Entwhat? Where's the debate?

[Rían]

exactly.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm just coming into this thread, so could you please elaborate? I don't see how [Bush] lied.

It is the question whether the Bush administration had lied or deliberately distorted intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons capacity prior to the invasion.

If Bush lied, his lie must be considered a tad worse than Clinton's even though Bush was never under oath.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If Bush lied, his lie must be considered a tad worse than Clinton's even though Bush was never under oath.

I agree, but that's a big "if" ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It is the question whether the Bush administration had lied or deliberately distorted intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons capacity prior to the invasion.

And in my view, the evidence is that he didn't, for three reasons.

1) The US Congress, both the Democrats and the Republicans, looked at the same intelligence that the Administration had and came to the same conclusions, based on it.

2) Multiple other countries also thought, based on the reports from their own intelligence services, that Saddam was developing WMDs. They believed that intelligence strongly enough to go to war, based on it.

3) Sarin and certain nerve agents were found in Iraq, along with missiles Iraq was forbidden by a UN resolution (and of a type they claimed they had none of), which were capable of reaching nearby countries. He was certainly developing illegal chemical weapons, though we haven't found them in anywhere near the quantity that was expected. We may or may not have found all the chemicals and rockets he had.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And in my view, the evidence is that he didn't, for three reasons.

1) The US Congress, both the Democrats and the Republicans, looked at the same intelligence that the Administration had and came to the same conclusions, based on it.

They were railroaded. The intelligence was already spun for them. The intelligence agencies were instructed to find intelligence in support of a course of action which had already been decided. There are many, many accounts of how reports which did not favour the invasion option were ignored or downplayed whilst anything that did (including the dodgy testimony of the likes of Chalabi) was played up. You even have Donald Rumsfeld, 2 days after 9/11, saying they needed to go after Iraq, clear evidence that the conclusion came before the data gathering.

So, that's lying in my book. Worse, in many ways, because now we see them trying to avoid the blame by saying "you voted for it".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

2) Multiple other countries also thought, based on the reports from their own intelligence services, that Saddam was developing WMDs. They believed that intelligence strongly enough to go to war, based on it.

Firstly, they didn't, and secondly, they were all looking at the same dodgy stuff. The UK intelligence services did, but they were guilty of an as bad if not worse level of selective intelligence reporting and tampering.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

3) Sarin and certain nerve agents were found in Iraq, along with missiles Iraq was forbidden by a UN resolution (and of a type they claimed they had none of), which were capable of reaching nearby countries. He was certainly developing illegal chemical weapons, though we haven't found them in anywhere near the quantity that was expected. We may or may not have found all the chemicals and rockets he had.

I can't believe you're trying to say WMDs were found in Iraq, so it was justified. That's truly spectacular.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

They were railroaded. The intelligence was already spun for them. The intelligence agencies were instructed to find intelligence in support of a course of action which had already been decided. There are many, many accounts of how reports which did not favour the invasion option were ignored or downplayed whilst anything that did (including the dodgy testimony of the likes of Chalabi) was played up.

Apparently with reason too, considering what we found.

The experts in the intelligence agencies are long term employees. They got to the positions they did through developing a reputation for honesty and skill at their jobs. Pretty much the most that can be done against them in retaliation for their honesty is for their bosses to withhold them promotions or pay raises. They couldn't be fired for noncompliance.

Congress is briefed by the Head of the Intelligence Agency, but they also are briefed individually by the experts in the field. Not just by their bosses. This is especially true in the Intelligence Committees and especially the inner groups of the Intelligence Committees. They, key people from both parties, can order meetings with whomever they wish in the intelligence business and have access to just about all the same information the President has.

My source for all this is my Dad, who works with high level security clearance in the Aerospace Corporation. They manage our GPS system, and so are responsible for giving satellite data to the Airforce; my Dad regularly briefs high ranking generals in the military.

In my Dad's opinion, misleading Congress would have been very hard to do, because you'd have to push around not just a few bosses but a whole organization, and also you'd have to get around the Intelligence Committees and their leaders from both parties.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You even have Donald Rumsfeld, 2 days after 9/11, saying they needed to go after Iraq, clear evidence that the conclusion came before the data gathering.

