The Decider

[ksdb]

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04) Mr. Soul’s source that criticized Fox and the WH of dirty tricks came AFTER your citation showing that Clarke wanted his records released. Was John Dean oblivious to this fact when he wrote his scathing criticism?? Wouldn’t surprise me at all. Nevertheless it is telling that Clarke is willing to have his statements put on the record, he just wants it ALL on the record, presumably to provide context. That sounds like a man with nothing to hide.

It certainly doesn’t sound like he’s a victim the way John Dean portrayed him.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04) No one called him a hack. He may be nothing more than opportunist who knew that he could make a lot of money with a book that panders to conspiracy-minded Democrat hacks. No, as I said you can’t call him a hack - even your president praised him as having made a significant contribution. Is it the case that everyone who writes a book that disagrees with your position did so for the money but those who write books that agree with your position are trying to impart knowledge?

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my position. I’m merely pointing out that this guy’s story has changed and it appears to be because he has something to gain from being provacative. Either he had no integrity when he worked in the WH or he had no integrity afterwards. Maybe Bush wouldn’t have praised had he known what was going to follow.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

At least Clarke wrote his book on his own time; Frist wrote his while he was being paid to represent his constituents - which is the more opportunistic?

Whether Frist did something unethical or not does not justify Clarke.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04) The Drowning Street memo revealed that civilian and military leadership expected to encounter WMD counterattacks from Saddam and were making preparation plans for the forces. This would have been unnecessary had the President truly known that intelligence was faulty. And the price of bananas in Jamaica has remained relatively stable. And together we can probably cite several hundred more non sequiturs.

This isn’t a non sequitur. The Drowning Memo shows that leadership expected to encounter WMD, which contradicts the notion that there was a basis to fix intelligence.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

I said I was prepared to give your president the benefit of the doubt despite what is contained in the ‘Downing Street Memo’ and I did not suggest that he knew the intelligence was faulty. On the contrary, I assume he believed it.

Then unlike the others around here, you would have to admit that Bush did NOT lie.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

The alternative (that he acted without believing it) is unthinkable; only a madman would risk so many lives without just cause.

Yet, this is what most of the liberals seem to believe: that Bush is a madman and a liar. I’m glad you don’t align yourself with them.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

Nonetheless, the intelligence was faulty and your president needs to take responsibility for that.

The question is what is the appropriate response and on that we would probably agree to disagree.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,12:05)

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04) The part about resigning is a gratuitous expectation on your part, especially since WMD intelligence was only one factor in making the decision to commit to military action. It is only gratuitous if you fail to share my sense of honour which, evidently, is the case with your president. No matter how many other factors were at play, the WMD issue is the one your president identified as primary; he called the tune, now balks at paying the piper.

WMD was still a valid concern in spite of whether or not we had faulty intelligence. As long as Saddam remained in power, he would have remained a potential threat, especially without any certainty about the status of his WMD programs. Twelve years of UN inpsections did NOT provide certainty. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would NOT provide certainty. Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt was never an appropriate option. Saddam could have chosen to cooperate peacefully, make a deal and go into exile, but having chosen to take a stand made our choices much more limited in dealing with him.

[system]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

The Drowning Memo shows that leadership expected to encounter WMD, which contradicts the notion that there was a basis to fix intelligence.

Of course they expected to find WDMs. They were told over an over and over that they were there…Yet, when NONE WERE FOUND…we went to war anyway.

The 2003 SOTU is filled with much that hasn’t panned out, and much that had already been discredited, and yet for month and years later Bush and especially Cheney kept saying that stuff was true. Hindsight or not we went to war based on “facts” that simply were not true.

[BillClarke]

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

It certainly doesn’t sound like he’s a victim the way John Dean portrayed him.

It certainly does sound as if he is being unfairly targeted regardless of how John Dean (or anyone else) portrays him. One would expect that, if Clarke lied or changed his story, he would hide behind the cloak of ‘classified testimony’ rather than demand that his testimony be de-classified. I don’t think you can get around the fact that his position is only consistent with that of a person who has nothing to hide.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my position. I’m merely pointing out that this guy’s story has changed and it appears to be because he has something to gain from being provacative. Either he had no integrity when he worked in the WH or he had no integrity afterwards. Maybe Bush wouldn’t have praised had he known what was going to follow.

That would be valid if his story changed but you have yet to demonstrate that that is the case. His behaviour (as I indicated above) indicates that his story has not changed and that the only discrepancies are those of the tone adopted in the backgrounder versus the tone used in his book. To call his integrity into question without evidence is tantamount to smearing.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Whether Frist did something unethical or not does not justify Clarke.

