60 Minutes: CIA Official Reveals Bush, Cheney, Rice Were Told Iraq Had No WMD

Clinton never won a popular vote either.

Clinton never won a popular vote either.

That'd take a pretty creative redefinition of the term "won."

In 92 Clinton won 43% of the popular vote.
In 96 Clinton won 49.2% of the popular vote.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that he never won majority, whereas Bush had over 50% during his re-election.

I apologize for mis-stating what I said

Thanks, Andrew - it's an easy mistake to make. vladimer referred to "winning" the popular vote, not "getting more than 50%." Clinton "won" by every pertinent measure, as no candidate in either election received more votes than he did. President Bush, in contrast, didn't "win" the popular vote in 2000. That's a fact which is not contested. In 2004, he is assumed to have "won" the popular vote as well as the electoral vote, but that has been disputed. It's not proven, and so I personally wouldn't put it quite the same way that vladimer did, but I'm going to have to assume that vladimer feels comfortable concluding that Bush didn't "win" the popular vote in 2004, either. Either way, though, what vladimer asserted was at least half correct, and entirely correct if you accept that voting irregularities in 2004 obscured the actual popular vote. What you said, by contrast, was entirely inaccurate absent a redefining of the term "won" to mean "received more than 50% of the vote," which would be a pretty nonstandard definition, particularly wrt American politics.

Just an observation to the current discussion. Since we don't elect Presidents by popular vote - I have always found this stat to be pretty useless. This is why.

The reason the U.S. has an electoral process is so that the small state's get their interest represented. Otherwise, the candidates would campaign in the heavily populated states only in order to get the popular vote. They would offer the big city folks the world, etc.

Now, with that in mind and I think all would agree the electoral process is the correct one. The candidates campaign differently - they try and reach out to all the states, etc.

So, going backwards and placing the popular vote up as a measure of the candidate is really unfair in many ways. Le't say for example the Patriots lost to the Chicago Bears iin the Superbowl. We wouldn't say that the Patriots got more offensive yards so they should have won. The rules say that points count - so the game plan was to score points not yards. See my point? If yards were key - I am guessing the Bears would have played a different football game.

Since we don't elect Presidents by popular vote - I have always found this stat to be pretty useless. This is why.

You're right, Lufbery, and if anyone here had claimed that George Bush actually wasn't the President, this would be a pertinent observation. Vladimer simply expressed his opinion that Bush should not have accepted the Presidency. He didn't claim that Bush doesn't have a legal right to the Presidency, or that Bush wasn't legally elected President. Sometimes, what is legally right and what is morally right are two different things. I'm not completely on board with vladimer's argument here, but he certainly is entitled to his opinion. The real issue was that Andrew claimed that Clinton, like Bush, didn't "win" the popular vote, a claim that, aside from the irrelevance of bringing up Clinton in a discussion about Bush, was factually inaccurate. No big deal, not worth having a big argument about, I just think its worthwhile to clear the air when potential red herrings are introduced.

Okay - Got it. Thanks and I agree that Vladimer is entitled to his opinion. Using this logic, it would be like the Bears handing the Patriots the Super Bowl title because they had more yards (even though they may have gotten the yards in the final minutes playing catch up) - as a President might earn the popular vote by focusing on issues that represent the heavily populated cities. Just my two cents - sorry for butting in.

it would be like the Bears handing the Patriots the Super Bowl title because they had more yards (even though they may have gotten the yards in the final minutes playing catch up)

I see where you're coming from - it certainly ain't gonna happen, and I wouldn't expect it to happen if the shoe was on the other foot, either. We play by the rules as they exist at the time we're playing, and we accept that sometimes it might not seem fair. I definitely share vladimer's assessment of the Bush administration in general, but I also acknowledge your point that when a situation like this happens, we just have to get up, look around, and figure out how best to get the ball moving in the direction we prefer.

...sorry for butting in.