And I know Prime Minister Tony Blair had to talk President Bush out of attacking Iraq right after 9/11. Those events are evidence that conclusions came before the UN's data gathering; not before the US had accumulated a great deal of information from its own private sources. They had been gathering information about Iraq for ages and wanted to act on what they were learning.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Firstly, they didn't, and secondly, they were all looking at the same dodgy stuff.

You'll definitely have to provide evidence to support this claim. You're saying that all those governments went to war based solely on US intelligence? We don't even let many of our own high level officials know the identities of our spies, let alone other governments. Naturally there would be some sharing, but governments wouldn't just go to war based solely on intelligence that the US and British provided. Those governments all have their own intelligence services and use them. I'll need to see your evidence, if you say otherwise.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The UK intelligence services did, but they were guilty of an as bad if not worse level of selective intelligence reporting and tampering.

Again, I have trouble believing those kinds of allegations for the reasons I've already pointed out.

The selective intelligence reporting and tampering that you're talking about took in the intelligence services of at least 48 different countries (that's how many we have in the coalition).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You'll definitely have to provide evidence to support this claim.

Here's a good start...

Plan of Attack

[Lief Erikson]

Would you please give me the quote from the book that backs your claim? Along with the citation for the interview or other source that Woodard is using?

You can't expect me to spend my Christmas vacation reading through a whole book just to find out whether or not you're right on one point. It's your job to support your claims, not mine .

[captain carrot]

Enlighten me guys ..what has this lot to do with entmoot?

[Insidious Rex]

Its debate!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Would you please give me the quote from the book that backs your claim? Along with the citation for the interview or other source that Woodard is using?

You can't expect me to spend my Christmas vacation reading through a whole book just to find out whether or not you're right on one point. It's your job to support your claims, not mine .

It's a worthwhile and well-researched book and I wouldn't want to reduce it to a quote or two. It's also pretty balanced. You'll probably find parts you enjoy as well. It's far from completely negative about the current administration.

Put it on your "books I might read in the next year" list.

On supporting my claims, I learned a long time ago that for some, opinions don't change no matter how much evidence one provides. All I can really hope is that you might read it and maybe consider the possibility of a different course of events than the one you are championing.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the book recommendation.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

How about this one:

4.
Conscription is the price a society pays for its freedom. Therefore all young men should be forced to go to war to serve that freedom.

OR

The freedom of a society is based solely on the freedom of its citizens. Therefore, the act of forcing a societies citizens to fight against their will is to abandon that freedom, and thus negate that society's claim to civilization.


Carry on cats and kittens. This is going well....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What, are we your playthings, for you dangle catnip in front of us, and watch us fight over it?

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

3. The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.

I would say the U.S. is a constitutional republic to be more accurate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Which is a representative democracy.

[Nurvingiel]

I do think that democracy is the least bad form of government. It definitely can be improved upon.

For the USA, I think having only two parties causes further problems with the democratic process.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do think that democracy is the least bad form of government. It definitely can be improved upon.

For the USA, I think having only two parties causes further problems with the democratic process.

I think that it would be better if there were 3-5 parties of relatively equal strength. (without one having the consistent upper hand over the other parties)

The larger problem (regardless of the number of parties present) is when the politicians work together to give the public the short end of the stick.

[Nurvingiel]

So, any time you feel like moving to Canada, you just send us that application eh?

We have the Liberals and the Conservatives, of fairly equal strength, with the remainder of the Parliment divided between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. The Green Party has been gaining in support, but they have yet to win any seats.

I think the rise in the popularity of the Green Party is one reason the Liberals and the Conservatives have improved their environmental policies.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Right, something is amiss here. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I'm not talking about the cheese.

What's happened to the discussion? What's happened to the arguments? This board use to have a bit of spunk about it! Have we all taken chill pills?


Right then lads and lasses, shall we?
1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.
2.
Terrorists are not just crazed madmen, they have legitimate concerns to be angry about.
3.
The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.


Discuss!

1: Simply genieus and maddness often go together... Although his only lasting contibution to the world was the volkswagon. He was evil though.

2: Takeing things way to far, and getting lissened too for some reson, if christains did this we'd get hounded.

3: Eh, I've been trying to think of a government that does not alow the maddness of the one nor the maddness of the many...
Till we come up with a better idea we're just going to sit around and think... And vote if we're 18 or over

And no, I chilled naturaly. This is denmark based?