But the issue, as you defined it, isn’t one of ethics but rather one of opportunism. You have, without justification, impugned Clarke as opportunistic. I have presented you with another example (Frist) wherein there is at least some indication of opportunism (writing a book while employed to do something else) on which you decline to comment. Accordingly,I think my inference of some bias on your part is warranted.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

This isn’t a non sequitur. The Drowning Memo shows that leadership expected to encounter WMD, which contradicts the notion that there was a basis to fix intelligence.

It is a non sequitur in that I had already conceded that your president had intelligence he interpreted as indicating the presence of WMD; you were gilding the lily.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Then unlike the others around here, you would have to admit that Bush did NOT lie.

It is impossible for any of us to know whether he lied or not. The circumstances suggest that he wanted to reach a certain conclusion, sought evidence to justify that conclusion, and found it. Clarke, himself, suggests the distinct possibility that your president may not have even seen either of the two reports that Clarke, the CIA, and the FBI prepared. So, as far as I can see, calling your president a liar isn’t supportable. But the conclusion he reached - whether justified in reaching it or not - was wrong and thousands of people are dead because of that error. He is your president; he needs to take responsibility for that.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Yet, this is what most of the liberals seem to believe: that Bush is a madman and a liar. I’m glad you don’t align yourself with them.

I can’t justify a conclusion on his mental state or veracity based on the information I have so I give the man the benefit of the doubt. To my mind, that is the proper thing to do. But the information I have clearly indicates that he made a mistake and thousand of people died as a direct result of that mistake. His motivations and the circumstances around that mistake are moot; it is the fact of that mistake that demands consequences.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

The question is what is the appropriate response and on that we would probably agree to disagree.

Fair enough, what do you suggest is an appropriate response for a commander-in-chief who makes an error that results in a catastrophic loss of human life? Nothing? Business as usual? Forget it and let’s move on?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,14:23)

WMD was still a valid concern in spite of whether or not we had faulty intelligence. As long as Saddam remained in power, he would have remained a potential threat, especially without any certainty about the status of his WMD programs. Twelve years of UN inpsections did NOT provide certainty. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would NOT provide certainty. Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt was never an appropriate option. Saddam could have chosen to cooperate peacefully, make a deal and go into exile, but having chosen to take a stand made our choices much more limited in dealing with him.

But, as Jimmy Durante so eloquently put it: “Dem are da conditions dat prevail”. There are plenty of governments that should be overturned in lots of places in the world and many of them are potential threats to your nation and other nations but you are not justified in overthrowing them unless the potential threat becomes a real threat. The conclusion that Saddam had WMDs meant that he had become a real threat and that justified your invasion. That conclusion turned out to be in error and therefore your invasion was not justified. What are you prepared to do about that?

[ksdb]

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

It certainly does sound as if he is being unfairly targeted regardless of how John Dean (or anyone else) portrays him. One would expect that, if Clarke lied or changed his story, he would hide behind the cloak of ‘classified testimony’ rather than demand that his testimony be de-classified. I don’t think you can get around the fact that his position is only consistent with that of a person who has nothing to hide.

Or maybe that of a bluffer who doesn’t think he’ll be called on it, because the LMSM was not that interested in finding out the truth.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

That would be valid if his story changed but you have yet to demonstrate that that is the case. His behaviour (as I indicated above) indicates that his story has not changed and that the only discrepancies are those of the tone adopted in the backgrounder versus the tone used in his book. To call his integrity into question without evidence is tantamount to smearing.

His story did change, not just the tone. When his book came out, he made claims that reports were filed but were never seen by the President and that the President wasn’t willing to do things he didn’t want to do.

"I don’t think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don’t think he sees memos that he doesn’t-- wouldn’t like the answer."

In the backgrounder, he said otherwise.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think. QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn’t sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You’re saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that’s correct.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

But the issue, as you defined it, isn’t one of ethics but rather one of opportunism. You have, without justification, impugned Clarke as opportunistic. I have presented you with another example (Frist) wherein there is at least some indication of opportunism (writing a book while employed to do something else) on which you decline to comment.

It doesn’t change anything whether the issue is ethics or opportunism or whatever semantic distinction you want to hide behind. Frist has nothing to with Clarke. Clarke made statements in support of the administration as an employee and then changed his tune AFTER he resigned. If he had integrity, he would have refused to do the backgrounder or spoken his mind and let the chips fall where they may. Waiting until he resigns brings his integrity into question.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Accordingly,I think my inference of some bias on your part is warranted.

Bias to the truth is warranted.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

It is a non sequitur in that I had already conceded that your president had intelligence he interpreted as indicating the presence of WMD; you were gilding the lily.

You made no formal concession; you just said you were willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I connected the facts in order to remove your doubt.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

It is impossible for any of us to know whether he lied or not.

Tell that to TomS, DrG, Phoo or MrSoul.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

The circumstances suggest that he wanted to reach a certain conclusion, sought evidence to justify that conclusion, and found it.

