Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Fragbait]

"There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar [flak jacket]. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

That pretty much says it all.
Edit: I'll quite second Feryar's position.


- Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

The 14000 votes never counted in the county around Jacksonville Florida, a fairly conservative area. In fact, the truth about how many votes never actually get counted was an immense shock to a great many Americans.

But back to the uncounted votes, that is why Mr Gore and friends were not willing to do the politically responsible thing: recount the whole state.

Why?

They were afraid that their margin of loss would be greater.

Politically inane, in that the claims of 'impropriety' were levied against a mere scrap of the entire Florida landscape. I personally think, even though Florida law does not work this way, that the entire state's votes needed to all be counted, or hand counted, since the votes were so close. To only recount selected counties is preposterous. We all waited weeks, and a hand recount would hardly have taken that long. It would also have been a far more solid re affirmation for whoever won, had it been Gore or Bush, that is was fair and square. But neither party could be bothered to stick to the basics.

Politics as usual. *spits*

What really kills me, though, is that given the importance of Florida in population and electoral votes, Gore's campaign did not expend more resources to do what he did in the most of the other 'cosmopolitain' states: wipe GW Bush like a windshield wiper. It was political ineptitude, IMO, that cost the Gore campaign Florida, or maybe a bit of guilt by association. That it was even close surprised me. Gore losing his own home state speaks volumes on that score as well.

As to 3000 people being too stupid to check off/punch the correct name on the ballots, in re Mr Buchanan, you make me sick. That tired dog won't hunt. Those citizens failed to discharge their civic duty and bloody well get it right the first time.

I am unimpressed with any argument other than the 'consipiracy of stupidity' on all sides in that one.

[Growler]

The truth of the matter is that this is not "Mr. Bush's War", it is America at war and it is a popular war and if Mr. Bush doesn't pursue the war with vigor America will get itself a president who will. Anyone in America whose job involves keeping up with the mood of the county realizes this (major political figures, media companies.) Demogoging the lie of "Bush lied" has absolutely no chance of getting traction beyond the radical anti-Bush crowd and everyone knows it, so it gets little play here.

And it is a lie itself that Bush lied.

As Kenneth Pollack, formerly on Bill Clinton's national security staff, recently noted in The New York Times, "At no point before the war did the French, the Russians, the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons capability."

Get Your Facts Straight

Even the French said Saddam had WMD, and in the 90's the UN said Saddam had WMD, and Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD, so this story has no legs. If Bush lied, the whole damn world lied right there with him and for years in advance of Bush deciding to run for president. This lie dries up and blows away at the slightest scrutiny.

[WarBlade]

It's amazing how much this one needs repeated explanations ad nausium. <_<

And it is a lie itself that Bush lied.

Even the French said Saddam had WMD, and in the 90's the UN said Saddam had WMD, and Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD, so this story has no legs.&nbsp; If Bush lied, the whole damn world lied right there with him and for years in advance of Bush deciding to run for president.&nbsp; This lie dries up and blows away at the slightest scrutiny.

It seems you have very little idea of exactly what it is the people refer to as the lie so here it is . . .

An example of a truthful statement: "We have evidence suggesting that Iraq might be harbouring weapons of mass destruction."

An example of an untruthful statement: "We have proof the Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

There's your lie. Obviously you'd have to have a pretty freakish interpretation of the word "proof" for that statement to work, but equally obviously nuance appears to be lost on Bush supporters. <_< Trying to twist it into a story about whether or not such weapons are actually there is just BS. :angry:

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Quite like your president, you seem content in taking a source of information and pulling out specific soundbites in order to present your case. Regardless of your pontifications, that's called a "Lie of Omission", the same as what the 43 Administration is being accused.

Now then, let's take some OTHER parts of the article you quote:

Now, there are intelligent anti-Bush arguments out there. The most defensible, and therefore most serious, is that Bush exaggerated one threat or another, particularly the danger from Saddam's nuclear weapons program. It's certainly true that the White House was wrong to place so much credence on forged documents purporting to show Saddam was trying to purchase uranium in Niger.

And that brings me to the main reason I've kept my tongue on this whole issue. We don't know enough yet. Worse, every week something we thought we knew turns out not to be true.

If Bush lied, we'll find out. And if he did, he should face the consequences. But because I'm not an opportunistic Democratic presidential candidate or batty Bush-hating journalist, I don't mind waiting a few months to get my facts straight.

Perhaps the last quote is the most important. As the days and weeks and months tick by, the onus remains on the US to prove they were right about it all along. Alas, the US, with its unilateral decision to police the situation in defiance to the world, seems caught on the horns of its own bullish attitudes.

