Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[kandrathe]

However dubious his credentials, he has an undergraduate history degree from Yale, and a MBA from Havard business school. I would grant that his access to those institutions was due to his fathers connections, but his conduct within them had to be at least at or above par. He also was a trained pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Not a convincing case for him being a moron. I wouldn't say he was a stellar student, or an impressive scholar and in the aggregate their are many more qualified persons to hold the office. He was elected by the people, and that is credential enough. Besides, sometimes intellectuals do not make very good presidents.

America (and to some extent, europe) is allready controlling the iraq oil. The money made from selling it is going to an iraq fund, but they control the price of it, which means they can hike the price up, and then sell America's own oil, creating bigger profits.

You haven't the slightest clue as to how markets work, do you?

[--Pete]

Hi,

He was elected by the people

The only majority he got was from nine of them, wearing black robes. :) And considering the latest slate of "decisions", they haven't gotten any smarter in the last three years. Especially good is the "affirmative action is good as long as no one knows it's affirmative action" boondoggle.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Sort of. :) I still am unsure of what happened in Florida, other than making Florida look silly in not being able to hold a fair election. It certainly caused many States to re-examine their antiquated voting equipment. I'm not neccesarily happy that GW Bush was the one, but I'm happy that Al Gore was not the one. As I said above, there were better choices, however none that pass "Party" muster. One of the problems with the parties in general these days.

[D-Dave]

The "war" (such as it was) needed to be done

I can't believe this. Answer this, it needed to be done because:

• a. Saddam Hussein was isolated even within the majority of the Arab world
  <>
  
• b. UN-Weapon inspectors were finaly making progress
  <>
  
• c. British and US Intelligence had strong proof of Iraq having Weapons of mass destruction (that for some reasons UN-Inspectors could not find...odd)
  <>
  
• d. the Iraqi regime was never so much "controlable" then just prior to Georgie giving green flag to war<>
  [st]
  But the whole discussion about motives is absolutely pointless!
  
  Simply because those people that have died, and those that will die,
  they have not died for Iraqi peoples freedom,
  they have not died to get rid of Saddam Hussein,
  they have not died for Oil and neither for economic Power...
  they have died because the Bush administration chose so!
  
  Thanks George, have a drink instead of reading the Bible, you obviously did not get the message.
  
  -dave

[kandrathe]

...it needed to be done because...

For me, IMO, because it was clear from his actions, what his goals and intentions were. You can try to contain him, but for how long and at what cost? Iraq admitted to having these weapons in their own admissions to UNSCOM. You can have UNSCOM scrub his country of WMD, but given his bent on having them, and secreting the programs away, eventually he would be right back with them. All the time that the world was supposedly "containing him", the people of Iraq were suffering under the UN mandated sanctions. I submit that the world's grip on Saddam was loosening to the point where he was poised to present a much greater danger to the region.

Anyway, the point of the author, Paul Berman, was to ask "liberals" to wake up to the reality of what are the ideals of Baathism, and Islamicism. You didn't find too many people bragging about their role in protesting WWII, after Pearl Harbor. Not many would argue now that it was not right for the Britain, France and the US to stand up to Fascism, and Hitler. The author just pointing out ideas that are similiar to what Pete has said about this war, right decision, wrong reasons, and maybe even the wrong execution. Berman also cautions about winning the peace, which is the same fear that many of us share. Now that we have done the easy thing, we are faced with the harder thing. We have a chance to make it a better place, and 100 chances to totally muck it up.

[Guest]

But the whole discussion about motives is absolutely pointless!

Simply because those people that have died, and those that will die,
they have not died for Iraqi peoples freedom,
they have not died to get rid of Saddam Hussein,
they have not died for Oil and neither for economic Power...
they have died because the Bush administration chose so!

We waged war against the dictatorial regime of Iraq BECAUSE of Saddam Hussien, BECAUSE of the iraqi people, and BECAUSE the Bush Administration said so. To say what you just posted completely bastardizes the whole cause of LIBERATION, you know, that thing where we get rid of governments who test biological agents on their civillians, drag people into the street and cut their tounges out for speaking against the government... I could go on, but why?

