SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6880)3/20/2004 6:48:24 PM
From: blue red  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
So you have PROOF the CIA said "Mr. President, there are no WMD in Iraq"?

No. The CIA never said that. It said things like, "Mr. President, we think there is a good likelihood that Iraq has WMDs, but we have no definitive proof." It was the qualifiers that dropped out of the public statements of Bush & Co. If they had said to Congress, to the citizens, and to the UN what they had actually been told, they would have an exculpatory leg to stand on - but they couldn't have justified killing 10,000 people in Iraq without waiting for the IAEA to complete inspections. I think they wanted so badly for WMDs to exist that the qualifiers dropped out of consciousness. Out of the statement above, the words "Iraq has WMDs" jumped off the page, and adult judgment was stifled. They said to the world, "We KNOW that Saddam has two trailers for making chemical toxins," even though their own Defense Intelligence Agency had expressed serious doubts about the purpose of the trailers. (They were for making hydrogen for weather balloons, apparently.) We
know this, we know that. Always, they expressed certainty when all they had was uncertainty.

Because I can come with statements from Democrats, INCLUDING BILL CLINTON, that really give you pause to wonder.

That's quite true and very puzzling until you think about it. Clinton too got all those tip-offs from Ahmad Chalabi (Apparently he was the single biggest source for the Bushies. He wanted a war to further his personal ambitions, so he lied, and they bought it.), and developed a belief in the WMDs. I don't really blame him (or Bush) for that. I might have been sorely tempted to believe, too. But there is a HUGE difference - Clinton didn't declare war, and he did not lie about the quality of the intelligence he had. We have no reason to believe he would have substantially falsified it, as was done by Bush et al. He wasn't avid for war with Iraq from "Day One," as they say of the Bush bunch, Day One being Inauguration Day and Day Two being 9/11. And all the rest -- would his administration have claimed with one voice that occupying Iraq would be "a piece of cake," in Feith's words? Would it have simply not have bothered to make a post-war plan, and ignored exhaustive warnings and plans made by the State Department, as Bush did? We certainly have no reason to think so. So, whatever Clinton believed about WMDs, we cannot put the blame for a crazy war at his door.

BTW, you avoided the main thrust of that post, which had to do with the presumptive Dem nominee attending a meeting at which the assasination of the President and some Senators was discussed and doing nothing.

I think you should heed my sister's posts. I myself am withholding judgment - meaning political judgment - until I know more about it.



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6880)3/20/2004 6:54:31 PM
From: blue red  Respond to of 173976
 
Oh, I'd say it was about of the same order as Nixon ordering the IRS to audit his "enemies".

When 10,000 Iraqi civilians, untold numbers of young Iraqi draftees, and 560 American soldiers are dead, it doesn't become you to compare Bush's lies to ordering tax audits.