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

Mike,

Thanks for the good tip.

spiffle -- you echoed my sentiments exactly.

It's like they're sucking the soul from me.

We could all use a Navajo cleansing ceremony to restore the balance and harmony in our lives. I just don't know if any one Shaman has enough sacred corn pollen to make it work...

My thoughts as well, Spiff. I read this and thought, "Oh. ... Huh." It's nearly impossible for them to shock me anymore. It's just business as usual.

wow, get out of my head! my thoughts also.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv
here is rice and powell in 2001 saying that we have contained saddam and effectivly prevented him from starting any kind of weapons program and that he didnt even have an effective conventional force.

Sorry Morwynd, but you're not going to hear it under this article. They'll ignore this one and trot out that talking point in some other, tangentially related article where they hope to encounter people who don't know this.

So in your travels, keep a link to this article or its seed handy as a counter.

---"Clip" it.

Already done.

So how do you know that this alleged spy for the US was telling the truth? If Saddam Hussein had WMD, don't you think that he would have wanted the US to believe that he didn't have them?

In fact, no I wouldn't ComSen. The hypothetical WMD's would serve a much better purpose as a tool for intimidation, defensive posturing, etc.

I would love to hear some commentary from the "they never actually lied about the threat of WMD's" crowd now.

So here is your commentary and the reason why this isn't big news. There were hundreds of "reports" coming in from Spies and intelligence during this period. This input from an Iraqi was likely taken into consideration against data they received from others. Do you really think finding one person in Iraq who said there were no WMDs in Iraq is proof that the administration was lying? I mean are you really saying that? So in other words - when the CIA gets info from ONE spy, they should shut down all other intelligence gathering and draw a conclusion. Think about what you are saying guys... I couldn't believe all the comments about how this proves they lied...book mark it...you won't hear from "them" on this one... I think some of you are really way too wrapped up in trying to demonize Bush and Co. I am not a big fan of Bush, but I am not going to blindly make accusations about him or anyone for that matter.

So how do you know that this alleged spy for the US was telling the truth?

"Alleged". LOL. Yes, this only comes from the CIA's Europe chief, it's pretty flimsy. Keep sowing that FUD, ComSen. It's funny how quickly you leap to the conclusion that everyone EXCEPT the Bush admin are liars.

The CIA seemed to think he was telling the truth, since they passed it on the the President. I'll take their judgement over your opinion.

There were hundreds of "reports" coming in from Spies and intelligence during this period. This input from an Iraqi was likely taken into consideration against data they received from others. Do you really think finding one person in Iraq

"One person in Iraq". "input from an Iraqi". Way to try and marginalize this source. This was Iraq's foreign minister, not some random schmuck from off the streets. Or, as Drumheller agrees, this was on "good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle".

uh...you do know there were other "defectors" from Iraq - closer to the WMD issue - who gave alternative accounts don't you? Per your message above, I am guessing you don't know which leads me to believe you are jumping on this story without investigating the whole picture.

weapons chief (and son-in-law to Saddam) Hussein Kamel defected to the U.S. and was a key informer that said there is WMDs in Iraq.

I am pointing this out to demonstrate that you can't pull one defector from Iraq out because his answers fit your agenda. I am in no way saying that Kamel's testimony that there was WMDs should be proof either.

It is just hard for me to understand how anyone can point to one source and say that the administration had the proof. If we use this logic -then we can point 10 who said they had the WMDs and say he wasn't lying. The point is, the intelligence used snowed under everyone (including John Kerry and Clinton and other countries). You guys need to remove yourself from the "destroy Bush at all costs" attitude and try to look at these things logically. It is very dangerous to go down this path you are on...it is the same path that snowed under people in Germany to believe that Jews were the cause of their misery. Don't blindly draw conclusions only because it fits the agenda...you still need to think.

Now, saying that - I truely can't say (as most people can't) that Bush lied intentionally, nor can I say that he didn't. However, the evidence points to the fact that the Bush administration had an agenda and found data that lead them to believe there were WMDs (along with the rest of the world). It does appear that he may have put more weight on the evidence pointig to the WMDs than he did on the evidence pointing against it, but nobody can say for certain.

From the related article a couple points:

But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."

Drumheller says that was the "general feeling" in the agency at that time.

If it was the general sense, I don't think it was coming from just one source.

Also, Naji Sabri was not a defector. He was an inside human source developed by the CIA who they took to be extremely credible:

Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq's nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq's military secrets to the CIA. Drumheller was in charge of the operation.

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says.

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked.

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied.

@Spiffie

These are good points. It absolutely sounds like this info didn't get the attention it deserves. However, a couple things to consider:

1) We don't have info on what "other" credible sources were saying. Isn't it entirely possible that the intelligence agencies (including UK, Israel) had credible sources that said there were WMDs. In the end, someone had to draw a conclusion by putting it all together. Drumheller is giving "his" perspective - but Drumheller wasn't privy to all the data either.

2) Drumheller is speaking in "general feelings" about the agency. How many general feelings go on in an office environment? Isn't it typical to say this when your side shares this opinion. I am guessing there is another group in the CIA that would say there general feeling was something else based on info from another credible source.

All I am trying to point out is that this is good info, good data, and should be added to all the other data we (the people) have and then draw a conclusion. I just don't think this one piece of data should be used as the end all to prove that Bush lied about WMDs. There is too much counter data available.

As I said before, I can't draw a conclusion myself and this new evidence does lead me to lean towards the belief that "other" credible sources were more heavy weighted in their decision - but I can't say for sure either way.

Lufbery, you do make good points. A single source is NOT conclusive.

But there is substantial evidence which corroborates the idea that Bush & co. were determined to go after Iraq one way or another, and only listened to intel which suited their agenda. This story further supports that notion.

Lufbery, I agree with you mostly. We shouldn't take this as a slam dunk of anything. However, given the patten of behavior that this administration has exhibited, not just on this issue, but on many, many others, I think it is reasonable to make conclusions about what is more likely: that the administration was honestly misled over conflicting sources of information or that they deliberately blinded themselves to viewpoints with which they did not agree. The pattern is there; I cannot ignore it for this issue.

Isn't it entirely possible that the intelligence agencies (including UK, Israel) had credible sources that said there were WMDs.

Or UK

Or Israel

Or Australia

Help me find it, would you?

I really need to get the hang of this commenting thing. There's a link missing above "Or UK"

Not from the UN

I would love to hear some commentary from the "they never actually lied about the threat of WMD's" crowd now.

Allow me. Did anyone even watch 60 Minutes tonight?

