Have your views changed on WMD?

[rikzilla]

You really are a champion at missing the bleeding obvious. The reason we keep bringing it up is that it was GWB's primary justification for the war.

You are the one missing the obvious.

I don't care!

There were lots and lots of great reasons to go get Saddam. I am concerned over the lack of WMD, but only because the intel was so wrong. That bad intel needs to be addressed. Other than that I have no problem if nothing is ever found.

Now can we move on? If you have more than one issue (WMD).. which I'm coming to doubt...then spit it out. Otherwise any more talk directed to me about WMD is wasting your time and mine.

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

 

[Andonyx]

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

But in both cases...(Bush Jr. and Reagan) why did they need to lie, and or obfuscate the case?

Plenty of different players in both the FBI and the CIA have said the intel was NOT faulty, that they has suggested all along it was not a convincing case for weapons in Iraq, that no one EVER led Bush to believe they had weapons that could reach the US even though such was claimed at the congressional briefing and that in fact the intel was "sexed up" by politicians, not the actual intelligence agency.

So if there were other reasons to go to war with Iraq, and I'm sure there are, why not use those, mention the "possibility" of WMDs as another item in a laundry list and be honest with the constituency?

Likewise, if the Iran Contra arms deals really were the best way to accomplish Reagan's end goals, then why not be out with it? Why not say, "look, the crap hit the fan and we're running up against a law this time but it's a special case and we want to make an exception to save American lives."

In both cases don't you think both men would have enjoyed far less fall-out then when the truth came out, not from their own lips?


(And no I'm not following you around today responding to your posts, it just worked out that way.)

 

[ceptimus]

Wow rik, what do you want to talk about in a thread called "Have your views changed on WMD?" ?

I realize the issue is kind of embarassing for you. Perhaps we ought to just let it drop.

 

[pgwenthold]

Plenty of different players in both the FBI and the CIA have said the intel was NOT faulty, that they has suggested all along it was not a convincing case for weapons in Iraq, that no one EVER led Bush to believe they had weapons that could reach the US even though such was claimed at the congressional briefing and that in fact the intel was "sexed up" by politicians, not the actual intelligence agency.

Supporters like to make a big deal of the fact that it was the same intel that had been given to Clinton. Clinton even says it is. So what's the difference? Well, Clinton concluded that the information we had was not sufficient to indicate that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US. Bush took the same information and decided it meant that he was (and had decided so before 9/11 and his staff had decided so before even taking office).

So I agree, it had nothing to do with the intelligence we had. It had to do with what one does with that intelligence.

 

[DavidJames]

I think Rik's point is simple, Saddam had to go, so he supports taking him out. To that end he doesn't care how many lies, deceptive, and or misleading things are said and by whom. To quote Rik "Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.". Rik should be given credit for being consistent as he volunteered his support for the Iran Contra thing as well. He believes lying to the American people doesn't matter if the cause (he believes in) is right.

That's a different vision then I have for our leaders. IMHO, I also think it's inconsistent with the ideals and values of our country.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Bush was warned three times NOT to use the supposed "information" because it was faulty or inflated. This by the same person, CIA director George Tenet, who tried ( and failed ) to fall on his own sword as to take the blame away from George II.

I thought there might be some weapons that weren't accounted for after Desert Storm, but my constant and continuing question is where is the proof? Kennedy went to the UN with detailed pictures and direct evidence...Actually it was Adli Stevenson. on the question of offensive weapons in Cuba ,Quote : "Answer the question Mr Ambassidor, yes or no, don't' wait for the translation, Kosegyan " I am not in an American court of law so I will not answer questions put to me as from a prosecutor.... ,Stevenson "You are in the courtroom of world opinion you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist, and I want to know whether I have understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that's your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room." The evidence was plain and to the point and convinced the world of the correctness of the US's position.

Bush never made a case, the pronouncements still fail to be factual and any post war justification for our unilateral action ( yaya UK and Bosnia sent troops, but the rush to war was our's ) is approximately ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1075530,00.html
Quotes from Cuban missile crisis was from memory , but the text should be ~correct.

