Re: (off topic) Bush the sub-human trash -GRAHAM:What I Knew Before the Invasion


ian wrote:
> Tchiowa wrote:

> >>>Now you look at Iraq. Bush, and literally everyone on the planet who
> >>>saw the intelligence reports (including John Kerry, Bill Clinton and a
> >>>whole lot of other people who aren't exactly Bush supporters) believed
> >>>that Saddam had WMDs. They were wrong. But does the Left say that Bush
> >>>was wrong? No. The Left says he "lied". "Bush started a war so he could
> >>>steal their oil." Yada yada yada.
> >>
> >>None of them thought the threat was sufficient to go to war about. None
> >>of them.
> >
> > Wrong. Kerry voted to go to war. So did all of the other Democrats on
> > the Senate Committees who saw the intelligence reports first hand.
>
> Almsot no other country.

But all the leaders in the US, including those criticizing Bush now,
did. And even if you say "they were wrong" the fact that Kerry and
others who saw the original intelligence reports voted for the war is
proof positive that Bush did not "lie", he did not "cherry pick", he
did not invade to "steal the oil" or any of the other maliciou
accusations flying from the Left.

> Also, about that 'everybody saw the same intel'
> BS, here's an article by Bob Graham from the WashPost today. It shows
> that the classified version of the NIE was considerably more cautious
> and footnoted than the public one provided to most other senators:

Graham is talking about running for President. He is another politician
who wants to distance himself from the war. He talks (in the article
you posted) about things that happened in 2002 that made him concerned
about the intelligence. But he supported the war in 2003. Why didn't he
voice his concerns? Answer: he was as convinced as Bush. As a member of
the Intelligence Committee he had access to all of the intelligence in
its original form. Not what Bush wanted to show him but quite literally
*EVERYTHING*. He saw all the same things as Bush and he came to the
same conclusion as Bush. Now that the war is unpopular and he wants to
make another run for President he is rewriting history.

Had he made these statements in 2003 they could be taken as truth. Now
they are just typical political maneuvering.

Note that many of his comments refer to his concern that the buildup
for Iraq was affecting Afghanistan. That may be true, but it does not
indicate in any way, shape or form that the intelligence had been
altered or distorted. Those comments were completely irrelevant to that
issue.

> The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested
> that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4,
> Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass
> Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein
> possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use
> them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified
> version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient
> weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear
> weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly
> such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

Snipped most for space but left this in as an example. Graham notes
that Tenet's document left out some other classified information. 2
important things. Tenet was CIA and if the CIA was preparing misleading
documents you blame that on Tenet, not Bush. Second, Graham had access
to the original classified documents as he makes clear above. So,
again, he saw the original intelligence.

Another example to help you understand this article. Graham refers
above to the "White House's claim that exactly such material was being
provided from Africa to Iraq". And that's an out and out lie. First,
the White House said quite specifically that British Intelligence had
reported the contacts (and that's an unquestioned fact) and, more
important, the White House said that the Intelligence reports claimed
that Iraq was *trying* to get the material. It did *not* say that it
was actually being provided.

This is a well written political piece helping prepare Graham for a
2008 run for President that does *not* disprove my original statement:
Those that saw the original intelligence reports believed that Saddam
had WMDs and that the war was justified.
> > What the #$%#%&!! does that have to do with the statement? The fact
> > that there are jerks on the Right and Left has nothing to do with
> > whether or not that out of control rant was "criticism". You referred
> > to it as "criticism". Do you understand the difference or not???
>
> Of course I do. I don't accept your characterization of what Vagabond
> writes, though.

"Sub-human trash"? That's what he posted.

> > Again, you're completely wrong. Kerry voted for it. It's part of the
> > public record. And I believe firmly that had 9/11 occurred on Clinton's
> > watch so that he was forced to take a different view of terrorist
> > threats (as happened to Bush) then Clinton would have done something
> > similar.
>
> They voted on imcomplete intel under circumstances where not to vote for
> it was being characterized as anti-patriotic.