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but this is OLD NEWS. It did not air tonight as this Seed states (unless it was a re-run, but a quick check on CBS's website doesn't mention it). They covered this story 8 months ago - the tip-off was the fact that Ed Bradley has been dead for weeks, after succumbing to leukemia!

Maybe you guys should read the Seeds and follow the links before you mess yourselves.

I did read the seed. It was dated Dec 20, 2006, and said "Tonight on 60 Minutes".

So it originally aired months ago, yippee. You act like that invalidates the current discussion. It does not.

Or maybe Kai will write an article saying that Bush already back then knew Saddam had smuggled the WMDs to Syria.

Of course it invalidates the current discussion. The blog, the Seed and most of the discussion are treating this like some new phenomenon. I understand that it's anti-Bush, but that in itself doesn't give people the right to promote it this way unchallenged. I brought up something in a recent article about Hillary Clinton from 12 years ago and people were acting like I committed a crime. The difference is that I didn't present it as 'new' news - I dated it and put it in context.

The blog, the Seed and most of the discussion are treating this like some new phenomenon.

Interesting. I didn't get that from my reading. In what way is it treated like "some new phenomenon?" I mean, the excerpt right up there at the top of this page features an interview conducted by Ed Bradley whom, as I believe you mentioned, is quite dead. Some new phenomenon?

Uh, OK.

Of course it invalidates the current discussion.

Look, I agree this should be labelled and dated more accurately, and not presented as breaking news, OK?

But that doesn't mean we can't still discuss it. Thanks.

WMDs was a component of this war - I don't think you can say it was never about WMDs. Yes, I agree spreading democracy can be a blanket, but in reality this is all about creating stability in the ME. It may sound crazy right now considering the instability that is being caused. The U.S. is a super power and they have the ability to control their interests right? Well, it is in the interest of the U.S. that we have some stability in the ME considering our reliance on oil. The fact that Saddam wouldn't agree to the U.N. resolutions and the fact that he fired on our jets - just gave us the legal reason to insert ourselves and our democracy out there.

The U.S. did not go to Iraq for the oil as is the common propaganda. We buy most of our oil from other sources - a small % actually comes from the ME. We went into Iraq to begin the painful process of moving that region along so there is no world oil disruption. It was the right call by Bush - but poor execution. Not poor military execution - but poor planning on the keeping the peace. The media and democrats didn't help our situation by calling for us to leave and posting the number of soldiers who died, etc. We are no longer dealing from a position of strength in the region because our enemies no that America won't allow an aggressive action. Early on, when Iran thought and feared the potential of the U.S. opening up the war to their country...they stayed out. It is only recently that they have become bold and brave - for God's sake the letters coming from their president sound like talking points from the Democratic election. We can no longer use military force as a negotiation tool and that is going to hurt our chances of success.

Do you really think finding one person in Iraq who said there were no WMDs in Iraq is proof that the administration was lying?

lol but apparently our admin thought it was enough to have just one person saying he did have them and a person that many warned us was a known liar. Somehow i think i would take the word of someone who has had to go through the security clearance apparatus,(which is intrusive as hell) than someone like curveball whom we never talked to and the Germans said he was a known liar and we needed backup for any of his claims.

and it wasnt just one... there were slews of people saying he had no wmds, even staunch republicain and war hawk, scott ritter, whom many republicans consider a liberal, simply because he strongly disagrees with bush.

Lufbery,

Did Bush lie? Yes.

Selling his plan to invade Iraq Bush told us, "Iraq "HAS" WMD and Iraq is an immediate threat to Americans on United States soil". He told us he knew where they were. He did not say Iraq might have WMD. There was no maybe about it.

To "know" that Iraq "HAD" WMD Bush would have needed CONCRETE evidence of such. He had absolutely no CONCRETE evidence that Iraq had WMD. None. Zero. Zip.

If Bush had any poor evidence that Iraq had WMD he could have turned that into CONCRETE evidence. That did not happen because Bush did not even have poor evidence to work from. Bush had absolutely no evidence.

With absolutely no evidence in hand it is obvious BUSH lied about all of it.

JRO, play this one out - it might help you understand this a little better.

Your wife tells you that a friend of yours is coming over for dinner. Based on this, you call your brother and tell him to come over for dinner because your friend is going to be there who you all mutually know. Your brother comes to the house, but your friend never shows up.

In this situation, did you lie to your brother? Using the same logic you are using for Bush, you would have lied to your brother in this situation.

Bush was told there were WMDs by trusted sources. Other people who looked at the info also were told there were WMDs (Clinton, Kerry, Blair, etc.). Does this mean all these people are liars? I am not a big Bush fan - just a fan of looking at things logically and objectively.

Um, what about the part where your "friend's" business partner calls you right after you talk to your wife and tells you that your "friend" is going to be working late, and that there's no way in hell he's going to get to your house for dinner, even if you promise to make that killer lasagna?

If you go ahead and call your "brother" and ask him to bring the garlic bread and a bottle of wine because your mutual "friend" is sure to be there for dinner, then yes, you lied to your brother.

Whether or not your "friend" told other people that he was coming to dinner or not is irrelevant, and whether or not they, too, are liars depends on whether or not they invited their brother over for dinner, too.

Lufbery,

Your wife tells you that a friend of yours is coming over for dinner. Based on this blah blah blah.

I don't care whom tells what to who... I must REQUIRE and I my president must REQUIRE concrete evidence of WMD before I or he uses it as FACT to sell the American public on an war that will cost America thousands of men and billions of dollars.

There was no CONCRETE evidence of WMD in Iraq. There was no GOOD evidence of WMD in Iraq. There was no POOR evidence of WMD in Iraq. There was absolutely NO evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush made it all up. It was lies. And Bush knew it.

This is just the beginning. The flood gates will open. Only another terrorist attack can hold back the torrent of dots that lead to CONCRETE proof that Bush lied. Bush needs the chaos of another terrorist attack and that bullhorn moment to sweep the dots under the carpet.

JRO - I see your point and I respect it. It is a valid opinion.

My opinion says that the world is too complex to always have "concrete" evidence before making a decision on a strategy. There were of course many other components that lead Bush into Iraq other than WMDs - he took all the best information he had and made a decision. It is your right, and I admit you have some good data to base it on, to draw a conclusion and speculate that he purposely lied about the WMDs. I can understand your perspective on this considering the evidence, etc.

Luf

Luf,

I'm 100% sure there was at lease one other component that lead Bush into Iraq and that's only because I'm 100% sure it was not for WMD.

What biggest single component do you think lead him into Iraq?

There are multiple other components that include Saddam not disclosing what he did with the WMDs per the U.N. resolution, flying in the no-fly-zone against the treaty, firing on U.S. fighter jets who were flying in the zone that Iraq and the U.S. agreed on, etc.

