The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

[JMak]

You don't understand, bring credible sources, not biased sources or those that would not hold up in a court of law or else you look like a hack, which is what people have been trying to tell your side FOR YEARS.

Well, this is where we'd split, I guess. I don't require courtroom level evidence because I don't require proving something beyond some level of doubt. It's all about the argument for me and if the argument relies on legitimate facts and valid reasoning, well, score a point for that person.

Jessica is a hack because she is ignorant as has been easily demonstrated.

 

[Iriemon]

Again, how do we assess these comments.

Are you really asking why the US invaded Iraq and removed Hussein's regime from power? In 2008? Bush made clear in the Fall of 2002 what his basis was (please read his 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati, OH) for war: wmd's and wmd programs; supporting terrorism; violating the ceasefire agreement with the US (such violation, by itself, warranted military action, as recognized by international law); and gross human rights violations (gassing the Kurds being one). Congress relied on 23 separate factors for authorizing the use of force in its resolution authorizing Bush to use military force.

So, if you didn't know these things then you're ignorant. Further, that you didn't know them but continue participating in this discussion, well, now you're being intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.

The official documents made up all kinds of reasons why we didn't like Iraq.

But the Bush administration certainly didn't invade Iraq because it was concerned about Iraqi civil rights. Our president told us in clear words what it was about -- the supposed "urgent threat" Iraq posed to US security because, the Bush administration lied to us, Iraq was supposedly an AQ ally, and had WMDs.


"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

The president could not have been clearer about the single reason he took the nation to war.

Anyone who claims the Bush administration took us to war because of Iraqis' human rights is ignorant, being intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.

 

[Iriemon]

Aiding and abetting, you are either being intentionally dense or are naive and need to learn the nature of crime and alliances, Saddam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, probably didn't, he may not have known it was going to happen, but he was compliant with Al-Quaida, he patched up wounded Al-Quaida members and gave sanctuary. IT IS ON PAPER!

What's on paper are results of every investigation and intellegence service that concluded that Iraq had no collaboration with AQ, including the CIA, DIA, Senate investigations, 9-11 commission, British intellegence and Israeli intellegence.

The Bush administration flat out lied to us when they said Iraq was an "ally" or AQ.

 

[JMak]

The official documents made up all kinds of reasons why we didn't like Iraq.

Made up all kinds of reasons? Like fabricated reasons out of whole cloth that had no factual basis? Which ones?

Lets address just Bush's for the moment:

WMDs and WMD programs - no question that Iraq had such programs and possessed such weapons. Iraq had used them and disclosed to the UN not only their production, but their use and their status.

Supporting/Sponsoring terrorism - paying off Palestinian suicide bomber's families. Harboring terrorists. As Clinton detailed in 1999 in the US government's indictment of OBL, a relationship betw Iraq and AQ.

Violating terms of ceasefire and UN resolutions: self-evident.

Gross human rights violations - gassing the kurds. Wiping out entire villages in southern Iraq.

So what was fabricated or faked?

But the Bush administration certainly didn't invade Iraq because it was concerned about Iraqi civil rights.

Didn't say it did. However, the administration did cite human rights violations and referenced the ****e massacres near Basra as well as gassing Kurdish villages.

Our president told us in clear words what it was about -- the supposed "urgent threat" Iraq posed to US security because, the Bush administration lied to us, Iraq was supposedly an AQ ally, and had WMDs.

I don't disagree. I merely laid out the administration's entire argument that it believed justified war. You can choose to ignore the entire basis, but I don't. Now, I reocgnize, though, that the wmd factor was the most cited and most important one considering that 9/11 had just happened and the Clinton administration's 1999 conclusion that AQ and Iraq wrre involved in a relationship.

Now, whether Bush lied or not, well, I leave that nonsense to you clowns. You clowns simultaneously argue that Bush is a total dunce yet maintain that Bush possessed knowledge and information that explicitly indicated that the intelligence estimates provided by the entire US intelligence community since at least 1995 were wrong. But you cannot and refuse to identify how Bush knew this.

BTW - Bush was hardly the first President to classify Iraq as a serious, grave, dangerous threat nor was he alone in 2002 and 2003 in making that determination. People like John Rockefeller and John Edwards, upon seeing the raw intelligence concluded that Iraq constituted an even greater threat than Bush classifying Iraq as representing an "imminent threat." After having her own people review the raw intelligence estimates, Hillary Clinton concluded that Iraq posed a grave and dangerous threat.