Where this to be compared to an individual's case, it wouldn't be hard to find the issue resolved. Policeman-USA had enough intelligence, records of previous offenses and observation, it felt, to ask for the issuing of search warrant into Mr. Iraq's estate house to discover a stash of illegal weapons. The DA-UN disagreed, and wouldn't issue the warrant. It should have stopped there, but Policeman-USA declared itself independant of the DA-UN's office and strolled into Mr. Iraq's House killing anyone that opposed the home invasion. Now, in court, Policeman-USA cannot seem to find the illegal weapons that he claims were there (although he did indeed find some 7.62mm shell casings) and the Judge-GeneralWorldPopulace is thinking that Policeman-USA is acting less the Policeman and more the Vigilante and needs to make an appointment with his Internal Affairs department.

A facetious metaphor, but hits close enough to the mark to make you think about it.

[Occhidiangela]

You may not understand how strong the feeling is in America that, post Wall coming down, we Do Not Want To Be The World's Policeman. That crosses many party lines.

The few Wilsonians/Internationalists/Interventionists in Washington who feel otherwise do not seem to be the same folks who supported the Iraq war, but it's a mixed bag.

The UN has not police force other than whoever shows up. That has to do with how the UN was built and what it has become, which are not one and the same thing. Any Secretary General is at the whim, in any desire to enforce international law or a UN security council decree, of "Whoever shows up." He also does not have enough law enforcement presense to act as a deterrent, heck, most police departments don't.

What that results in is an immense law enforcement vacuum that is filled by "whoever shows up" to fill it. Given the nature of the beast that is global politics, the irony is that the US shows up to play policeman now and again, despite a great deal of sentiment both historical and contemporary against it, and plays cop . . . under what ever rules we choose, which are generally in accordance with the aims of the UN that we built on the rubble of WW II. However, as anyone will point out, there are plenty differences in method between US methods and, for example, the Finns or Irish, as to just what role a Cop has on this planet.

Put another way:

"When Constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one!"

Ask any cop, I know a few: no matter what they do, there is always some effing critic bitching about how they stopped the thief, killer, rapist, wreckless driver, child beater, what have you. But the cop still does his job.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

You may not understand how strong the feeling is in America that, post Wall coming down, we Do Not Want To Be The World's Policeman. That crosses many party lines.

Even Dubya's, if I recall pre-election, when he campaigned on the platform of bringing the troops home from the various hotspots (and notspots) around the globe. 9/11 changed several things... but I'm left wondering if 43 still feels that same way, despite the machinations of the NAC (and its high profile presence in the appointments of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz). After all, it is the New American Century (or Neo-Reaganists) that do seem to feel that the USA needs to embrace and empower its role as a fulcrum of democratic change in the world, usually under the guise of "international policeman".

The UN has not police force other than whoever shows up. That has to do with how the UN was built and what it has become, which are not one and the same thing. Any Secretary General is at the whim, in any desire to enforce international law or a UN security council decree, of "Whoever shows up." He also does not have enough law enforcement presense to act as a deterrent, heck, most police departments don't.

Agreed, and perhaps the single-most powerful argument for the existence of a UN Armed Forces (not likely to ever happen, though). One thing remains true, however... "Whoever shows up" has to obey the RoE, no matter who they are. It is impossible to uphold the law when you are above the law.

Ask any cop, I know a few: no matter what they do, there is always some effing critic bitching about how they stopped the thief, killer, rapist, wreckless driver, child beater, what have you. But the cop still does his job.

Without a doubt. However, if said cop "stopped" them with methods that are outside of the acceptable range of legal action; the thief, killer, rapist, wreckless driver, child beater, what-have-you will walk within days after the collar. Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of every man and woman that has the courage and the intestinal fortitude to wear a badge. In the fantasy world where people get paid based on their service to humanity and not their ability to generate income, Police Officers and Teachers would be paid a LOT of money. But then again, I'd be king... and Little Debbie Swiss Rolls would grow on trees.

... mind you, my mind might be a tad distracted today. I watched "Dark Blue" last evening... and it was a very disturbing film.

*tips helm*

[Occhidiangela]

Not quite, but I wish it were so clean.

Agreed, and perhaps the single-most powerful argument for the existence of a UN Armed Forces (not likely to ever happen, though). One thing remains true, however... "Whoever shows up" has to obey the RoE, no matter who they are. It is impossible to uphold the law when you are above the law.