The circumstances don’t suggest that at all; just the politicos who can’t stand Bush.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Clarke, himself, suggests the distinct possibility that your president may not have even seen either of the two reports that Clarke, the CIA, and the FBI prepared.

And I’ve shown evidence that Clarke said the President had been briefed on other relevant issues. Clarke offered no solid proof to support his newer allegations.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

So, as far as I can see, calling your president a liar isn’t supportable. But the conclusion he reached - whether justified in reaching it or not - was wrong and thousands of people are dead because of that error. He is your president; he needs to take responsibility for that.

There’s only a small part of the conclusion that was wrong. Thousands of people are dead because terrorists choose to hide among the innocent and sacrifice those who would choose to live peacefully. Saddam is responsible for selfishly choosing to hide instead of surrender.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

I can’t justify a conclusion on his mental state or veracity based on the information I have so I give the man the benefit of the doubt. To my mind, that is the proper thing to do. But the information I have clearly indicates that he made a mistake and thousand of people died as a direct result of that mistake. His motivations and the circumstances around that mistake are moot; it is the fact of that mistake that demands consequences.

Again, you misplace the responsibility entirely. Saddam could have stepped down peacefully and the war in Iraq would never have happened.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

Fair enough, what do you suggest is an appropriate response for a commander-in-chief who makes an error that results in a catastrophic loss of human life? Nothing? Business as usual? Forget it and let’s move on?

I completely disagree with the premise behind your question. Even it were true, apologizing and moving on in a constructive manner seems appropriate.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

But, as Jimmy Durante so eloquently put it: “Dem are da conditions dat prevail”. There are plenty of governments that should be overturned in lots of places in the world and many of them are potential threats to your nation and other nations but you are not justified in overthrowing them unless the potential threat becomes a real threat.

There are NOT plenty of governments who continually defied international resolutions for 12 years and who refused to surrender when given an ultimatum. We can deal with other nations as is deemed appropriate by the given circumstances.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

The conclusion that Saddam had WMDs meant that he had become a real threat and that justified your invasion.

The conclusion was the Saddam would NOT prove that he had disarmed and would NEVER cooperate. That was PART of what justified the invasion.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,14:23)

That conclusion turned out to be in error and therefore your invasion was not justified. What are you prepared to do about that?

The invasion WAS justified and we are doing what needed to be done.

[system]

I don’t know…this just hit me funny as heck… http://www.republicanpress.com/artman/publish/article_49.shtml

[MidnightToker]

In regards to Clarke, any descrepancies between a private briefing & his book are really unimportant to me because 1) I don’t think they were really that great, and 2) it’s his testimony, under oath, to the 9/11 Commission that is important, although I do believe that his book is also true.

In that testimony Clarke explained why he spun things differently when he was Bush’s employee. I’m surprised that anyone is surprised by this because this is exactly what politicians & their associates do - spin the truth. The purpose of the FOX piece was to discredit Clarke so that nothing he said would be believable. Fortunately that didn’t work because Clarke is a credible guy and the 9/11 Commission believed him. Many Americans believed him.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

An excellent place to start is the 2003 SOTU address. There were at least six separate reasons listed

I reviewed that speech & everything Bush said had to do with WMD, nuclear weapons, UN inspections, the famous 16 words: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”, etc. Everything Bush told us was an example of cherry-picking the intelligence to follow the policy. The recent interview with the CIA agent re-affrimed this. Everything Bush said was to paint a picture of Iraq being an “immediate” threat.

In that speech, Bush set it up so Iraq could not escape war. Bush maintained that Iraq had to disarm, but the problem was there were no possible way Iraq could prove that it had disarmed that would have been acceptable to Bush. Anyone with any common sense could see that war with Iraq was inevitable.

In fact, Iraq was NOT an immediate threat. We got weapons inspectors back in Iraq which was enough of a goal at that time.

In fact, Bush had no real evidence that Saddam was tied to 9/11 and he later admitted that.

The fact is that Iran had direct ties to Al Qaeda which was our immediate enemy.

The fact is that Bush didn’t take Al Qaeda that serious, and Clarke was “demoted” from his high-level terrorist position that he had under Clinton.

[ksdb]

I counted SIX separate reasons given for invading Iraq. Below that is the text to the speech. Most critics only focus on a very narrow part of reason No. 2.

1. Protect America and American interests
2. Locate, confirm and if necessary dimantle and destroy any Iraq WMD
3. Root out terrorists and their supporters
4. Protect the Middle East
5. Liberate the Iraqi People (which would require regime change, i.e., removal of Saddam from power)
6. Stop Human Rights Violations in Iraq

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s – Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you. Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom. Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves. America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity. We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

[MidnightToker]

Come on ksdb - don’t be intellectually dishonest now. Many of those items on your list were general items not specifically about Iraq.

You know as well as I do, that Bush had to make the case that the threat from Saddam was imminent or immediate, to justify a war to the American people.