But, per my comment near the end of this thread - I don't think these were the "real" reasons he went into Iraq. They were the reasons that gave him justification with the U.N. and the American people. I copied my comment from below - which might answer the question I think you are asking.

- 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.

JRO - Remember that I am looking at this logically and objectively. I am not starting from a point of hating Bush or thinking he is the Evil Doer out to destroy everyone for his own selfish desires. I am not saying you fall into this crowd - but just pointing out that my starting point is being objective and logical. From this perspective is how I drew my conclusions - which may or may not be correct but they are the best conclusions I can muster based on the available data I have.

Luf,

I'd agree with you if you'd boil that verbiage down to "To secure the oil".

I also think there are many components that lead Bush into Iraq NONE of which was WMD.

Can we agree on these two major points?

Yes - I agree with these two "general" points with one caveat. I do not think Bush lied on the WMDs based on the evidence we have of people who had the same intelligence draw the same conclusions. However, I think the whole argument is moot - since it was just another tactic in a much larger strategy to "secure the oil" as you put it.

Just a side note. I am not a big fan of the Clintons for various reasons (those reasons involve what he did with China and Korea - foreign policy in general). However, when I evaluate something in his administration I look at each and every issue objectively and logically. This means I don't start with the premise that Bill Clinton was some evil guy that was having sex in the oval office, lied about it and didn't deserve to be in the position he was in. So every thing he touched is wrong and every thing he said is a lie. Instead, I see him as a man in a very tough position and evaluate the issue from a neutral starting point. It really makes it much easier to be objective.

I truly believe that this habit some Americans (including the side on the right...) have of hating the President that is not in their party is very non-productive. I don't hate the Clintons - I really don't know them. I only know what was fed to me from the press and talking points - all the behind the scene stuff I didn't get access to. Same with Bush - I don't know him so I can't hate him. So far, we have not had a President that has tried to destroy the American people - so I feel comfortable giving them some trust. If one of our Presidents ends up making a deal with an enemy or purposely taking an action not sanctioned by the Constitution knowing it will harm Americans - then we can hate them. That hasn't happened yet - even with some of our worst Presidents (Andrew Jackson walks a fine line though...only because I consider the "Indians" Native Americans..therefore they were Americans).

I think we would all be a lot better off not hating our Presidents and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are looking out for our best interests. We can strongly disagree with their decisions/policies/etc. - but hating them just leads to bias.

One component of this debate might be what led Bush to believe it was a good idea to invade Iraq? Another component might be what reasons were the American people given as to why it was a good idea to invade Iraq? The answers to those questions might differ.

I would add another - total of three issues involved:

1) What gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq?
2) What was Bush's real strategy or long term vision for invading Iraq?
3) Did Bush share the vision with the American people?

It obviously gets complicated because #2 could include components of #1. In very quick summary I will give my answers:

1: mentioned above. He had the authority based on U.N. resolutions, breaking truce, etc. There should be no argument here.

2: Create democracy or stable governments in ME that would lesson our risk of oil disruption. Partner with those countries - they would benefit from us helping them, etc.

3: Later he began to - I heard him allude to this in some press conferences (not printed in MSM of course). In the beginning he did not. He did tell us the legal reasons and some "feel good" reasons (free the people, haven for terrorist) which are accurate - so he didn't lie, but just didn't give "ALL" the reasons. In my opinion of course.

2) What was Bush's real strategy or long term vision for invading Iraq?

Here's the rub: I don't think he had one. In fact, I believe that "long-term" for the man barely extends to the end of next month. He is not a strategic thinker, as his repeated long term failures at running any enterprise of consequence show. He just goes with what feels right in his gut, everything else be damned.

I might add to number 3 above -

• 3a) Was Bush legally required to justify the invasion of Iraq to the American people prior to its beginning?
• 3b) Was Bush morally obligated to justify the invasion of Iraq to the American people prior to its beginning?

I think it's likely that the answer to 3a is No, while 3b is definitely Yes. Because we often fail to consider these questions, though, we are often arguing past each other - 3a is a technicality, which supporters of the administration accept as a reason to ignore 3b, while people who are opposed to the war are often opposed because of 3b. He asked Americans to sacrifice their lives, and their children's lives - if you ask that of a person, you should give them all of the information you have, and you owe it to them to do so in advance. You may be able to legally avoid doing so, but your moral obligation remains.

I think the President was operating under the theory that it's often easier to do something and then explain it than it is to ask permission and be forced to explain it in advance. In many cases, I agree with this basic philosophy and follow it myself. In the case, however, where lives are going to be lost as a result of the action, I see a clear moral distinction, and a clear reason to make the explanation in advance (and to be sure to get it right).

Brad,

I think you are getting a little off track. He did morally justify the invasion to the American people - he just withheld the bigger vision theory. We can argue until we are blue whether the justification given was "enough" to go to war over - but he did justify it and Americans (including the Senate) supported it. THen came elections (first 2004 then 2006) and it was important for the Democrats to have something to stand up against Bush on. Asking for the troops to return home, trying to say the soldiers were terrozing Iraqis, placing the death numbers every day on front page, etc. etc. etc. This eventually, as planned, wore on the American people. If you remember, the numbers of deaths were way down when Iran believed we would invade their country if they helped our opposition. However, our resolve dwindled and Iran saw the opportunity to begin making things messy and the deaths began to increase significantly. They know darn well that Bush doesn't have the political power anymore to harm them. This was no mistake.

So, here we are now complaining that the war isn't going well - is it really any surprise? Isn't it ironic that the Democrats have stopped demoralizing Iraq? No more bring the troops home now campaigns. The reason was political.

Don't get me wrong - the Republicans would have (and have) done the same thing although they don't have the strong arm of the press...but they would have done the same thing. It is an example of putting the interest of political power (each person) before the interest of America on the long term.

Our success in Iraq would have been much better served if we would have been behind it to completion. Voicing suggestions for strategically making changes - but keeping the objective of winning foremost. Now, we complain becase it's not going well over there - we you reap what you sow.

Lufbery, thanks for the response. By "morally obligated," I was referring to Bush's moral obligation to be truthful in justifying the war. If he withheld anything, he failed his moral obligation, although one might argue (as many have) that he fulfilled his legal obligation (because he really didn't have a legal obligation to the American people beyond getting the AUMF, as has been pointed out countless times). The idea of "withholding" information is morally indistinguishable from lying.

