis is what Downing Street interpreted Bush’s intentions as
Exactly.
There were several people on the left saying the same thing, some even on the Senate floor. It was reported in the media.
How is this a smoking gun that it *IS* what Bush was doing? You yourself say that this is THEIR INTERPRETATION of what was going on.
Seriously, how is this proof of ANYTHING other than what someone’s opinion was at the time? PLEASE ANYONE explain it to me. Use small words if you think it will help. I’ve been begging for months for someone who believes that this is proof of anything other than what someone reporting to Jack Straw’s opinion was. And it is meaningless for proof of anything IMO.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 11:17 PMWho even cares about the personal opinions about some unnamed individual at a meeting at Downing Street, for crying out loud?
The same opinion—that Bush was and is hell bent on war—could have been seen in a thousand liberal newspapers, not to mention scrawled on the sidewalks throught San Francisco.
That’s your standard of evidence, some vaguely worded conjecture without any specifics? Sad. And you wonder why not even the left wing media wants to touch such an absurd story.
Since you brought up the incidiary analogy of Bush as a “rapist,” I’m sure that if we can find some memos recollecting that Bill Clinton once looked at a woman “as though he wanted to force himself on her” you’d take that as undeniable evidence that a rape occurred.
You’d have to, wouldn’t you, since that’s the same vitriol, far-fetched analogy and standard of evidence you use for Bush.
“Please, here’s your forum since you want us to accept that this is proof of something, please tell us how the documents PROVE that the Bush administration was ‘fixing the evidence’?”
Oh maybe because the memo read:
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
And:
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
And:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
But here, some of you might want to read it all in full for yourselves:
The secret Downing Street memo
I get the distinct feeling that it may be the first time you’ve bothered to look at it at all.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 11:23 PMAs long as Republicans are sent to Iraq, who cares if Bush lied?
Posted by: Aldous at October 3, 2005 11:25 PMIf the Bush Administration believed that Saddam had WMD in 2003, why did they (in the form of Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice) say in 2001 that Saddam DIDN’T have WMD, that he HADN’T been able to re-arm himself, and that the sanctions were working? Here’s the link. Remember that this is an administration that is extremely focused on ALWAYS sending the SAME message, which means that Powell and Rice’s statments were most likely vetted by the White House. If that’s the case, this lends credence to the theory that “fixing the intelligence” means that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war and was ONLY interested in finding intelligence that supported their position. So even if the Bush administration DIDN’T lie, they were guilty of willfull ignorance at best.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 3, 2005 11:29 PM*sigh*
Adrienne, I asked *YOU* to explain to me how this proves anything other than Richard Dearlove’s opinion of what he was seeing at the time. I was really hoping you would do that and not just give me the same tired slam that I must not have read it or looked into it if I ‘didn’t get it’. :P
That you can’t do that, or refuse to, and just send me to another in the long line doing the same thing, telling me that this is a smoking gun without adressing the exact question I just asked satisfactorily (one site has said ‘well, it isn’t just an opinion because it was in a memo!’).
Please, step up to the plate, I am being very serious and very open here. Show me how this is proof of anything.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 11:35 PMElliotBay, did you even read the link yourself?
And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
How is this any different than what everyone thought BEFORE 9/11? (less than 3 months after they took office) It was after we were attacked in a way we didn’t think possible that we realized that simple containment wasn’t enough anymore.
God, why is that so hard to accept? I’m not asking you to AGREE with it, just accept that it is a valid opinion for someone to come up with and move forward. I really get tired being told that I’m an idiot because I don’t think that Iraq was content with just sitting under the yoke of sanctions for the next 50 years like Cuba.
Is it that hard to just accept that someone can even have that opinion? Are people so laden down in partisan bullshit that they can’t have any reasonability at all? That’s the opinion I’m getting…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 11:41 PMRhinehold:
“I am being very serious and very open here.”
And I am being as straightforward and no nonsense as I can be. Unfortunately though, you don’t seem capable of dealing with that kind of a debating approach, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Dearlove, the SENIOR BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL had related that information to Straw after his trip to the US, and Straw had then wrote the Downing Street Memo.
It was then leaked by somebody in the government who KNEW that this was a smoking gun — a person who wanted everyone, both in the UK and in America to know that the war was being discussed as “inevitable” as early as APRIL of 2002, and that they were “fixing the facts around the intelligence”.
If you didn’t grasp the importance of this with the appearance of the memo, and since then, with the fact that it has been verified as AUTHENTIC, I really don’t know what more I could say to convince you… Honestly.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 12:04 AMAddrienne, people have tried to explain in good faith to you why this conspiracy theory isn’t taken seriously except on far left-wing blogs.
If you don’t see how the Downing Street Memos story is ludicrously shot full of holes, then I guess you’re going to just keep touting it as a smoking gun and the rest of the world is going to just keep ignoring it—and you’re never going to understand why.
Posted by: sanger at October 4, 2005 12:16 AMAdrienne,
You continue to attack me, belittling me, without doing as I asked. My only assumption from this is that you are incapable of explaining how this is a smoking gun.
Please explain to me, in your own words, how this proves that the section in question was anything other than what Richard Dearlove’s opinion of what he was seeing at the time.
Seriously, it is an OPINION. It is not a FACT that this was what was going on in the Bush administration.
Indeed the memo itself contradicts this by attempting to deal with the possibility that the WMD would be used on advancing forces. How would this be possible if it was a KNOWN FACT at the time that there were none?
It was also written BEFORE the US went to the UN, gave Saddam the chance to prevent this from occuring. Most people gave the US and UK credit for getting the inspectors in by assuring that they would use force. This was BEFORE the inspectors were allowed back in.