[kandrathe]

I assume you mistakenly replied to my reply, rather than D-Dave.

I could go on, but why?

My thoughts exactly. Since you seem incapable of forming a rational argument, why indeed?

[Fragbait]

... tell me the difference between this topic and what is said in the forum rules:

You'll never be able to change people's minds on hotbutton political issues such as abortion or gun control

In my opinion, whether the irak war was justified and moreover whether George W. Bush was lying is very well a hotbutton issue.
With due respect, I will not be convinced otherwise by you if you just say:

Fragbait just missed the point.

Of course whether it's a hotbutton issue or not will only be definitely decided by the moderators. I was just being on the 'forum controls itself' mode.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

We waged war against the dictatorial regime of Iraq BECAUSE of Saddam Hussien, BECAUSE of the iraqi people, and BECAUSE the Bush Administration said so. To say what you just posted completely bastardizes the whole cause of LIBERATION, you know, that thing where we get rid of governments who test biological agents on their civillians, drag people into the street and cut their tounges out for speaking against the government... I could go on, but why?

The thing is that the Bush administration did not name liberation as the main reason for the war. They built up their argumentation on the claim that Iraq had WMDs that were a threat to the USA, not that the regime was committing atrocities in its own country.
The reason for this is quite simple: International law and the principles of the UN. According to international law, there are exactly two reasons that justify a military attack on another country:
1) The UN security council authorises such an attack.
2) The attacker acts in direct self-defense.

Fullfilling 1) was not achieved, so if the US wanted to somehow keep up the impression that they were acting in compliance with international law, they had to come up with something that would mean a direct threat to them. That is why they used the WMD argument.

Iraq very likely did have WMDs, and Saddam publicly admitted that he does cooperate with terrorists... but both happened in a way that was not really a direct threat to the US, of course

Maybe it would have been more clever to say "If international law protects Saddam´s regime, to hell with it. The suffering of the Iraqis is so great that we must do something". That basically is the argumentation the EU used in the case of Yugoslavia. Of course, that, too, would have been quite problematic, considering that the US has no problems to cooperate with brutal dictatorships when it fits their interests...

Moldran

[Occhidiangela]

D-Dave, stick to the basics.

Why Now versus Why Not?

That was the Opposing set of questions that confronted a decision to go to war in early 2003. The weather was a factor in timing, as were cycles of Muslim Holy days, but many folks read even more factors into the decision as to 'why now.' One had to be the U.S. election cycle. It has to do with the difference between doing something to improve a situation, and waiting around and hoping that things will change for the better. Given a preference to change a bad situation, it was far easier to get support from both sides of the aisle in Congress in 2002-2003 than in 2003-2004 when folks are running for re election. Also, the emotional momentum of 9-11, a factor in popular support, was certainly used whether or not a one to one correspondence made any "pure" sense: which to many folks, it did not. Politics, and nothing new under the sun.

The point I keep trying to make here is that the war part of a far bigger political probelm, which is the stability of the Middle East as a region. It is not just about Saddam Hussein, though he is a handy poster child for some.

The ironic thing is he plays by a different set of assumptions. His aim is to survive and reatin as much power as he can. The odds that he was in Bagdad the night of the first strike is small. The odds that it was he who was in that restaurant are debatable. The odds that he, a survivor of numerous assassination plots, was elsewhere are immense.

He too had a plan, and it had nothing to do with military victory. He knew he'd get his ass kicked. His play, I suggest, had to do with political victory. And political victory is more likely, for him, if a drawn out guerilla action in Iraq makes the U.S. involvement painful enough for there to be a gut check in Washington a few years down stream, particularly if Pres Bush is not re elected. He well knows the history of American volatility of purpose, and is banking on that. So the challenge is to have the will to follow through, to "win the peace."

But back to "Why Now?" After 12 years of UN fiddling around that made a little progress on the '90 day time line' from the 1991 ceasefire, and which really ended in 1998, Saddam was still using such leverage as he could in the political realm. He had been exploiting the rift in the old Coalition as regards sanctions to break those commercial restrictions without full compliance. Politically, he was making progress. If you fast forward about three years, and find the sanctions lifted without full compliance, what then? The policy of containment becomes a complete failure. And not only is there no resolution, but the re emergence of an obstacle to the extremely difficult Mid East peace process.