You also know that we did not have good enough intelligence to make all the claims that Bush was making.

You know these things but you just won’t admit them.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East

Show proof that Saddam had ambitions to conquer the Middle East?

For the record, if I had believed any of the claims Bush was making about Iraq, I would have fully supported the war in Iraq as I supported the war in Afghanistan.

I find it funny that you & others will continue to defend Bush, when today we have the proof of Bush’s lies: NO WMD, NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM, etc., etc., etc.

[BillClarke]

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

Or maybe that of a bluffer who doesn’t think he’ll be called on it, because the LMSM was not that interested in finding out the truth.

Well, if you count John Dean as a member of the LMSM then they apparently already had the truth since he correctly reported that there are no factual discrepancies between the backgrounder and Clarke’s book. It would be one heck of a bluff to make but, fortunately for Clarke, he is holding a Royal Flush in the form of the truth. His demand for complete disclosure is to demonstrate that the leak of a line here and there (from his emails, etc) does not do justice to the truth.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

His story did change, not just the tone. When his book came out, he made claims that reports were filed but were never seen by the President and that the President wasn’t willing to do things he didn’t want to do. In the backgrounder, he said otherwise.

You’ve done a little creative editing there. Had you quoted the two prior paragraphs it would be obvious that Clarke’s statements about the president being briefed do not refer to the same reports.
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Whereas the reference to the president possibly not being shown reports refers to the two reports Clarke, the CIA, and FBI prepared pursuant to the presidents demand of September 12, 2001.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ "He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.” Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’ "I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don’t think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don’t think he sees memos that he doesn’t-- wouldn’t like the answer."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

It doesn’t change anything whether the issue is ethics or opportunism or whatever semantic distinction you want to hide behind. Frist has nothing to with Clarke. Clarke made statements in support of the administration as an employee and then changed his tune AFTER he resigned. If he had integrity, he would have refused to do the backgrounder or spoken his mind and let the chips fall where they may. Waiting until he resigns brings his integrity into question.

As an employee of the administration, Clarke agreed to spin the backgrounder appropriately but did not lie - his integrity is intact. Had he refused to spin the backgrounder you would now be accusing him of disloyalty to his employer - he can’t win either way, in your view.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

Bias to the truth is warranted.

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

You made no formal concession; you just said you were willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I connected the facts in order to remove your doubt.

Oh, you needed the concession to be formal, a simple concession wasn’t adequate - my mistake. Tell me, do I need to have concessions notarized to make them formal or will a simple caveat like: ‘THIS IS A FORMAL CONCESSION’ suffice?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

Tell that to TomS, DrG, Phoo or MrSoul.

And yourself - it is equally as impossible to know that he did NOT lie as to know that he did.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

The circumstances don’t suggest that at all; just the politicos who can’t stand Bush.

This may be another case in which I failed to make things formal - the circumstances suggest that to me. And since I am neither a politico nor anti-Bush, your assertion is therefore false.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

And I’ve shown evidence that Clarke said the President had been briefed on other relevant issues. Clarke offered no solid proof to support his newer allegations.

It is abundantly clear from the language used that he is speculating that the president wasn’t shown those two reports; one does not normally prove speculations.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

There’s only a small part of the conclusion that was wrong. Thousands of people are dead because terrorists choose to hide among the innocent and sacrifice those who would choose to live peacefully. Saddam is responsible for selfishly choosing to hide instead of surrender.

It was the primary justification for going to war and all the subsequent deaths accrue to it. Were that not so, why would the administration have gone to such lengths to demonstate that they had such justification? (Powell’s address et al) In fact, if the administration did not require evidence of the existence of WMD why did they wait to invade at all? Why didn’t they invade Iraq instead of Afganistan? Why delay?
I’m sorry but you just seem to be talking nonsense, WMDs were the stated reason for the invasion.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

Again, you misplace the responsibility entirely. Saddam could have stepped down peacefully and the war in Iraq would never have happened.

It is not your place, nor your president’s, to decide who is entitled to rule in a foreign country when it represents no real threat to you or your allies. You invaded Iraq for the stated reason that it did represent a real threat but it turned out that you were wrong.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

I completely disagree with the premise behind your question. Even it were true, apologizing and moving on in a constructive manner seems appropriate.

Let the dead bury the dead, huh?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

There are NOT plenty of governments who continually defied international resolutions for 12 years and who refused to surrender when given an ultimatum. We can deal with other nations as is deemed appropriate by the given circumstances.

But only when it suits your purposes to do so. Do you not see that your actions in Iraq play precisely into the hands of Bin Laden? That you behaved exactly as he prdicted you would do? You’ve done more for the recruitment of future terrorists than Bin Laden could ever have managed on his own.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

The conclusion was the Saddam would NOT prove that he had disarmed and would NEVER cooperate. That was PART of what justified the invasion.