Accepted, but I don't see it that way. You made an interesting point, and I appreciate having the chance to explore it a little bit.

(heh - really, what else could I say, considering that I was butting in, too? )

;-)

Thanks. You give me hope.

"liberal" and "conservative" are just labels, though we are all human..... and most humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. there are truly intelligent and thoughtful conservatives out there who know bad ideas and bad judgement when they see it. we as 'liberals' and 'conservatives' MUST unite and work together to save our country from further destruction.

Vlad, so if you want to argue morality, be so kind as to tell me why US and the West should desert the people who are being mauled in the developing world? Should we stay out of Sudan? Are you aware of the crimes that were committed in Iraq?

Maria, nice analogy, but what you completely fail to realize is that this entire world has been a cesspool for the last 30 years. You are also failing to realize the connection between different countries. My birds-eye-view is here. It may be deeply flawed in many respects, but I think it might give you a way to re-evaluate how you see things.

What I can't understand is why people think that things were just peachy before Bush got here and then he darn all screwed it up. Terrorism has been growing, Israeli-Palestine conflict would flare up every time there was something resembling calm (Saddam, btw, paid money to families of suicide bombers, which alone should have had the world in arms), Saddam and his murderous regime was a perpetual crime against humanity, and the world was a crazy nasty place with little hope because the West was sitting pretty in front of TV watching three-star movies getting fat on popcorn smothered in butter. 9/11 was a brutal reality check. Yet instead of analyzing the rest of the world, the liberals are fixated on scrutinizing Bush and his facial expressions and lack of semantic finesse. People still chant "oil, oil, oil" and have no idea about the relationship between Iran and insurgents or about the fact that finally Iraqis have hope. A hard hope, but hope nevertheless.

Bush, IMHO, is probably one of the greatest presidents who took an extremely painful and dangerous step. He made many a mistake in the process most of which we probably won't know about for years to come. But I find myself hard-pressed to judge him...

In a similar way that I find myself hard-pressed to judge people like Che Guevara. As you probably figured, I am a republican. Yet with people like Che, despite him standing for things that I should oppose, I can not look down upon him. Not given his context. If I were Che, I might arrive at the same conclusions and make the same decisions. If I were Bush, I might arrive at the same conclusions as well. In both cases, it would take guts and intelligence.

Sorry for the rant, but I just can't understand how people can engage in petty sniping missing the big grotesque state of affairs.

@Maria

* There wasn't enough evidence to go to war. * Though Saddam was an unjust and evil person, he wasn't especially worse than Kim Il Jong II or a few others. * The current situation in the Sudan was just as bad or worse than things going on in Iraq even when Saddam was at his worst. * We hadn't finished taking care of what we started in Afghanistan. * We hadn't exhausted either our UN efforts or other diplomatic routes. * We hadn't built up a strong, lasting, committed coalition of nations, including Arab nations, that would support something like this. * Without strong evidence of WMD or other justifiable reasons for war, we didn't have the moral ground to win the war and to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis or others in the Arab world.

These points are very good and valid. However, I think you are missing the point he went in. I don't think he communicated these points very well in the beginning (or even now) and some would call this deceitful. What he did was justify going in on valid legal reasons - which we have gone over in depth on this thread so I won't repeat - but had a bigger goal in mind for doing so. That goal includes:

- Most Americans don't know the risk we live with in regard to the Middle East. America's Achilles heel has been it's reliance on oil. A country or countries who can control oil flow - can effectively hold the U.S. hostage and demand many things. I believe Bush saw an opportunity to place another U.S. Allie smack in the middle of that risky area. Not only an Allie, but also the possibility of spreading civilized democracy to it's neighbors (Iran in particular) who's people are showing signs of wanting this. Bush used humanitarian reasons, UN resolution defaults, WMDs, threat to the U.S. as reasons to play out this vision. This was/is part of a very big strategy to bring stability to this region.