Sadly false. If your RoE prevent people from showing up, you have no valid RoE. When you are desperate for cops, they say "under these terms, or I won't work for you." That is reality. Note the NATO IFOR conditions of participation: take your RoE and stuff it, UN dual key idiots. By the way, bad RoE don't work.

Here is a Hollywood parallel: the infamous western movie where there either is no Sherrif or the Sherrif dies or is a coward, and everyone is looking around for someone to 'save us from those bad men.' High Plains Drifter is a good illustration. OK, a guy came who'd save you from the bad guys, but there's a price. He aint' gonna do it your way, he's gonna do it his way.

That is reality.

[kandrathe]

...and Little Debbie Swiss Rolls would grow on trees.

My God yes. I would even tolerate you being King. :)

[Growler]

An example of a manufactured quote: "We have proof the Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction."

The closest the US has come to officially offering any proof at all was Powell's speech to the UN.
The full text can be found here: Powell's speech on Iraq at the UN 5 Feb 2003

The word proof is used only once, in the sense of proof of intent:

Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

Since you have apparently forgotten what the case against Iraq was all about, or never paid attention in the first place, I will provide a helpful summary of the main points presented by Secretary Powell.

• Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.<>
  [st]
  • Dr. Blix reported to this Council on January 27, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."<>
    [st]
    • a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime.<>
      [st]
      • Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspections. This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441.<>
        [st]
        • Iraq has not complied with its obligation to allow immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons, as required by Resolution 1441.<>
          [st]
          • Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs.<>
            [st]
            • Operative Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution 1441, which we lingered over so long last fall, clearly states that false statements and omissions in the declaration and a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute -- the facts speak for themselves -- shall constitute a further material breach of its obligation.<>
              [st]
              • Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had.<>
                [st]
                • the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.<>
                  [st]
                  • ... as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents.<>
                    [st]
                    • We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.<>
                      [st]
                      • It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent VX.<>
                        [st]
                        • UNSCOM also gained forensic evidence that Iraq had produced VX and put it into weapons for delivery, yet to this day Iraq denies it had ever weaponized VX. And on January 27, UNMOVIC told this Council that it has information that conflicts with the Iraqi account of its VX program.<>
                          [st]
                          • ...we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Long ago, the Security Council, this Council, required Iraq to halt all nuclear activities of any kind.<>
                            [st]
                            • We know from intelligence and Iraq's own admissions that Iraq's alleged permitted ballistic missiles, the al-Samoud II and the Al-Fatah, violate the 150-kilometer limit established by this Council in Resolution 687. These are prohibited systems.<>
                              [st]
                              • UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA-2 rocket engines.<>
                                [st]
                                • According to Iraq's December 7th declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the racetrack pattern depicted here.<>
                                  [st]
                                  • Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives.<>
                                    [st]
                                    • Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah.<>
                                      [st]
                                      • His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing and ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of some 2,000 villages.<>
                                        [st]
                                        • He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium.<>
                                          [st]
                                          • Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country -- tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.<>
                                            [st]
                                            The notion that because the chemical weapons stocks haven't been found yet somehow vitiates all of the justifications for war listed above is just assinine. Any one of the reasons listed above is full justification, no one was tricked into war because a single bullet point from long list has not yet been proven by recovery of the chemical weapon stocks. And even IRAQ had declared that those chemical weapons existed.
                                            
                                            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.

[Growler]

There was no need to quote the whole article at length because I provided the link. If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest I would not have provided the link.

Furthermore, just because some anti-Bush arguments are better than others doesn't mean that any of them have any validity.

At lastly, this argument that Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq is being spun as if that single point alone was what justified the war against Iraq. Even if it were true that Bush lied about WMDs, it would not be true that the war was unjustified. See my reply to Warblade on this. The "Bush lied" critics have lost all sense of perspective.

This is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[WarBlade]

An example of a manufactured quote: "We have proof the Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction."

Thankyou for completely failing to comprehend that I was paraphrasing the common Bush administration soundbite targetted at the one incentive most nations could possibly view as justification for war. It does wonderous things to the bulk of your post, not the least of which is rendering it as a complete waste of time.

The closest the US has come to officially offering any proof at all was Powell's speech to the UN.&nbsp;
The full text can be found here: Powell's speech on Iraq at the UN 5 Feb 2003

The word proof is used only once, in the sense of proof of intent:

I used the word "proof" as the only available single word I could think of to encompass the idea that various Bush Administration spokespeople have been projecting since '02. So what if the actual sentence is "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons," and whatever else it was that they specifically recited? Many key points have been presented as absolute values that can only be interpreted as "We have proof."

