President Bush's "Decision Points"

[elvis]

"I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force," Bush said in an interview on NBC television as part of a series of appearances ahead of the release of his new book. "I was trying to give diplomacy a chance to work."
Bush says he was 'dissident voice' on Iraq invasion - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

but Cheney, wolfowitz, and perle wanted to invade....

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

point taken, but my point is he was manipulated.

 

[Samson]

Really? Where? What Press?

I'll go ahead and believe what I read and hear DIRECTLY: What I heard Bush say had nothing to do with "white-washing" anything. He takes full responsibility.

"I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force," Bush said in an interview on NBC television as part of a series of appearances ahead of the release of his new book. "I was trying to give diplomacy a chance to work."
Bush says he was 'dissident voice' on Iraq invasion - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

Bottom line:

But on NBC, he refused to apologize to the American people for never finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - which his administration had cited as its main motive to go to war - and the chaos that followed in the years after the 2003 invasion. "Apologizing would basically say the decision was a wrong decision. And I don't believe it was the wrong decision," he said.

It was HIS decision.

 

[ekrem]

Your baseless assumptions are of no interest here.(...)

It's no assumptions although off-topic.
I read the threads on usmb.com and do own 'research' about US economic-crisis and its impact to households like debt-level, unemployment and such things.

 

[elvis]

"I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force," Bush said in an interview on NBC television as part of a series of appearances ahead of the release of his new book. "I was trying to give diplomacy a chance to work."
Bush says he was 'dissident voice' on Iraq invasion - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

but Cheney, wolfowitz, and perle wanted to invade....

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

 

[Liability]

but Cheney, wolfowitz, and perle wanted to invade....

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

point taken, but my point is he was manipulated.

I don't think so. He got advice. STRONG advice. But, even so, he was aware of the so-called "let diplomacy work" alternative option. In the end, he eventually had to make the call.

That bears repeating: HE had to make the call. I don't see evidence that it was the product of "manipulation." I do see evidence that he struggled with the options and the ultimate decision he alone had to make.

 

[elvis]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

point taken, but my point is he was manipulated.

I don't think so. He got advice. STRONG advice. But, even so, he was aware of the so-called "let diplomacy work" alternative option. In the end, he eventually had to make the call.

That bears repeating: HE had to make the call. I don't see evidence that it was the product of "manipulation." I do see evidence that he struggled with the options and the ultimate decision he alone had to make.

see my post above.

 

[Liability]

but Cheney, wolfowitz, and perle wanted to invade....

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

 

[Zander]

I received it on my Kindle today.....can't wait to read it.

 

[elvis]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

lied to? maybe not. manipulated? absolutely. Who was at the CIA pressuring them?

 

[Liability]

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

lied to? maybe not. manipulated? absolutely. Who was at the CIA pressuring them?

I see no evidence of manipulation, either.

Is it possible? Of course. But until I see clear evidence of it, I decline to make it a working premise.

 

[ekrem]

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

Fairy tales, yellow-cake, mobile WMD laboratories, missiles that could be launched within 45 minutes, mushroom-clouds.
USA wanted this war, Rest was rhetorics and a very annoying style of approach that led to serious cracks within trans-atlantic system as not only the US had intelligence capabilities about Iraq. But the US gave a fuck about advise, 'either with us or against us'.

 

[Samson]

but Cheney, wolfowitz, and perle wanted to invade....

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

But, Bush rejected the direct question: "Was he lied to?" or even manipulated;

He simply said the information was not correct, and that Saddam could have easily corrected it. Unhappily, Saddam did not, counting on Bush to be the waffling, weak-kneed leader that Bush SR had been (ending the Kuwait War after only 100 hrs).

 

[elvis]

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

lied to? maybe not. manipulated? absolutely. Who was at the CIA pressuring them?

I see no evidence of manipulation, either.

Is it possible? Of course. But until I see clear evidence of it, I decline to make it a working premise.

Do you think the intelligence they got was sound?

 

[elvis]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

I'd like to address this point again... If you are lied to, make a decision that turns out to be wrong, are you still responsible?