How on earth is this anything more than his opinion?
As for it being leaked. Hmmm, a typewritten copy of a photocopied memo released 4 days before an election. Nope, no chance it was politically motivated, the person who released it was OBVIOUSLY just looking out to let everyone know ‘The Truth’.
Please, if you can’t do it just say so.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 12:32 AMAnd I am being as straightforward and no nonsense as I can be. Unfortunately though, you don’t seem capable of dealing with that kind of a debating approach, but that’s your problem, not mine.
You have not been straightforward at all, you said that I was stupid for not understanding and pointed me to a web site. You haven’t engaged in any debating at all. You have not provided anything to back up your assertion that this is more than an opinion of a single person at the time.
You are asserting. I am asking for you to back it up. If you can’t, that’s not my problem. If you can, please do so we can continue debating.
Otherwise, I will continue to see the section in question as nothing more than the opinion of Richard Dearlove. If that is the fact you are asking that we see, then I think we can all agree on that one.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 12:35 AMOK, let’s (for the sake of argument) say that Bush/Cheney/et al. were telling the truth as they knew it. Do you feel that they have been forthright and open and honest to the American people on the whole? In reference to the following:
1. The progress on the ‘war’ in Iraq
2. The cost of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
3. The state of the economy
4. White House staff involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame
5. The President giving the finger to the press corp (its on film!!)
6. The ‘bulk’ of the tax cuts going to the middle class and poor
7. Cheney’s charge that he has never met John Edwards and his claim that he is in the Senate most days (yeah, in the Republican Committee rooms, not in the Senate chamber itself)
8. I’m sure others could fill in many, many more instances. I’m just beat and tired of it all.
The plan is deception. The plan is to obscure, obfuscate, and create an illusion. It happens too often not to be willful. Say what you will about Democrats, we’re talking about Republicans who claim to have a higher moral standard. Who claim to have more integrity.
The people see that the king has no clothes. You can try to convince them otherwise, but your game is fast becoming public knowledge. The house of cards will crumble. And for EITHER side, only honesty will get us back to where we need to be. Alas, I don’t think it is possible to operate in our government without lying and deceptions for at least the past twenty years. Maybe longer.
I’m just about to give in and say ‘have at it’. I truly think the best way to show the American people what’s going on is to let the Conservatives have power and watch the state of the Union trend the way it has over the last 5 years.
Sad times.
Posted by: Rick at October 4, 2005 12:54 AMRed Column-
You guys like factcheck? I do to, and I recommend you folks go back and find just how badly off the mark some of your favorite attacks are. I’ve been using their resources for a long time now.
If Factcheck has a weakness, it’s in its tendency not to see the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the ambiguity of these statements, the wording, using terms like belief and whatnot are intended to deliberately muddy things up. A great example: Bush saying he would take care of any leakers. In the context of the time, people assumed this was a promise to fire the person. Now, though, the Bush administration continues to make excuses for why Rove still has a job, despite document conversations where he obviously spoke of information he kne to be secret.
A lie doesn’t always have to be about the facts alone. Often it can be about the structure of was the facts fit together.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2005 01:10 AMTo say that any person, president or otherwise, left or right would WANT to lose American lives is absurd. From a strictly political view losing American lives is disastrous to the politician. Bush made the best decision with what was believed to be the best possible/available intelligence. The DNC has been off for a long time, as well as all the other lefties that were just itching for a reason to discredit or blame Bush. Also, does anyone study economics anymore, with our cyclical market, the market will be opposite to some degree from one president to the next, especially if the party changes. Bush is not the sole reason for the economic downturn, and no one can argue that he was to blame for 9/11, the downturn is a result, in large part (not entirely) of the lax attitude that Clinton had towards SUSTAINABILITY in his second term. A term he wanted to do nothing if not coast through it.
Posted by: Ty at October 4, 2005 01:52 AMRhinehold:
“Please explain to me, in your own words, how this proves that the section in question was anything other than what Richard Dearlove’s opinion of what he was seeing at the time.”
Because it goes along with what Paul O’Neil claimed: that Bushco was planning a war with Iraq from day one.
Because Scott Ritter was right — the UN inspections should have been allowed to continue.
Because there were in fact, no WMD’s, so it does appear that they were indeed “fixing the facts around the intelligence”.
Because Colin Powell has said that having to get up there and disseminate a mess of transparent lies to the UN Security Council was one of the darkest days of his entire career. And now he has to deal with the fact that it completely destroyed his good name and made him lose all the credibility he ever possessed (which prior to then had been significant) to stand there and go on about aluminum tubes and magnets as proof that Iraq was engaged in a nuclear weapons program (Condi’s “mushroom cloud” - pure BS.), as well as mobile chemical laboratories, and massive stockpiles of VX gas and other deadly chemicals, and the sale to Iraq of yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Because Joe Wilson was right — the documents were forged and there never were shipments of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq.
And because just as they indicated in the Downing Street Memo, the administration never did have a plan for what would happen after the initial invasion — and guess what? They still don’t.
“You have not provided anything to back up your assertion that this is more than an opinion of a single person at the time.”
Let’s just say that in every direction possible, it has panned out — and because the memo has been verified as authentic, I believe that one would either need to be an idiot, a blind fool, or a dishonest Bush apologist not look at how the facts have unfolded and know with certainty that this administration intentionally lied and manipulated Congress and the American people into their optional war.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 02:25 AMBecause it goes along with what Paul O’Neil claimed: that Bushco was planning a war with Iraq from day one.
Yes, this is an opinion that many have had. It doesn’t prove anything, it is an opinion. The fact that Paul O’Neil made an assertion doesn’t change the fact that they are both opinions.