If Bush lied, then so, too, did Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Rockefeller, and John Kerry. Yet, all of these people, in your estimation are likely to be far more intelligent than Bush, yet, arrived at equal or even worse conclusions.

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

The president could not have been clearer about the single reason he took the nation to war.

Well, just above you cited two, wmds and terrorism. Now you want to argue that he relied on a single reason. Perhaps you need to make up own mind?

Look, I can concede that the wmd factor was the most important. However, that doesn't mean that this administration did not present an argument justifying removing Hussein that did not cite other important factors.

Anyone who claims the Bush administration took us to war because of Iraqis' human rights is ignorant, being intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.

Um, clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Bush himself cited gross human rights violations as one factor in his argument to remove Hussein. Of course, it was not the only reason, but it was one of four.

WRT human rights in that speech:
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

If you weren't so damn ignorant you'd actually know what Bush's case for war was rather than relying on your favorite talking heads impression of what Bush's argument was.

 

[JMak]

What's on paper are results of every investigation and intellegence service that concluded that Iraq had no collaboration with AQ, including the CIA, DIA, Senate investigations, 9-11 commission, British intellegence and Israeli intellegence.

The Bush administration flat out lied to us when they said Iraq was an "ally" or AQ.

This is where your intellectual dishonesty clouds your judgment. Someone interested in good faith and honesty would conclude that the intellgience estimates were simply wrong, not accurate, flawed, or otherwise.

OTOH, you conclude that Bush lied. This would require that Bush knew that the intelligence was wrong, inaccurate, flawed, or otherwise and, yet, still argued that the intelligence assessments were accurate.

You cannot prove this. You cannot even provide a reasonable basis to believe that Bush could have or would have known the intelligence to be wrong, inaccurate, etc.

You are the one lying.

 

[Iriemon]

Made up all kinds of reasons? Like fabricated reasons out of whole cloth that had no factual basis? Which ones?

Lets address just Bush's for the moment:

WMDs and WMD programs - no question that Iraq had such programs and possessed such weapons. Iraq had used them and disclosed to the UN not only their production, but their use and their status.

Supporting/Sponsoring terrorism - paying off Palestinian suicide bomber's families. Harboring terrorists. As Clinton detailed in 1999 in the US government's indictment of OBL, a relationship betw Iraq and AQ.

Violating terms of ceasefire and UN resolutions: self-evident.

Gross human rights violations - gassing the kurds. Wiping out entire villages in southern Iraq.

So what was fabricated or faked?

Didn't say it did. However, the administration did cite human rights violations and referenced the ****e massacres near Basra as well as gassing Kurdish villages.

I don't disagree. I merely laid out the administration's entire argument that it believed justified war. You can choose to ignore the entire basis, but I don't. Now, I reocgnize, though, that the wmd factor was the most cited and most important one considering that 9/11 had just happened and the Clinton administration's 1999 conclusion that AQ and Iraq wrre involved in a relationship.

Now, whether Bush lied or not, well, I leave that nonsense to you clowns. You clowns simultaneously argue that Bush is a total dunce yet maintain that Bush possessed knowledge and information that explicitly indicated that the intelligence estimates provided by the entire US intelligence community since at least 1995 were wrong. But you cannot and refuse to identify how Bush knew this.

BTW - Bush was hardly the first President to classify Iraq as a serious, grave, dangerous threat nor was he alone in 2002 and 2003 in making that determination. People like John Rockefeller and John Edwards, upon seeing the raw intelligence concluded that Iraq constituted an even greater threat than Bush classifying Iraq as representing an "imminent threat." After having her own people review the raw intelligence estimates, Hillary Clinton concluded that Iraq posed a grave and dangerous threat.

If Bush lied, then so, too, did Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Rockefeller, and John Kerry. Yet, all of these people, in your estimation are likely to be far more intelligent than Bush, yet, arrived at equal or even worse conclusions.

Well, just above you cited two, wmds and terrorism. Now you want to argue that he relied on a single reason. Perhaps you need to make up own mind?

Look, I can concede that the wmd factor was the most important. However, that doesn't mean that this administration did not present an argument justifying removing Hussein that did not cite other important factors.

Um, clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Bush himself cited gross human rights violations as one factor in his argument to remove Hussein. Of course, it was not the only reason, but it was one of four.