Kerry saw the original intel. He can't say it was incomplete.

> And what was voted for
> assumed that in good faith Bush would attempt to make the UN approach
> work. There was no good faith. The military was already repositioning
> for the invasion.

By 2003 the efforts to use the UN had ended and all the Senators knew
that.

> But, my point was that most major allies of the US saw no need to do
> this. Unlike when Bush #1 went into war in the MidEast.

Fine. So some disagreed. And, of course, some *did* agree. And those
are the points that could be debated and the conclusion criticized.

But my point is that the Left can't do that. They can't "criticize".
They rant, insult and accuse. Offensive, malicious, knowingly false
accusations.

> >>Yes, he fucked up one thing after another, and squandered any chance we
> >>might have had to do this right.
> >
> > *WE*????? The US and UK pretty much went this alone. The whining
> > kibitzers from Europe wouldn't participate for the most part.
>
> The UK is European, believe it or not. Perhaps the mainland European
> countries understood better than we did what a buzz-saw we were walking
> into.

Perhaps they did. But they squandered every chance of diplomacy
succeeding when they refused to hold Saddam's feet to the fire and make
him allow inspections. And it's quite apparent that France opposed the
war primarily because it was doing business with Saddam and didn't want
him removed.

> >>>We *do* need to set some goals and make it clear to the Iraqis that we
> >>>will be moving out in the not too distant future. Soft goals, not hard
> >>>deadlines.
> >>
> >>Ahh, I sniff the cautiously shifting Republican winds here!
> >
> > Nonsense. This has been the Bush stance all along.
>
> Thats what they always say when they change direction. There have to be
> hard deadlines - thats waht gets anything done. I don't mind if they are
> for structured RIFs over a period of time, but the Iraqis either have to
> stand up, or lie down while their country self-destructs.

There *CAN'T* be hard deadlines in a situation like this.

> >>Next year, before the mid-term elections, withdrawal will start.
> >
> > Probably will. Again that has been the suggested timing for a very long
> > time.
>
> Uh-huh - only since them polls changed.

Bush said a very long time ago that after the elections and the
constitution was adopted in Iraq that we would start looking for the
correct way to start withdrawing troops. Now that those things have
happened the Democrats are screaming loudly to withdraw so that when
the withdrawal starts they can claim credit for it. Political
maneuvering. That's all it is. Keep up with all the news and you'll see
this.

> >>The war that was started to an election cycle will begin to end to one too.
> >
> > And now you just shifted from criticism to rant with an absurd
> > accusation like that.
>
> It is very clear that the war was started around an election-cycle
> time-frame.

No, it was started in March of 2003. US election cycles are in even
numbered years. No national elections in 2003. The election cycle for
the Presidency started in January or February of 2004.

Now if you want to say that this is still close and that an election
cycle is really 2 years, well the fact is that the US has national
elections of some type (President, Senate, House) every 2 years so then
we are always in an election cycle so your criticism becomes rather
pointless.

> It is equally clear that it will begin to end because of the
> coming mid-terms,

Not clear at all. "Because" is the operative word. It will begin to end
on the schedule that Bush laid out a very long time ago.

> >>>That's true. But that happens with every war. Do we then just withdraw?
> >>>That's what we did in Somalia. Somalia is now a failed state. That's
> >>>what we *didn't* do in Kosovo. Kosovo is succeeding, slowly.
> >>
> >>South Vietnam is doing OK, and we left there.
> >
> > It is??? Have you been there? I have. It's under control of a brutal
> > Communist dictatorship. People have exactly zero freedom. That's "doing
> > OK" in your book?
>
> Not so brutal.

555555555 Sorry. "Not so brutal". What, the government only kills a few
hundred of their innocent citizens a year instead of a few thousand
like Saddam did?

> Many Vietnamese have beguin returning, and the country is
> liberalizing. Its not great as far as civil-liberteis go, I agree, but
> the people also are not, for the most part, starving.