 

[rikzilla]

I think Rik's point is simple, Saddam had to go, so he supports taking him out. To that end he doesn't care how many lies, deceptive, and or misleading things are said and by whom. To quote Rik "Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.". Rik should be given credit for being consistent as he volunteered his support for the Iran Contra thing as well. He believes lying to the American people doesn't matter if the cause (he believes in) is right.

That's a different vision then I have for our leaders. IMHO, I also think it's inconsistent with the ideals and values of our country.

That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z

 

[The Fool]

That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z

so rik....How are we to know what statements of GWB are not lies? You support his right to lie to his electors as long as the cause is noble...how are you to know if its a noble cause unless the lie is found out? Or are you just willing to give presidents an open ticket? Is getting the "right man" elected a noble cause? Can GWB lie in order to keep a smelly democrat out of office?


Note: GWB used as example...poster suspects other politicians lie too (gasp)

 

[rikzilla]

so rik....How are we to know what statements of GWB are not lies?

First I'd ask you how you would know if they in fact are? You don't. But this is no different from any other possible president. In the case of politician's lies, we have a completely level playing field.

You support his right to lie to his electors as long as the cause is noble...how are you to know if its a noble cause unless the lie is found out? Or are you just willing to give presidents an open ticket?

Good question. The answer of course is in electing the man who's agenda is in accord with your views. That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issue. Case in point; Bush is a man who, if he must lie, will do so in furtherance of such as the WOT. Whereas Clinton would lie in order to cover up his personal mistakes; Monica, Sudanese asprin factory bombing, various and sundry dirty deals....Whitewater, Hillary's pork belly futures payoff, White house travel office fiasco, illegal use of FBI files, .....ad infinitum.

So you see character is king. Even the Dems should despise Bill Clinton. He was their best chance to promote liberal issues...instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass. He had the right politics, but he was obviously not the right man.

Is getting the "right man" elected a noble cause? Can GWB lie in order to keep a smelly democrat out of office?

Yes indeed it is! Can GWB lie to keep a democrat out of office? Well, I don't see how it would be necessary. The way the dems are going the White House is Bush's to lose. I'd say it's more likely Bush would need to be caught out on a big whopper of a lie for the dems to have a chance. But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught. (I can say this because I'm not running for any office, and I've a terminal case of cynicism)

Note: GWB used as example...poster suspects other politicians lie too (gasp)

Well,....duh!

-z

 

[DavidJames]

That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate.

Thanks, then I was successfull in both efforts

That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issu

That has nothing to do with character. It has only to do with tolerating lies by people you agree with.

instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass.

That quote belongs in every skeptics signature line
No wait, maybe this one should be there as well...

But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught.

 

[rikzilla]

That quote belongs in every skeptics signature line
No wait, maybe this one should be there as well...

Feel free my friend, like I said, I'm not running for anything. I am being brutally honest. Why? Because I can. Besides, there are far more outrageous things I've said that live on in the sig lines of others.

The more I see myself quoted, the more I know I'm loved and appreciated....just like Howard Stern!

-z

 

[Tricky]

Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

This is given the assumption that they are the ends that you desire.

Perhaps this same rationale was in the minds of the 9-11 terrorists. In fact, this seems to be the justification that all terrorists use. I'd prefer that the US not join that club.

 

[Crossbow]

You are the one missing the obvious.

There were lots and lots of great reasons to go get Saddam. I am concerned over the lack of WMD, but only because the intel was so wrong. That bad intel needs to be addressed. Other than that I have no problem if nothing is ever found.

Now can we move on? If you have more than one issue (WMD).. which I'm coming to doubt...then spit it out. Otherwise any more talk directed to me about WMD is wasting your time and mine.

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

Later, rikzilla followed it up with:


That's a little harsh David, but it's accurate. I also applauded the Israelis for flying a mission into the heart of Iraq to bomb Saddam's French and German built breeder reactor. That also was against the law, wasn't it?