WRT human rights in that speech:
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

If you weren't so damn ignorant you'd actually know what Bush's case for war was rather than relying on your favorite talking heads impression of what Bush's argument was.

I'll take Bush's words as to the single reason and one determination as to why he claimed it was necessary to attack Iraq over your claims. Others can decide for themselves.

 

[JMak]

I'll take Bush's words as to the single reason and one determination as to why he claimed it was necessary to attack Iraq over your claims. Others can decide for themselves.

Over my claims?

Fool, I quoted Bush. I cited Bush's own statements citing the reasons for removing Hussein.

Your citation of single statements and comments do nothing to overturn Bush's repeated case for war.

You posted:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441

Yeah, fool, Bush was specifically addressing the point of 1441. He was not talking about the broader case for war.

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

Yeah, fool, Bush, again, was talking about Iraq's obligation under 1441, not presenting his case for war.

Nice work completely misrepresenting Bush's words.

Dismissed.

 

[Iriemon]

This is where your intellectual dishonesty clouds your judgment. Someone interested in good faith and honesty would conclude that the intellgience estimates were simply wrong, not accurate, flawed, or otherwise.

OTOH, you conclude that Bush lied. This would require that Bush knew that the intelligence was wrong, inaccurate, flawed, or otherwise and, yet, still argued that the intelligence assessments were accurate.

You cannot prove this. You cannot even provide a reasonable basis to believe that Bush could have or would have known the intelligence to be wrong, inaccurate, etc.

You are the one lying.

Bush claimed Iraq was an "ally" of AQ. This claim was reinforced many times by his administration, most forceably by Cheney, as an integral part of why Iraq was an "urgent threat".

The following are excerpts from intellegence agency reports, before and after the invasion of Iraq, demonstrating that there was no evidence that Iraq was an "ally" of AQ, including the most recent Senate findings that administrations claims about Iraq and AQ were not substantiated by evidence.

You can argue that all these reports are "wrong, inaccurate, flawed." I'll let others conclude for themselves whose lying.

+++

June 5, 2008 Select Senate Investigation on Iraqi pre-war statements:

Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and Al-Quaida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided Al-Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intellegence.

Conclusion 13: Statements ... regarding Iraq's contacts with Al-Qaida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of Al-Qaida.

Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf



Senate investigation reports on Bush's statement:

2004 9/11 Commission Report
The official report issued by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004 addressed the issue of a possible conspiracy between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda in the September 11 attacks. The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship, and that they did not cooperate to commit terrorist attacks against the United States. The report includes the following information:

“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
Looking at pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined "the quality and quantity of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;" and "the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community".[88] In Section 12 of the report, titled Iraq's Links to Terrorism, the Senate committee examined the CIA's "five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism." The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

 

[Iriemon]

[cont'd]


2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[97] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[98] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[99] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda."

The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda:

Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war."

Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... [/I]


2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
Ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush receives a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them.

2002 DIA reports
The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."[78] In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq

2002 British intelligence report
In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction

2003 CIA report
In January 2003, the CIA released a special Report to Congress entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism. The report concludes that "In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." (See below).[81] Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: "For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials.... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.[82]
2003 British intelligence report

In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says."

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

 

[Iriemon]

Over my claims?

Fool, I quoted Bush. I cited Bush's own statements citing the reasons for removing Hussein.

Your citation of single statements and comments do nothing to overturn Bush's repeated case for war.

A "single statement"? LMAO! You think Bush and his adminsitrtion talked about the urgent threat because of WMDs in a "single statement"? I'd crash the server if I post all the quotes.

Bush and his administration made it very clear that the single question, the one determination to be made about Iraq, was its WMDs because without them Iraq was no urgent threat to anyone.

You posted:

Yeah, fool, Bush was specifically addressing the point of 1441. He was not talking about the broader case for war.

Yeah, fool, Bush, again, was talking about Iraq's obligation under 1441, not presenting his case for war.

Nice work completely misrepresenting Bush's words.

Dismissed.

LOL -- No he was talking about filing a motion with the UN. Heh heh

 

[Iriemon]

Over my claims?

Fool, ...

Yeah, fool ...

Yeah, fool ...

It's easy to tell how badly you're doing by how high you have to turn on the flamethrower.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's not allow this to get out of hand, shall we?

 

[JMak]

Bush claimed Iraq was an "ally" of AQ. This claim was reinforced many times by his administration, most forceably by Cheney, as an integral part of why Iraq was an "urgent threat".