What I find more problematic than your dismissal of the President's moral obligation, though, is the idea that either "liberals," or "the media," or "the Democrats" are responsible for the failure of Bush's Iraq policies. You claim that "the Democrats somehow demoralized the American people (your words: This eventually, as planned, wore on the American people) - I would remind you that about half of "the American people" are Democrats, and I would further point out that the best way to prevent "the media" from putting things on the news that will be viewed as negative is to not have them happen in the first place. If war demoralizes Americans, then perhaps our government should do more to avoid war. If Americans will be turned against the war by the sight of dead children, perhaps children should not be killed. If the American people don't want their military men and women involved in committing atrocities, then atrocities should damn well not be committed. American people have a right - no, an obligation, to know what things are being done in their name, and they certainly have a right to demand that the American government and its representatives (including the military) represent them as they wish to be represented. If that means that the American government is prevented from fighting wars of choice, so be it. If that makes it harder to defend the American people, so be it - this is our government, that is our military, and we have a right to expect that both behave as we see fit.

Isn't it ironic that the Democrats have stopped demoralizing Iraq? No more bring the troops home now campaigns.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "demoralizing Iraq," but I'll take it to be related to the second half of that statement. Personally, I've seen no change in the attitude or behavior of "the Democrats," save perhaps a willingness to work with "the Republicans" and the administration to get things done. Take a closer look, and I think you'll see that very few people have actually changed their positions. I'd be interested to hear about any examples you have, though I'd point out that the fact that someone voiced their opinion more often prior to the election than they have since the election means very little - there was, after all, an election campaign in progress. The Democratic Congress hasn't convened yet, so we really don't know at this point what's going to happen. I think it'd be reasonable, though, to at least try to consider that the people you are talking about may actually care as much as you do about their country, and that perhaps they are motivated by something besides pure cynicism or hatred for America.

Our success in Iraq would have been much better served if we would have been behind it to completion. Voicing suggestions for strategically making changes - but keeping the objective of winning foremost.

This sounds great, but it'd be a lot easier to get behind if you (or anybody else, for that matter, particularly the administration) would define "winning" in the context of this invasion. Hussein has been toppled, captured, tried, and convicted. Although he didn't surrender, I think we can agree that he has been defeated. Even in your most generous portrayal of the reasons we went to war, you wouldn't claim that we went there to get involved in a civil war, would you? How can we win? Which side are we supposed to defeat? Do we defeat the Sunnis and then leave? Do we defeat the Shiites and then leave? We do leave once we've "won," right? Or, do we ignore the civil war and "win" by defeating someone else? It's one thing to talk about "winning" and to claim that "the Democrats" are preventing us from "winning," it's another thing altogether to define what it means to "win," and to follow it through.

If President Bush would explain to the American people what he means by "winning" in the context of the invasion of Iraq, or what he means by "finishing the job" in Iraq, he might find that he would be able to generate a little support. In order to do so, though, that whole "moral obligation" thing would have to kick in, and he doesn't have much of a history of listening to the moral guide inside of himself.

Luf,

Yes - I agree with these two "general" points with one caveat. I do not think Bush lied on the WMDs based on the evidence we have of people who had the same intelligence draw the same conclusions. However, I think the whole argument is moot - since it was just another tactic in a much larger strategy to "secure the oil" as you put it.

Are you willing to "consider the possibility" that Bush lied about WMD? We're talking bald-face lied. Is there the slightest pin hole of a consideration in your thoughts that would require added reasoning and facts to develop?

Are you willing to "consider the possibility" that Bush lied about WMD?

Yes, of course, but it would have had to be a pretty elaborate scheme that involved convincing everyone else to lie too. Do you understand that barrier to your argument? It's not that I am some pro Bush fanatic...I just have a hard time trying to get my arms around how Bush could Lie and all these other people didn't.

Luf,

Do you understand that barrier to your argument?

I just have a hard time trying to get my arms around how Bush could Lie and all these other people didn't.

Argument? I'm not sure we disagree yet. That's why I'm going through the accounting process.

Without question... Let's include with Bush everyone that claimed to know Iraq hand WMD -- regardless of how "elaborate the scheme" would have to be to get them all to lie.

Is that fair?

So, are you asking me if I would consider the possibility that they (Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Most of the Senate, Blair, Bush, etc.) were all purposely lying and knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs? Is that the question you are asking me?

Luf,
Anyone that said they knew Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion.

JRO,

I live in the world of objectivity which means that with things that can't be proven I always understand and believe that it could go either way. So, is it possible that John Kerry was lying when he said Saddam had WMDs - yes, there is that possibility. Is it possible that Bill Clinton was lying when he said that Saddam had WMDs - yes, there is that possibility. Is it possible that George Bush was lying when he said that Saddam had WMDs - yes, there is that possibility.

Luf,

1. Bush's reason invading Iraq was to secure oil.

2. WMD was not Bush's reason to invade Iraq.

Cool. We are still in agreement.

So... Why didn't Bush sell the war based on our National need to secure the oil?

I think...
Bush knew that the American public could not comprehend the immense magnitude of how important and critical securing oil is for the United States of America. Bush knows that the consequence of not having direct control of incoming oil is a death blow to American security and well-being and doubted public enthusiasm for that effort.

You agree with that too... Right?

Yes, I agree with that, but I can't say that he wanted direct control. I think just a stable Middle East was the goal. I believe the vision was for the benefits of a friendly nation to the U.S., living in freedom, would spread to neighboring countries. Eventually creating a Europe in the Middle East that was more interested in ecomony than the current religious agendas. The U.S. interests would be satisfied - remember, we don't buy that much oil from the ME, but it's stability impacts the oil market. For this reason, I think "direct" control of "incoming" oil in the ME was not the goal. Greater stability in the "oil markets" was the goal.

One last thing:

2. WMD was not Bush's reason to invade Iraq.

You would have to change this to:

2. WMD's was not Bush's strategic reason to invade Iraq.

Luf,

2. WMD was not Bush's reason to invade Iraq.

2. WMD's was not Bush's strategic reason to invade Iraq.

This could be an important detail.
I'm having a hard time breaking down "strategic reason" as opposed to "reason". How are you slicing this?

How are you slicing this?

There were accumulative reasons, some more strategic than others - some were strategic in that it was a way to get the people behind the effort (which is important, but not a requirement for a President). In this case, I think he had fairly good evidence (not concrete obviously) that there were WMDs - it may have put him over the edge....but have been a small component in the larger strategy.

So...

WMD was not the reason Bush invaded Iraq but the possibility of Iraq having WMD was an added enhancement for the reason Bush invaded Iraq which was to secure oil.

Does that work for you?

I can live with the following if you can:

-WMDs was not the main (or you could use "strategic" instead of "main") reason Bush invaded Iraq.

Does this work?

Luf,

-WMDs was not the main (or you could use "strategic" instead of "main") reason Bush invaded Iraq.