You can quibble over semantics all you like, but it won't change the story.

Edit: Did something nutty with pre-submit edit??? :unsure: Very weird

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Furthermore, just because some anti-Bush arguments are better than others doesn't mean that any of them have any validity.

At lastly, this argument that Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq is being spun as if that single point alone was what justified the war against Iraq. Even if it were true that Bush lied about WMDs, it would not be true that the war was unjustified.

So, in your mind, the reasons behind the war were sufficient to forgive the 43 Admin for any misdirection, smudging or outright hyperbole when it comes to the "selling features"? 43's (via Powell) presentation to the UN was built on half truths and pseudo-theories that the intelligence community either vehemently refuted (on one side of the fence) or fraudulently endorsed (on the other). But it was never truly about the WMDs, the possible threat to America itself... those were the soundbites that the 43 Administration decided they needed to coddle the American public into an unpopular war.

Well, it worked... I'll give them that. Bush's approval ratings remain high, even though they're slipping. The fact remains that he's been able to keep far more of the approval percentages than other Presidents in similar situations and similar times in their term. America bought the lies, then they bought the lies again because the "truth" wasn't important. "The war was needed, anyway". "He was a brutal dictator." "Look at how his people suffered." "It was overdue".

Nice. Tell me, what's the secret: Ketchup? Because I cannot for the life of me figure out what makes it possible for 69 percent of the American population to swallow this vomitous, fecal, pustulent discharge that the 43 Admin is spooning out. It must be the Ketchup.

Let's hear it for the Thinking Majority™! Your opinions will be given to you every morning at 9am, be certain to tune in. Would you like Freedom Fries™ with that?

[kier]

I can't quite believe Bush hasn't had more of a hard time than he has. In England Tony Blair is being slagged off here, there and everywhere, yet what is happening to Bush? Nothing major, and that's worrying me.

[Occhidiangela]

To grow irate over a particular politician spinning an issue strikes me as bizarre. The Bush administration pressented the side of the issue that supported their view of the world. The Greenpeace folks tell the side of global warming that supports their view of the world. The French government told the side of the story that supported their view of the world. Go to any courtroom, and check out how a DA gets a conviciton on the perponderance of evidence, on habits, on record, on reputation. On that model, a 'good enough' if not 'perfect' case was made that something needed to be done about Saddam's regime.

This is not news.

The question is:

Was their deliberate fraud perpetrated on the US Congress? Without their support, the war don't happen, and Tony Blair would still be working the UN on what to do about Saddam.

I dont' much care about the spin provided to the media. The media, even given raw fact, spins plenty on its own, so when Secretary Rumsfeld tried to get clever with his own message, it frequently rolled back on him. (Remember the whole idiocy of the 'gee, this was tougher than expected' rhetoric? No duh, folks shoot back!) Look at what the media did with Jessica Lynch; see the LA times; see the European press, or check out the varied global coverages during the war: same war, different story being told.

But the legal issue here in America is of concrete importance: given that the Congress was presented XXXX information, there was enough support from Congress "to use force." THAT is what this is about. The rest of you all are just a bunch of spectators, deal with it.

To be frank with you, I don't give two #$%&s what foreigners opinions are regarding our administration: my own opinions suffice, thank you very much. Your own built in 'grains of salt' will provide you a greater or lesser sense of credulity regardless of the issue, be it NAFTA, G-7, GLobal warming, or the war in Iraq. And for that matter, tne 9-11 'conspiracy theories.' Everything presented in the political arena, to include every utterance of Kofi Annan, is spun.

Let's go back to an earlier post about telling "part of the truth." That is a political tool long in good standing, and used by every head of government on the planet. What matters is: was Congress presented by the Executive Branch with viable fact, or were they being BS'd from day one? If the latter can be shown, the political backlash will be immense, and heads will and should roll.

If not, then it simply does not matter, other than to mar the credibility of the current administration in the short term, and possibly, depending on the follow up, the long term.

The war is a fait accompli and a work in progress at the same time.

What matters now is getting the commitment, and the effort, and the wisdom to be as inclusive as possible of the international community, to take where Iraq is today and help make it better tomorrow, regardless of who falls, or does not fall, from power in Washington.

[Growler]

Thankyou for completely failing to comprehend that I was paraphrasing the common Bush administration soundbite targetted at the one incentive most nations could possibly view as justification for war.