So what? This is not addressing my response to you. You claimed that Bush "lied." I responded by noting that you're being intellectually dishonest and are not exhibiting any good faith in this debate because you assume, with no basis, that Bush knew that the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed yet still argued the intelligence estimates were accurate.

Citing that Bush claimed Iraq was an ally of AQ doesn't address my response that you quoted.

Try again.

The following are excerpts from intellegence agency reports, before and after the invasion of Iraq, demonstrating that there was no evidence that Iraq was an "ally" of AQ, including the most recent Senate findings that administrations claims about Iraq and AQ were not substantiated by evidence.

Now, look, here you go, again.

What's the issue?

You claim that Bush "lied." I said that you were being dishonest and argued that you could not present a reasonable basis to argue that Bush knew the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed yet insisted otherwise.

So, presenting an inexhaustive list of excerpts from various intelligence reports doesn't get you there.

Oh, btw, you're not even presenting excerpts from actual intelligence reports. You're presenting summary findings of the SSCI. At least properly cite your sources of information.

A "single statement"? LMAO! You think Bush and his adminsitrtion talked about the urgent threat because of WMDs in a "single statement"? I'd crash the server if I post all the quotes.

Funny, you forgot the "s" in "single statements." :roll:

I was obviously commenting that you were/are misrepresenting single statements as I clearly demonstrated.

Bush and his administration made it very clear that the single question, the one determination to be made about Iraq, was its WMDs because without them Iraq was no urgent threat to anyone.

You cannot draw the conclusion from the two totally misrepresented statements you cited. In fact, that first statement you cited explicitly says that Bush was addressing the point of 1441. In other words, neither statement you cited is addressing his broader case for war.

Now you're simply lying in addition to being foolish.

 

[Iriemon]

So what? This is not addressing my response to you. You claimed that Bush "lied." I responded by noting that you're being intellectually dishonest and are not exhibiting any good faith in this debate because you assume, with no basis, that Bush knew that the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed yet still argued the intelligence estimates were accurate.

Citing that Bush claimed Iraq was an ally of AQ doesn't address my response that you quoted.

Try again.

I disagree. Bush and his administration claiming that Iraq was an ally of AQ when the evidence did not support it and contradicted is a lie, in my view.

If you say you disagree I'm not surprised. Others can decide for themselves.

Now, look, here you go, again.

What's the issue?

You claim that Bush "lied." I said that you were being dishonest and argued that you could not present a reasonable basis to argue that Bush knew the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed yet insisted otherwise.

So, presenting an inexhaustive list of excerpts from various intelligence reports doesn't get you there.

Of course it does. They all show that there was no evidence that Iraq was an "ally" of AQ.

Oh, btw, you're not even presenting excerpts from actual intelligence reports. You're presenting summary findings of the SSCI. At least properly cite your sources of information.

Feel free to correct the record if you feel I'm misrepresenting it.

Funny, you forgot the "s" in "single statements." :roll:

I was obviously commenting that you were/are misrepresenting single statements as I clearly demonstrated.

You cannot draw the conclusion from the two totally misrepresented statements you cited. In fact, that first statement you cited explicitly says that Bush was addressing the point of 1441. In other words, neither statement you cited is addressing his broader case for war.

The statements were misrepresented at all. Bush was talking about single issue or determination for the war.

Now you're simply lying in addition to being foolish.

Your simply arguing semantics for a position that fell apart pages ago.

 

[JMak]

Look, I am smart enough and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that some of the intelligence about Iraq was inaccurate and flawed. What the problem here is the leap of faith being taken by jessica and iriemon from inaccurate intelligence to Bush lying.

In 2002 Clinton & Bush's CIA Director indicated:

"we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade"

and

"credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."

Now, given that the nation's chief intelligence official was providing this information and these conclusions to the President, it seems that iriemon's burden is to demonstrate that Bush possessed contrary information that undermined such conclusions from the nation's top intelligence official.

Sure, after-the-fact, hindsight analysis, and armchair intelligence analysis has led to the SSCI concluding that some of the statements made by the administration were not substantiated by the intelligence. I get that. I don't deny it.

However, that doesn't mean that Bush, Cheney, et al., possessed information that contradicted Tenet's conclusions and yet still insisted on saying what they did.