Sponsorship of terrorism, particularly in Israel/Palestine, though to date he has not yet been shown to have actively supported Al Qaeda, and I doubt if that will ever be shown. The point is, Al Qaeda is not the only terror organ targeted by the 'War on Terrror.' Simpleton's may wish to apply that logic, but it completely misses the policy undertaken shortly after 9-11.

The best reason to take Saddam out, his being a Baathist-Stalinist prick, was the hardest to sell politically to anyone, if it even could have been: any number of allies in the region also have, to a greater or lesser extent, autocratic governments.

Europe lost millions to autocratic jerks in the 30's and 40's, and millions more died during the war that ousted a few of them. Europe is now a better place, thanks to intervention by the U.S. and the Marshall Plan, and a policy of containment vis a vis the Stalinists.

Can a similar approach be taken in the Middle East? Maybe, maybe not. Cookie cutter solutions rarely work out.

Is it plausible that Iraq got of relatively cheaply in comparison to Europe, though?

Maybe, but I concede that the models don't necessarily translate all that well. In any case, we won't know for at least 5, probably 10, years. What you can take to the bank, though, is that without change there would be no prospect for a change in Iraq, for the average electrician in Mosul, the Mid East peace process would continue to be obstructed by the Baghdad regime, and the various other states in the Middle East would be . . . insecure.

The Why Now question has been answered, with mixed reception, as well as the Why Not, also to mixed reviews but the key question NOW is:

What Next?

Will the will sustain, in the U.S., to 'bear any burden' to make sure that the war was not wasted effort, not an exercise in bloodletting for no beneficial long term outcome?

That needs answering, and my crystal ball is cloudy on that subject.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Methinks it would fit in best here, after Occhi's remarks.

Politics is full of ironies. On the White House Web site, George W. Bush's speech from Oct. 7, 2002 — in which he made the case for war with Iraq — bears the headline "Denial and Deception." Indeed.

There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious.

About the deception: Leaks from professional intelligence analysts, who are furious over the way their work was abused, have given us a far more complete picture of how America went to war. Thanks to reporting by my colleague Nicholas Kristof, other reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post, and a magisterial article by John Judis and Spencer Ackerman in The New Republic, we now know that top officials, including Mr. Bush, sought to convey an impression about the Iraqi threat that was not supported by actual intelligence reports.

In particular, there was never any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda; yet administration officials repeatedly suggested the existence of a link. Supposed evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program was thoroughly debunked by the administration's own experts; yet administration officials continued to cite that evidence and warn of Iraq's nuclear threat.

And yet the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public.

Full article by Mr. Paul Krugman.

He tends to range out with his topic JUST a tad... but it was an interesting read. The NYTimes has been having a bit of an Op-Ed tennis game lately with the columnists/guest columnists and their various opinions on the subject. Always good to see both sides of the issue; it's trying to find the truth in the middle that's the work.

*tips helm*

[Taem]

First and foremost, I'm still a bit sick and my allergies are really bothering me so I'm finding it hard to concentrate or hold a cognitive thought for very long, however I feel compelled to reply to Nicodemus's post.

Interesting post indeed Nicodemus. I wonder if people on this board from Britain would care to enlighten us on how Tony Blair is faring with the current popular public opinion with regards to this new information that the Bush Administration lied to Blair, and the world. I'm willing to bet the bank that the rest of Blair’s term (however long that may be) will be mild in comparison to most leaders terms, without many more actions that would cause strife, simply to save face for himself. Personally, I believe the media tells us what sells the most, or what makes them the most money (such as contributions to keep certain information out), which is why I'd rather hear from those that personally live in Britain. Do Britain’s harbor animosity towards Americans after the engagement in Iraq, and the subsequent lies?

What puzzles me is that I don't seem to understand why after the truth emerged about the lies the Bush Administration was telling that the "higher-up" political figures still side with Bush by not acknowledging a problem. Is this because most of the house is Republican right now? I just don't understand their hesitancy to accept the truth.