I guess that's a difference between you and me. I think starving for
freedom is every bit as important as starving for food. I think the
total denial of freedom is one of the worst things you can do to a
human.

> > And as soon as they are capable of doing that we should withdraw. But
> > withdrawing before that guarantees failure. So we can't. Again, that
> > has been the Bush stance all along.
>
> No, the initial Bush stance was that the troops would be welcomed by
> flowers in the streets from a joyfully liberated people.

And they were.

> They never planned for an insurgency, never did anything to thwart one.

And that's also true, and a valid criticism. But the fact that a small
minority is still opposing them does not alter the fact that the
majority welcomed the invasion to remove Saddam.

> The complete BUsh stance was that this was the first step in spreading
> democracy in the MiddleEast - that looks a little expansive now, doesn't it?

Not at all. Look around. Lebanon is breaking free from Syria and having
elections. The Palestinians are gaining freedom. Libya has at least
quit threatening the world and supporting terrorism. Kuwait is having
elections.

> >>Just recall Powell throwing down a speech written for him by Cheney's
> >>people, and calling it, basically, crap.
> >
> > Really? When did you see that? You were in his office? He has
> > acknowledged that? Or was this another of Vagabond's idiotic sources?
>
> It was widely reported that Powell refused to include much material
> prepared by Douglas Feith in his UN presentation. He reportedly said on
> the eve of his infamous UN speech, "I'm not gonna read this bull***!"

Reported by "who"?

> He has since said the speech is 'a blot' on his record. (see, for
> example, http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200511020136.html)

Since, now that he has realized the intelligence from the CIA was
wrong. But show me the reporting that he threw down the speech and
called it bull***.

> > That's right. You're *EXACTLY RIGHT*. But now take the next step.
> > Clinton and Bush 41 had a view of terrorism which pretty much matched
> > what John Kerry said. It was a nuisance. Bush 43 had the same opinion
> > on September 10th, 2001.
> >
> > EVERYTHING CHANGED ON 9/11.
>
> Bull*** - and I have heard enough of this particular nonsense. I olived
> through 30 years of terrorist nonsense on Ireland, and everything does
> not change. Why does America think it alone should be exempt from
> terrorist attacks? Everything did NOT change.

For the US it did. The US held a rather naive view of terrorism. We
viewed it as Europe's problem. Plus, there had never been a terrorist
attack on this scale anywhere. So even many of Europe's leaders changed
their view.

> > Now we have to look at the world and the threat of terrorism
> > differently. Now we know that Bush 41, Clinton, and W were naive in
> > their view of terrorism. Why do you want us to still be naive?
>
> I have not been naive about terrorism since 1972, when bombs went off in
> Dublin.

But US Presidents were. And they acknowledge that. Look at Kerry's
speech in the campaign where he referred to the days when the US
thought terrorism was "a nuisance".

> > So why can't the Left say "I don't find the case for war compelling and
> > Bush was wrong for thinking it was compelling"? Why must the Left say
> > "Bush is a murdering, sub-human piece of trash who faked the
> > intelligence so he could murder hundreds of thousands of people and
> > steal Iraqi oil and create an American empire so that Halliburton could
> > make money"? Why the idiotic, childish rant instead of "criticism"? Or
> > do you still not understand the difference?
> >
> > And if you say "Well I believe that is what really motivated Bush" then
> > you have proven my point about the Left being motivated by hate.
>
> Nonsense. There is serious discussion all over the place about what
> really caused the Bush people to push for war.

And those holding that discussion are making the assumption that he
lied. So, again, that demonstrates a motivation of hate.

> The best guess is
> neo-cons via Cheney and Wolfowitz and election marketeers via Karl Rove
> both saw a way to acheive their aims - reshaping the Middle-East, and
> getting Bush re-elected.

No, that's the assumption of those on the Left who oppose Bush and who
can't accept the fact that people disagree and sometimes see things
differently. They are so motivated by hate that they have to find a
malicious motive for everything they disagree with.

.

Loading