If Bush was lying then you have got to demonstrate that Bush knew otherwise, that Bush knew Tenet's conclusions were wrong.

And you cannot do that.

Is it simply not enough to say that Bush was wrong that you have to conjure up this story that this idiot President not only was wrong, but deliberately lied?

Bush Derangement in full effect, yo...

 

[Iriemon]

Look, I am smart enough and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that some of the intelligence about Iraq was inaccurate and flawed. What the problem here is the leap of faith being taken by jessica and iriemon from inaccurate intelligence to Bush lying.

In 2002 Clinton & Bush's CIA Director indicated:

"we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade"

and

"credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."

and

"Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

and

"In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." ... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Now, given that the nation's chief intelligence official was providing this information and these conclusions to the President, it seems that iriemon's burden is to demonstrate that Bush possessed contrary information that undermined such conclusions from the nation's top intelligence official.

None of the evidence supports the assertion that Iraq was an ally of AQ, as conlcuded by the recent Senate investigation.

Sure, after-the-fact, hindsight analysis, and armchair intelligence analysis has led to the SSCI concluding that some of the statements made by the administration were not substantiated by the intelligence. I get that. I don't deny it.

However, that doesn't mean that Bush, Cheney, et al., possessed information that contradicted Tenet's conclusions and yet still insisted on saying what they did.

If Bush was lying then you have got to demonstrate that Bush knew otherwise, that Bush knew Tenet's conclusions were wrong.

And you cannot do that.

Is it simply not enough to say that Bush was wrong that you have to conjure up this story that this idiot President not only was wrong, but deliberately lied?

Bush Derangement in full effect, yo...

It wasn't after the fact. After the fact confirmed that evidence at the time that Iraq was no ally of AQ. Bush and his administration had no credible evidence that Iraq was working with AQ and flat out lied representing that AQ was an ally of Iraq.

Of course, there are those who will deny the mountain of evidence. Bush Apoligistism in full effect.

 

[JMak]

I disagree. Bush and his administration claiming that Iraq was an ally of AQ when the evidence did not support it and contradicted is a lie, in my view.

My goodness. The SSCI investigation was an after-the-fact examination of the intelligence analyses made prior to the war. You're abusing the intention of their investigation. You're presenting the investigation's conclusions as though those conclusions were established before the war. That is wrong.

Before the war, the CIA Director, based on the intelligence analyses that he oversaw, stated that the CIA believed there was a connection. That was the intelligence before the war. Hence, that is what Bush was operating from.

You trying to argue that what the SSCI determined after-the-fact was established before the war in order to say, "See, Bush knew, Bush knew, so he lied." That's bogus.

Of course it does. They all show that there was no evidence that Iraq was an "ally" of AQ.

Again, you're not even responding to my points. You're arguing that Bush lied. I said you have no reasonable basis to believe that Bush knew beforehand that the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed. I then said that providing excerpts from the SSCI investigation doesn't get you to the conclusion that Bush lied. The SSCI investigation only says that some of the intelligence didn't substantiate some of the claims made by Bush. That doesn't mean lied, errr, knew that the intelligence was inaccurate. It simply means that the intelligence didn't substantiate the statements made by Bush and others.

Feel free to correct the record if you feel I'm misrepresenting it.

My mistake. When i posted that comment I hadn't seen the second post continuing with the intelligence excerpts. Apologies.

The statements were misrepresented at all. Bush was talking about single issue or determination for the war.

As I already PROVED using Bush's own words, you are wrong. You took two single statements about Resolution 1441 and attempted to cast them as representative of Bush's case for the war. That is false as I demonstrated.

Your simply arguing semantics for a position that fell apart pages ago.

Huh?

That you know that the first statement you cited referred only to Bush addressing 1441 and yet insist on using it as representative of Bush's case for war, well, in addition to misrepresenting his comments, you're deliberately lying.

 

[JMak]

"Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

and

"In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." ... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

I'm not sure why these statements are relevant. I cited Tenet's conclusions to Bush. That's what Bush was operating from.

None of the evidence supports the assertion that Iraq was an ally of AQ, as conlcuded by the recent Senate investigation.

I'm not arguing that it does. Care to stay on topic? We are discussing your assertion that Bush lied. Pay attention. I know cribbing all of this from someone else's website is your passion and joy, but please stay on topic.

Nothing you presented demonstrates that Bush knew what he was saying was inaccurate or false.