He was cooperating with UN Weapons Inspectors - you just kept upping the ante.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46)

The invasion WAS justified and we are doing what needed to be done.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this - clearly I’ll never change your mind about it. I am just truly sorry that the price must be paid in blood.

[system]

From a European, Scandinavian POV:

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,17:24)

I counted SIX separate reasons given for invading Iraq. Below that is the text to the speech. Most critics only focus on a very narrow part of reason No. 2. 1. Protect America and American interests

This could mean literally anything

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

2. Locate, confirm and if necessary dimantle and destroy any Iraq WMD

Like the UN inspectors had been hiking around Iraq, scrathcing their butts for years just for the fun of it?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

3. Root out terrorists and their supporters

At best an even vaguer excuse for the utterly vague point #1

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

4. Protect the Middle East

From what? Themselves?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

5. Liberate the Iraqi People (which would require regime change, i.e., removal of Saddam from power)

Fair enough, at least it’s an honest & straightforward point

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

6. Stop Human Rights Violations in Iraq

Violations like capital punishment/death penalty/whatever you guys call it?

[MidnightToker]

teryeah - right on!

The fact is that Bush would not have been able to sell the war on #5 or #6.

So he had to sell it on #1 and #3 but to do that he had to cherry-pick intel and stretttttchhhhh the truth.

[system]

Quote (ksdb @ April 28 2006,04:22)

What do you think about Herm Edwards taking over the coaching reins?? I’m interested to see what he can do. He doesn’t have quite the track records that Vermeil or Schottenheimer have had.

I’m pretty excited. I totally appreciate what Vermeil did, but I do think it’s time for a change. I’m really optimistic this year, more than I have been since 2003.

[ksdb]

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46) Or maybe that of a bluffer who doesn’t think he’ll be called on it, because the LMSM was not that interested in finding out the truth. Well, if you count John Dean as a member of the LMSM then they apparently already had the truth since he correctly reported that there are no factual discrepancies between the backgrounder and Clarke’s book. It would be one heck of a bluff to make but, fortunately for Clarke, he is holding a Royal Flush in the form of the truth. His demand for complete disclosure is to demonstrate that the leak of a line here and there (from his emails, etc) does not do justice to the truth.

I don’t count Dean as a member of the LMSM, just pointing out the LMSM doesn’t have much reason to investigate Clarke’s hypocrisy because they agree with the claims in his book. Jim Angle and Andrea Mitchell saw otherwise. Dean did nothing more than portray Clarke as a victim which was total nonsense.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

[ Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46) His story did change, not just the tone. When his book came out, he made claims that reports were filed but were never seen by the President and that the President wasn’t willing to do things he didn’t want to do. In the backgrounder, he said otherwise. You’ve done a little creative editing there. Had you quoted the two prior paragraphs it would be obvious that Clarke’s statements about the president being briefed do not refer to the same reports.

I didn’t claim that he referred to the SAME reports. I showed that the claim was NOT consistent with the SOP as described in the backgrounder.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

[[<!–QuoteBegin> Quote Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html Whereas the reference to the president possibly not being shown reports refers to the two reports Clarke, the CIA, and FBI prepared pursuant to the presidents demand of September 12, 2001. <!–QuoteBegin> Quote "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ "He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.” Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’ "I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don’t think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don’t think he sees memos that he doesn’t-- wouldn’t like the answer."

This part is nothing more than innuendo and speculation. I’m not buying Clarke’s book to see if he actually presents any hard evidence.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

[ Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46) It doesn’t change anything whether the issue is ethics or opportunism or whatever semantic distinction you want to hide behind. Frist has nothing to with Clarke. Clarke made statements in support of the administration as an employee and then changed his tune AFTER he resigned. If he had integrity, he would have refused to do the backgrounder or spoken his mind and let the chips fall where they may. Waiting until he resigns brings his integrity into question. As an employee of the administration, Clarke agreed to spin the backgrounder appropriately but did not lie - his integrity is intact. Had he refused to spin the backgrounder you would now be accusing him of disloyalty to his employer - he can’t win either way, in your view.

Nonsense. If he was honest, he wouldn’t be out “spinning” for the administration at all and he wouldn’t have his past coming up to expose his hypocrisy. He could have resigned immediately if he felt like there were problems.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

[ Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,16:46) Bias to the truth is warranted. Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook.

Bias can also be defined as a preference, and I have a preference for the truth.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

Oh, you needed the concession to be formal, a simple concession wasn’t adequate - my mistake. Tell me, do I need to have concessions notarized to make them formal or will a simple caveat like: ‘THIS IS A FORMAL CONCESSION’ suffice?

It’s nice that you’re being melodramatic, but I merely gave you an explanation for my earlier comments.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

And yourself - it is equally as impossible to know that he did NOT lie as to know that he did.

