News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[chequita guevara]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO
The question is really: "Should we have invaded Iraq?". Not, "Were we justified by these specific reasons?"

I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this?

In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this?

In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

I suppose you could look at it like that, but I think there is more to it.

There was evidence to support WMD's in Iraq. Great Britian agreed, Russia agreed, Jordan agreed, Egypt agreed. Yes there were also questions, but there was evidence. Strong enough to go to war? Probably not in hindsight.

There was evidence of al-Qaeda links. Strong evidence? Nope, but there nonetheless. Sadaam admitted paying the families of terrorist in Israel. al_Qaeda operatives had been seen in Baghdad. Enough to go to war on? Probably not.

I am not saying that the admin was being disingenious. I am saying that they relied on the weakest arguments to go to war. They did this due to the specific audiences that they had to get on board.

These were reasons for the war, but they were not the real reasons.

So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO
So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

Yes, but it's still dissembling. Look at Powell's presentation to the UN. They KNEW it was horse****. Powell said as much to his aides. The administration deliberately presented information they knew was bogus and stretched to try and make a case. I'll point again to the claim about the mobile weapons lab. This was a complete fabrication--not a stretching of truth. It was an out-and-out lie. No such labs were ever known to exist in Iraq, and the notion they could be such labs was invented by the CIA just as a "possibility." That's why Powell had to present drawings. He might as well been showing drawings of a Star Destroyer, for all the truth behind it.

I still think it's a damn shame you'll tolerate such dishonesty from the administration.

[Seeker]

"not the real reasons"

Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this?

In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

Boris, one could conclude that Bush was disingenuous if and only if it can be demonstrated that the reasons Bush advanced for going to war were not the reasons he went to war. The fact that the war can be justified another grounds and is justifiable on other grounds does not prove that the grounds Bush advanced were not the reasons that Bush went to war.

At times I am frankly amazed at the complete lack of logical thinking by opponents of the Iraq war.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, but it's still dissembling. Look at Powell's presentation to the UN. They KNEW it was horse****. Powell said as much to his aides. The administration deliberately presented information they knew was bogus and stretched to try and make a case. I'll point again to the claim about the mobile weapons lab. This was a complete fabrication--not a stretching of truth. It was an out-and-out lie. No such labs were ever known to exist in Iraq, and the notion they could be such labs was invented by the CIA just as a "possibility." That's why Powell had to present drawings. He might as well been showing drawings of a Star Destroyer, for all the truth behind it.

I still think it's a damn shame you'll tolerate such dishonesty from the administration.

Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so?

(I know you may not agree with the assumption, but please answer the question as if you do.)

[Seeker]

Do we hand out comedy/farce points?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
At times I am frankly amazed at the complete lack of logical thinking by opponents of the Iraq war.

Me too. It is amazing how myopic one's vision can become in eithier supporting or opposing the war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Seeker
"not the real reasons"

Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

Cuz Isreal had little to do with it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Seeker
"not the real reasons"

Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

I am sure you meant "oil" not "Israel" didn't you?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so?

Define "national interests." It was in our "national interests" to overthrow a democracy in Guatemala and replace it with a serious of the most murderours dictatorships in the history of Latin America. In this case, national interests were narrowly constured to mean, the interests of the United Fruit Company.

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO


I suppose you could look at it like that, but I think there is more to it.

There was evidence to support WMD's in Iraq. Great Britian agreed, Russia agreed, Jordan agreed, Egypt agreed. Yes there were also questions, but there was evidence. Strong enough to go to war? Probably not in hindsight.

There was evidence of al-Qaeda links. Strong evidence? Nope, but there nonetheless. Sadaam admitted paying the families of terrorist in Israel. al_Qaeda operatives had been seen in Baghdad. Enough to go to war on? Probably not.

I am not saying that the admin was being disingenious. I am saying that they relied on the weakest arguments to go to war. They did this due to the specific audiences that they had to get on board.

These were reasons for the war, but they were not the real reasons.

So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

Plato, you too conflate the fact that war was justifiable on other grounds with a conclusion that the reasons for going to war advanced by Bush were not the real reasons for going to war. At best one could conclude that if the Bush administration had any doubts as to whether or not they should go to war based upon inconclusive evidence of WMD's, they resolved these doubts in favor of war based upon the fact that there were other very good reasons for going to war besides the WMD's. In other words, these other reasons may have tipped the balance in favor of war. But this but this does not mean that they were the real reasons for going to war, as this implies that Bush would have gone to war regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's. Even if he says that now, I just don't buy it at all.

[Seeker]

that only seems to be the case if you listen to stated reasons and short-term causes and goals.

Long-term, geostrategically this war is closely linked to advancing israels interests in not having a major regional rival IMO.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, one could conclude that Bush was disingenuous if and only if it can be demonstrated that the reasons Bush advanced for going to war were not the reasons he went to war.

Wrong, Ned. You can conclude the administration was disingenuous by their claims of confidence in the evidence they had versus the reality. We now know that all the while the administration was claiming that we KNEW 100% there were WMDs there. Rumsfeld said we knew 100% were they were stored. But they didn't know, and they lied to us about the certainty. That's disingenuous.

Cheney was caught in his own lie about the war's justification in the debates, claiming he had never said Saddam had links to 9/11. Sure enough, there was the clip of him on Meet the Press saying exactly that in the lead up to war.

Rumself claimed in a post-war interview he had never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. Sure enough, we have the pre-war clip of him using precisely those words about Saddam.

There's no way to avoid it--they lied to us. Had they at been honest and said, "Look, we have a little evidence, but nothing conclusive. Shall we go to war?" then I doubt they would have gotten the support they had. So instead they played up the evidence beyond what it was, played up the supposed links between Al Queda and Saddam--that's still dishonesty! And you accuse me of illogic? Nearly half of Americans still think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Where did that notion come from?

Holy crap, it's frustrating to see the heads-buried-in-the-sands attitude about this from the right. The administration fed us a story, and you're still swallowing it! How much of a sucker can you be?