It wasn't after the fact. After the fact confirmed that evidence at the time that Iraq was no ally of AQ. Bush and his administration had no credible evidence that Iraq was working with AQ and flat out lied representing that AQ was an ally of Iraq.

When was the investigation conducted? Answer: after the war began.

What was the investigation? Answer: reviewing the intelligence to determine whether it had been manipulated (no.) and if analysts had been pressured (no, again.) and if the intelligence supported the administration's statements (yes and no.). It was a second-round review. The pre-war intelligence estimates are what they are. The estimates pre-war was that there was a relationship, hence Clinton's 1999 indictment of bin Laden citing a relationship and Tenet's statements in 2002 and 2003 about a relationship. Which, btw, the CIA still has not backtracked on that conclusion about a relationship notwithstanding the SSCI's review and conclusions.

Of course, there are those who will deny the mountain of evidence. Bush Apoligistism in full effect.

I am making no apologies. I am arguing against your assertion that Bush lied.

While you have dmeonstrated that the intelligence did not support some of Bush's statements, that does not demonstrate that Bush lied.

Try again.

 

[JMak]

BTW - a side question about that SSCI pre-war intelligence investigation: Anyone else curious why the Committee only examined administration statements and ignored the often more bellicose, and less restrained, statements by Democrats about the threat Iraq represented or the relationship between Iraq and AQ?

I mean, it's not like Bush was alone in his statements, and, in fact, he was more restrained with his statements about the level of threat presented by Iraq and the relationship than Democrats in Congress.

Yet, amazingly, members of Congress exempted themselves from any such scrutiny despite several of them having access to the raw intelligence estimates as part of their intelligence oversight duties.

 

[JMak]

Iriemon, you commented previously chided me for arguing "semantics". Well, I think you're arguing "semantics," too. And I do because you have this fetish with the word "ally." I don't deny that Bush characterized Iraq as an "ally" of AQ. But it seems that you're taking that word ally to mean something that you won't say.

Now Bush, Cheney, Powell, (Clinton in 1999) had said a lot of things about that relationship whether Iraq was an ally of AQ, a "sinister nexus," "safe haven" for AQ-connected terrorist (Zarwahiri, for example), etc.

The SSCI report, errrr, the SSCI Democrats concluded that there was no operational relationship between the two. Of course, Bush never said there was.

So, how are you defining/interpreting the word "ally" as you use it?

 

[Iriemon]

My goodness. The SSCI investigation was an after-the-fact examination of the intelligence analyses made prior to the war. You're abusing the intention of their investigation. You're presenting the investigation's conclusions as though those conclusions were established before the war. That is wrong.

That would be a valid point if I had only cited that, though it does confirm pre war findings.

CIA DIA and the president's daily briefing, as well as British and Israeli intellegence reports, all prior to March 2003, showed there was no evidence of any working relationship between Iraq and AQ.

Bush called them allies anyway. He had to convince the American people that Iraq was an urgent threat to get support for the war.

Before the war, the CIA Director, based on the intelligence analyses that he oversaw, stated that the CIA believed there was a connection. That was the intelligence before the war. Hence, that is what Bush was operating from.

You trying to argue that what the SSCI determined after-the-fact was established before the war in order to say, "See, Bush knew, Bush knew, so he lied." That's bogus.

At most the CIA director said there had been some contacts. Other intellgence showed no evidence of any working relationship.

To call them allies is to misrepresent the evidence, as the recent Senate investigation found.

Again, you're not even responding to my points. You're arguing that Bush lied. I said you have no reasonable basis to believe that Bush knew beforehand that the intelligence was inaccurate or flawed. I then said that providing excerpts from the SSCI investigation doesn't get you to the conclusion that Bush lied. The SSCI investigation only says that some of the intelligence didn't substantiate some of the claims made by Bush. That doesn't mean lied, errr, knew that the intelligence was inaccurate. It simply means that the intelligence didn't substantiate the statements made by Bush and others.

Stawman. I didn't cite just the SSCI investigation but numerous other intellegnence conclusions before the war, as well as the conclusions ofthe 2008 Senate investigation find that the Bush administration statements tying Iraq and AQ were contradicted by the evidence.

My mistake. When i posted that comment I hadn't seen the second post continuing with the intelligence excerpts. Apologies.

As I already PROVED using Bush's own words, you are wrong. You took two single statements about Resolution 1441 and attempted to cast them as representative of Bush's case for the war. That is false as I demonstrated.

