Bush was wrong, not misleading

Bryan · 11-14-2005, 03:13 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....intelligence/

There is no doubt that the intelligence that was used to justify war with Iraq was wrong. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But there has been no evidence or proof that Bush misled anybody. If someone can show that Bush knew Iraq had no WMDs and claimed they did anyway, then I'll believe he misled people into the Iraqi War. But before we went in, everybody thought he had WMDs, the US, Congress, the UN, Russia, etc.

OneHope · 11-14-2005, 03:24 PM

I don't know. I'll agree that the intelligence may have pointed to weapons of mass destruction. However, is that enough to justify a war? The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, should others pre-emptively attack the U.S. Bush could justify that he stockpiles weapons to deflect a possible pre-emptive strike from Iraq. But Iraq could use the same justification for stockpiling weapons, to defend from a possible pre-emptive strike by the U.S. And then, who is in the right? Yes, a pre-emptive strike on the U.S. by Iraq would have been horrible, but the pre-emptive strike on Iraq by the U.S. was horrible.

Also, Bush said he was doing what he was doing in the name of freedom for the Iraqi people. There are many places on the planet that need freedom more than the Iraqis did.

Bryan · 11-14-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneHope

I don't know. I'll agree that the intelligence may have pointed to weapons of mass destruction. However, is that enough to justify a war? The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, should others pre-emptively attack the U.S. Bush could justify that he stockpiles weapons to deflect a possible pre-emptive strike from Iraq. But Iraq could use the same justification for stockpiling weapons, to defend from a possible pre-emptive strike by the U.S. And then, who is in the right? Yes, a pre-emptive strike on the U.S. by Iraq would have been horrible, but the pre-emptive strike on Iraq by the U.S. was horrible.

Also, Bush said he was doing what he was doing in the name of freedom for the Iraqi people. There are many places on the planet that need freedom more than the Iraqis did.

but none of that is misleading.

OneHope · 11-14-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

but none of that is misleading.

It depends. Were they aware of a potential Iraqi strike on the U.S.? If he had concrete evidence (other than they have weapons and they hate us) then he was not misleading. If he didn't then, he was being misleading.

TheProdigalModern · 11-14-2005, 04:29 PM

I'm of the opinion that Bush was wrong, and not, at least initially, intentionally misleading; that said, I think that he was irresponsible for ignoring the International Atomic Energy Agency's assertions contrary to his own. Later on, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "...It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it." (source)

I don't think that Bush can be blamed for bad intelligence, but I think that he was guilty of an overzealous desire to go to war, and so selectively read intelligence that would support his case. It's human nature, what he did, but it was at the expense of thousads (millions?) of lives and billions of dollars.

I was never a supporter of the war (the reasons mentioned above were just a few of my objections), but what has really turned me against it is the fact that the administration just won't admit that they were wrong. Instead, they've changed their story about what the war was over, which is what really threw the American public into the quagmire of debates on whether or not we should establish democracy around the world. There's a lot to be said about contrition and public opinion.

Bryan · 11-14-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vershal

I'm of the opinion that Bush was wrong, and not, at least initially, intentionally misleading; that said, I think that he was irresponsible for ignoring the International Atomic Energy Agency's assertions contrary to his own. Later on, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "...It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it." (source)

I don't think that Bush can be blamed for bad intelligence, but I think that he was guilty of an overzealous desire to go to war, and so selectively read intelligence that would support his case. It's human nature, what he did, but it was at the expense of thousads (millions?) of lives and billions of dollars.

but Bush was not the only one who believed the faulty intelligence, some of Bush's biggest critics, with access to the same intelligence, came to the same conclusion. I think the vast majority of US politicians were guilty of an overzealous desire to go to war, not just Bush.

Quote:

I was never a supporter of the war (the reasons mentioned above were just a few of my objections), but what has really turned me against it is the fact that the administration just won't admit that they were wrong. Instead, they've changed their story about what the war was over, which is what really threw the American public into the quagmire of debates on whether or not we should establish democracy around the world. There's a lot to be said about contrition and public opinion.

I agree that Bush has changed the motives for the war, first it was WMDs, then it was Iraqi Freedom. But this article, and many like it, is the Bush administration admitting they were wrong. They just don't like the accusations that Bush lied about WMDs. If he knew the intelligence was wrong and still maintained that it was correct, then that would be lying and misleading, but I don't think this is the case. Nor has there been any proof or evidence to support such a claim.

TheProdigalModern · 11-14-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

but Bush was not the only one who believed the faulty intelligence, some of Bush's biggest critics, with access to the same intelligence, came to the same conclusion. I think the vast majority of US politicians were guilty of an overzealous desire to go to war, not just Bush.

