Ike: Why do you take what Lowry says on NR at face value but dismiss out of hand the numerous stories that Cole links to?

Let me guess. Lowry good, Cole bad.

Is this lying or is this trusting bad intelligence?

Any links or further reading on the bold part?

Intelligence did NOT say Iraq was an immediate threat to give its WMDs (if it had them) to terrorists. This was the Administration's leap from "they have them" to "they'll use them against us, oh noes". And the intelligence itself was less than conclusive in assessing Iraq's stockpile. Did Saddam have some weapons? Almost all agreed. The extent and lethality of his remaining weapons was in dispute. Numerous govt agencies provided dissenting opinions in the very NIE report the Administration used to discuss the threat.

Cheney in Aug 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

This isn't bad intel. THIS IS A LIE. There was doubt. Period. And Cheney knows this as he used the National Intelligence Estimate as part of his case, and there was doubt from several agencies in that very report. There was doubt regarding the lethality of the stockpile, and there was massive doubt about Saddam's intentions even if he had a lethal stockpile. To say there is "no doubt" Saddam was amassing WMDs with the purpose of using them on us is a LIE!!!

Take a look at the link, it should be eye-opening if you believe this was just a case of innocent bad intel.

no, you questioned it and I laughed at it

The issue was that our intelligence said the information was bad. The Bush administration pushed any and all information that looked bad for Iraq despite analysis from our own intelligence agencies that the 'evidence' was suspect at best.

As I recall, there was even information (I believe relating to the Niger documents about the 'tube') where our own intelligence agency said the information was bad. But they knew that the British were still touting it. So the US statement simply pointed to what the Brits were saying despite knowing that we thought the brits were wrong.

You could also argue that the Administration continually tried to link 9/11 to Saddam so much so that a year later half the country polled thought Saddam did it despite the fact that there was no link.

Finally, the administration repeatedly promised that they had bullet proof evidence to support there assertions which never materialized.

If we were having this discussion a couple of years ago I might have links for ready for you. I'm only going to do so much to rehash this debate. Though I'll drop something...
Here's a link (Note - Drumheller appears in several stories. Search his name and you can find him in association with US papers as well.)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-...344306427.html

Drumheller, from the article has written the book "On the Brink: An insider's Account of How the White House Compromised American Intelligence"

Here's the description from Amazon.com:
You can also research the whole Plame affair. If I remember correctly Wilson had presented evidence that the administration knowingly exxagerated claims about the Niger documents relating to Uranium acquisition. His investigation for the CIA found that Iraq had not attempted to purchase uranium.

Of course we all know what happened when he brought this forward.

Anyhoo... I'm not going to spend hours going over this. I'm fairly confident that Ike is part of a select minority who, despite all the contrary evidence (from PNACs plans to invade Iraq years before to the testimony of people within the Bush administration sayins on 9/12 they were planning on how to turn this as justification to go to Iraq) some will choose to believe it was all on the up and up. Its like arguing against someone's religious faith. non productive.

which is why every other country out there came to the same conclusion right?
Recent report showed links between AQ and Iraq, but not in 9/11. Also, please show the poll, because it does not exist
Drumheller doesn't make the case that Bush lied.
Nothing, there was no criminal action, the person who leaked was never charged for a variety of reasons. No one thought armitage was trying to take down wilson or plame.
You don't know or refuse to accept basic facts on the matter, but I'm the one arguing on religious faith? I don't get it.

It's true. It doesn't exist.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

That one shows 70%, though.

And from JUNE OF THIS LAST YEAR, 41%

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_4...ddam_0624.html

every country did not come to the conclusion that the US did. As you may recall the UN security council believed that the inspections were working and did not want to go to war. You may also recall that Bush said he would abide by the decisions of the council. Only when they didn't vote to go to war did Bush decide that he had to go anyways.

So wrong again.

Honestly... do you know you're wrong and just say the opposite anyways? I'm starting to be skeptical that you're really this out of the loop or just so partisan that you post stuff you don't believe in.

This poll was all over the place.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

So you're wrong again.

Is there some point where you're shown wrong enough times that you ever revise your opinion?

I see. Misrepresenting the evidence isn't lying? I'm sorry that you have your own definition of what constitutes a lie.

As I said, having this conversation with you is a waste. I'll let others read what Yossarian has posted, what Drumheller has said, the Plame Case, etc. and come to their conclusions. One thing we're clear on re: is you're consistantly wrong.

Jeez. You're ridiculous. Nothing happened? An undercover CIA agent was ousted. All of which is beside the point... the point is that our intelligence agency knew that the Niger evidence was a deadend. Because the CIA (Wilson) had reported as much in their internal investigations. But that didn't stop the Bush administration for using the Niger information in the drumming for war.

Yes. Your listing of facts was impressive. Particularly like denying the poll that's been listed multiple times in this thread.