If WMD was "a" reason for invading Iraq then no matter what happens the invasion will always be a colossal failure because they never were any WMD.

I think one valid reason should stand alone to justify the invasion. One critical reason. I think securing oil was that stand alone reason. I think Bush would have invaded Iraq even if there never was a hint WMD.

Do you think Bush would have invaded Iraq without the WMD component?

Did we attack Germany because Japan bombed Pear Harbor? Can you point to "a" reason why we joined the European war? Was it to assist our allies? Was it because Germany invaded a sovereign nation (Poland)? Was it the risk to our sovereignty if the Germans were left unchecked? Was it to secure stable trading partners in Europe?

I think you will understand that it doesn't have to be a "take it or leave it" reason - but an accumulative of reasons. Some bigger than others. One or two of the reasons may have been more strategic while a few were more tactical.

Do you think Bush would have invaded Iraq without the WMD component?

Nobody, not me, not you, can answer this conclusively. Per my explanation above (and further above)- there were many reasons to invade. To take "one" reason out and ponder whether we would have still invaded is futile. Not too many people will ever know that - and to be honest I don't think this kind of dissection really matters much. The only reasons it would matter is if someone wanted to build a case against Bush and is using a component that didn't pan out to try and discredit him. I'm not saying you are doing this - but that is the reason many are doing it - and it doesn't make that much sense to me and shows bias in opinion. Make sense?

Luf,

Sure you are making sense. We will never know what was going through Bush's mind. We can consider the likely possibilities.

We both agree Bush invaded Iraq to secure oil. That is clear. Do we agree that securing oil was and is, in it self, critical to American security necessitating huge action? I think yes.

If the need to secure oil is not reason enough then the invasion of Iraq was a whim. Is this where we disagree?

I think we both are saying the same thing - except I am saying that a few smaller things helped Bush to be able to execute on the "secure oil" point. In other words, if Saddam was a nasty and unfriendly dictator - but was adhering to the U.N. Resolutions, hadn't used WMDs in the past, etc. Then I doubt we would have invaded. We would not have invaded a nation "just" to secure oil. It was the accumulative of many things that presented the opportunity to act on a larger strategic goal.

Luf

We would not have invaded a nation "just" to secure oil.

I feel there was only one reason to invade Iraq and that was to secure oil for national security reasons, or better said, American Self-Preservation.

I would rather think my President lied to us to maintain national security... And that is what I truly believe. The thought that our President made a mistake so colossal in magnitude as to invade a country based on an "Oops" enrages me. Not that he made a "boo boo". It enrages me that people can buy that and accept it. For anyone to think that Bush actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq is an insult to his intelligence and the Presidency. And quite frankly it's insulting that Americans can be that goofy. There was never a point in time that I thought President Bush believed Iraq really had WMDs. Look at me... I'm defending George W. Bush.

Look at me... I'm defending George W. Bush.

Damn, now I have to remember to pack a parka for Hell.

For anyone to think that Bush actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq is an insult to his intelligence and the Presidency.

What I can't understand is how you can say this. There is evidence that says Bush had intelligence that there were WMDs - same evidence that others had and believed it. Now, I am not saying he didn't lie, but I don't know how you can say "emphatically" that he did. Per your points above - it should be somewhat of a moot issue since you believe he went in to secure oil - but even if you believe this (as you and I do), why does it preclude you from believing that there were accumulative reasons that lead to the opportunity to strike and accomplish a very strategic mission.

I can also say what you said above - but I wouldn't be able to defend it, just as you can't. I could say. " For anyone to think that Bush actually lied about WMDs in Iraq is an insult to his intelligence and the Presidency."

If anything, evidence (or lack of evidence) points to the fact that he had enough intelligence to believe Iraq still had some WMDs (gas, anthrax, etc.). Now, where you and I see eye to eye - is that I don't think he would have invaded JUST because of WMDs...maybe it's because he probably knew they weren't that far along with a Nuke...or he could isolate it...whatever...I don't think he would have went in for this reason alone. However, it was a component to multiple things that "allowed" him to go in to accomplish something larger and more strategic. This seems very logical to me and I can't understand why you are hung up on wanting to believe that he lied about one component of the whole thing ...WMDs. It just seems illogical to me. What am I missing?

Oh..Merry Christmas by the way (if you celebrate). Actually, I would hope you have a Merry Christmas even if you don't celebrate since it's a national holiday. :)

Merry Christmas Luf and To All,

Man uses "accumulative reasons" to end relationships... not to invade countries.

You think there were a number of "reasons" that piled up and finally hit a breaking point when bogus "evidence" of WMDs was tossed on top of the pile. I can't agree with you on that. Rationalizing Bush's invasion that way supports the idea that Bush invaded Iraq for WMDs... which we both reject.

Your concept of "accumulative reasons" just don't hunt in my forest.

You enjoy being up at the your cabin. It's a cold Christmas day and you're driving up to your snow covered cabin for the Christmas holidays but you're out of firewood and it's cold enough that you need it. On your way to picking up the firewood and the cabin you pick up your dry cleaning too.

Getting your dry cleaning is not a "component" that adds to your pile of "accumulative reasons" to go to the cabin. Picking up the firewood is not an "component" that adds to your pile of "accumulative reasons" to go to the cabin. The only reason you went to the cabin was because you like being at the cabin.

You are saying, "I went to the cabin because it needed firewood, I needed to pick up my dry cleaning and I like being at the cabin."

You talk like the WMDs were the dry cleaning... but, OOPS, your soiled clothes were never dropped off.

That dog belongs on the porch.
_____________________________________

Believing Bush really believed Iraq had WMDs is where we disagree. I say no and you say yes. Is that the bottom line?

Believing Bush really believed Iraq had WMDs is where we disagree. I say no and you say yes. Is that the bottom line?

No, I am saying we don't know either way -but the evidence does point to the fact that he thought he had WMDs. It's possible we just don't have the contrary evidence (about him knowing) yet. You are saying that you "know" that he didn't know. You are almost border line doing the same thing you are accusing Bush of doing.

Luf,

No, I am saying we don't know either way -but the evidence does point to the fact that he thought he had WMDs.

Of course we don't "know" either way. Come on Luf, you're killing me here. We'll never "know" what Bush believed. That should go without saying... unless you're meeting up with Barney in the Rose Garden.

Our conversation is analysis of events and situations balanced with common sense. It's about what we believe Bush believed. We work with what we've got and conclude.

I conclude that all the evidence points to the probability that Bush, like myself, did not believed Iraq had WMDs at time of invasion.

And I still think it's insulting, on all levels, for people to think he did. "Oops, I goofed," doesn't play with these stakes in the balance.