If 500 people say the moon is made of cheese, that doesn’t make it so. If 1000 people say they think that Michael Moore is hoping to become president someday, that doesn’t make it so.
Because Scott Ritter was right — the UN inspections should have been allowed to continue.
Nevermind the fact that this has nothing to do with the Downing Street Memo’s, which it doesn’t, it is also hindsight. Saddam was given every chance to follow the requirements of the resolutions but continued to violate them, including 1441, according to Hans Blix. Because of how things unfolded and because Saddam continued to violate the resolutions there was never going to be a way to be SURE that there were no WMD except to invade and look around. I’m glad we did because now we KNOW, not just hope.
Because there were in fact, no WMD’s, so it does appear that they were indeed “fixing the facts around the intelligence”.
Huh? This is insane. Because it turned out that there were no intelligence that means that Bush ‘made it all up’?
Because Joe Wilson was right — the documents were forged and there never were shipments of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq.
Hmm, I wonder why the Butler Report and the 9/11 commission all concluded that at the time it was stated in the State of the Union, it was a valid belief?
And because just as they indicated in the Downing Street Memo, the administration never did have a plan for what would happen after the initial invasion — and guess what? They still don’t.
Yup, and I agree with you that this is crappy and sucks and I think Bush and his administration should be humg up by their intestines for this. But it doesn’t prove anything about Bush making up intelligence. It is *STILL* an opinion.
“You have not provided anything to back up your assertion that this is more than an opinion of a single person at the time.”Let’s just say that in every direction possible, it has panned out — and because the memo has been verified as authentic, I believe that one would either need to be an idiot, a blind fool, or a dishonest Bush apologist not look at how the facts have unfolded and know with certainty that this administration intentionally lied and manipulated Congress and the American people into their optional war.
Sorry, I can’t take that leap of logic with you. You are *wanting* it to be true so you accept it as so. No one has said it wasn’t a copy of an actual document. No one is saying that it might be 100% accurate to what the original said. It still just detailed someone’s OPINION of what they felt was going on. It doesn’t PROVE anything.
I am not an idiot, a blind fool or a dishonest Bush apologist in any way, but somehow, according to you, I must be because I don’t see how the Downing Street Memos are just the detailings of SOMEONE’S OPINION and proves nothing. And you have yet to show me any reason to believe it is anything different than that.
So please, try again to make a detailed explanatation, one that is valid this time, as to why the Downing Street Memos detail anything more than one man’s opinion?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 03:03 AM“So please, try again to make a detailed explanatation, one that is valid this time, as to why the Downing Street Memos detail anything more than one man’s opinion?”
No. Now it’s your turn.
I’d like to hear your opinon as to why Dearlove, the Senior British Intelligence Officer would lie to Straw about what he heard and saw at meetings in the US. Why he would claim that Bushco was viewing war as “inevitable” in April of 2002. Why he would come away with the impression that they were “fixing the facts around the intelligence” if what they really wanted was to avoid a war if at all possible, and allow the UN weapons inspections to continue.
No. Now it’s your turn. I’d like to hear your opinon as to why Dearlove, the Senior British Intelligence Officer would lie to Straw about what he heard and saw at meetings in the US. Why he would claim that Bushco was viewing war as “inevitable” in April of 2002. Why he would come away with the impression that they were “fixing the facts around the intelligence” if what they really wanted was to avoid a war if at all possible, and allow the UN weapons inspections to continue.
Actually, I’m not the one making the case that this document is any more than Dearlove’s opinion. But ok, you ask ‘Why would Dearlove lie’. Who says he’s lying? No one is saying he is lying. I’m saying that he is stating an opinion, not a fact. Why would he claim that Bush was intent on ‘waging war’? Well, about 25 - 35% of the people in the western world thought that during that time. There were a lot of people, mostly liberals (which I assume Breedlove is one, though that is an opinion atm) who asserted that very thing the day that Bush mentioned Iraq in the Axis of Evil speech. No where does it state what he basis it on, no where does it state that it is anything but his opinion, and no where does ANYTHING back up that it is anything other than opinion.
How can opinion be a smoking gun?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 04:02 AMRhinehold,
Please explain to me, in your own words, how this proves that the section in question was anything other than what Richard Dearlove’s opinion of what he was seeing at the time.
Because the Downing street memos were, effectively, minutes of the meeting that took place. The memo was distributed to all who attended—from both administrations—and all participants had the chance to refute what the memo said, both when it was distributed and after it was leaked. I have heard both Bush and Blair try to spin what the memos said, but neither has refuted their authenticity or what was actually said at the meeting. To this day nobody has done so…what is not being said is much more telling than what is being said. If anything in the memo were false or misleading you can be sure that someone would have contested their contents when they were first distributed. Not contesting the minutes is tantamount to approving the minutes. Similarly, if a participant was to claim now that the minutes were NOT accurate when in fact they were…every participant at that meeting would know that they were lying. That is why there is silence about the memos, and that is what gives them much more credence than just being one man’s opinion. All it would take to discredit the memos is for a single participant to come forward and refute their accuracy…the fact that nobody has done this is the true smoking gun.
Posted by: Charles Wager at October 4, 2005 04:36 AM
Because the Downing street memos were, effectively, minutes of the meeting that took place. The memo was distributed to all who attended—from both administrations—and all participants had the chance to refute what the memo said, both when it was distributed and after it was leaked
Yes, that is true. That’s what the memo was, the minutes of a meeting.
And in that meeting, Breedlove gave his assessment of what was going on.