[Taem]

... tell me the difference between this topic and what is said in the forum rules:



In my opinion, whether the irak war was justified and moreover whether George W. Bush was lying is very well a hotbutton issue.
With due respect, I will not be convinced otherwise by you if you just say:

Fragbait just missed the point.

Of course whether it's a hotbutton issue or not will only be definitely decided by the moderators. I was just being on the 'forum controls itself' mode.


Greetings, Fragbait

Hail Fragbait,

I tend to view a “hot-button” issue as one where both sides argue indefinitely and come to no conclusion, such as Abortion, Gun Control, Death Penalty, Assisted-Suicides, Religion, etc. This is not one of those issues.

You present two sides to your argument that you claim are hot-button issues:

1.) Rather the Iraq was justified or not
2.) Rather the Bush Administration lied or not

RE #1: I suppose the whole Iraq being justified or not issue could be argued until the cows come home from both sides, not unlike the Diablo hostility issue or the same sex marriage in Canada issue, however I *could* see your point of view here, granted. I do feel that there is a time and place to discuss such things, but you seem to be saying this is not one of them, and that’s fine as it is your opinion. I feel that since this issue is directly related to me, being an American, I want some justification to why we went to war in the first place. Is that a selfish motive? I suppose, but reading other posters points of view helps me to understand all the reasons we might of gone to war since all these different opinions encompass the different thoughts of our government. Again, if you feel this discussion should come to a close, then perhaps a formal request would be prudent for you, but I don’t think that is necessary. There is still information coming out and valid points to make, and so long as this is true, this is still a very active topic, IMO, worthy of being discussed.

RE#2: The Bush Administration DID lie, and this is a very valid discussion point. I do NOT see this as a hot-button issue, but a good place to have a civil discussion about who, what, where, and why. If you don't care about those questions, then keep your nose out of this topic! Yes, this issue gets me upset because I want some answers, but as I stated above, I need to understand all the viewpoints from others opinions before I can start pointing the finger and judging others. I hope you understand where I’m coming from.

[kier]

Sort of.&nbsp; I still am unsure of what happened in Florida, other than making Florida look silly in not being able to hold a fair election. It certainly caused many States to re-examine their antiquated voting equipment

I'll enlighten you with what happened in Florida then. Let’s see if your man in shining armour stands up to this. Please note, these are facts, just as America/British forces are controlling the price of the oil. Although profits are going to an Iraq fund, at the moment they control the price at which its sold, affecting profits made from other oil-based nations, such as, hmmm, oh, that’s it. America.

Katherine Harris is Bush's co-chairwoman of the presidential campaign AND the Florida secretary of state paid $4 million to Database technologies to remove any "suspected former felons" of the election roll, meaning that these people were unable to vote. This was done with the blessing of Jeb Bush. Thousands of perfectly honest and good citizens, the majority black, were removed. Considering 90% of the black community voted for Al Gore, this is the first cheat. And don't think I make these figures up, 173,000 people were wiped off the voting register.

Another 8,000 were wiped off due to a state sending Florida a false list of felons. What was this state I hear you ask? Texas. And I hope you know who's governor of Texas (hint, I've mentioned his name already, and it begins with a J). Cheat number 2.

To make sure that none of these "felons" could vote, heavy police presence happened at the ballet boxes.

Fox News Channel did a broadcast on election night declaring Bush had won, yet the counting of the votes had not yet finished. And who was in charge of the election coverage? John Ellis, cousin of Bush. Cheat number 3.

The Bush administration collected the overseas ballots. That is fine, if by Florida State law they are signed and posted from an overseas country on or before Election Day. The problem is, 680 of the 2,490 votes did not qualify, YET WERE COUNTED! Bush won the overseas ballot at a ratio of 4 to 5, meaning his winning margin of 537 votes is down to 7. Cheat number 4.

The Bush administration stopped the re count which, if followed through, would have gone in Al Gore's favour. Cheat number 5.

Al Gore would have won by 692 votes had the counting be done manually, but it was done by machine. Cheat number 6.