But, Bush rejected the direct question: "Was he lied to?" or even manipulated;

He simply said the information was not correct, and that Saddam could have easily corrected it. Unhappily, Saddam did not, counting on Bush to be the waffling, weak-kneed leader that Bush SR had been (ending the Kuwait War after only 100 hrs).

and that's fine. He's the kind of guy who stands by his decisions. But that doesn't mean he's guilty. I am not trying not to say "lie" Maybe "deceived" is better.

 

[AquaAthena]

I'm listening to Bush being interviewed by Hannity at Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch, while W. is driving H. around his property in his truck and talking candidly about his presidency and life now, in general. The president is patriotic and at peace with himself for doing the job as best as he could at the time, many of which were very challenging. No prez. makes all the calls, perfectly. I think history will shed a bright light on George W. Bush. I like him because I perceive him as being very candid, honest, humble, and transparent. He is a true American representing those constitutional traditions and values I hold dear...

 

[elvis]

For me, Bush is like Jimmy Carter.. A good man who surrounded himself with bad and/or incompetent people.

 

[Liability]

Is there a suggestion that he got lied to?

What is the basis for that contention -- if it is being argued?

I realize that -- in the end -- we failed to find much in the way of the WMDs we expected to find. But the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence or of lies. It wasn't just the Bush Administration advisors who thought they "knew" that WMDs were there. The fucking guy, Saddam, after all, had actually USED WMDs.

The Clinton Administration also "knew" without doubt that Saddam "had" WMDs.

If that mistaken belief (if it was a mistake) turned out to be mistaken, that does NOT translate in logic or fairness into the proposition that anybody "lied" to President Bush.

(I see no evidence that President Bush got lied to. But, to address your question as asked, IF somebody lied to him, obviously that would distort his ability to reach a valid conclusion and might have changed his decision. The blame would then appropriately fall upon those who lied to him.)

Fairy tales, yellow-cake, mobile WMD laboratories, missiles that could be launched within 45 minutes, mushroom-clouds.
USA wanted this war, Rest was rhetorics and a very annoying style of approach that led to serious cracks within trans-atlantic system as not only the US had intelligence capabilities about Iraq. But the US gave a fuck about advise, 'either with us or against us'.

Your rhetoric is tired, stale and unpersuasive. The yellow-cake story is the truth. If the objects seen by surveillance imagery were not mobile labs, a mistake of that nature in intelligence analysis is categorically different than a fairy-tale or a lie or manipulation. There WERE missiles that could be launched within 45 minutes. That isn't even subject to rational doubt. The line about "mushroom clouds" was NEVER intended to be anything than an extreme EXAMPLE of the line of reasoning that held that one cannot always afford the luxury of waiting. Folks like you deliberately distorted what Dr. Rice said and meant to craft your campaign of distortion.

The cracks in the "system" which you conveniently put on just this side of the Atlantic was -- instead -- always a problem coming from BOTH sides of the Atlantic.

Your blinders are on. Firmly. It not only distorts your vision; it makes you blind.

You bot only have not read President Bush's book, you probably never will. So, again, feel free to have a huge mug of STFU.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Saddam admitted that he played his little hide and seek games so that Iran would believe he had WMD capabilities. That most of the world believed him was his downfall.

 

[Liability]

lied to? maybe not. manipulated? absolutely. Who was at the CIA pressuring them?

I see no evidence of manipulation, either.

Is it possible? Of course. But until I see clear evidence of it, I decline to make it a working premise.

Do you think the intelligence they got was sound?

Not all of it, obviously. The problem is often a matter of interpretation. And how badly some intel got interpreted is a function of how screwed up our State Department had gotten and how ill-equipped (Human Intelligence) our CIA was.

 

[elvis]

I see no evidence of manipulation, either.

Is it possible? Of course. But until I see clear evidence of it, I decline to make it a working premise.

Do you think the intelligence they got was sound?

Not all of it, obviously. The problem is often a matter of interpretation. And how badly some intel got interpreted is a function of how screwed up our State Department had gotten and how ill-equipped (Human Intelligence) our CIA was.

what about Cheney putting pressure on the CIA? or the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of individuals who had wanted to attack Iraq for 10 years?