I conclude that all the evidence points to the probability that Bush, like myself, did not believed Iraq had WMDs at time of invasion.

Just to be clear, you are saying that you believe that Bush didn't think Saddam had at least a barrel of Anthrax or a tub of mustard gas sitting in a warehouse?

And to be clear on what I believe...

I believe Bush had reason (based on intelligence) to believe that Saddam was hiding something that would constitute a WMD. I believe he had some intelligence that lead him to believe this. I also believe he had intelligence that lead him to second guess that belief. However, in light of other "reasons" to invade (Putting teeth into U.N. Resolution) - he used these reasons as his opportunity to execute on what the strategic plan of stabilizing the ME because of our reliance on oil.

Where you and I differ from what I can see:

1) You can't admit there were other reasons Bush would justify an invasion. (This is the illogical part of your debate that I still can't figure out).

2) You believe Bush knew (i.e. had no knowledge that there were WMDs) there were no WMDs. (We will never know and I think there is more evidence per my many posts above that point to the fact he had good reason to believe Saddam had something. You still have not countered how you can believe he knew there wasn't while countless others who saw the same intelligence as him concluded there was).

Where you and I are seeing eye to eye:

1) Bush had a larger strategy to invade and it wasn't because of the threat of WMDs and U.N. resolution enforcement. It was to secure the region for the sake of oil.

- I believe the WMD threat gave Bush a legit reason to launch the attack and you believe he only lied about WMDs as a reason. In the end, I don't think it really matters much - but you believe it is insulting for some to not conclude the same as you. This part is a mystery to me as well. However, I think we may have finally reached a conclusion. Agree?

Luf,

Just to be clear, you are saying that you believe that Bush didn't think Saddam had at least a barrel of Anthrax or a tub of mustard gas sitting in a warehouse?

There was no old active barrel of Anthrax or tub of mustard gas. There was no evidence of an old barrel of Anthrax or tub of mustard gas. There is absolutely no reason to think Bush believed there was. It is silly to think that maybe Bush still thought it was there anyway.

I believe the WMD threat gave Bush a legit reason to launch the attack and you believe he only lied about WMDs as a reason. In the end, I don't think it really matters much...

What you don't think matters is what I think matters the most. There never was a WMD threat. None, zero, zip.

We are both saying Bush lied. We both agree that he invaded Iraq for the oil but told us "folks" he was after WMDs.

The only difference is you are willing to be a part of the "smoke and mirrors" that supports the notion that Bush just made a "boo boo". You are willing to say, "Well technically if Bush maybe "thought" there was something in Iraq that might be considered WMDs then Bush technically did not lie when he told "Americans" that we were in grave and immediate danger from Iraq's WMD manufacturing and stockpile"... technically.

We both believe the bogus threat of WMDs gave Bush a "legit" reason to launch the attack "for oil".

WE BOTH BELIEVE BUSH LIED

Fess-up Luf. No more playing "peek-a-boo". Your good name is on the line here. The game of "Technically" is not played by good men.

JRO,

It enrages me that people can buy that and accept it. For anyone to think that Bush actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq is an insult to his intelligence and the Presidency.

Here is the bottom line. These statements that you made indicate that you are not being objective and therefore are likely being bias in your opinion. It is okay to disagree on something that has no truth, but these kinds of remarks indicate to me that you are wrapped up in this beyond an objective perspective.

Fess-up Luf. No more playing "peek-a-boo".

I am honestly not sure what I need to "fess-up" about. I laid out my opinion and the facts that lead me to this conclusion. The only way I can "fess-up" is if I am hiding something. I am hiding nothing. We are approaching this from two different perspectives. My perspective is a logical approach to the events that happen and yours approach begins with a bias (as is evident from the remark I copied above). I completely understand that people may believe that Bush lied (although I still have not heard any of these people - including you - that can explain how he lied, but all these other people who had the same intelligence didn't).

Also, there is nothing wrong with invading Iraq for multiple reasons - I really can't believe you expect one reason only, but again, when beginning with a bias it makes sense.

I admit that I may have a slight bias as a typically side with the Republican policies, but I strive to approach issues like the one we are discussing from a non-bias perspective. I look at the available data and typically conclude things logically. That doesn't mean that something illogical didn't happen and I would be very wrong.

I also start from the perspective that people are good (including Bush) until proved otherwise. In my opinion, Bush can be very bull headed and it leads to mistakes, but I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that Bush is evil.

So, it was a good discussion. I enjoyed debating this with you - you appear to be a very intelligent individual and it forced me to look at things from a new perspective. However, in the end, your arguments didn't convince me that Bush lied about everything just so he could go in to secure oil. In the end, I believe that an accumulative of violations gave Bush a reason to act on a greater and more strategic goal.

Luf

Luf,

Read your comments. You, in essence, have said Bush lied. It's there... in your own words, (void of mine).

I think we've been abandon here Luf, in private conversation too deep and complex for others (ha ha) to tag-along. But "if" there were any other readers out there I'd invite them to comment on my conclusion of your writings. I'd like the Ref's to make a call here. You've admitted you think Bush lied.

____________________________________________________________

It enrages me that people can buy that and accept it. For anyone to think that Bush actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq is an insult to his intelligence and the Presidency.

These statements that you made indicate that you are not being objective and therefore are likely being bias in your opinion.

Not being objective about what? Disagreeing with what other people think? Is that why you are accusing me of not being objective? How does that make any sense and how does it lead to me being bias in my opinion?

___________________________________________________________

I "strive" to approach issues like the one we are discussing from a non-bias perspective. I look at the available data and typically conclude things logically.

From your comments I believe you strive too. I don't think you are successful this time. Your logic is flawed or your bias and pride will not let you voice what you believe to be the obvious truth. Oh well...

I've enjoyed our conversation. Have a Happy New Year.

But "if" there were any other readers out there I'd invite them to comment on my conclusion of your writings. I'd like the Ref's to make a call here.

I'm biased. Let me just put that out there (in case somebody is reading who isn't familiar with my point of view).

I think that JRO has made good points, and has succeeded in doing what he set out to do. Lufbery, however, has left himself openings, through which he has successfully slipped. He has consistently qualified his admission that Bush was dishonest by saying that, in essence, since none of us can see inside Bush's head, we can never be completely certain that he knew that he was being dishonest. That is, of course, undeniable - the same can be said under any circumstances about anybody. You may look at the sky and tell me that it is green even though it is a clear sunny day with a beautiful blue sky. Although I may conclude that you are lying, someone else (Lufbery, for example) may conclude that you don't know that you are lying (because you may, for example, be color blind and not know it), and that position is unassailable. Further, Lufbery might expect you to consider that there may be other reasons for someone to say that the sky is green - wearing yellow sunglasses, confused about the difference between primary colors, under the influence, looking at the grass instead of the sky, etc). Although none of those possibilities would seem likely, and although the only logical and reasonable position is that the person claiming that the sky is green is lying, if someone says that you're not considering all of the possibilities, it's hard to argue.

