Did THEY "Cherry Pick" the Intelligence?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Adam's Apple, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Did the Democrats forget already that we had this debate during the 2004 presidential election campaign, and 3-1/2 million more people agreed with Bush than with Kerry and the Democrats?

    Opponents Say Bush Lied; Read between the Lines
    By Jonathan Gurwitz, The San Antonio Express-News
    11/13/2005

    Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

    "Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    — Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

    In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

    "(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
    — Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

    Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    — Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998
    Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.


    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    — From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

    In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
    — Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

    But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
    — Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

    Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

    "Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
    — Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

    Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

    "I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
    — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

    www.mysanantonio.com
     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Somehow, the statements and positiond presented by Democrats on the issue are conveniently forgotten which makes the libs appear even more hypocritical.
     
  3. Harmageddon
    Offline

    Harmageddon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +7
    From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea.

    I think the whole affair is a fairly complex problem, and in it, two key players are responsible for our current state of world affairs.

    On the one hand, there are these Muslim extremists, inspired by Mohammed Kutb, who stated in the fifties that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. Because the individualism that he witnessed in the fifties in America, was to him some corrupting force that turned human beings into selfish animalistic things, dwarves of their former selves. According to Kutb, the shared values that would hold society together, should be the Koran, the law of Islam.

    Thus inspired, his pupil Al Zawahri started creating a small group of extremists that would make this happen. He blew some people up in Egypt, served some prison time, and finally met Bin Laden in Afghanistan, in the war against the Russians. Togethere, they have been trying for decades to get the people in Muslim countries see the error of their secular regime. By blowing up innocent civilians, they hoped that the populace would see that their country had been corrupted to the core and that they would rise up and overthrow their leaders, and subsequently install a Muslim theocracy.

    Small surprise blowing up civilians didn't really work in mobilizing them.
    But then, these people are extremists, aka insane. They just think "whatever, that didn't work, maybe we should use a bigger bomb". It's truly sad.

    On the other hand, there are the neoconservatives. They have been inspired by Leo Strauss, who stated, in the fifties, that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. He was an American, and inspired a small group of students to form a small group that would do this. Because Strauss too, like Kutb, believed that individualism ultimately undermined the shared values that would hold society together. Without these shared values, society would descend into chaos, and we would become animalistic, selfish beings, dwarves of our former selves.

    The shared values according to Strauss could be anything, and they did not necessarily need to be true. Religion could work as a unifying cause, but so could nationalism. To Strauss, it didn't really matter, as long as it was there.
    To keep society from descending into a barbaric age.

    Thus, his pupils, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, created an image of America as the sole force of good in the world, that would combat all evil across the globe, and spread democracy in it's wake. This was not true of course, since America is not the sole force of good in the world, and non-democratic regimes are not necessarily evil. It was a simplified, and thus inaccurate view of the world, but it would serve it's purpose: to unite the American people under a common cause.

    They did not get their necessary reforms under Reagan, since he had a more pragmatic view of the world. The Russians were evil, yes, but they could be dealt with using diplomacy instead of an all-out war. Only at the end of Reagan's reign, did they get their ideas more firmly in Reagans mind. But by then, Reagan could not implement the agenda fully enough. The neocons disapeared to backstage for a while - during this period, the Muslim extremists had also seen all of their "revolutions" fail. Both groups went back to plotting.

    Then, the Project for the New American Century's publication, "Rebuilding America's Defences" was printed in september 2000. Authors: Wolfowitz and others, in short: Straussians.

    It called for the above, but in it, the authors realize a catalyst event is necessary for the above false premise of the American nation to gain traction. A "pearl harbour like" event should serve as a catalyst, that would quickly get the American people behind the banner of the War on Terror, that would be a unifying cause to prevent American society from degrading into selfish chaos.
    It might not be true, but it was necessary.

    One year later, 9/11 2001 was etched forever in our memories.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Howard Dean was on “Meet the Press” yesterday beating this “Bush Lied” drum.
    Kickoff of the 06 democratic campaign, maybe?
     
  5. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    If only that were true! That "pile of oil" has yet to be seen. All oil profits (such as they are) from Iraqi oil are being poured right back into rebuilding Iraq.

    As for the fraudulent idea....which idea would that be...democracy? freedom? removal of a tyrant? that Saddam was seeking WMD...which idea are you calling fraudulent?
     
  6. Harmageddon
    Offline

    Harmageddon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +7
    Ok, so maybe I should have dropped the oil remark.
    It's just something you hear a lot about, with Haliburton doing more reconstruction than drilling for oil, that was a little off-target.

    What I was referring to with the "fraudulent idea" is the idea that America IS the sole force of good in the world, that everybody else is basically less good than America, and thus America's task in the world should be to defeat the "evil" in the world, and bring democracy in the wake of the destruction.

    The idea that America is a sole force of good in the world is ridiculous.
    If you look throughout history, not one nation in the world has ever been a force of good; instead, countries have done some good things and some bad things, like any other country.

    But the idea, however untrue it may be, works marvelously as a unifying cause. The war on terror serves to keep the American people unified.

    That is it's primary goal.

    Secondary, a few dictators may be killed as well as some civilians that just happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that is the secondary goal: and for it to serve the primary one, war needs to be continuous. Syria? Iran? What's it going to be?
     
  7. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    From my perspective, I do not think that the US is the sole force for good in the world nor do I think that most Americans believe that either. The US however, is probably in a better position econmically to do things "globally" especially when compared to other countries. Funny thing about Americans is that when approached with a friendly attitude and a warm smile, they (the Americans) are likely to be very friendly...New Yorkers are the exception (just kidding!). If you attack them (in genereal as a people) they can be very vindictive and then somebody is going to pay a price. Once that is over with, they are just as likely to want to be friends againa s they are to hold a grudge. All of this is generalization of course but I think it is accurate for the most part.
     
  8. Harmageddon
    Offline

    Harmageddon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +7
    I agree with your generalizations :)

    However, taken that America is in a better position to engage in global activities than say, the tiny country of the Netherlands, I and a lot of Europeans with me, still feel that America has been flipping the finger in the face of the world (Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapon capabilites, of which he later admitted he was lying).

    Flipping the finger to your allies and lying to them to get things done is not in my view the way forward to an era of progressive cooperation. Going into Iraq and threatening your allies by stating "You are either with us, or against us" does not improve things either. Not that I think America will ever attack it's allies over such a statement, but still.

    I do think that once this whole thing is over with, Europe and America can get back to friendlier territory. But as is the case with large masses of people, that is probably going to take quite some time.
     
  9. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Obviously, we can discuss the particular strategy for approaching different issues ad nauseum and never come to agreement. Lying, it seems to me is part of diplomacy. Let us not forget that some European countries were undeniably deceitful in their role in events leading to the invasion of Iraq. France and Germany in particular were "flipping the finger" at the US by blocking efforts to enforce sanctions on Iraq while covertly supplying Saddam with mutually lucrative deals. The UN was also "flipping the US the finger" by censuring the US while at thee same time taking kickbacks in the Oil for Food program. Seems to me there was a whole bunch of finger flipping going on and it wasn't just the US. Is it any wonder that the US sent the for/against us message to the rest of the world?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    I'm seriously wondering who you consider our allies in Europe? UK and the Eastern nations is what I see. You have a different perspective? I hardly would call the Netherlands an ally. Why would I? :dunno:
     

Share This Page