History is made by the bold and fearless. Simple fact. The rest of us just sit around and comment on it all. We are all the safer that Saddam never got his reactor. Just as we are all the more unsafe that Kim Jung Il was allowed to construct his.

I want a stable and safe world, just like most everyone else does. If it takes bending a few rules to fulfill such a noble goal then so be it.

-z

And still later, rikzilla posted:

First I'd ask you how you would know if they in fact are? You don't. But this is no different from any other possible president. In the case of politician's lies, we have a completely level playing field.

Good question. The answer of course is in electing the man who's agenda is in accord with your views. That way you can be fairly sure that if/when he lies it will be in order to advance his cause, which of course will be your cause. This is why character is such a huge issue. Case in point; Bush is a man who, if he must lie, will do so in furtherance of such as the WOT. Whereas Clinton would lie in order to cover up his personal mistakes; Monica, Sudanese asprin factory bombing, various and sundry dirty deals....Whitewater, Hillary's pork belly futures payoff, White house travel office fiasco, illegal use of FBI files, .....ad infinitum.

So you see character is king. Even the Dems should despise Bill Clinton. He was their best chance to promote liberal issues...instead of being their champion and using his considerable ability to lie in order to promote the agenda, he ended up lying to just cover his ass. He had the right politics, but he was obviously not the right man.

Yes indeed it is! Can GWB lie to keep a democrat out of office? Well, I don't see how it would be necessary. The way the dems are going the White House is Bush's to lose. I'd say it's more likely Bush would need to be caught out on a big whopper of a lie for the dems to have a chance. But if he had to lie to keep a liberal dem out of office? I'd hope that he'd do it and not be caught. (I can say this because I'm not running for any office, and I've a terminal case of cynicism)


Well,....duh!

-z

So, it is OK with some people if the President lies provided that the lies are used to serve an interest which is supported by those people.

Wow o Wow! I find postings like this to be a fine example of getting the government we deserve.

 

[davefoc]

Rikzilla I enjoyed your posts and your point,

I think most of us just rationalize the lies our guys tell away while seeing only the other guy's lies. This all seems to be tied up with our need to find comfort in our views by making the evidence better for them than it really is.

Many dems repeat over and over that Clinton didn't lie and come up with some strained parsing of his words together with some selective ignoring of others to justify this idea. Conversely, many republicans will never admit the clear cut lies associated with the Iran contra affair by Reagan and probably George Bush Senior.

I happened to be thinking about this issue because I'm reading Al Franken's book right now. (I'm what might be called a moderate libertarian that usually votes republican, but I like Al Franken). One of the issues that he deals with is Bush's handling of anti-terrorist activities prior to 9/11. He makes the case that the Bush administration made several mistakes with regard to the terrorist threat including being slow to implement a plan that had originated in the Clinton administration.

Assume for a second that Franken is correct and that the Bush administration made several mistakes that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack to succeed. Assume further that Bush and company used lies and other forms of deceit to hide their mistakes and to shift blame to Clinton for the attacks. Assume further that Bush and company actively embarked on a plan to shift blame from more culpable parties like the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the airlines to the baggage inspectors because they were politically weak and couldn't defend themselves even though they bore no responsibility for the success of the attacks.

How would you feel about that? Is this just time for business as usual lying for the purposes of advancing your political agenda? At what point does telling the truth become a moral imperative or is there no such point?

 

[Tricky]

Many dems repeat over and over that Clinton didn't lie and come up with some strained parsing of his words together with some selective ignoring of others to justify this idea.

Minor quibble. I don't know anyone, including Clinton's staunchest defenders, who claim he didn't lie. Many people (including myself) believe that the lie he got caught making was not an important one. I'm sure some of the ones he didn't get caught at were much more important, but probably none so much as the WMD lie.

 

[rikzilla]

This is given the assumption that they are the ends that you desire.

Perhaps this same rationale was in the minds of the 9-11 terrorists. In fact, this seems to be the justification that all terrorists use. I'd prefer that the US not join that club.