In paraphrasing, you glossed over all of Powell's hedging and substitute your own perception of the argument for that which was actually made. Powell said the chemical weapons stocks were apparently being hidden, presented photographic evidence of the process, and admitted he had no idea where they were taken. We still don't know where they went, but that doesn't mean they never existed. Iraq had admitted the existence of some of this stuff in its declaration to the UN, so why they were even bothering to hide it is a mystery.

Anyway, neither the Bush administration nor many americans view this as the only reason that could possibly be viewed as justification for war, so it is a complete waste of time in their minds (and mine) to keep harping on it.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

But the legal issue here in America is of concrete importance: given that the Congress was presented XXXX information, there was enough support from Congress "to use force." THAT is what this is about. The rest of you all are just a bunch of spectators, deal with it.

To be frank with you, I don't give two #$%&s what foreigners opinions are regarding our administration: my own opinions suffice, thank you very much. Your own built in 'grains of salt' will provide you a greater or lesser sense of credulity regardless of the issue, be it NAFTA, G-7, GLobal warming, or the war in Iraq. And for that matter, tne 9-11 'conspiracy theories.' Everything presented in the political arena, to include every utterance of Kofi Annan, is spun.

*nods* Yup, that's essentially the message that the majority of the world has been getting from the 43 Administration, anyway. And people wonder at the source for anti-american (or, at least, anti-arrogant) sentiment arises from? ;)

All well and good, Occhi. I can see the whys and wherefores of this reasoning and justification of the attitude. However, if the US doesn't want their pie stuck, perhaps they shouldn't be poking everything with their fingers all the time. While the US perhaps doesn't give a hoot (and resents) any discussion that the Canadian Parliament may make about the US war effort, then perhaps the US Ambassador and 43 Admin should shut their goddamn mouths (pard' me, "exert influence") on our legislation moves toward same-sex marriage or marijuana penalties? The door used to swing both ways... apparently that's not the case post 9/11.

What matters now is getting the commitment, and the effort, and the wisdom to be as inclusive as possible of the international community, to take where Iraq is today and help make it better tomorrow, regardless of who falls, or does not fall, from power in Washington.

Oddly enough, this has been the case since before the actual hostilities. While countries didn't back the war effort and disagreed with the US's "justification", they were willing to send aid packages, peacekeepers and consumables as soon as needed after the dust settled.

Unfortunately, it seemed that the US didn't want UN (or anyone else that couldn't join in with the "Coalition of the Willingly") to have access into Iraq for quite some time. Seems they had "things" to sew up and "stuff" to make certain was protected. Now, 3+ months into the clean-up, suddenly the Coalition seems to think that International Aid would be a good idea. How novel of them.

I'm afraid it isn't over, yet... and heads will roll eventually. People like Mister Growler there can stomp and huff all they wish; there has never been the Solidarity among americans that he seems to believe there is or should be... and the numbers of dissention grow daily.

[Occhidiangela]

Unfortunately, it seemed that the US didn't want UN (or anyone else that couldn't join in with the "Coalition of the Willingly") to have access into Iraq for quite some time. Seems they had "things" to sew up and "stuff" to make certain was protected. Now, 3+ months into the clean-up, suddenly the Coalition seems to think that International Aid would be a good idea. How novel of them.

It seems that for his support, his efforts at keeping the UN empowered aand involved is running into some serious friction. Maybe he has just been shown that the 'special relationship' is at an end? I hope not, personally, for a variety of reasons, but if that is the case, someone is making a serious mistake.

[WarBlade]

In paraphrasing, you glossed over all of Powell's hedging and substitute your own perception of the argument for that which was actually made.

Glossing over Colin Powel's presentation? I wasn't even thinking of it at all! :blink: That thing was a joke and I have nothing but contempt for it.

Anyway, neither the Bush administration nor many americans view this as the only reason that could possibly be viewed as justification for war, so it is a complete waste of time in their minds (and mine) to keep harping on it.

It's a big issue for the rest of the world. Many nations looked to various laws initially and said there was no way they could legally be part of an invasion force based on what they knew. Now that the invasion is finished the debate continues to rage over the prospect of peace keeping forces. Basically, the way the Bush administration dealt the cards means that everyone else now has to scratch their heads over whether assistance at this point would be contributing to an "occupation" force or a "peace keeping" force. The WMD argument still has the capacity to sort that blurry line into a hard black and white one.

The more common element of the WMD debate of the issue that Britain is keenly aware of now. Blair staked his political reputation on the existence of WMDs and as a result of that, appears to have a much diminished chance of remaining Prime Minister beyond the next election. It's no surprise then that WMDs are still a hotly debated topic.

[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.