You proved nothing of the sort. I never claimed the Bush administration didn't forward lots of reasons about why Hussein was a bad guy deserving to be deposed. Sure they tried to demonize him as much as possible, not that it was that hard to do that.

But the simple fact is that the overriding reason, and the single reason, for invading Iraq was that those WMDs made Iraq and urgent threat to the US because Iraq was in bed with AQ which had just attacked us.

Without those WMDs Iraq was no urgent threat. Without an urgent threat there was no need to rush to attack in Mar 2003. Without the WMDs there was no basis for war, and no war.

It wasn't about human rights or overflights or any of that other crap. Now I agree there were ulterior motives for the war for members of the Bush administration, but it was sold on the grounds that Iraq was an urgent threat to the US because of its WMDs.

Huh?

That you know that the first statement you cited referred only to Bush addressing 1441 and yet insist on using it as representative of Bush's case for war, well, in addition to misrepresenting his comments, you're deliberately lying.

1441 required disarmanment of the WMDs that made Iraq the urgent threat. Same thing.

The Bush administration did not justify attacking Iraq based upon a UN resolution. Had that been the case he would not have attacked because the UNSC did not authorize invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration justified attacking Iraq because of the WMDs Iraq supposedly had, which would have been a violation of 1441.

 

[Iriemon]

BTW - a side question about that SSCI pre-war intelligence investigation: Anyone else curious why the Committee only examined administration statements and ignored the often more bellicose, and less restrained, statements by Democrats about the threat Iraq represented or the relationship between Iraq and AQ?

I mean, it's not like Bush was alone in his statements, and, in fact, he was more restrained with his statements about the level of threat presented by Iraq and the relationship than Democrats in Congress.

Yet, amazingly, members of Congress exempted themselves from any such scrutiny despite several of them having access to the raw intelligence estimates as part of their intelligence oversight duties.

Democrats were not the CiC and did not make the decision go to war. Nor were they heading intellegence agencies, at least the main ones. Congress gave Bush the power to make that determination in Oct 2002, at the time Iraq was being pressured to re-accept inspectors. Yes I agree you can look back and question whether that should have been done. With Republicans controlling the majority, what the Dems did wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon, you commented previously chided me for arguing "semantics". Well, I think you're arguing "semantics," too. And I do because you have this fetish with the word "ally." I don't deny that Bush characterized Iraq as an "ally" of AQ. But it seems that you're taking that word ally to mean something that you won't say.

Now Bush, Cheney, Powell, (Clinton in 1999) had said a lot of things about that relationship whether Iraq was an ally of AQ, a "sinister nexus," "safe haven" for AQ-connected terrorist (Zarwahiri, for example), etc.

The SSCI report, errrr, the SSCI Democrats concluded that there was no operational relationship between the two. Of course, Bush never said there was.

So, how are you defining/interpreting the word "ally" as you use it?

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended

There was no evidence that Iraq was an ally of AQ or a source of terrorist funding.

You can see other statements the Bush administration made about Iraq's supposed relationship with AQ summarized in the Senates 2008 investigation here: http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Starting at page 59.

 

[JMak]

That would be a valid point if I had only cited that, though it does confirm pre war findings.

No it doesn't confirm pre-war findings. Tenet's statements about such a relationship demonstrate that pre-war, the CIA's conclusion was that a relationship existed. BTW - CIA has never backed off of the assessment, either.

CIA DIA and the president's daily briefing, as well as British and Israeli intellegence reports, all prior to March 2003, showed there was no evidence of any working relationship between Iraq and AQ.

Oh, so now we're talking about a "working relationship?" Okay, if this was the pre-war status of intelligence, then why did Clinton fire missiles at the Sudan (al-Shifa) pharma facility in 1998? Because U.S. intelligence concluded it was a chemical weapons venture jointly run by Iraq, al-Qaeda, and Sudan.

Bush called them allies anyway. He had to convince the American people that Iraq was an urgent threat to get support for the war.

He didn't have to convince the American people of any such thing. President Clinton was already working on that as far back as 1998. Bush was not the first President, let alone the most alarmist in arguing that Iraq constituted a threat. The most alarmist were former Veep Gore, Dick Durbin ("we cannot ignore the threat that he poses to the region and the fact that he has fomented terrorism throughout his reign" on Larry Kind Live in late 2001, John "imminent threat" Edwards, John "imminent threat" Rockefeller, etc. These guys was casting Iraq as a dangerous threat even before Bush was. Hence, Bush didn't need to convince Americans who had already been convinced that Saddam represented a threat beofre 9/11 and during the Clinton administration.

