Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why did Bush not suggest invading Iraq back in August 2001? The intelliegence was the same then...the only things that changed was 9/11, which was an action by Al Qaeda

They got political capital for it. And 9/11 saw the rise of the neocons (as opposed to the 'interest' foreign policy types) in the administration.

which bring to mind the question of whether a preventive war (this was not pre-emptive, given that NO one in the intelliegence community ever claimed an imminent threat) can be justified using intelliegence that is viewed as unianimous, not even a mayority consensus.

Well I'd disagree that there wasn't a majority consensus that Saddam was persuing WMD. I think there was. Also there is no intelligence that will be unanimous. Perhaps you believe that this means preventive war cannot be justified. I do not accept that view... I guess it is matter of opinion on that issue.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I'd disagree that there wasn't a majority consensus that Saddam was persuing WMD. I think there was. Also there is no intelligence that will be unanimous. Perhaps you believe that this means preventive war cannot be justified. I do not accept that view... I guess it is matter of opinion on that issue.

A 60 or 70% mayority leaves a lot of doubt- there were porminent people speking against the intelligence form day one- more improtantly, there wasn't even mayority that would say Iraq had Al Qeada links, or that they had any elivery systems that made Iraqi WMD's a threat to the US itself, which is what the admin. was trying to sell.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Alexander's Horse, who was risking World War III when they put missiles in the Cuba?

Did the USSR not have a right to counter the US missiles in Turkey? Certainly they risked nuclear way, and we came closer than we ever should have, but we started the process, putting missiles on their border.

Who was a risking World War III when they actively supported the Vietcong in violation of the peace accords against a country they had a defensive treaty with the United States of America?

The support the Vietcong got from outside the South was negligible. That's why, no matter how much the U.S. pounded the HCM Trail, it didn't matter. The VC weren't controlled by the North. They were an indigenous revolutionary organization which took up arms after the failure of the South to abide by the elections.

Who was risking World War III when they attacked the U.S. Navy on the open seas?

As the US was already shelling and bombing the North, I can't really fault them for attacking U.S. warships, regardless of being on the open seas.

[Ned]

Che, Where is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Vietcong today?
Independent my a$$.

[Ramo]

Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Urban Ranger, true. The question is was whether he was alone in making such statements because, if he was not, the statements were made because the intelligence that he was basing his statements upon were inaccurate.

That is why I point to the statements of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, General Clark and others, such as Tony Blair. They all said that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. Bush was simply not alone in what he was saying.

Perhaps he was not alone in making these statements, but he was not interested in finding out more. Before the invasion of Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors were actually making progress, that they could not find any BCN weapons or weapons programs in Iraq. W, however, ignored this. Together with Powell's presentation at the UN and Blair's "dossier" (har har), it paints a picture of the POTUS was just looking for an excuse, no matter how weak it was, to achieve his own ulterior motive.

I have to say, this is very damning.

[Ned]

UR, the mission of the "inspectors" was making progress? AFAIK, Saddam never complied with 1441, so their was nothing for the inspectors to verify.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state.

Where is the Peoples Republic of Vietcong?

[Ramo]

"Being in solidarity with a state's goals doesn't mean that you're taking orders from the state."

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Agathon


What's frightening is that they may not pay for it. If this happens then I will no longer support democracy as it would be plain that it doesn't work.

Here's hoping Blair goes and then Bush, or that some decent citizen solves the problems with a couple of bullets.

When the governement of a country has such extreme power over the media, i don't think democratic is the right word to describe it. Oligarchic perhaps, but democratic ?

[Dis]

exactly how does the goverment have such control over the media.

typical left wing paranoia.

Don't get me wrong. This is disusting. Although not really the deal breaker why I'm not voting for Bush. A lot of that has to deal with domestic issues. Mainly the patriot act and how he is handling the economy- and the overspending.

I want a real conservative. Not this phony of George W. Bush. He's turning out to be one of the worst presidents of the 21 century. . Okay I meant to say 20th century, but I just realized it is no longer the 20th century.

[Dis]

btw this is making the top story of the hour on CNN right now. I'm sick and tired of you commies saying there is some vast right wing control of the media. CNN and Fox only slant to the right because the american population is currently slanted to the right. They do it for ratings alone. Not because the goverment tells them to. Although I do question the goverment's relationship with Fox. There have been instances of Fox getting exclusive coverage and CNN not getting exclusive coverage. Obviously the goverment is biased towards Fox.

[dannubis]

i didn't say right wing politics have control over the media...

and i was just being general. you can't have a democracy when you don't fully know what the governement is doing...

it is as much an accusation towards my own governement which is centre left in the political spectrum

[Dis]

well I do believe the public knows or has the capability to know (most public ignores politics) what the goverment is doing.

Things were far worse in the 19th century. And it's not like we had a democracy back then either. It was a republic. I think with the many media outlets, we have more view into what the goverment is doing than ever before. Let's hope that continues.

[Ned]

I wonder how the "Bush is a liar" Demoncrats are going to handle Kay's call for the intelligence community to explain itself to GWB.

BTW, a Brit UN Weapons inspector called into question the Iraq scientist defense that they simply pocketed the money rather than conduct WMD development. He noted that they said the very same thing in 1991. But it turned out then that that was a lie.