The burden of proof falls on those who make the accusations of dishonesty. I’ve yet to see someone step up with solid evidence of lies.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

This may be another case in which I failed to make things formal - the circumstances suggest that to me. And since I am neither a politico nor anti-Bush, your assertion is therefore false.

You’re here debating politics. Like it or not, that makes you a politico.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

It is abundantly clear from the language used that he is speculating that the president wasn’t shown those two reports; one does not normally prove speculations.

And why should such speculation be taken seriously, especially when the backgrounder shows no basis for such speculation??

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

It was the primary justification for going to war and all the subsequent deaths accrue to it. Were that not so, why would the administration have gone to such lengths to demonstate that they had such justification? (Powell’s address et al) In fact, if the administration did not require evidence of the existence of WMD why did they wait to invade at all? Why didn’t they invade Iraq instead of Afganistan? Why delay? I’m sorry but you just seem to be talking nonsense, WMDs were the stated reason for the invasion.

WMDs were only one of SIX reasons stated for the invasion. It’s in the 2003 SOTU. You can’t just throw out the other reasons because it’s not convenient or you don’t like the other reasons. It was multifactored decision. Powell’s appeal to the UN was an effort to build a meaningful coalition, which could have put much more diplomatic pressure on Saddam to comply fully. Powell needed to present evidence to try to sway any of the countries who were on the fence. We know that France and Germany had conflicts of interest. Regardless, our national interests are not at the mercy of the UN’s whims. Besides, the lack of response by the UN did nothing but embolden Hussein, who was already used to playing them for chumps.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

It is not your place, nor your president’s, to decide who is entitled to rule in a foreign country when it represents no real threat to you or your allies. You invaded Iraq for the stated reason that it did represent a real threat but it turned out that you were wrong.

Who would have thought that some guys with box cutters could hijack American airplanes and crash them into buildings and kill thousands of people?? Saddam had more resources available and presented a much larger, REAL threat. We had NO CERTAINTY about the threat potential until Saddam was removed from power.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

Let the dead bury the dead, huh?

This is hardly the case.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

But only when it suits your purposes to do so. Do you not see that your actions in Iraq play precisely into the hands of Bin Laden?

You mean he wants to be in permanent hiding and live inside a cave the rest of his life???

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

That you behaved exactly as he prdicted you would do?

Ignoring him turned out to be more dangerous.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

You’ve done more for the recruitment of future terrorists than Bin Laden could ever have managed on his own.

Nonsense. We killed more terrorists than we would have by ignoring them.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

He was cooperating with UN Weapons Inspectors - you just kept upping the ante.

David Kay said that that he wasn’t cooperating in his reports.

Quote (BillClarke @ May 05 2006,17:42)

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this - clearly I’ll never change your mind about it. I am just truly sorry that the price must be paid in blood.

It doesn’t HAVE TO BE paid in blood at all. Those who resist could more easily choose to join the efforts to build a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

[ksdb]

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

From a European, Scandinavian POV: Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,17:24) I counted SIX separate reasons given for invading Iraq. Below that is the text to the speech. Most critics only focus on a very narrow part of reason No. 2. 1. Protect America and American interests This could mean literally anything

It could but it doesn’t. What part of protecting America is too vague for you??

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote 2. Locate, confirm and if necessary dimantle and destroy any Iraq WMD Like the UN inspectors had been hiking around Iraq, scrathcing their butts for years just for the fun of it?

Had Saddam cooperated, it wouldn’t have taken years and years.

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote 3. Root out terrorists and their supporters At best an even vaguer excuse for the utterly vague point #1

Nonsense. We’ve killed scores of terrorists including top members of Al Queda.

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote 4. Protect the Middle East From what? Themselves?

Saddam had made threats on neighboring countries including Isreal. This isn’t that hard to understand.

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote 5. Liberate the Iraqi People (which would require regime change, i.e., removal of Saddam from power) Fair enough, at least it’s an honest & straightforward point

Actually just as honest and straightforward as the others.

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote 6. Stop Human Rights Violations in Iraq Violations like capital punishment/death penalty/whatever you guys call it?

Capital punishment doesn’t occur until after a fair trial. Saddam regularly skipped over that part.

[ksdb]

Quote (Former Member Gone @ May 05 2006,18:15)

Quote (ksdb @ April 28 2006,04:22) What do you think about Herm Edwards taking over the coaching reins?? I’m interested to see what he can do. He doesn’t have quite the track records that Vermeil or Schottenheimer have had. I’m pretty excited. I totally appreciate what Vermeil did, but I do think it’s time for a change. I’m really optimistic this year, more than I have been since 2003.