At most the CIA director said there had been some contacts. Other intellgence showed no evidence of any working relationship.

At most? I gave you his actual statements.

To call them allies is to misrepresent the evidence, as the recent Senate investigation found.

How so? A cooperative relationship not to get in each other's way, to provide a safe haven for AQ-connected terrorists, to pursue a weapons program...these are Clinton's conclusions, not Bush's. I mean, Bush's conclusions were no more grave than Clinton's. The Senate report found that an operational relationship existed which is irrelevant since the administration didn't assert that anyway.

Stawman. I didn't cite just the SSCI investigation but numerous other intellegnence conclusions before the war, as well as the conclusions ofthe 2008 Senate investigation find that the Bush administration statements tying Iraq and AQ were contradicted by the evidence.

Now a mere "tie" between the two?

Come on...

I know what you cited, I already acknolwedged my mistake.

[qoute]You proved nothing of the sort. I never claimed the Bush administration didn't forward lots of reasons about why Hussein was a bad guy deserving to be deposed. Sure they tried to demonize him as much as possible, not that it was that hard to do that.[/quote]

You said the single reason was wmd's, no?

But the simple fact is that the overriding reason, and the single reason, for invading Iraq was that those WMDs made Iraq and urgent threat to the US because Iraq was in bed with AQ which had just attacked us.

Now see...you cannot acknowledge that more than one factor was relied on then say there was a single reason.

And no that was not the broader implication. The issue was that in the post-9/11 environment we could not afford to wait until after were attacked to fight terrorism especially when (as the Clinton administration had concluded) terrorist groups, like AQ, were seeking wmds and nations like Iraq had relationships with these terror groups.

Without those WMDs Iraq was no urgent threat. Without an urgent threat there was no need to rush to attack in Mar 2003. Without the WMDs there was no basis for war, and no war.

Okay. But Bush never argued that Iraq was an "urgent" (whatever that would mean) threat. It was the Democrats telling how imminent a threat Iraq was. Bush and Cheney characterized it as a growing, dangerous, grave threat.

Coupled with the post-9/11 environment argument and the other stated reasons for toppling Hussein, well, that was the case for war.

It wasn't about human rights or overflights or any of that other crap. Now I agree there were ulterior motives for the war for members of the Bush administration, but it was sold on the grounds that Iraq was an urgent threat to the US because of its WMDs.

Again, the war was not solely about human rights. It was a factor among several. And Bush nor his admin ever called Iraq an urgent threat. They characterized it as growing, grave, dangerous and the like.

1441 required disarmanment of the WMDs that made Iraq the urgent threat. Same thing.

LMAO. :spin:

No, you misrepresented Bush's statement to mean something it did not.

The Bush administration did not justify attacking Iraq based upon a UN resolution. Had that been the case he would not have attacked because the UNSC did not authorize invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration justified attacking Iraq because of the WMDs Iraq supposedly had, which would have been a violation of 1441.

Oh boy...

As already noted and linked to, the Bush administration cited wmd's, terrorism, violations of UN resolutions and the ceasefire, and human rights violations as the factors justifying removing Saddam.

This argument was presented in the context of a post-9/11 context where we could not afford to wait until after being attacked to fight terrorism, especially since terrorists were aligning themselves with nations that possessed wmds.

Please quit misrepresenting the administration's argument...even after you've been presented with the actual argument several times.

 

[JMak]

Democrats were not the CiC and did not make the decision go to war.

Did they not overwhelmingly grant Bush the approval to use force? Were they not making public statements in support of the war as they considered their vote?

Nor were they heading intellegence agencies, at least the main ones.

But as we all know or should know, they were on the intelligence oversight committees and reviewed the raw intelligence estimates that Bush was also seeing.

Congress gave Bush the power to make that determination in Oct 2002, at the time Iraq was being pressured to re-accept inspectors. Yes I agree you can look back and question whether that should have been done. With Republicans controlling the majority, what the Dems did wouldn't have made any difference.

I see, so this is why the Democrats "in-the-know" are off the hook for their often more grievous characterizations of Iraq posing a threat? Puhlease.