WMD and bad intel - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #46 11-22-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's a nice summary, but it leaves out several key points.

First, five years passed between the passage of that legislation and the time of our invasion. Did we learn nothing about his WMD during those five years?

Second, I don't think the Act contemplated an essentially unilateral invasion against the wishes of just about everybody in the region. Bush has acknowledged this point with his false claims that the invasion was a last resort.

Third, that many in Congress believed that Saddam was a threat does not justify the Bush administration's lies and exaggerations about that threat. I have no sympathy for Kerry and other Democrats who complain that they were mislead into voting for the war. They didn't have full access to all the intelligence that W had, but they had plenty. Plus, they knew that W and his people are a bunch of liars. Couldn't they see that they were being sold a bill of goods? Bush mislead us into war, but he did it by misleading the American people, not Congress. Once Kerry and his ilk saw that the country had bought into Bush's sales job, they figured that the smart thing for them to do was play along.

Fourth, invading without planning for the post-war period appears to be Rumsfeld's idea. I don't think we can blame Bill and Hillary for that.

Funny but the people opposing the invasion were people getting payola from Saddam and the democrats who I bet were getting Payola. And the proof of that has been covered up so far.

Maybe if Michael Moore made the same accusations then the Democrats would believe it. After all for some perverted thought process the Democrats believe every word that fat basturd says....while they argue that the intelligence findings of the world intelligence agencys are all flawed to the point of being lies.

Honus · #47 11-22-2005, 11:17 AM

This is for all you guys out there who have made fun of my claim that Cheney lied when he said the following on Meet the Press in March 2003: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Well, if you had done your research instead of raising a bunch of red herrings about how Bill and Hillary said similar things or about the definition of the word "lie", you might have actually come up with a cogent response. I am referring to today's edition of www.dailyhowler.com, which chastises Senator Biden for "cherry picking" that same quote.

I disagree with the the dailyhowler's conclusion, but at least it's a cogent response. In the end, Cheney said that he believed that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. When I heard him say it, I understood him to be implying that he had intelligence that he couldn't share and that's why he's been talking about nuclear weapons programs instead of nuclear weapons. IMHO, his other statements about weapons programs don't excuse his unambiguous statement about reconstituted nuclear weapons.

boneheaddoctor · #48 11-22-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

This is for all you guys out there who have made fun of my claim that Cheney lied when he said the following on Meet the Press in March 2003: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Well, if you had done your research instead of raising a bunch of red herrings about how Bill and Hillary said similar things or about the definition of the word "lie", you might have actually come up with a cogent response. I am referring to today's edition of www.dailyhowler.com, which chastises Senator Biden for "cherry picking" that same quote.

I disagree with the the dailyhowler's conclusion, but at least it's a cogent response. In the end, Cheney said that he believed that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. When I heard him say it, I understood him to be implying that he had intelligence that he couldn't share and that's why he's been talking about nuclear weapons programs instead of nuclear weapons. IMHO, his other statements about weapons programs excuse his unambiguous statement about reconstituted nuclear weapons.

So is this what the lord and saviour or the DNC ....Michael Moore is preaching these days.....after all if he said it then it must be true.

peragro · #49 11-22-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

First, five years passed between the passage of that legislation and the time of our invasion. Did we learn nothing about his WMD during those five years?

OK, fastforward to 2003. Now go read all those quotes from the same democrats who felt Saddam a threat in 1998. They say the same thing don't they.

peragro · #50 11-22-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

This is for all you guys out there who have made fun of my claim that Cheney lied when he said the following on Meet the Press in March 2003: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Well, if you had done your research instead of raising a bunch of red herrings about how Bill and Hillary said similar things or about the definition of the word "lie", you might have actually come up with a cogent response. I am referring to today's edition of www.dailyhowler.com, which chastises Senator Biden for "cherry picking" that same quote.

I disagree with the the dailyhowler's conclusion, but at least it's a cogent response. In the end, Cheney said that he believed that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. When I heard him say it, I understood him to be implying that he had intelligence that he couldn't share and that's why he's been talking about nuclear weapons programs instead of nuclear weapons. IMHO, his other statements about weapons programs don't excuse his unambiguous statement about reconstituted nuclear weapons.

So Cheney lied because he said he believed (based on past performance from Iraq) that X was going to happen, you understood him to imply Y and your opinion was that his statement was unambiguous?

for what it's worth, here's the entire section you quote above:

Quote:

Yes, humans luvv to cherry-pick facts. In fact, on that very same Fox News Sunday, Joe Biden cherry-picked a pleasing quote from his opponent, Dick Cheney:

WALLACE (11/20/05): Senator Biden, in your speech in 2002 authorizing the use of force in Iraq, you said that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, that he was seeking nuclear weapons. Is the vice president right about you and other Democratic critics losing your memories?