I thought Vermeil would have more success, but he never quite got over the hump. That seems to be Kansas City’s curse. I remember how we used to bring in all the quarterbacks and players who were past their prime: DeBerg, Kreig, Montana and Marcus Allen. Vermeil was basically a coach who was past his prime. He did do some good things, but hopefully we’ll have a whole new attitude this year.

[system]

Bias
Bias (disambiguation)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bias
http://glossary.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-004/_0587.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/bias
http://education.yahoo.com/referen…0152900

[system]

Looks like it’s cut and paste day at Middle School.

: p

[MidnightToker]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Dean did nothing more than portray Clarke as a victim which was total nonsense.

Total BS! This just means that you didn’t even read Dean’s article with any kind of an open mind. You’re just a typical right-winger in my book ksdb - you believe what you want to believe and you accuse you’re opponents of bias & doing the same thing.

Clarke was probably asked to do that backgrounder. What we he supposed to do - go in & tell the truth and be fired, or quit in protest?

I’ve read most of Clarke’s book & it’s excellent. His 9/11 testimony is very good too.

Look at what Clarke actually said when questioned by Thompson:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true? CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you’re referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn’t worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing. THOMPSON: Well, let’s take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don’t want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January – that’s mid- January, 2001 – to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy – that would be the Clinton policy – including all of the lethal covert action findings which we’ve now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy? CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect. THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption? CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case. THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case? CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make. THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it? CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I’ve done it for several presidents. THOMPSON: Well, OK, over the course of the summer, they developed implementation details. The principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold. Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold? CLARKE: Authorized but not appropriated. THOMPSON: Well, but the Congress appropriates, don’t they, Mr. Clarke? CLARKE: Well, within the executive branch, there are two steps as well. In the executive branch, there’s the policy process which you can compare to authorization, which is to say we would like to spend this amount of money for this program. And then there is the second step, the budgetary step, which is to find the offsets. And that had not been done. In fact, it wasn’t done until after September 11th. THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Pakistan, was the policy on Pakistan changed? CLARKE: Yes, sir it was. THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed? CLARKE: Yes, sir. THOMPSON: Changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance, was that changed? CLARKE: Well, let me back up. I said yes to the last two answers. It was changed only after September 11th. It had gone through an approvals process. It was going through an approvals process with the deputies committee. And they had approved it – The deputies had approved those policy changes. It had then gone to a principals committee for approval, and that occurred on September 4th. Those three things which you mentioned were approved by the principals. They were not approved by the president, and therefore the final approval hadn’t occurred until after September 11th. THOMPSON: But they were approved by people in the administration below the level of the president, moving toward the president. Is that correct? CLARKE: Yes, so over the course of many, many months, they went through several committee meetings at the sub-Cabinet level. And then there was a hiatus. And then they went to finally on September 4th, a week before the attacks, they went to the principals for their approval. Of course, the final approval by the president didn’t take place until after the attacks. THOMPSON: Well is that eight-month period unusual? CLARKE: It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat.

Then look at the bias of FOX news. Clarke answered every question and he put the backgrounder into the correct perspective, which needed to have been done.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Asked by commissioner and former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson (search) which of his seemingly contradictory statements is true — assertions from the book attacking the White House or the background briefing he gave to a small group of reporters — Clarke said neither.

FOX news & the Bush admin had to make Clarke the ISSUE, not what Clarke saying. This is exactly what smear-meisters do all the time, on both sides of the political spectrum.

[BillClarke]

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

I don’t count Dean as a member of the LMSM, just pointing out the LMSM doesn’t have much reason to investigate Clarke’s hypocrisy because they agree with the claims in his book. Jim Angle and Andrea Mitchell saw otherwise. Dean did nothing more than portray Clarke as a victim which was total nonsense.

Clarke was/is being unfairly targeted. Simply labelling him a hypocrite is not a substitute for proof - you have yet to demonstrate any discrepancies beyond those of ‘tone’ or ‘nuance’ either through your own thinking or that of Jim Angle and Andrea Mitchell. Simple repetition of accusations does not constitute proof.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

I didn’t claim that he referred to the SAME reports. I showed that the claim was NOT consistent with the SOP as described in the backgrounder.

You did? Where? I don’t see it - he described a situation of the president being advised - did I miss the part wherein he identiified that description as strict SOP?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

This part is nothing more than innuendo and speculation. I’m not buying Clarke’s book to see if he actually presents any hard evidence.

Yes, it is speculation - that is precisely the point. He takes pains in his language to get across that it is speculation. I count two ‘I don’t knows’ and an ‘I have no idea’ in the last paragraph to make that abundantly clear. This speculation is to the advantage of the president - he can’t be expected to know the content of reports he wasn’t shown.

Oh, and here’s a suggestion for you - Public Library.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

Nonsense. If he was honest, he wouldn’t be out “spinning” for the administration at all and he wouldn’t have his past coming up to expose his hypocrisy. He could have resigned immediately if he felt like there were problems.

