OT - House of Cards (political)

[NoMyths]

Paper: CIA Did Not Approve White House Claim Saddam Could 'Launch In 45 Mins' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb)

House of cards, baby...house of cards. Some of us didn't get fooled the first time we heard it, either.

[Dutch]

Didn't get fooled, eh? Me thinks the pro-Dem big city media is pulling the wool over yer eyes right now.

Did Hussein violate the terms of 1991 cease fire or not? Did Hussein ignore 16 UN Resolutions against him? If it is a house of cards, why would you also support the sanctions on Iraq (that clearly benefited some of our European allies) at the expense of Middle Eastern hatred brewing to such a degree against the USA that it boiled over into the deaths of 3,000 US citizens?

Are the Democrats and media setting a precedent, that in order to take serious action, our intelligence agencies much verify each and every claim at least twice? How will the FBI get a second soure? The CIA? Should the CIA begin investigating US citizens in order to back up the FBI's claim? Should the US insist on our allies sharing full breadth of knowledge of sources and methods of intelligence collecting so that we can go in and verify later?

What about the CIA learning that the Al Qaeda is preparing to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge? Are we supposed to wait for the Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division to back up this claim? Is this what the Democrats really want? Weren't they angry during 9/11 that the US Government didn't act on it's piecemeal intelligence?

House of cards? You are getting fooled by Democrats fighting for the whitehouse, brother.

[NoMyths]

Nice post, Dutch. Let me address:

Originally posted by Dutch
Didn't get fooled, eh? Me thinks the pro-Dem big city media is pulling the wool over yer eyes right now.Probably so. :)

Did Hussein violate the terms of 1991 cease fire or not? Did Hussein ignore 16 UN Resolutions against him?Yes sir. Neither of which excuses President Bush from lying about his reasons for invading Iraq.

If it is a house of cards, why would you also support the sanctions on Iraq (that clearly benefited some of our European allies) at the expense of Middle Eastern hatred brewing to such a degree against the USA that it boiled over into the deaths of 3,000 US citizens?I'm not sure what the most brilliant answer to the problems Iraq posed is. But I am very sure that we are not pursuing the most brilliant course of action. The fact that our nation did a very poor job of looking for the best solution--and I take both political parties to task for this--is very troubling.

Are the Democrats and media setting a precedent, that in order to take serious action, our intelligence agencies much verify each and every claim at least twice? How will the FBI get a second soure? The CIA? Should the CIA begin investigating US citizens in order to back up the FBI's claim? Should the US insist on our allies sharing full breadth of knowledge of sources and methods of intelligence collecting so that we can go in and verify later?A very good question. I don't think so. But I do think that when your average American with no intelligence community access--let's use me as an example--hears a claim like "Iraq can hit us with biological weapons within 45 minutes" and knows that it's a load of horse pucky, the nation's leader should be doing a better job of making sure that he's doing the right thing. The "investigating US citizens stuff" is already beginning to be enforced to a frightening degree. Suffice to say: I believe that more or less our intelligence communities do a pretty good job. I also believe that the current administration wanted a war with Iraq regardless of the veracity of the evidence. The problems we have now are, in my opinion, less a failure of the CIA as much as they are a failure of the Bush administration to pursue alternate courses of action.

What about the CIA learning that the Al Qaeda is preparing to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge? Are we supposed to wait for the Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division to back up this claim? Is this what the Democrats really want? Weren't they angry during 9/11 that the US Government didn't act on it's piecemeal intelligence?There is a difference between putting additional security on a bridge and telling 255 million Americans that another nation poses so much of an immediate risk to our national security that we need to go kill thousands of people, both military and civilian. Disrupt their countries basic infrastructure, from water access to a functioning police force. I do not share the position that the government should have acted on its piecemeal intelligence concerning 9/11 -- as far as I'm concerned that was a tragedy that our intelligence wasn't able to prevent, with no blame assigned except to the perpetrators of the tragedy -- but when it comes to giving the citizens of America reasons for killing, President Bush owes us better than a lie. And no true American should demand less.

House of cards? You are getting fooled by Democrats fighting for the whitehouse, brother.I agree in part with this--some of the current posturing is certainly a Democratic party positioning itself for elections. As far as I'm concerned most of them are damned (in a purely "NoMyths says you're damned; not actually religious" context) for their inaction and cronyism over the past few years.

This is what I'll say. America deserves better leaders than it has. All the way around. We should be doing the brilliant thing--not the arrogant thing, not the thing we can do simply because we're the most powerful--but the truly brilliant. And we don't have minds that are both brilliant and moral leading us, regardless of their stated positions, in my opinion.