Is this right or wrong? Well if it works - Bush will be a genius. If it doesn't, then he will be viewed as a visionary with a flawed plan and flawed execution. Was it right? Until then, we will have all these debates about things that are effectively insignificant to what the real goal was. At least, this is my opinion - I have little evidence to back it up.

.......no body is arguing morality here, where the heck did you come up you with that ? the argument is 'bad judgement' ... which i can see you have in spades. quit arguing stupidity! your assertion: "bush, IMHO, is probably one of the greatest presidents" is so ludicrous its laughable. go away!

NakitaB,

Bush, IMHO, is probably one of the greatest presidents who blah blah blah...

WOW!

That knocks the litmus test kit off the lab table.

I wish I got to know you a little before that bomb dropped.

Lufbery - Most Americans don't know the risk we live with in regard to the Middle East. America's Achilles heel has been it's reliance on oil.

Okay. So instead of doing a poor job of invading a Mideastern country, how about:

--Articulate a radical and innovative national campaign (like the lunar landing program) to increase vehicle MPG, explore alternate energy in cars, research new types of combustion. engines, and otherwise fund and legislate with a goal that within 5 years, we will cut our dependence on oil in half. Or something along those lines?
--Promote solar and other clean technology in America, and become a leader in green energy so other nations have something to admire in the US.
--Invest massive amounts of federal money in public transportation, and the promotion of mass transit, so that our national car-based culture will actually be transformed.

Just those three things would be a great start. We are depending on oil from a fundamentally unstable region. This isn't very smart. They aren't currently very fond of our social mores, foreign policy, political ideals and military strategy. It's a time bomb. Even if we secured Iraq, our dependence will continue to make us vulnerable to the various radical leaders that arise in the Mideast.

But, granted, the way the world, not just Bush, handled Iraq and Saddam was faulty. The UN for example--they were doing inspections, but they seemed to be gutless in their attempts to resolve this issue. (Look at how well they are doing with the Sudan right now, and how well the UN and whole world responded in Rwanda.) Other Arab nations--how helpful have they been in resolving things in Israel? Oh, we're still not beyond the "total annihilation of the Zionists?" France, country whom I love, yet, with its secret business interests in Iraq, like a bad mistress they were trying to protect. So, yes, I agree, things have been a big mess for a long time.

What I can't understand is why people think that things were just peachy before Bush got here and then he darn all screwed it up.

Bush isn't the "root of all evil." But, there were major mistakes He acted hastily and naively.

For example, we should have finished military and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. A stronger pro-democracy movement needed to be in place. Where was the potential VIABLE provisional government to provide indigenous leadership? Hmm, why hadn't we pushed (years ago) for the UN to assist with a long term education plan for all kids in Iraq (including girls)? Lastly Bush could have avoided the immoral practice of inept political appointees, so that when it came time for reconstruction, there weren't a bunch of self-interested, inexperienced Americans trying to "play democracy."

The conditions for a successful invasion and occupation weren't in Iraq.

Again, back to my earlier analogy about a patient. Before doing heart surgery, a good surgeon will assess the patient's ability to tolerate radical surgery. Sometimes they have to wait a year or two until the patient has exercised and built up both lung and heart strength, because they would have died on the operating table in their current state.

The team of doctors will have also planned and consulted together to come up with a viable plan, and they would not have ignored other colleagues who warned them of some severe risks of the procedure and weaknesses in the patient that might contribute to complications. Lastly, unless the patient consented to the heart procedure, they wouldn't operate because doctors know that medical success is highly dependent on the patient's attitudes, will to live, ability to follow the doctor's orders, etc.

Iraq right now is a heart transplant patient who is rejecting its new organ, and is refusing to take the medicine that bypasses the immune system response. We're at a place where the body is rejecting the transplant, and we have an angry, uncooperative patient who is sabotaging his own recovery.

If we went in and violated this patient's rights by doing an unauthorized heart transplant, because of faulty information from our diagnostic tools (or even conflicting information), that's not going to make things any better. So that's why, if this report is true, it just hurts the work in Iraq even further.