Kurto-
-The UNSC never said that Saddam had no WMDs. Furthermore, the UNSC didn't approve the Iraq war because of Russian and French veto threats, not a lack of plurality.
-I was wrong about the poll, but you did not address the fact that there was/is an AQ-Iraq link.
-Fitzgerald found that no crime was committed.
-The Niger Uranium story was not a major part of our case on Saddam's WMD at all.

Is this a serious question? The arguments Ike always uses are the same arguments he clambers on about other people using. "Debating" Ike is a frustrating experience to say the least. Even if you show him EVIDENCE of him being wrong it'll just be "strawman, hyperbole...or LOL at that source!?!?"

Ike, I already addressed this point.

Iraq has some WMDs != Iraq is amassing WMDs to use against the United States

Cheney and the Administration in the run up for war were very clear in stating that our intelligence left "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs and was ammassing them to threaten our allies or ourselves. This was a lie. The NIE estimate from 2002 very clearly had mixed opinions and loads of doubt as to what Iraq was up to, and what state its arsenal was in. And senior intel officials expressed skepticism (and in some cases, flat out denial) at the assertion that Saddam would give a WMD to a terrorist group.

So, continuing with this story that all the administration was just echoing an intelligence consensus is flat out dishonest.

Again I'll ask you: Saddam had chem/bio weapons for 20+ years before we invaded. Why didn't he ever give them to a Palestinian or other terrorist group to attack his arch rival Israel in all that time if his intent was to give terrorists WMDs? The issue isn't whether he ever had them, it's whether he was a threat. So let's avoid this tangential b.s. It's telling that your arguing technicalities in kurto's post in this thread and avoided my very direct posts to you and Bruno in which I already spelled this point out.

Maybe not, but they're still distorting the truth. Saying "Bush lied" is just plain ignorant. As such, I see no reason they wouldn't distort a "smoking gun" any way they could as well.

Saddam's FBI interrogator.

I'm still gathering some sources to counter your argument, which seems to be supported by one quote from Cheney and an article from commondreams.org which isn't exactly what I would call an unbiased source.

While you wait, enjoy this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25jjXgzx78

It may not be productive, but it isn't ignorant. I don't know your standards, but claiming there's "no doubt" about something when your own intel sources are raising numerous doubts, and claiming there's agreement amongst intel analysts when there isn't, is lying to me and most people.

Bush, Mar 2003: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

Cheney, Aug 2002: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

There are numerous examples of these shenanigans, like Bush saying in 2002 "according to the British government, [Saddam] could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given" AFTER this information was already ruled by our own intelligence sources (and briefed to the administration) as bogus. But, ah, Bush said "according to the British government" so technically didn't lie, right? Depends on what your definition of is is.

One quote from Cheney?

Are you really denying that the Administration said there was no doubt about Iraq's capabilities and intentions? This was the principal issue which justified the war, for chrissakes.

And the article was only reposted on that site. It's a Knight-Ridder article as I stated in the post (K-R was a major media player that was since bought out). What exactly are you going to counter anyway?

A) That there really was no doubt about Iraq's capabilities and intentions? Good luck since everything we've learned since the invasion has shown there was way MORE uncertainty than we ever realized.

OR

B) That the administration warned us that there was considerable dissent (or at least doubt) in the intel community regarding Iraq's intentions and capabilities. I'm really looking forward to seeing that.

I don't mean it's ignorant necessarily because he didn't lie but because if he did, well pretty much every politician in D.C. was lying to us, including the previous Democratic candidate, and laying it all at Bush's feet is ignorant.

Which other group of politicians argued that there was no doubt Saddam's threat was so imminent that we must invade first?

You really want to say "every politician" made this claim?

Again, saying Saddam has WMDs is not equivalent to Saddam has WMDs, is increasing his stockpile, and is amassing them to give to terrorists so they can use them against you! And soon!

Please quote Bush saying the second thing.

Isn't this a bit of a different issue than whether or not bush lied? If we're just trying to determine if bush lied about the threat, I don't think we should include his view on what the next step would be.

I don't think this will help Bush even if true. Does anybody think Syria having WMDs is much better than Iraq having them? Basically, the the criticism will go from "we had no reason to go in" to "once we got in you messed up so badly as to make the war useless."

(I am not necessarily saying that Bush or the military messed up as maybe it would be really hard to prevent Saddam from giving them to another country, but that should have been factored in when he decided to go to war.)

From Bush's War:

Are you saying my paraphrasing in A is vastly different than Cheney's actual quote in B?

A: Saddam has WMDs, is increasing his stockpile, and is amassing them to give to terrorists so they can use them against you! And soon!

B: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

"If true, it would finally shut up the 'Bush lied, people died' people"

But Bush said we already found the WMDs.