The world mostly just makes me sad, man. I try to console myself with the knowledge that we're a very young nation, and the miracles we've accomplished outweigh the tragedies. But our citizens need to care more about their roles in the world, and their country's role. We need to pay more attention. We need to insist that the people we choose to represent us are better than we are.

The only difference between America's treatment of the Iraq situation and its treatment of Native American tribes during the earlier part of its existence is the technology. As citizens, we need to demand that America assumes the mantle of greatness that is already rhetorically accorded it. But thus far there is little outside of our military success that underscores any kind of greatness in our handling of Iraq, besides the temporary ownership kind.

[NoMyths]

dola...
Originally posted by Dutch
If it is a house of cards, why would you also support the sanctions on Iraq (that clearly benefited some of our European allies) at the expense of Middle Eastern hatred brewing to such a degree against the USA that it boiled over into the deaths of 3,000 US citizens?I haven't been convinced that Iraq was in any way, shape, or form responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Nor have I cast my lot with sanctions as necessarily being the best retardant to Hussein's designs. But my government hasn't offered me anything better to choose from. And I'd choose the truth over lies.

[Dutch]

but when it comes to giving the citizens of America reasons for killing, President Bush owes us better than a lie. And no true American should demand less.

Liying is the wrong word. These reports can't tell me that Iraq could not strike within 45 minutes with Chemical and Biological weapons. Now that would be a lie. President Bill Clinton believed this when he formed and executed Operation Desert Fox in 1998. These same accusations were acted upon against the Iranians by SH in the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988 and also against the Kurds in the 1991 Kurdish Revolt.

So what has changed so dramatically since 1998 other than the fact that Iraq had free reign to improve upon these techniques.

Well, for one, the Democrats are trying to find some sort of foothold to capture the White House or at least damage the Republican held White House. Other than that, I don't see why this sort of thing is a big deal today and wasn't 5 years ago.

I think the response is that Americans were killed, that's the big deal. But this raises other concerns. What happens now if a Usama Bin Laden clone takes over control of Iran? We begin to form intelligence that he is creating nuclear weapons secretly to bomb the USA. Will we be able to pre-empt any such threat? What if Iran plans to keep this program so secret that all there are is a couple of scraps of information for reliable sources to deal with? Can we not destroy their nuclear facilities without first being bombed? Is taking the pre-emptive path to victory a Presidential killer? Are we, by playing partisan politics, leading ourselves down a road to being reactive instead of proactive?

What I am suggesting is that we are willing to throw out the truth, in order to crucify on a technicality. For what? Is it really because war was unjustified? Or was it for political gain? I am suggesting the latter which in my book, is far more disgusting and criminal than Bush borrowing a single British source for a single sentence in a single speech of hundreds of speeches that he has given.

[Blackadar]

Dutch, you're so partisan than Bush could be Hitler and you'd support him. :)

[Dutch]

Doh! Actually, I am less Republican than I appear. There are a lot of things in the Republican party and a lot of people lower down the chain that are simply untrustworthy scoundrels that would never allow me to be a true Republican. But I am definately not a Democrat.

The Democratic party in my opinion, is worse. Never trust anybody who is always the champion of the poor man. They sound great, but in the end, they have absolutely no motivation for making the poor too small a minority, where would the votes come from???

In any event, the only basic similarity between me and the Republican party in generic terms is that the Republican Party is for Individual Rights while Democrats are for Group Rights.

And as for Bush, I think that Bush has handled his stay in office great from a philosophical and action oriented angle, but horribly from a charismatic and leadership angle. Both of which are extremely important factors of any leader of the USA. Clinton was opposite.

The only reason I like Bush better is because actions speak louder than words. In the end anyway...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nice work in this thread Dutch.

[Killebrew]

Yeah way to go Dutch, them Dems keep trying to use logic but the American people won't fall for that.

Seriously, this is a big issue partially because of the politics which is shitty, but it's also a big issue since it appears likely that the US government royally f**ked up due to shoddy intelligence and complete paranoia. If the months of war drum beating were based on paranoia (as much of the information appears to be) then they mislead people into supporting a war that resulted in a world far more unsafe for US citizens than ever before, a world more unstable and divided, and an economic and political burden in Iraq for many years. I suspect concerns about the US goverments reasons for going to war, and not only the false nuclear information, will only increase as the days go by. The lack of any intelligent post-war plan for Iraq is also going to be getting more and more headlines.

Yeah this is a big deal regardless of the fact some Dems are using the issues to garner politcial advantage out of this mess - I'm sure if the roles were reversed that would never happen:).