BIDEN: He's absolutely wrong. He said that, quote, “They have reconstituted their nuclear weapons.” Simultaneously, I said—contemporaneously, I said there is absolutely no evidence of that. He said, and the president said, and implied, that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

“They have reconstituted their nuclear weapons.” Yes, it’s true—Cheney did say it. But Biden was cherry-picking his quotes, just as Gigot would later do.

Biden refers to Cheney’s appearance on the March 16, 2003 Meet the Press. Here’s the exchange, midway through the hour-long session, which Biden cherry-picks—sorry, quotes:

RUSSERT (3/16/03): Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he [Saddam] does not have a nuclear program, we [sic] disagree?

CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We've got, again, a long record here. It's not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late '70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the '80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. We found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong.

So there it is; clearly, he said it. But throughout this program, Cheney said something quite different. But his other statements didn’t suit Biden’s purpose. So Biden “fixed the intel” a bit—just as Gigot would soon do.

What did Cheney say throughout Meet the Press? He kept saying that Saddam was pursuing nukes—that he might have such weapons in coming years. For example, here is the Q-and-A which immediately precedes the one we have quoted:

RUSSERT (3/16/03): What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

CHENEY: Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

Saddam was in pursuit of nukes. Moments later, Cheney again described Saddam in pursuit, not in possession:

CHENEY: We're now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam's posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it's only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. And in light of that, we have to be prepared, I think, to take the action that is being contemplated.

Not much later, he did it again. Cheney said Saddam might acquire nukes within a couple of years:

CHENEY: Now, I can't say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don't want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there's no doubt about the outcome. There's no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there's no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he's developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

In two or three years, he might have nukes. It’s perfectly clear from the full transcript; Cheney wasn’t claiming that Saddam had nukes. He later said the “reconstituted” statement was a slip of the tongue, and the evidence supports this claim.

Honus · #51 11-22-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

OK, fastforward to 2003. Now go read all those quotes from the same democrats who felt Saddam a threat in 1998. They say the same thing don't they.

I'll take your word for it. Maybe the Democrats believed it, maybe they were going with whichever way the wind was blowing. I suspect it was more of the latter.

Botnst · #52 11-22-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'll take your word for it. Maybe the Democrats believed it, maybe they were going with whichever way the wind was blowing. I suspect it was more of the latter.

That is a truth not limited to Democrats.

B

Honus · #53 11-22-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

So Cheney lied because he said he believed (based on past performance from Iraq) that X was going to happen, you understood him to imply Y and your opinion was that his statement was unambiguous?...

That's not what I meant. Dick Cheney has demonstrated that he will say whatever will advance his cause. When he got to that point in the interview, he figured that a claim that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons would probably advance the ball for his team. So he said it.

peragro · #54 11-22-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's not what I meant.

That's what you said.

Botnst · #55 11-22-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's not what I meant. Dick Cheney has demonstrated that he will say whatever will advance his cause. When he got to that point in the interview, he figured that a claim that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons would probably advance the ball for his team. So he said it.

Did he say, "nuclear weapons" or "nuclear weapons program"?

B

peragro · #56 11-22-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That is a truth not limited to Democrats.

B

yep.

Honus · #57 11-22-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Did he say, "nuclear weapons" or "nuclear weapons program"?

B

"nuclear weapons"

Botnst · #58 11-22-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

"nuclear weapons"

Heck, NOBODY (except apparently Cheney) ever said that Saddam had nukular weapons, even before the war. The public estimates on when Saddam would have nukes, based on terrible intelligence (it turns out) was 3-8 years. His main nuke guy, the one who buried plans and key components in his backyard to hide them from the UN inspectors, said recently that Saddam was probably 8-10 years from a weapon.

Given that there was so much public intel and nobody else ever said he had nukes, I think he probably mispoke. I mean to allege that with so much contrary evidence in the hands of the intel community, Congress, allies, UN and the administration would be incompentence. Cheney maybe lots o fthings, but he isn't incompetent.

B

Honus · #59 11-22-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

That's what you said.

Not really, although I can see how you took it that way. And yes, his statement was unambiguous. Here's the quote:

"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Unambiguous.

Botnst · #60 11-22-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Not really, although I can see how you took it that way. And yes, his statement was unambiguous. Here's the quote:

"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Unambiguous.

That phrase is unambiguous. But if you put it in the context of the entire interview, then it becomes a bit more likely that he merely mispoke. Elsewhere in the interview with Russert he said that Saddam had been trying to reconstitute the program.

Here's a more thorough analysis than you or I have done, or probably care to do.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp