Powell: No evidence of al-Qaida link

[PLATO]

Originally posted by VJ

Ah, your knowledge of the political history from the past 30 years seems to be truly impressing.

I really didn't expect anyone to get that reference!

[Spiffor]

Plato:
If I may ask, what are your feelings that, as an American supportive of Bush, your people have been willingly lied to, in order to manipulate them into supporting a war they maight otherwise have not supported?

[debeest]

Is it any surprise that a member of a faith-based administration still believes, even while acknowledging that there's no evidence to support the belief?

[Patroklos]

That is the problem, I don't think he lied as much as he was just wrong. And even though he was wrong it wasn't all that bad of a mistake because as Powell said the intelligence agencies were confident. US intelligence isn't the first agency to make wrong assesments and give bad advice, and Bush isn't the first world leader to trust in an intelligence agency and be led astray. I think alot of people don't understand how extremely difficult intel work is.

But Bush opponents have to make a decision. Either he is a stupid country bumkin who has no idea what is going on or he is an evil genius conspirator behind the curtain, running a worldwide corporate takeover. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive. Of course the true answer is neither.

I also like how for every critisism apparantly that is the PRIMARY reason. They can't all be primary, and if you insist he made multiple mistakes then you admit there were multiple reasons for going in, not JUST for oil or JUST for WMD. So I will admit of the host of reasons that were given, and there were alot of them even if you only bothered to listen to the ones you didn't like, some have turned out to be wrong or mistaken or overexagerated in hindsight (and lets remember that Monday morning quarterbacks) most have not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That is the problem, I don't think he lied as much as he was just wrong. And even though he was wrong it wasn't all that bad of a mistake because as Powell said the intelligence agencies were confident.

NOT AS BAD! MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF YOUR WRONG INTELLIGENCE AND THAT'S "NOT THAT BAD"!

Oh well, next time let's slaughter the whole of Jordania. Even if we're not completely sure, the intelligence is confident, so it won't be that bad

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Plato:
If I may ask, what are your feelings that, as an American supportive of Bush, your people have been willingly lied to, in order to manipulate them into supporting a war they maight otherwise have not supported?

Well the whole situation is bad. I feel like the President had decided that the face of the Middle East must change for their to be real security in America. Something had to be done that hadn't been done before. Diplomacy had more than obviously failed. The solution, to him I believe, was o build an international consensus to do this. He vastly overestimated how far the post 9/11 international support would go. Once the French formed the new triumvirate to oppose US pre-emtion doctrine I feel he felt backed into a corner. The WMD issue was the only one that had the force of international law (Obviously an interpretation of UN resolution 1441). He had no choice but to press this issue internationally. Domestically, the European resistence raised questions to the new policy that otherwise may not have been raised (sure there would have been opposition anyway...it is a matter of scale). In order to deal with this he felt compelled to try to tie this issue to the terrorist issue. Perhaps there are indications of the link, but certainly not the hard evidence that one would want.

Given these two situations, Bush stretched beyond the evidence in the name of support. This he should not have done.

I believe that the policy we are pursuing is sound. The dividends are being seen in Libya and possibly DPRK. Iraqi democracy will come to pass eventually and Iranian dissidents are energized. Bush should have stated exactly why we needed to be there.

My support for the politics of Bush continues even if my dissapointment in the procedure is growing.

Did that answer the question or was I rambling?

[Spiffor]

Actually, more accurately, more than ten thousand people did not die because of your faulty intelligence, but because the US and the UK wanted to wage this war so badly they forged intelligence. The forgery was blatant in the UK. In the US, mouths get opened since a few months, and denounce a climate where the intelligence agencies were asked to charge Iraq, rather than to make reports reflecting reality.

[Spiffor]

Thanks Plato, for your answer seems sincere, and that's sincerity we need in these times.

If I compress it a bit, you end up saying you favor the realpolitical motives for the war, and that you consider the manipulation of intelligence (and thus of your fellow Americans) as a necessary evil to reach that goal. But what an evil.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

NOT AS BAD! MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF YOUR WRONG INTELLIGENCE AND THAT'S "NOT THAT BAD"!

Oh well, next time let's slaughter the whole of Jordania. Even if we're not completely sure, the intelligence is confident, so it won't be that bad

Spiffor! Really now! How many people were found in Iraqi mass graves? Give me a break!! You have points on other issues, but the net loss of life in Iraq is surely less then it would have been with continued Saddam rule.

[Patroklos]

That would be your opinion, usupported by fact. You may have .5% of the UK/US retired intelligence community in decent, but then again the majority are perfectly happy staying at their jobs and supporting what is going on.

The fact is niether you or I have any idea what is going on on that front in any real sence, and this constant assumption that everyone is coprrupt lieing devils is very boring and tiresome.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Thanks Plato, for your answer seems sincere, and that's sincerity we need in these times.

If I compress it a bit, you end up saying you favor the realpolitical motives for the war, and that you consider the manipulation of intelligence (and thus of your fellow Americans) as a necessary evil to reach that goal. But what an evil.

No I don't favor manipulation of intelligence. I think he should have plainly said that we didn't know for sure, but we were going anyway because it was the right thing to do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Spiffor! Really now! How many people were found in Iraqi mass graves? Give me a break!! You have points on other issues, but the net loss of life in Iraq is surely less then it would have been with continued Saddam rule.

1. These figures come from a seemingly serious source quoted by Lord Of The Mark. They figure the estimated amount of dead Iraqi soldiers, among other victims. For these guys are people too. And when hundreds of tanks get wasted, and when barracks get levelled by cruise missiles, it's not hard to figure there have been quite a few dead anyways.

2. It's most probably true that the death toll would have been worse if Saddam's family had been remaining in power. This is actually the only valid reason to support the war IMHO (and IIRC, only Laz was consistent he solely supported the war based on these grounds).
Yet, starting a war is great responsibility. When I read that it's "not that bad" that doubtful intelligence started a whole war, I think that some people have completely forgotten what responsibility a declaration of war is. I find it particularily frightening coming from someone in the military. I mean, these people are supposed to know better than others that war is hell.

If I kill your daughter, and then I say later it's "not that bad, because I trusted my hunch she was dangerous", how would you react? Badly I assume (I hope). Well, here is exactly the same.

The "oops" argument can not, may not be tolerated.

[Patroklos]

I have a very realpolitik way of looking at things which is plainly obvious, but people are simply wrong in realpolitik too.

Why is that in politics everyone has to have been involved in some sort of elaborate sceme that blew up?

[Patroklos]

Not quite Spiffor. If I killed your daughter because she was running around with a gun (which turned out to not be loaded but how did I know that), killing the rest of your family in torterous ways I would feel totally justified. Because thoough I was wring about the gun, I was right about the killing her own.

Intelligence only failed us in certain areas. And intelligence is a human construct and thus will be wrong. Nobody should say "oh well," but you have to understand things like this are a reality of statecraft, and heads would sure as hell role in the CIA, and I am sure they did.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
this constant assumption that everyone is coprrupt lieing devils is very boring and tiresome.

Of course, this assumption is wholly unreasonable when talking about realpolitik .

I still fail to see how come the intelligence could have been adamant there was a proof (as Powell told the UN) of the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, now that we know there is no proof? What could we possibly learn this year that invalidates previous proof? How could we learn that the accusatory taped conversations were just pranks? How could we learn that the blatant missile platforms have never been there? Surely, the satellites must have had a glitch and just happened to make sand look like convincing missile platforms.

Really, I would have thought that the capture of Saddam's palace would have brought many revelations. But how could they bring "unrevelations"?