His assessment. His opinion. A possibly higher qualified opinion than of, say, Michael Moore. But an opinion, nonetheless. Being the director of MI-6 does not give you the insight into the inner workings of the Bush administration, unless the UK intelligence agencies are spying on us now? (I was sure that we didn’t spy on allies…) And if he *did* encounter some evidence that his assessment was more than his opinion, he doesn’t express it here anywhere.
So we are left with the typed down opinion of someone’s opinion.
Which is *not* the same thing as proving that his opinion, centering around the motives of the President of the United States, were factual. That his opinion existed is factual, what that opinion was is not, however.
As for ‘being contested when they were distributed’, why would Blair feel the need to contest the writing down of someone’s opinion? Go read the minutes of the Senate and you will find the SAME THING said by mambers of the senate, including Ted Kennedy. Is that a smoking gun as well? Are we taking all opinions and viewpoints as facts now?
Did I walk into an episode of the twilight zone all of a sudden?
What can anyone say to convince me that what is written down in the memo any more than the honest opinion of a high ranking member of the UK Cabinet? That because this UK official had an opinion or viewpoint deems it factual, and more worthy than the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, who both say that the assessement is invalid (they didn’t say it wasn’t said, that the document wasn’t accurate, only that it wasn’t valid) and more worthy than those of the US Senate where they were saying the same thing, written down the in the congressional record, but not considered a smoking gun…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 04:51 AMAfter listening to their irrational nonsense for eight years during the Clinton administration, could there be any thing more hilarious than the rightwing’s lame attempt to be just the opposite in their defense of George W. Bush?
If hypocrisy was a measure of one’s ignorance, these people are up to their eyeballs in the latter.
Posted by: dtom21 at October 4, 2005 05:36 AMRhinehold:
You’ve done a nice job in your posts in explaining how the Downing Street memos are simply opinions. The left seems to want to believe those opinions because they fit their argument. The reality is this:
1) Before invading Iraq, a variety of intel agencies thought Saddam had WMDs, or the makings of WMDs or the precursors of WMDs. Both Republicans and Democrats believed this intel. In fact, this intel led a US president to engage in a military strike against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). That we NOW know that intel to be false doesn’t make someone a liar because they believed it then.
2) UN Resolution 1441 documents the many ways that Saddam broke the cease fire agreement his country signed (Resolution 687, I believe). Every inspector agreed that Saddam was not in compliance, though there was disagreement as to the level and nature of the non compliance. This includes Ritter, Blix and Butler.
3) Every administration has plans at some level for military action around the globe. For the Bush admin to NOT have had any plans for an Iraqi invasion would have been stupid. Considering the problems the Clinton presidency had with Iraq, no one could consider Iraq anything other than a hostile enemy. I would gather we currently have plans for military action or invasion in multiple places around the world. This does not mean we are planning to enact the plans. It simply means we must expect our government to prepare in advance for potential outcomes around the globe.
Rhinehold, the Downing Street memos are important, but as you’ve stated, they are nothing more than opinion. The left has seized upon anything possible to bolster their case, and they continue to do so. This manner of thought brings on the occurrences of issues like the Dan Rather memos, where the rush to present the smoking gun eliminated the due diligence necessary to gather and understand the facts.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2005 06:24 AMRhinehold:
It seems to me that many out there use an outcome based approach to this war. Its the same type of logic that some investors use. Here’s the analogy:
Smart investment analysts knew the stock market had surged in part due to tech stocks going through the roof in the late 90’s. They knew the accounting rules had been lax. They knew the the market typically “corrects” every so often. They knew that the market wouldn’t continue upwards indefinitely.
They had all the information, all the facts, all the intel on the market, yet many still continued investing and lost money when the stock market fell. Were they idiots? Were they “lying” to their clients? No…they were using the information they had at their disposal to make decisions.
It has come out later that many of these decisions were woefully wrong. Hindsight has a way of showing what the correct decisions should have been. With such hindsight, I am now a hypothetical millionaire, having invested in Microsoft in its infancy, having known all the Kentucky Derby winners for the past decade, having known precisely when to divest and invest. Its so easy to know what I SHOULD have invested in after the facts are fully revealed. Its much harder on the front end.
American intelligence has not been sufficient. We did not even know about Pakistan having nuclear capacity until they actually tested a weapon..what a surprise that was. We’ve thought other things through the years, and will continue to do so in the future. Unfortunately, we simply cannot know all things in advance, no matter how fervently we wish it to be. This is far different from lying…its simply reality.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2005 08:31 AMRhinehold-
You’re offering up a bunch of opinions about who could know this or that, while you tell us to disregard the Downing Street Memos because they are only somebody’s opinion. Right.
Let me suggest something: not all opinions are created equal. For example you include a UN resolution to prove that Bush had reason to attack. However, Bush bypassed the UN and went without the second resolution that the first resolution required for going to war. Do the implications of this not stand out to you?
Logic dictates that if you forgo the necessary approval of an organization in your actions, having already agreed to seek that approval, you give up the right to say you’re doing these things in the name of such organizations.
Why did Bush give us the case he did, at the time he did, in the manner he did? Why is there so much evidence in that case, which turned out to be false?
Bush didn’t start the drive for war in late 2002. His people were itching for it from the start. O’Neill saw a meeting where people were not discussing the situation in Iraq, as if there were other options than war. They were discussing how they might justify it. Why talk about justifying a war if you haven’t any interest in deciding that way? Besides, many of these poeple posted a letter to Bill Clinton advising him to take a more aggressive stance on Iraq. A number of figures in this administration had the immediate response on 9/11, according to eye-witnesses, of attacking Iraq. This includes the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Bush was pushing Richard Clarke to find a connection with Iraq, which is odd since many of the people on those flights are already identified as al-Qaeda terrorists. And I mean, this was an identification done within minutes of the attacks, just before WTC Tower Two came down. Even with that, there were many people who believed Iraq was involved and that war with them was necessary
Does that make the war necessary? No. I can believe that running my car into another person is necessary, but the cops who arrest me might think otherwise if I can’t justify it (I ran him over, office, because he was about to shoot you.)
What would have made such a war necessary would be a pattern of facts indicating that there was a threat. However, it’s not until late 2002 or early 2003 that we really get a case in earnest for a war that the Bush Administration has been advocating for nearly a year. The problem many people like myself had was that the justification turned out to be ass-backwards. Instead of learning of a threat and acting to prevent it, this administration started building support for a war, then created a case for it.
They cut out information that would have given both lawmakers and citizens pause in advocating the war. Indications are, this was intentional. Bush had Libby and Hadley give the trial lawyer’s treatment to the case for war, which was great for making it sound scarier, but not great for any objective analysis of the strength of the case, which is what they, with their responsibilities, need to be looking into.
I read all this relativism about opinions. It’s indicative of the culture. Everybody else’s belief is just an opinion, so I can disregard them. Well, you can, that’s your choice, but the question is, whose opinion is better supported by the facts.
Not all opinions are created equal. Not everything noted in a subjective perspective is necessarily wrong. Allowances do have to be made, though, and the facts, as far as we can establish them, must be part of that analysis. We have to model in our minds a perspective that is not our own, and understand it the best we can. The problem with the way many Republicans and independents are dealing with the issues now, is that they are assuming a blanket kind of unreliability of most dissenters to the president’s policies. They are assuming motives for which they have little evidence, or evidence that contradicts their assertions, and then accepting at face value information, even as sources in the media indicates severe factual problems.
It is said that you can often tell the personality of a CEO from the behavior of the employees. If so, Bush’s insularity has infected the conservatives to the point that this country cannot even agree on simple, documented facts.
If there is one things that years of study about the human mind has shown me, it’s that the ability of the imagination to spin off into the stratosphere with speculation is great, often to the point of crippling a person’s ability to deal with day-to-day reality. Only a respect for the facts and a focus on remaining observant and aware of our always incompletely understood reality saves us from that. We can become victims of our own illusions if we are not careful, if we indulge our pride at the cost of our wisdom.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2005 09:12 AMI hate jumping in so late, but this FactCheck article is pretty bad. What it comes down to is,
To say Bush and the others “lied,” however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong.
And the author makes no attempt to find out whether they knew the intelligence was wrong, relying on a single report by the partisan Commission on Intelligence Capabilities which also made no attempt to find out whether they knew the intelligence was wrong.
Two huge examples of the administration knowing the intelligence was wrong are Dr. Rice stating that the aluminum tubes could “only” be used for nuclear weapons development when she knew there was dissent within the intelligence community, and President Bush saying Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake from Nigeria even though the intelligence community had refuted the claim months earlier.
I like the work FactCheck does, usually, but this one’s not up to their usual standards.
Joe-
You diversify your holdings. You watch for signs of overvaluing. Your judgement will be imperfect on it, but any person with sense knows that all their decisions will be imperfect, and therefore the route to the right decision will not always be one of doing what’s obviously supposed to be right.
This notion that in these complex systems that we should simply follow the groupthink because it always corrects itself is foolish. Why? Because our fortunes diminish when we’re on the wrong side of such a correction. The point is not to follow the market, for the people who got things right reap most of the value before we get it. The point is to be right first, and profit because the Market, or at least the transaction, ultimately goes in our direction.
Opinions are more than just ideosyncratic thoughts that have no right and wrong. Professional opinions, especially those that deal with facts and figures, are falsifiable- they can be proved wrong, to one degree or another. I don’t see the Bush supporters doing anything here but arguing relativism. They aren’t arguing how the facts support their case. They’re not disproving things, they’re trying to prevent them from even qualifying as subjects of discussion.
It’s sad, really. If they weren’t so occupied arguing about the nature of truth, they might learn some of it, and keep their politicians from getting out of hand.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2005 10:30 AMJack
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”
Their opinions ARE their facts. It doesn’t matter what facts or truths you post, it cannot contradict what they NEED to be true.
Posted by: Tim Huff at October 4, 2005 10:54 AMStephen, nicely done.
Charles Wager — I absolutely agree, this really is the “smoking” aspect of the scenario:
“All it would take to discredit the memos is for a single participant to come forward and refute their accuracy…the fact that nobody has done this is the true smoking gun.”
Rhinehold, sometimes I wonder why I bother to debate with you guys on the right — since so many of you automatically discount every single link we try to give you, and almost everything we have to say — whether fact or opinion.
I think I’ll take a break from more pointless arguing today and simply read instead.
Carry on gents…
Stephen:
From reading your post, I think I didn’t make my message clear to you. The point is that when you look back in hindsight, the flaws in logic and presumption become clear. Those flaws are ONLY clear in hindsight though, even with something so factually based as investments. I mean, its all based on financial facts, balance sheets, profit/loss statements etc. Numbers and figures as opposed to opinions. Yet still there is a strong subjective nature to it that means we don’t know the outcomes. We can guess at them, but sometimes we are wrong.
It is the same with global intelligence. We can guess at outcomes, but only in hindsight do we truly know the accuracy of our guesses. There is no such thing as 100% knowledge or certainty.
It seems that parts of our society want 100% accuracy. Why didnt we know more about the Iraq situation? Why didn’t we do more over the past 30 years to protect New Orleans? Why didn’t the passengers on the boat in upstate NY have lifejackets on? Why Why Why??
And the answer is that we could protect ourselves from every eventuality. But that wouldnt be living either. We would have locked ourselves inside tiny little lives that would no longer be worth living.