In short, JRO's argument relies on the use of Occam's razor as a means of eliminating more complicated (less likely) possibilities. Unfortunately, Lufbery appears to be wielding Occam's razor with a certain lack of finesse - let's only hope that he keeps it away from the jugular...

;-)

It really has been an interesting exchange. I'd encourage both of you to do it again. Thanks to you both, and Happy Holidays.

Brad,

That's for your comment.

It's nice to know someone is still reading.

Happy New Year,

Not a Daily Show fan Mike? They've won two Peabody awards for their election coverage.

Sorry. The Visa ad spoofs have left me reading more into that phrase than is there I guess.

It's the beginning of the end and we're on the road to impeachment.

God....I hope so. Too bad the Dems don't have the spine (or the votes) to go after it. They'll be too busy trying to position themselves for '08.

What a useless political system.

They're almost all spineless, which is why public pressure is essential. Cal and remind the twit from your district who they work for. If you don't have a twit thank your lucky stars. My Senator is Hillary Clinton. The worst office to get a response from, or a live person to talk to based on several years calling and working with several hundred Congressional offices, on both sides of the aisle.

Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121 If you need help finding who "represents" you, just give your zip. code

That's Call...some of us really need the edit for the things spell check can not catch!

The diehard conservative will never believe that he or she has been hoodwinked. They cannot conceive of anyone other than Bill Clinton lying or even stretching the truth. Remember, they have selective amnesia regarding the whole WMD issue and when faced with clips and quotes about it, they're in denial.

When I brought up the subject with a coworker, he just said "Well, Saddam just buried them all in the desert and we won't find them for 50 years." How convenient.

That is one of my favorites... or that he sent them to syria.

I ask them.. so the worlds badest army on the planet is coming to get you. DO you use the limited wmds you have to inflict as much damage as possible or do you give them to your neighbour(or bury them) and just hope you get out alive. Believe it or not WMDS are used for WAR
and had he hide them in the sand, the indurgents would be using them now.

And the die hard liberals believe that Bush is the only administration that claimed that Saddam had WMD.

Who said that? He was however, the only one who went to war over it.

Of course it makes perfect sense to bury them in the desert, get your butt kicked thoroughly then dig them out...for what?

IMPOSSIBLE! Iraqi government officials in Saddam's regime were incapable of lying. Just look at that Baghdad Bob guy, total truth teller.

That guy was awesome. I wish one of the western news agencies would have snapped him up as an anchor.

Devil's advocate, meet Ockham's razor. It is indeed possible that the Iraqi agent was lying, that there really were WMDs, that they were (are) so well hidden in a secret oasis that we never found them. It is also possible that the Iraqi agent was not an agent at all but an alien using mind control powers to make the CIA think he was an Iraqi agent. Anything is possible.

What seems likely, and logical, is that our humint was telling us the same things our satellites and inspections were: there was no active WMD program.

[taking RyanS outside to whisper in his ear] It's because anyone who complains that this stuff is self-evident is branded as either a whiner or a liberal. People get punished for having oral sex in the White House, not for starting unnecessary wars. That's the way the world works. [letting RyanS go back to work]

Well, here's the other thing: What would compel someone to do that? At what point in your life do you wake and up and decide that you're going to lie to get what you may want? Granted, this is a hypocritical comment, but the scale of the lie is so much higher (if there is a lying scale?).

I just like to have faith in leaders, hell, in people -- but growing up I see a lot of reasons to be distrusting (just like every other generation realizes I guess).

Happy 21st eh?!

Welcome to adulthood, Ryan.

Ryan
People do all kinds of crazy things for all kinds of reasons. And it hardly ever makes sense.

However, in this country, what is supposedly self evident doesnt mean squat without proof. If theres proof, someone needs to get it to light so action can be taken. Until then, it is just supposition and theory.

At what point in your life do you wake and up and decide that you're going to lie to get what you may want? Granted, this is a hypocritical comment, but the scale of the lie is so much higher (if there is a lying scale?).

Oh I dunno, pretty quickly when you're from a connected family and being groomed to be a career politician...

this will only be old news when something is done about it.

And what do you propose? Getting rid of George Bush, Cheney and co. Make them stand trial.

I'm not saying that it's not serious how they misled the world when all inidications are that the WMD didn't exist. What I am saying is that we are too focused on what has happened before and not enough attention and effort is going into fixing the current problems.

I'm not saying that it's not serious how they misled the world when all inidications are that the WMD didn't exist. What I am saying is that we are too focused on what has happened before and not enough attention and effort is going into fixing the current problems.

who's to fix the current problems? the people who created the problems?

I'm pretty lazy myself but do you think at some point the masses of rational objectors should join up with the hippies and anarchists and have huge old fashioned protest by washington memorial? Something so big not even the complicite media can cover it up? I'm all for staying on the internet and preaching to the quire but, when people remember this era where will be the iconic protest that they'll remember? Honestly we must have the numbers by now.

Just throwing it out there. I've got bills to pay and tv to watch myself...

demonstrations would be nice. seems, tho, the only way the lazy masses are ever going to get off their lazy asses is after the draft is reinstated. i can fill you in on upcoming events if you're interested.

Firsty,
I'm listening.

there is a demonstration planned for january 4 in DC as sort of a welcome to the new congress...

The protest will be held at Upper Senate Park (Delaware & Constitution, just north of the Capitol) starting at 12:00 noon Thursday, Jan. 4.

This site has ongoing information. there are others i'm aware of, which i'll post as well. i guess i should write an article about upcoming events.

I am severely disenchanted with protests. I protested the first Gulf War and the Kosovo mess. The media doesn't cover these protests. At all. It's shocking that there can be so many people out there thinking they're making their voices heard, and you check the evening news, and nothing. Politicians ignore non-violent protests. Cops break up violent protests. Really, unless you can get 1,000,000 people to show up nobody notices and nobody cares.

Might be a good place to score some weed though.

Politicians ignore non-violent protests. Cops break up violent protests.

Right on. A dicotomy of our democracy aka dictatorship of the rich minority skewing the system.

violence then?

revolution anyone?

(shh)

"For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude."

Somehow, I just could not see GWB using that phrase and keeping a straight face.

Big "if."

I know, I know. It's the stuff you really got to worry about!

The (not so) hilarious thing is that this was a 5 minute search on Google. There's a novels worth of untruths about this Iraqi war. It was illegal, it was immoral and I'd like to see George, Tony and their cronies in the Hague ASAP. Never gonna happen but a man's gotta dream.