[CamEdwards]

Actually, if you read the story there's not much logic involved. Let me ask you, before you read this story could you have told me when Bush made the 45 minutes claim? I couldn't. Why not? Because it wasn't a "key phrase" to justify going to war.

Besides, what this amounts to is the white house website had the comment, without attributing it to British intelligence. Every time Bush referenced this claim in a speech (a whopping TWO times), he attributed it to British intelligence. But now, I suppose, we expect the President to be the webmaster of www.whitehouse.gov as well as being the leader of the free world.

What's really amusing to me is that by recognizing that this is a bullshit story, I'll once again be called a mindless fascist (not by those on this board, btw. I'm pleased to say that particular word hasn't been hurled at me here)

Those who happen to agree with the media's bias against the president (and voracious need to create news stories) will of course be labeled a "free thinker".

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Let me ask you, before you read this story could you have told me when Bush made the 45 minutes claim? I couldn't. Why not? Because it wasn't a "key phrase" to justify going to war.

It was not so much a key phrase for people like yourself whom I presume would need no prodding to sends troops to various faraway places, and it was not so much a key phrase for people like myself who felt fairly certain Bush Jr. was completely full of shit when he said it, but it certainly was a key phrase for the people who were coerced by this startling (now known to be false) information to side with the Bush camp and attack another country against the wishes of most of the planet.

BTW, I agree there was not much logic used before the war, but people are beginning to actually study things a bit more deeply now. Misleading people into doing what you think is the right thing regardless of facts is a clever thing to do unless you f*** up and the people you fooled realize they have been taken for a ride by a carny President.

[NoMyths]

As Killebrew said. Precisely.

[QuikSand]

I'm not so sure that any single assertion (the "45 minutes" thing, or the buying uranium from Africa, etc) was itself solely responsible for swaying American support toward the war effort. However, just trying to set the political agendas aside, isn't there just on its face something disturbing about the ex post facto revelations that one after another "arguments" used as part of the pre-war rhetoric were used knowingly while they were clearly unsupportable, or perhaps even patently false? Is it necessary to prove that that statement (whichever allegedly fabricated one we're discussing at the moment) was the one that made the difference in public opinion, in order to claim that it was a serious wrong that the statement was made in the first place? Can't we just say that it is wrong to lie (or obfuscate the truth, or mislead) to us, just because it's wrong?

You harm our whole sense of public trust when this stuff happens, whether it's lying about your extramartital trysts, lying about what laws you're subverting, or lying about "intelligence" that supports the decision you want to make. It's not a matter of partisan politics, D and R and so forth--it's deeper than that, more important. "Politicians" as a class are among the least regarded professions by our country's public - so much so that it's practically cliche. Think about that for a minute... the people we have the least respect for are the people making the decisions. How much worse off could our system be?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Think about that for a minute... the people we have the least respect for are the people making the decisions.

I don't have the survey results at hand (maybe somebody else remembers the one I'm talking about) but there was a very interesting piece in the past 2-3 years that broke this general truism down more specifically.

Basically what it showed was that people had a pretty healthy respect for politicians they voted for (i.e. those that won) but an extremely negative view of those they didn't vote for (ones that defeated their preferred candidate).

[NoMyths]

Nice post, QS. I agree in particular that it's not a single assertion that swayed American support...I don't know of anyone who would seriously argue that there was. However, it seems that whenever the administration is brought to task for these lies, people spend a great deal of time arguing their relative unimportance in the scope of the arguments being made. As you've correctly pointed out, that obfuscates the real issue. Our government shouldn't be lying to us. America deserves better leadership.

[JonInMiddleGA]

NoMyths -- on the other hand, I think it might be reasonably argued that America's leaders deserve a better constituency ;)

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I don't have the survey results at hand (maybe somebody else remembers the one I'm talking about) but there was a very interesting piece in the past 2-3 years that broke this general truism down more specifically.

Basically what it showed was that people had a pretty healthy respect for politicians they voted for (i.e. those that won) but an extremely negative view of those they didn't vote for (ones that defeated their preferred candidate).

There's a similar paradox at the local/national level. The vast majority of Americans will respond to surveuys indicating that they dislike "Congress" in general, yet the re-election rate of incumbent congressmen is startlingly (horrifyingly) high.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
NoMyths -- on the other hand, I think it might be reasonably argued that America's leaders deserve a better constituency

Not mutually exclusive arguments - I'll sign up for both.

[NoMyths]

Jon, I'm happy that we've finally found something to agree on. :)