Hindsight is important to help try to predict the future better the next time, and to better utilize the limited information we have. But when hindsight is used simply to point the finger of blame, then its value is often lost.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2005 11:11 AMJack,
Don’t you find it disturbing that every single “fact” that we were given leading up to this war was wrong?
Hey, hindsight is 20-20, but…..
Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 11:43 AMRocky, we knew the facts were bad at the time. Despite all the evidence Bush said he had, the inspectors never turned up anything. The fact that Bush’s “intelligence” was the same stale intelligence from 1998 with nothing new added actually came out before the invasion.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 12:03 PMRocky
Most of the facts were accurate or reasonably so. The only ones not were those specifically relating to Saddam’s current possession of WMD. Those were also the ones, BTW, most difficult to verify. Saddam had them earlier and had used them. We still don’t know when (or even if) he stopped having them.
Beyond that it remains a fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands people both in his own country and in others nearby. It remains true that Saddam committed aggression against four of his neighbors. It remains true that he ignored 17 Security Council resolutions. It remains true (and in fact it was even worse than we thought) that Saddam was subverting sanctions. It remains true that Saddam openly paid off the families of suicide bombers. It remains true that Saddam bragged about being an enemy of the U.S. and wanted to hurt our interests. It remains true that when we pushed Zarqawi out of Afghanistan he took refuge in Iraq (before the coalition invasion). It remains true that Saddam provided refuge for other known terrorists. WMD was only one of the reasons. There were many others. AND Saddam at some point in the recent past had possessed WMD. AND WMD is relatively easy to make and hide by anyone who has the money and the will. So there were many reasons to suspect Saddam and be wary of him. And those facts were and remain true.
AP,
So I guess that our Connecticut “Cowboy” was just trying to win one for his dad, and blame it on the “irrelevent” UN.
Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 12:16 PMJack,
“Beyond that it remains a fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands people both in his own country and in others nearby. It remains true that Saddam committed aggression against four of his neighbors. It remains true that he ignored 17 Security Council resolutions. It remains true (and in fact it was even worse than we thought) that Saddam was subverting sanctions. It remains true that Saddam openly paid off the families of suicide bombers. It remains true that Saddam bragged about being an enemy of the U.S. and wanted to hurt our interests. It remains true that when we pushed Zarqawi out of Afghanistan he took refuge in Iraq (before the coalition invasion). It remains true that Saddam provided refuge for other known terrorists.”
And yet not one of those reasons was the one that we were given before we invaded a soverign nation.
Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 12:20 PMJack,
Most of the rest of the world, except for Blair and our toadies, thought Bush was full of it. They were right. Bush has been wrong on nearly everything his whole life. The sad part is that it’s always others, e.g. the citizens of Houston, the citizens of Texas, and our soldiers, that are paying the price.
Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2005 12:30 PMJack,
It’s now nearly two years since Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished”, and in that time, America, the most powerful nation on the planet, a superpower among mere mortals, has been incapable of exerting total control over a country the size of California.
And please, I don’t want to hear about how we control most of Iraq. Most of what we control is sand and rocks.
Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 12:32 PMSome people hate you even if you treat them like royalty; some people think you are the second coming even though you treat them like crap.
Bush supporters believe Bush because they like him; they are on the same side. They don’t “like Bush” because they believe him. Their cause and effect is reversed.
Posted by: Darrius at October 4, 2005 12:45 PMadrienne,
Re-read you own link:
“A series of other leaked memos reported at various times in the British press has added context and supplied detail to these two main papers.”
This does not conclude that the “other memos” did anything other than support the first two. No additional NEW information was found or the Monitor would have detailed them.
Do you gauches read AND comprehend, or just absorb words?
You know, I’m old enough to remember Adlai Stevenson presenting the evidence for Soviet missiles in Cuba at the United Nations. And I remember watching Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN (live) on Saddam’s WMD status and thinking to myself “This ain’t no Adlai Stevenson presentation.” It was weak, speculative and NOT convincing. I was sorely disappointed, for up to that time I viewed Mr. Powell as a public figure of integrity. Instead, he turned out to be just another “team player”.
Posted by: Mark at October 4, 2005 01:18 PMRocky,
If that is truly what we “control” in Iraq, what are you so upset about?
Why don’t you gauches go to the liberal side and whine over there? The only thing you accomplish is refuting facts with slogan, opinion and plagiarism. Not to mention getting free remedial reading lessons, which you should have received in grade school if the teachers’ unions were not hell bent on indoctrinating you rather than educating you.
Tim,
“Their opinions ARE their facts. It doesn’t matter what facts or truths you post, it cannot contradict what they NEED to be true.”
I wish I had said this. Very elegantly put.
Eddie,
“The only thing you accomplish is refuting facts with slogan, opinion and plagiarism. Not to mention getting free remedial reading lessons, which you should have received in grade school if the teachers’ unions were not hell bent on indoctrinating you rather than educating you.”
Except I was taught by Nuns and Priests, two groups not well known for their strong labor unions.
Please feel free to point out any “plagiarisms” I have commited, or any “slogans” I have used to get my point accross. As for my opinion, I am entitled to it, get over it.
Wake up and smell the pavement pal. Your guy wouldn’t be where he is without his daddies cronies. His life has been one screwup after another, and now we the people, get to bear the brunt of this bad joke.
Darius,
“Some people hate you even if you treat them like royalty; some people think you are the second coming even though you treat them like crap.”
Machiavelli wrote about this in the 16th century. So what?
“Bush supporters believe Bush because they like him; they are on the same side. They don’t “like Bush†because they believe him. Their cause and effect is reversed.”