Your points above of alternatives to the oil are on target - be aggressive and make it happen...I agree. The problem is the resistence of the public here in the homeland. Yes, we all talk a good talk - but as soon as we want to put wind mills off the coast of Connecticut all the environmentalist show up and stop it due to the fact it kills birds, etc.. Wind is a huge source of energy untapped that if we put billions of federal money into would yield results (granted that electricity is mostly generated by coal and not oil...but there is a portion that is oil).

I think federal programs that reward people for driving the tiny cars (tax credits, free lanes on the highway, etc.) would work. The downside is that most of America will not give up the luxury of their big cars until they have to and neither party will vote any taxes on driving large cars, etc. because it would be political suicide.

Even with the most aggressive actions, we would be vulnurable for decades so what do we do? Drilling in Alaska ten years ago would have helped a ton today - but now if we get started it will take a decade to see the results. However, that didn't have the support of the environmentist either.

Unfortunately, we can not have our cake and eat it too. There needs to be some sacrafices if we want long term security for America - the sacrafice could have been the birds on the coast and a few caribus in Alaska - now it is the sacrafice of our soldiers which we should all be thankful for.

Drilling in Alaska ten years ago would have helped a ton today

There isn't that much oil there. It would have helped a little bit, not a ton. If you want to really raise production, you're going to have to hit the near continental shelf and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which will ruin the view of all those lovely retirement homes and resorts. That's why they're after the ANWR. Caribou don't vote. Senior citizens and big developers do.

In fact, if all of the money required to open the ANWR was spent on conservation, it would probably have nearly the same effect on oil imports that drilling would. The Chairman of Exxon, on the other hand, would not have nearly as large a bonus.

Vlad,

and most humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. there are truly intelligent and thoughtful conservatives out there who know bad ideas and bad judgement when they see it. we as 'liberals' and 'conservatives' MUST unite and work together to save our country from further destruction.

Hmm... seems YOU are arguing morality.

Adipic, Iraq's place as an oil provider is comparatively small from what I understand. So that alone would not have caused the war. (source)

Aw darn I'm late to this conversation. Maria, did I miss the whole lovefest?

;)

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located in Iraq? I was responding to the claim that drilling there would have helped "a ton" and explaining where most of the really good oil reserves in the United States are located. I mentioned Iraq not at all.

Adipic, I agree with you. My point is just that this war is unlikely because of oil, although oil surely played a large role.

Doesn't 60 minutes come on Sundays?

technicalities are the only things left for those who still support this administration.

60 Minutes II runs on Wed nights and I believe the blog even referred to Wed as the day of airing.

My problem is when people rally behind something that is presented at worst dishonestly and at best, sloppily. Mike, did you know when you Seeded this and engaged people on the board that this story was not new? Or in your zeal to discredit the war, did you not bother to check your sources?

Otto, you might be making too much of this, man. Does it really matter whether or not it discusses a current episode of a television show? The topic is interesting, and of interest to a number of people here. Are you suggesting that Newsvine authors be restricted from discussing topics which fail to meet some sort of "timeliness" standard? Is it not PC to continue to discuss issues once the corporate media have set them aside? I mean, for someone who does a lot of pissing and moaning about people complaining about your writing style rather than your content, you seem a bit obsessed with this thing. Maybe you'd be better to step back a minute, take a deep breath, and just let it go.

The publication date seems to me to be perhaps one of the least significant ideas that we should take away from the article. I guess I missed this story the first time around; I've been very busy this year with school. I appreciated learning about this.

Did I realize on the first reading that this story was old? No. But it did register for me once I read the article. When I saw the date, did it materially change the story at all? No, why would it? Does the publication date materially change the facts? No.

How is this outrage over the publication date engaging the facts being presented?

If it was "sloppy" to leave off the date, how does that change anything about what is being reported? It doesn't; this is obfuscation.