Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Chaerophon]

First of all, I heard Bush, live, in one of his state of the union addresses prior to Powell's presentation (sorry, can't remember the exact date, it was last fall some time) make the claim that they had substantial proof of an existing Iraqi weapons program. Furthermore, the United States provided what they professed to be PROOF to the United Nations. If they weren't making the claim that it was proof, if they were merely claiming it to be speculation, then what sort of rhetorical force would it have? Oh yeah, ZERO.
You sound like a certain prominent Democrat of recent fame.

Every critique made of the Bush's administration's manuevers since this war started has proven vacuous thus far, this one will be no different.

Note the underlined text. And your argument is? The longer that it takes the US to find these 'weapons', the existence of which they counted as "proven", the closer to being "proven" are the critics' claims that this was a war of regional control and profit and not one of "national defence" nor any other such contrivance. How you can call these arguments bogus on the basis of, well, ZERO material evidence boggles the mind. (Sorry, you didn't explicitly SAY bogus, it was "vacuous", my mistake, I'll save you the nit)

A tip for you - just because they say that it is one way, doesn't mean that it is. Occhi's post re: spindoctoring says it all. The difficulty rests with whether or not one feels that the war was otherwise justified (as in, for example, whether the American role as a controlling force is desirable or not). This, of course, depends on whether or not you see their activities as justified out of concerns for world peace/national defence, or whether they appear more motivated by profit first and more humanitarian/policing concerns second and ultimately amounts to speculation, hence, the taboo on political threads.

Given the fact that, now that the war is over, the weapons are STILL missing, it seems imperative to me that if one is to deal with the issue objectively, one must at least consider one's own stance on these alternative issues. We may never know if Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, but I, along with MANY others do not accept Powell's presentation as concrete proof - foremost among those who share my concerns are the UN weapons inspectors who had already concluded that the photos shown were inconclusive at best. What I'm saying is, "the government said so" is not a conclusive argument. There were clearly other benefits to be had in the US's invasion of Iraq and for the majority of the people on this board, including many who agree with the war, (pardon me if I am incorrect, but this seems to have been the general tenor of recent posts) the government's word that "this is why we're going in, they're a threat to our nation" is simply not enough. If it proves true that it was an outright lie, the poop will definitely hit the fan, but whether or not conclusive proof is ever found, the central issue may lie a ways outside of (as Nico would say) the 43rd's propensity for falsehood and would seem to be just as, if not more rooted in the other, obvious benefits to be had from invasion that certainly did not go unnoticed by the American economic elite/defense strategists in making their case. Whether or not these benefits to be derived from the war are legitimate or desirable as moral imperatives is certainly open to the realm of discussion and, while you may contend that the government's objectives were clear, it is certainly only on the basis of their having told you so and has nothing to do with any actual proof as to ulterior motives. Ultimately, we can't have a coherent argument about this because what you would have to do in order to convince me that you are correct is prove that the 43rd administration is trustworthy, and since I don't think so and you are completely unable to do so, I'll never accept what you have to say as proof.