I agree, and I think that they should be held accountable. It was Bush, however, who really pushed for it, and I know that more than a few senators have pretty much apologized for their initial support. That doesn't make the situation any easier, but it is refreshing to hear a politician admitting that they were wrong.

Quote:

I agree that Bush has changed the motives for the war, first it was WMDs, then it was Iraqi Freedom. But this article, and many like it, is the Bush administration admitting they were wrong.

Sort of. The story since then has been, "We would have done it anyway."

Well, at least that's what the chairman of the GOP said.

Than · 11-14-2005, 08:19 PM

I heard a segment on NPR that showed how primarily Cheney, but Bush knew that the intelligence was lacking, but still pushed for war nonetheless. I have no sources, but I'll see if I can find online documentation.

From what I've seen, war was pretty much a foregone conclusion, and they patched support together as best as they could, no matter how off base it was.

JerryLove · 11-15-2005, 06:08 AM

The British had also established the "seeking uranium" intelligence as false pre-war.

BurntHombre · 11-15-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The British had also established the "seeking uranium" intelligence as false pre-war.

Are you talking about the Butler Report? I thought it said the exact opposite -- that the evidence was, in fact, credible.

JerryLove · 11-15-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurntHombre

Are you talking about the Butler Report? I thought it said the exact opposite -- that the evidence was, in fact, credible.

I'm talking about the claim in the 2002 State of the Union address where the Whitehouse claimed that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons. The paper they were using had fictitious signitures on it (IOW sigs of the wrong people... it was not only forged, but by an ameture).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...5935-2003Dec23

BurntHombre · 11-15-2005, 11:00 AM

Yep, that particular document had forged signatures. Nonetheless, England has stood by the intelligence and says its backed up by other evidence.

At any rate, for a good (albeit damning) look at what leading Democrats thought about the pre-war intelligence, check out this handy commercial put together by the GOP. I think the Bush lied! meme if finally getting a reality check.

Godsservent · 11-15-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneHope

I don't know. I'll agree that the intelligence may have pointed to weapons of mass destruction. However, is that enough to justify a war? The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, should others pre-emptively attack the U.S.

The U.S. did not sign an international treating stating that it could not have WMD's. Iraq did and accorrding to intelligence it was in violation of that treating for almost 12 yrs.

I think Bush Administration was mislead just like other Administrations.

I think too many people just really hate Bush. I mean where are the people protesting congress. Congress was the one who declared war on Iraq not Bush.

JerryLove · 11-15-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Yep, that particular document had forged signatures. Nonetheless, England has stood by the intelligence and says its backed up by other evidence.

No, not just forged; WRONG.

The signatures were of people WHO WERE NOT IN POWER. The newspapers discovered the problem BY GOOGLE!

Quote:

At any rate, for a good (albeit damning) look at what leading Democrats thought about the pre-war intelligence, check out this handy commercial put together by the GOP. I think the Bush lied! meme if finally getting a reality check.

Of course Bush has lied (for example, when claiming he never said that he didn't worry about BinLauden); The only questions are how much and about what.

Now if you simply want to argue that Bush's appointed Inelligence chiefs were so incompitent that they didnt' even both to check if the names on the document were legit, ignored British reports that the document was not legit, ignored that the document showed an attempt to buy some reasources Iraq already had in abundance... in short, that his appointment in the CIA was as incompitent as his appointment for FEMA, feel free.

JerryLove · 11-15-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

The U.S. did not sign an international treating stating that it could not have WMD's. Iraq did and accorrding to intelligence it was in violation of that treating for almost 12 yrs.

The UN denied this claim completely. The head weapons inspector (I recall listening to him before the war) said that there was no support for that claim.

Also, obviously, the claim was wrong. Good thing the war was short (victory having been achieved in 2003, and us having "broken the back" of the insurgency which is "in it's last throws" as of 2004.

That's some good intelligence there.

Quote:

I think Bush Administration was mislead just like other Administrations.

Mislead by whom?

Quote:

I think too many people just really hate Bush.

I think not enough people hate Bush.

Quote:

Congress was the one who declared war on Iraq not Bush.

No they did not. They authorized Bush to use force *if neccessairy*. Several of the members who voted for that resolution said directy (at the time) that they were doing so becuase they needed to give him the power to threaten in order to force Saddam to comply. BTW, before the invasion, Saddam did indeed comply; only then Bush changed the rules and said he would invade if Saddam didn't abdicate (something congress never approved).