This paragraph is unschooled BS, but bolded text is pure drivel.
Why don’t you use your real name, or are you some overweight Walter Mitty, typing alone in your bed room at your parent’s house?
I truly believe that Bush’s War in Iraq is based solely on his OPINION, or his beliefs,or in other words, his very BAD JUDGEMENT. I do not think Bush really cared whether he was right or not. He wanted to invade Iraq, so he attempted to justify his beliefs. It is backfiring. Too late for many American and Iraqi troops to survive.
I frequently wonder whether other people were paying the necessary attention to Bush shortly after he was elected.
I became $50.00 richer once Bush ordered the invasion. I’d bet my husband that we would go to war WITH Iraq with-in a year of his swearing in. Granted I was off by a few months, but because Bush had been hinting at it long before, my husband paid up.
As to whether Bush and Company lied - at this point it appears to be obvious that either he lied, or used extremely bad judgement in order to start a WAR. And as has already been pointed out, he still hasn’t figured out a way to get us out of Iraq. In my opinion, whether he lied or used bad judgement, the results have been the same. Bush is a lousy president. I do not wish to even try to comment on his character.
Rocky:
And yet not one of those reasons was the one that we were given before we invaded a soverign nation.
Posted by Rocky at October 4, 2005 12:20 PM
Below are exerpts from a George Bush speech in Cincinnati October 2002 that refute your claim on a point by point basis. You claim that none of the reasons Jack alluded to were given—-I prove to you that they were given…and given by President George W. Bush himself. In the face of the following quotes, you can continue to make your denials, but its out of the realm of opinion—its now pure fact.
“The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.” (Killing his own people)
“This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning…” (Committed aggression against his neighbors)
“Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations…Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception” (Ignored and violated UN resolutions)
“The world has also tried economic sanctions — and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.” (Subverting sanctions)
“And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. (Iraq providing refuge to terrorists)
“America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity….The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.” (Oppression of Iraqi people)
Full text of the speech in context can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
To all Conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarian conservatives:
Ann Coulter’s new book, “How to Talk to a Liberal (If you must)” spells out the tactics and their justification for talking to liberals:
1) Don’t surrend out of the gate;
2) Don’t be defensive with a liberal;
3) Outrage the enemy;
4) Never apologize to a liberal;
5) Never compliment a liberal;
6) Never be gracious to a liberal;
7) Never flatter a liberal;
8) Do not succumb to liberal bribery; flattery etc
9) Prepare to have your deepest darkest secrets become liberal talking points;
10) Always be open to liberals in transition.
If you need details read the book. If you re-read the list, you can note the tactics which have been used on you.
Put an end to your attempts at civil discourse. You are casting pearls before swine. If you have any doubts, go read the Forum at the NYT and see for yourself.
Yah, Rocky,
Replying to a liberal stooge.
And getting better, stooge.
Eddie Filek, your name calling and flame baiting comments violate our stated policy. Your comments are no longer welcome here. — WatchBlog Managing Editor
What part of critique the message not the messenger don’t you understand?
Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 02:13 PMJBOD,
Point taken.
OBTW. From that same link you provided;
“Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror”
Gee, could that be the “grave threat” reference that the White House spent all that time denying?
Rhinehold, sometimes I wonder why I bother to debate with you guys on the right — since so many of you automatically discount every single link we try to give you, and almost everything we have to say — whether fact or opinion. I think I’ll take a break from more pointless arguing today and simply read instead. Carry on gents…
Well, first of all, I’m not a ‘guy on the right’ so perhaps that’s your first problem. I even hinted to you when I agreed that Bush made a mess of the post invasion handling of Iraq, but you glossed right on over that one (as you have most of what I said).
You say I discount the link you provide when I specifically asked you NOT to provide a link because I wanted to hear, in your own words, the answer to my question. The question you still have not wanted or been able to answer. You did post a single link to a website that says the same thing that all of the other sites do and never answers the question I asked.
No one is arguing the veracity of the documents. No one is saying they aren’t genuine (though they are typewritten second hand copies). It doesn’t matter because they only prove that Breedlove’s opinion at the time was what is written in the meeting notes.
That’s it.
I have yet to hear anyone give a good enough explanation as to why this document is any more than that. The document itself even backs up that this was opinion by further discussing the possiblity of WMD being used if there were an invasion, something hardly worthy of discussion if they KNEW that there were no WMD and Bush was fixing the evidence.
So, I don’t know else to say either. You haven’t given me reason to believe that this is more than it appears to be. I have no vested interest in whether Bush was lying or not because I don’t care. I was calling for the invasion of Iraq long before Bush was elected, supporting (and being disappointed with) Clinton when he called for it and then just let saying it be enough. I was upset and mostly infuriated with Bush Sr. for convincing the Iraqis to revolt and they would recieve our assistance and then we turned our back on them. The whole affair is a huge black mark on 3 administrations and still continues to me because of politics like the above.
And what is most infuriating is that if Bush lied, fine, let’s see the proof and deal with it. But, if it is at it appears to be, that there were serious failures in intelligence during the past 12+ years, then we need to address them and deal with them. But we can’t becuase if one side admits that there were intelligence errors they lose what they see is a prime way to regain power. And the other side doesn’t want to admit to anything, even serious failures in intelligence, for fear that they will slip some of their power away during the 2006 elections.
Meanwhile, those who desire to break our hearts and will by attacking and killing innocent American citizens are continuing to figure out new and more destructive ways of doing so. All the while we let our borders remain unguarded, our spending to be insanely high with pork and more powergrabbing and our ability to be self sustaining energy-wise is hampered because of fears of nuclear energy and the inability to help spur development of good alternative clean fuels that make ECONOMIC sense and won’t kill our economy in the process.