No, what you are spewing is nonsense - he is in a far greater position to do good with his considerable abilities and experience remaining in that position than he would be able to if chooses to leave. To suggest that he should resign rather than agree to spin the backgrounder is simply disingenuous. It would be different if he was required to lie, but he did not lie.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

Bias can also be defined as a preference, and I have a preference for the truth.

Everyone claims to have a preference for the truth. Have you ever heard someone say: “All things considered, I’d rather be lied to”? Stating a thing doesn’t make it so. I inferred a bias in your prior comment and I maintain that inference was warranted.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

It’s nice that you’re being melodramatic, but I merely gave you an explanation for my earlier comments.

Not melodramatic but ironic, considering that you accused me of hiding behind semantics then dismissed my concession on the basis of it lacking formality. You could have simply said: “Oh yeah, right - you did concede that” and we could have moved on from there, but instead you had to cast even this small point into such a light as to make it appear that I was wrong on all counts.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

The burden of proof falls on those who make the accusations of dishonesty. I’ve yet to see someone step up with solid evidence of lies.

No, the burden of proof falls to those who make an assertion, whatever the assertion may be. Since I’ve made no assertion either way, I am onus-free.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

You’re here debating politics. Like it or not, that makes you a politico.

Perhaps, but still not anti-Bush so your assertion is still false.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

And why should such speculation be taken seriously, especially when the backgrounder shows no basis for such speculation?

Because it is dealing with two separate and distinct issues, why do you insist upon marrying them?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

WMDs were only one of SIX reasons stated for the invasion. It’s in the 2003 SOTU. You can’t just throw out the other reasons because it’s not convenient or you don’t like the other reasons. It was multifactored decision. Powell’s appeal to the UN was an effort to build a meaningful coalition, which could have put much more diplomatic pressure on Saddam to comply fully. Powell needed to present evidence to try to sway any of the countries who were on the fence. We know that France and Germany had conflicts of interest. Regardless, our national interests are not at the mercy of the UN’s whims. Besides, the lack of response by the UN did nothing but embolden Hussein, who was already used to playing them for chumps.

WMDs were the primary reason and the only compelling reason given - the rest is window-dressing and you know it.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

Who would have thought that some guys with box cutters could hijack American airplanes and crash them into buildings and kill thousands of people?? Saddam had more resources available and presented a much larger, REAL threat. We had NO CERTAINTY about the threat potential until Saddam was removed from power.

By that reasoning, there are one billion people in China you’d best get to work on eradicating - I understand that box-cutters exist there, too.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

This is hardly the case.

Sadly, it appears that it is the case.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

You mean he wants to be in permanent hiding and live inside a cave the rest of his life???

He looked hale and healthy in the last video I saw of him. Don’t kid yourself, his current lifestyle suits him to a tee - he’s living his dream.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

Ignoring him turned out to be more dangerous

Agreed.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

Nonsense. We killed more terrorists than we would have by ignoring them.

But likely recruited even more still.

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

David Kay said that that he wasn’t cooperating in his reports.

I’ll take your word for that, but does that make it so?

Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,19:23)

It doesn’t HAVE TO BE paid in blood at all. Those who resist could more easily choose to join the efforts to build a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[system]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,18:27) 1. Protect America and American interests This could mean literally anything It could but it doesn’t. What part of protecting America is too vague for you??

What part of protecting America and American interests is clearly defined to you?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53) <!–QuoteBegin> Quote 2. Locate, confirm and if necessary dimantle and destroy any Iraq WMD Like the UN inspectors had been hiking around Iraq, scrathcing their butts for years just for the fun of it? Had Saddam cooperated, it wouldn’t have taken years and years.

Quite right but that doesn’t change the end result of their work vs Yank troops’ finds

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53) <!–QuoteBegin> Quote 3. Root out terrorists and their supporters At best an even vaguer excuse for the utterly vague point #1 Nonsense. We’ve killed scores of terrorists including top members of Al Queda.

I hear you say so…

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53) <!–QuoteBegin> Quote 4. Protect the Middle East From what? Themselves? Saddam had made threats on neighboring countries including Isreal. This isn’t that hard to understand.

Yeah, let’s all go to war against anyone who makes a threat.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53) <!–QuoteBegin> Quote 5. Liberate the Iraqi People (which would require regime change, i.e., removal of Saddam from power) Fair enough, at least it’s an honest & straightforward point Actually just as honest and straightforward as the others.

Heh-heh

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Quote (teryeah @ May 05 2006,17:53) <!–QuoteBegin> Quote 6. Stop Human Rights Violations in Iraq Violations like capital punishment/death penalty/whatever you guys call it? Capital punishment doesn’t occur until after a fair trial. Saddam regularly skipped over that part.

Trial or no trial, capital punishment is not exactly highly regarded in the Human Rights