The day after September 11 when Saddam came onto TV to condemn the terrorists and convey his sympathies (heartfelt or not, not probably) I thought to myself, tough luck sucker, Daddys boy is gonna get you no matter what you say. This was not an occasion I wanted to be proven right on.

The reason is vastly more complex and invovles an attempt to change the social and economic dynamics in the Middle East.

Is that the reason they gave the UN? No. What the coalition of the willing did was illegal.

1. No, what the rulers in the Middle East are doing to their people and to the people of neighboring countries is illegal.

2. What US did at the UN was state clearly how it could be possible that Iraq has WMDs and made it explicitly clear how Iraq was violating 1441. Iraq could prove US and coalition of the willing wrong simply by becoming transparent.

3. Moreover, even if they did know Saddam not to have WMDs, because of dimwits out there who are more concerned with vilifying US than glancing in the direction of Iran, Syria, and other countries that engage in regular crimes against humanity on their own soil and threaten those around them, US and other Western powers are perfectly right to sidestep these short-sighted people, play politics (i.e. hide their true reasons and instead saying that which would enable them to do what is right).

Most people who argue against US (and many of those who argue pro, to be fair) seem to lack the basic moral fiber to research the subject they are so adamant about.

So please stop with the sound bites and read the sources I provided.

1. Why didn't Iraq open up to UN inspections. (For anybody doubting whether they did, please read Hans Blix reports and read resolution 1441) You can find my commentary on the subject here. Oh, wait... that would require you actually looking into the subject.

2. Having said that, I agree that the US administration might have been aware that the danger was not immediate. But then again, that's not the reason they went in. The reason is vastly more complex and invovles an attempt to change the social and economic dynamics in the Middle East.

Three of the last four links appear to be dead. Incidentally, I have researched the subject in the past quite well, thank you very much. I've already read much the reports you've listed, and I don't really see where it gives you the degree of certainty you appear to have.

I don't consider their inconsistency to represent a lack of transparency, and it's not surprising to me that a sovereign nation would refuse the sort of inspections that your talking about.

One of the many thing's I've read about in all this is the UN's disagreement with us through much of the process of inspections.

And I don't give a damn what the reason was he had in his head, I care about the reason he gave to me, in his speech, GUARANTEEING the presence of WMD's.

All those who disagree with you are not stupid. Some of us are quite bright, but saw the evidence and are unimpressed. I think a decision to go to war requires a little more intelligence then this, call me crazy.

I'm going to go over some old media files and put a video on youtube in a bit, then seed it here, so everybody can remember just exactly what that man said.

Last 4 links? Which are those? I'll fix em if I can.

If you don't consider lack of transparency to UN in case of Iraq a bad thing given the context, then I think we don't have much we can agree upon and you leave me no option but to call you crazy. Is it ok for Iran not to be transparent then?

Lucid, you may call yourself bright. May even be bright. But unless you understand the context and are able to discern between politics and reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't digest what you say very well.

If you don't consider lack of transparency to UN in case of Iraq a bad thing given the context, then I think we don't have much we can agree upon and you leave me no option but to call you crazy. Is it ok for Iran not to be transparent then?

When did I say it's not a bad thing? That has nothing to do with it. I said that is not surprising that they would not achieve the degree of transparency we wanted. We came up with a list of needs, which as a matter of fact they did respond to, to some extent. The UN was far more satisfied then we were, but we blundered ahead.

I'd love Iran to be transparent. But guess what? That won't happen either. Even if at some point, the people in charge decide they want to be transparent, in order to get rid of us, there will still be obfuscation at a lower level because the people letting in the teams are going to be angry, resentful, and stupid, and the culture in Iran is not particularly disposed towards letting people in. In short it's, pretty much like Iraq.

Call me crazy if you want, I think it's a very legitimate position which your having trouble digesting because you want things to be far more clear then they are. Saying "they could have prevented it," might be true. But is that the point? They were stupid, so it's ok that we made a monstrous, monumental error? The whole thing is their fault, because they were incapable of overcoming their stupid pride?

# White House Chronicles Past Iraqi Obstruction of Inspections (17 September 2002) * White House Compares Iraqi Non-Compliance Tactics to Those of 1996 (12 February 2003) * US Department of State - Response to Terrorism
# Iraq's history of playing games with the UN

While these links lead to pages, I got a 404 on one part of the frames, and another error on another one.

I wrote an article referring to something you said here, you may want to comment on it.

So please stop with the sound bites and read the sources I provided.

I did, you seem to use the same twisted logic to justify this criminal act as Bush and his Stoogies. Even Kofi Annan considers the war illegal. Guess which source I would trust in matters reagding violation of UN resolutions (here's a hint, it's not some random bloke posting on news sites)

Lucid, the argument that a desired level of transparency could never be reached doesn't hold water. Look up South Africa, which has nuclear aspirations and inspections were successfully implemented in a very short time.

Twisted, is this the same Annan who presided over the Oil-for-Food scandal not to mention numerous other notable events when he failed to act in an appropriate manner. Is this also the same man who behaved in a rather shameful way during the Israeli-Hezbollah war? Is this the same Annan under whom the genocide has been going on for years in Sudan? If so, forgive me if I don't take his opinion too close to heart.

I might be wrong about my logic, but if your response is "Bush and his Stoogies", you are not doing much to cause an epiphany here that would cause me to join you in your anti-Bush mantras.

Twisted, is this the same Annan who presided over the Oil-for-Food scandal not to mention numerous other notable events...

That's the one and he is still more qualified than you in matters regarding the violation of UN resolutions (unless you are the UN overlord I keep hearing men in tinfoil hats go on about).

Right... US stated what they believe. If what US was stating was incorrect, Iraq could open at ANY point in time.

Read Blix's reports. He said Iraq did not comply. Blix thought that inspections had a chance to work. The rest of the world didn't share his optimism given the decade of continuous problems.

China is reforming and there is a pretty vicious political battle. Russia - same thing. Sudan, yes. Iraq was the strongest country in the region who was being the most vociferous and malicious in its demonstrations. If US went after anybody else, you would just as well say "Why not Iraq? At least they violated 1441"

And I am glad you appreciate the fact that I do not see UN as very efficient in addressing much of anything that is even remotely complicated. Darfur comes to mind.

What about Colin Powell's infamous speech? The one with tapes with the really poor sound quality and dubious translations? We presented that as slam dunk evidence. I felt so bad for Colin afterwards. Has anyone looked up who manufactured that 'evidence' and called them to task for it? Whoever was involved should be barred from government employment for life.

Sorry, what's your point?