Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A final point: So maybe the intel was bad, and Bush got misled, right?

I don't think anyone misled him. I think they just plain didn't know for certain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
There was enough of a world-wide belief that they were there, coupled with what you call hedging - i.e., "well, maybe yes, and maybe no" - from our intel, and Hans & Co. weren't finding them, but weren't saying NONE, and at that point, the choice was wait around and maybe find out the hard way.

No. The alternative was to keep the pressure on and continue the inspections. Blix et al. left because we told them the bombs were about to start falling. We now know that containment was working. At least vis-a-vis the WMD.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think anyone misled him. I think they just plain didn't know for certain.

Tenet just testified that Feith briefed the President without the CIA's knowledge. The people who get to decide what the President hears have an awful lot of power in this Administration, and I think we all know that Dick Cheney's statements on these subjects have been at least as bellicose and uncompromising as anyone else.

eta: You had a bunch of intel professionals and a bunch of ideologues working this, and the ideologues were making sure that they controlled what the President heard and how he heard it. Tenet has made pretty clear that he tried to police the garbage that people were trying to push, and the fact that Feith briefed the President without his knowledge means that the ideologues (a) knew that the professionals were trying to give the President a more balanced view, and (b) had the clout to avoid these roadblocks. It was the National Security Advisor's job to make sure Bush got the info he needed, and she evidently did not do her job. The memoirs of all of these people are going to be very interesting reading.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think various members of the Administration misled.

Surely not.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/U...ts_040315.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No. The alternative was to keep the pressure on and continue the inspections. Blix et al. left because we told them the bombs were about to start falling. We now know that containment was working. At least vis-a-vis the WMD.

Well, at least we've moved beyond truth or lies and into strategy and tactics. We disagree on those, but that's just judgment calls. I think the result that we have today was worth it.

(Cue disparaging comments about bombs, etc. But, progressing and still worth it.)

(ETA - bed.)

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I wouldnt' have gone with 2 [intentional deception; parsing words], but club is making me think that 2 must be the answer.

Good job clublette!

Yeh. I know. If I had a better developed sense of humor I might find that funny (in the way bilmore found Atticus' argument about girls and schooling funny a couple of days ago).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hindsight is wonderful - but this argument has it's roots in the insistance of some here to continually harp that "Bush lied", and that's (in my mind) not the case at all. I forget who keeps saying this, but ask Ty - he's the mod, and will remember.

There are many ways to lie, one of which is to say you believe something to be true while knowing full well the evidence supporting that claim is sketchy at best. Its a great lie because its unprovable (The only person who knows whether you actually believed the alleged "intel" is you). That is what Bush did. He felt he needed to prove a point in the Arab world by installing a democracy and Bush wanted to nail Saddam from the get go. On top of that, Saddam was an easy target, and the thinking was that Iraq - being among the most technically secular and "democratic" of nations in that area - would take to democracy quickly. See: Wolfowitz Doctrine.

He couldn't tell the public this because they'd never support such a war, so Bush made a calculated bet on WMD. He also bet that the outcome would be so good that even if there was no WMD, the world would still say "Damn, that;s agreat thing you did" and forget about the pretext for the invasion.

These turned out to be a bad bets. So now everyone is calling Busb exactly what he is - a liar.

I personally don't care. Politicians lie, and in this case, to achieve his ends, Bush had no choice but to lie. Calling a politician to the carpet for lying is silly - lying is part of the business. Its a risk, and sometimes you get caught, like Bush did here.

He's a liar, and all the twisting of the facts you can muster ain't going to change that. But at the end of the day, his lie is excusable. What's not excusable is his passing the buck. He should say "I fucked up" and stop trying to blame everyone else around him, lest he find himself out on his ass, Martha style.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your logic is correct, but I'm not aware that the Bush administration has declared any terrorist state an immediate threat. If they have, I lose.

No, club. You've already lost, because you've done about the best job anyone could do to make it all seem consistent -- and look at the results. Your argument is every bit as convincing as the Clinton/Gore arguments ("no controlling legal authority" anyone?) that you no doubt once mocked.

Y'all need to just let this one drop, and move back to explaining how John Kerry hates the Amercan military, would impoverish our intelligence services, and secretly dreams of a three-way with Chirac and Kim Jong Il.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I mean that, in the NATO governance rules, when one member nation (i.e., Pakistan) wishes to invoke immediate NATO protection, it invokes a specific rule subsection (don't remember the name or number) that labels the threat to that member nation as "Imminent". That's the conversation that was being had at that time. Completely separate from what we're speaking of. Only reason it comes up is that, when bloggers google "imminent", you get things out of context.

(ETA - maybe I need to add - Pakistan was being pressured by us to request that NATO rule invocation so that we could move in right away to protect it from SH. To do so, one reads the rule language and makes the specifically-called-for request to NATO, using the word "imminent" that is contained in the rule.)

Bilmore, I feel compelled to note that Turkey was the nation in question, and that Pakistan is neither a NATO member or a neighbor of Iraq.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of their religious practices.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, club. You've already lost, because you've done about the best job anyone could do to make it all seem consistent -- and look at the results

I'm picturing you standing before the court, explaining that you don't understand your opponent's point, indeed you refuse to understand your opponent's point, and therefore you must be declared the winner.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, club. You've already lost, because you've done about the best job anyone could do to make it all seem consistent -- and look at the results. Your argument is every bit as convincing as the Clinton/Gore arguments ("no controlling legal authority" anyone?) that you no doubt once mocked.

Y'all need to just let this one drop, and move back to explaining how John Kerry hates the Amercan military, would impoverish our intelligence services, and secretly dreams of a three-way with Chirac and Kim Jong Il.

S_A_M

I don't understand why the administration officials try and mince words. We fucking invaded the country- they can't claim they didn't think it was a threat.

I would say, "look based upon available intelligence and based upon the actions of the Iraqui government we believed it had WMD, both in development and in actual possesion. It now looks like there was not the amount we believed was there. Hans Blix thought it was there, the UN thought it was there, we were all mistaken. Did we think the threat 'imminent' or 'immediate?'
Fuck yes Morty, thats why we invaded."

I just don't see how pulling back from the thought that the threat was BAD/REAL/NOW is consistant with invading, and I think they could explain it that way. FWIW, I also think that would be the truth, which is what I'm now committing to spreading.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm picturing you standing before the court, explaining that you don't understand your opponent's point, indeed you refuse to understand your opponent's point, and therefore you must be declared the winner.

Hello? They're judge and jury. They have to be; we're misinformed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hello? They're judge and jury. They have to be; we're misinformed.

We would have to be misinformed to fail to see how simple english construct needs to be filtered through the screen of what you want history to have been.

Silly us.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm picturing you standing before the court, explaining that you don't understand your opponent's point, indeed you refuse to understand your opponent's point, and therefore you must be declared the winner.

(a) Believe it or not, my record in court was almost as good as Hank's putative record on this Board.

(b) Actually no. I understand Club's point. I'm just saying that it is unconvincing -- a real loser in the court of public opinion to the extent any of the public care. (i.e. explain to Joe Sixpack how all those statements don't add up to "imminent threat"). Therefore, stop parroting and parsing, and move on to your stronger arguments for reelection -- like the economy.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Actually no. I understand Club's point. I'm just saying that it is unconvincing -- a real loser in the court of public opinion to the extent any of the public care.

Ah. It's not wrong. It's just not "sellable".

You've hit on the main hope for your party this cycle - avoid substance. I like that.