It's called realism Tricky. I'm sure the terrorists felt exactly that way. So what? They're only right if their means actually do bring about their ends. I'd agree that if they had to murder 3,000 people in order to re-make the middle east into their own version of Islamic paradise then their ends would indeed have justified their means...at least to them that is. But actually punishing terrorists and the nations that sponsor them has the effect of denying them their ends...and actually diminishing their chances of ever meeting those ends no matter how noble they might be. Only by rewarding (caving in to) terrorism do we help the terrorists to acheive their ends.

They decided to make war on us, just as GWB said in the SOTU, and we gave them war. We denied them their ends, therefore their means will never be justifiable. That's the meat of the WOT.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Rikzilla I enjoyed your posts and your point,

Thanks. I try to tell it like I see it.

I happened to be thinking about this issue because I'm reading Al Franken's book right now. (I'm what might be called a moderate libertarian that usually votes republican, but I like Al Franken). One of the issues that he deals with is Bush's handling of anti-terrorist activities prior to 9/11. He makes the case that the Bush administration made several mistakes with regard to the terrorist threat including being slow to implement a plan that had originated in the Clinton administration.

Ok, I'm listening, but I'll tell you straight out that I believe that Clinton's 8 years in office is more relevant to the nation's readiness than GWB's paltry 8 months. As a new president his transition period, coupled with the China spy plane incident would have occupied more of his time than implementing ideas from the old admin. It also begs the question; "Why didn't Clinton implement his plan before he left office?"

Assume for a second that Franken is correct and that the Bush administration made several mistakes that allowed the 9/11 terrorist attack to succeed. Assume further that Bush and company used lies and other forms of deceit to hide their mistakes and to shift blame to Clinton for the attacks. Assume further that Bush and company actively embarked on a plan to shift blame from more culpable parties like the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the airlines to the baggage inspectors because they were politically weak and couldn't defend themselves even though they bore no responsibility for the success of the attacks.

How would you feel about that? Is this just time for business as usual lying for the purposes of advancing your political agenda? At what point does telling the truth become a moral imperative or is there no such point?

Well, first, those are alot of assumptions! But if Bush did something like that (and was caught) then yes, he'd lose my support. (If he wasn't caught, then it would be a moot point)

As for moral imperative,...yeah there's a point. When you're busted you need to own up, tell the truth about your lies. If you can't then you just look like a complete a-hole. If the truth shows you lied for the good of your cause, or the good of the nation, perhaps there will be political absolution...one never knows. If the truth shows you lied just to save your own ass, or make yourself look good, you are reprehensible. Unelectable, and useless to your supporters. A millstone. Just like Mr. Clinton became in the end to the Democratic party in general, and Al Gore in particular.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Minor quibble. I don't know anyone, including Clinton's staunchest defenders, who claim he didn't lie. Many people (including myself) believe that the lie he got caught making was not an important one. I'm sure some of the ones he didn't get caught at were much more important, but probably none so much as the WMD lie.

Tricky, Cliinton's lies and his defense of them are part of the historical record. There is nothing to debate. Regardless of any other whopper he told the fact remains that Bill Clinton twice lied under oath. That's perjury, a felony.

Now you can say it was about sex and that's not a big deal, but the truth is it doesn't matter. It's a felony. If you or I did such a thing we'd have gone to jail.

Now you cannot equate Clinton's felony to what you gamely and with straigh face call the "WMD lie". #1. You have no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq. Thus he is mistaken, not lying. #2. Even if GWB knew there were no WMD's and lied outright, he was not under oath. Thus no felony.

You are comparing apples and... well,you know.

-z

 

[Monketi Ghost]

But in both cases...(Bush Jr. and Reagan) why did they need to lie, and or obfuscate the case?

They lied because they knew the people of the US wouldn't go for their schemes otherwise.

Our Presidents aren't meant to be kings.

 

[DavidJames]

he is mistaken, not lying

he was not under oath

Talk about spin. You are about to torque yourself right up there with King of Spin Bill O'Reilly.

I'm dropping out. Your position is clear and unwavering and can be summarized this way.

Lying is okay with you as long as it supports causes you like, otherwise it's not okay. End of discussion.