Estimates average that 3,000 votes were punched wrongly to Pat Buchanan instead of Gore, due to the voting machine. This machine was designed by a board, which had ONLY ONE democrat in the team. Cheat number 7.


That clarify things for you?

[Occhidiangela]

RE#2: The Bush Administration did lie, and this is a very valid discussion point.

Yes, a very valid discussion point. Lie? At this point, I suggest that is a poorly chosen term.

I am as yet unsure of the following. Was it a matter of:

Drawing conclusions based on incomplete information?
Telling part of the truth?
Drawing erroneous conclusions based on flawed logic?
Blatant disinformation?

We shall see where in the above continuum it all falls. Beware of 'leaks' as a pristine source of The Truth. Take them, at the least, with a grain of salt. Most leaks are political tools of the leaker aimed at fulfilling a specific agenda, or made by someone with an axe to grind. Many of the DoD leaks about the 'plan' and 'troop levels' were blatantly political, or parochial, in motivation. On the other hand, sometimes a leak is as pure as a flawless diamond.

The level of uncertainty on the actual process, due to none of us in the public having all of the facts, (classification takes care of that) has not been answered in full, and I for one am looking forward to the formal report from the US Congress on this issue. I expect that will come out this fall. There are enough Democrats and some Republicans, such as Senator Hagel of Nebraska, whose reservations before the shooting war started have led them for some time to feel that they, in their classified briefings, were fed a line. Their own political credibility, as well as the Secretary of State's I might add, may have been stepped on. The Senators and Congressmen have a vested personal interest in clearing up the ambiguity. Their re- election bids next year are at stake, and they don't want anything but a pretty good showing insofar as what they signed up for. Given the amount of public attention this has attracted, I don't forsee a whitewash for that reason alone: for some of them, it is intensely personal and bears directly on their re-election prospects.

Politics as usual, in that regard.

[kandrathe]

I'll enlighten you with what happened in Florida then. Let’s see if your man in shining armour stands up to this. Please note, these are facts, just as America/British forces are controlling the price of the oil. Although profits are going to an Iraq fund, at the moment they control the price at which its sold, affecting profits made from other oil-based nations, such as, hmmm, oh, that’s it. America.

1. Get off your high horse.
2. He's not my man. I voted for somebody else.
3. You still haven't offered a shred of evidence to indicate that you know how an oil market works.
4. The only thing that US could possibly do with Iraqi oil is sell it, which would drive down the price and profits to oil companies.
5. There are many more larger players in the world oil market than the US. Hmm, Saudi Arabia, a myriad of other Persian Gulf States, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, and many, many more.
6. My statement to Pete about Florida was a nod to HIM that he had a point, and I was avoiding any tangential argument about the GD Florida election.

Do you really want to re-hash the Florida election, or are you being a TROLL?

[kandrathe]

That, and I get wary when people start quoting obviously slanted sources as proof. I'm willing to see how it shakes out. I'm interested in what inquiries if any that are done in congress, but then it might just be that the political forces are such that the "truth" will remain hidden until after this election cycle. We both know that happens quite often, to many politicians, from both parties. And, when pressed, many a US political leader has resorted to; "I have no recollection of that conversation". As you said, its politics.

[Fragbait]

-new technology-

[Thecla]

Yes, a very valid discussion point. Lie? At this point, I suggest that is a poorly chosen term.

I am as yet unsure of the following. Was it a matter of:

Drawing conclusions based on incomplete information?
Telling part of the truth?
Drawing erroneous conclusions based on flawed logic?
Blatant disinformation?

Well, my money (then, as now) is on "blatant disinformation", which sounds to me very much like a polite term for "lies".

[kier]

Yeah, im being a troll.

Yes, they are selling the oil, and putting the price where they like it. Any proffits are going to an iraq fund. The problem is, before the war Iraq oil prices were lower than the US, causing a drop in US proffits. The US can now hike the price of Iraq oil up, thereby increasing there own proffits.

No, I supose I don't understand all this.

I am not suprised you voted for another candidate, as only 50 million US citizens voted for Bush (hardly a majority), but if you look back, YOU are the main defender of Bush.