So, continue to attack me as a republican and never answer a direct question, that’s the way I suppose. Neither side wants to do that, they just want to get their talking points in. I gave you an excellent opportunity to step to the plate and make a perfect case and you struck out with 3 straight whiffs.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 02:21 PMOh god, can we please agree to NOT quote Ann Coulter or Michael Moore or any other complete loon when we are trying to have a reasonable debate here please?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 02:28 PMRocky:
Thanks for the response. After all, my fingers are nearly arthritic from all the copying, cutting, pasting and manuevering of text.
I believe the denial you refer to was about the phrase “imminent threat” as opposed to “grave threat”. And what Bush said was that we should not wait until Iraq became an imminent threat before taking action. I think Bush always claimed Iraq was a grave threat or a gathering threat.
By the way, to be fair, I do think Bush overplayed his hand regarding WMD’s. I think the media also pounced on that issue and ignored the rest of his issues. But Bush certainly placed a high focus on the idea of Iraq having WMDs. At the time and still today, I felt he should have focused on how Iraq had broken the ceasefire agreement they had signed—in my eyes, that was enough to take action. It probably wouldnt have been enough reason in the eyes of many, which is why I think Bush took the more horrible scenarios of the intelligence and made them seem the most probable.
It’s not lying, but it certainly is painting a possibility as a probability.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2005 02:29 PMRhinehold, whatever.
Rocky:
“Jeez, another Ann Coulter hack.”
And somehow we’re gauche…
Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 02:40 PMRhinehold, whatever.
??? Oookay, I guess were done then.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 4, 2005 02:43 PMRhinehold,
” I was calling for the invasion of Iraq long before Bush was elected, supporting (and being disappointed with) Clinton when he called for it and then just let saying it be enough. I was upset and mostly infuriated with Bush Sr. for convincing the Iraqis to revolt and they would recieve our assistance and then we turned our back on them. The whole affair is a huge black mark on 3 administrations and still continues to me because of politics like the above.”
Clinton didn’t have the support of Congress to take action, and besides he was busy “wagging the dog”.
The problem with our invasion was that we screwed around insted of doing what was nescessary to complete the mission.
Am I the only one that saw this?
“U.S. general says number of capable Iraqi battalions drops to one
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday, prompting Republicans to question whether U.S. troops will be able to withdraw next year.
Gen. George Casey, softening his previous comments that a “fairly substantial” pull out could begin next spring and summer, told lawmakers that troops could begin coming home from Iraq next year depending on conditions during and after the upcoming elections there.
“The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens,” Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Bush administration says training Iraqi security forces to defend their own country is the key to bringing home U.S. troops. But Republicans pressed Casey on whether the United States was backsliding in its efforts to train Iraqis.
In June, the Pentagon told lawmakers that three Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped and capable of operating independently. On Thursday, Casey said only one battalion is ready.”
So what realy is going on?
Is the insurgency in it’s death throes or what?
Rhinehold:
Teenage girls say “Whatever” when they have nothing of substance left to say. It’s usually preceded or followed by a long heavy sigh. It’s really just a way of giving up while maintaining the plausible deniability to say they were right, even though they recognize they are not.
Posted by: fred flintstone at October 4, 2005 02:52 PMWe have reached equilibrium. We can discuss whether or not the Bush policy was appropriate, but opponents will have to abandon their “Bush Lied” screed.
If what we mean by lying is saying things you know or have reason to know are not true, Bush told the truth. I know “Bush was mistaken about the details of WMD” doesn’t rhyme with anything, but that is what you have. You can probably make a slogan out of it if you try hard enough.
Thanks Joe
I was going to have to trot out my prewar arguments once again. Glad you did it for me.
Rocky
Grave and gathering are the ways Bush described the threat. You should respond to a grave and gathering threat, before it it imminent. His opponents read the word imminent into his actual words and now believe what they thought is what the President said. Some have gone so far as to say that because they believe it the President must have meant that instead.
I’m coming to the party late here, but have the following observations. Fact check has found Bush’s words to be technically correct. Fine. So be it. That’s their job.
As a liberal, I’m highly suspect of the Bush administration and their aims. However, I’ll grant them the pass that they made the decision to invade Iraq was made on the best intelligence they had at the time.
What doesn’t work for me is the timing. I didn’t understand and still don’t the immediacy of the need to invade. Nothing to my knowledge indicated that there was any immediate threat of Saddam launch weapons at Israel or the US, or even Saudi Arabia. I do recall the statements of Condi Rice, Cheney and Bush all terrifying us with the idea that a “mushroom” cloud may appear at any time, but I never saw any evidence of that. There was nothing coming out of State, Defense, or the CIA to my knowledge that even implied that Saddam was about to attack us. Even with Secretary Powell’s presentation at the UN I kept thinking, “O.k., then let’s increase the number of weapons inspectors and increase the number of audits”. If we had taken perhaps a one-tenth of the resources we currently have in Iraq and applied that to weapons inspections we may have found verifiable proof one way or the other of the existence of the WMDs. It’s arm-chair quarterbacking I know, but the rationale for attacking (even if he had WMD) was weak to me. I didn’t view Iraq as an immediate or imminent threat.
It’s still very curious to me as to why the invasion at that time? We moved assets away from searching for Osama and Mullah Omar at a time were they were the weakest and on the run. Seemed wrong-headed at that time and still does. I believe that if we are to go to war, then every possible effort to avoid going to war must be attempted. If there are opportunities in place (as with the Blix and his inspectors) to obviate the need to invade, we should exhaust them first. I think asking the coalition soldiers who were sent to war deserve nothing less.
If you want to find areas where the B