<p>ff- I agree with you that Bush would have been criticized if Iraq supplied wmd to Bin Laden which then were used in an attack against the US- but here is where we differ 9/11 did not give the US freedom to attack every country that has/wants wmd not because we can not but because it is not in our best interest. The President needs to make tough choices when he chooses war he better be right. By the way Congress failed equally. I believe this was a significant foreign policy mistake that will have dire consequences for some time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, right … just like the conspiracy to blow up the twin towers is “well documented”</p>
<p>
That’s the rub - define “right”. Is “right” defined as an easy win with few casualties and a neatly wrapped up peace treaty? Or is right defined by the disruption of a horrible attack on US soil that claims millions of lives? Once you choose a path, you will never know what was at the end of the other paths.</p>
<p>Now I understand. We have lost nearly 3000 American lives and spent a trillion dollars to defend ourselves against an imaginary alliance that will use weapons that do not exist.</p>
<p>Talk about a few dead-enders…</p>
<p>"just like the conspiracy to blow up the twin towers is “well documented”</p>
<p>You wouldn’t know. Why don’t you take me up on my challenge and read the book by David Ray Griffin?</p>
<p>This is what I think the level-headed view is:</p>
<p>Going back to early 2003, there were tons of obvious reasons why collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda was improbable. On the other hand, there were some perfectly good reasons to be afraid that such collaboration might be happening, or might happen in the future, not the least of which was that they had four major enemies in common: the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, and Iran. “Everyone” – anyone who was moderately informed – knew both those things. It would have been irresponsible for any decisionmaker to ignore the possibility of collaboration just because it seemed improbable based on past history, but it would also have been irresponsible to assume that collaboration was occurring notwithstanding all the past history.</p>
<p>The job of the intelligence services, and ultimately of the President, is to sift through all of the available information and to make probabilistic judgments about what was really going on, and then to decide what to do about it. The evidence for collaboration was extremely weak: a couple of low-level contacts seven years before, and a little circumstantial evidence some of which depended on the premise that the Iraqi secret police were much more efficient than they really were, and some of which could have been completely uncoordinated, but rational, parallel activity against the Kurds. The best you could say would be that the evidence was not completely inconsistent with a hypothesis of collaboration, but if there was collaboration it was not well developed and was leaving very little trace of itself. So the clear weight of the evidence was that collaboration remained possible, but improbable.</p>
<p>Should the President have breathed a sigh of relief and stopped worrying? Of course not. Should he have committed hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of troops, U.S. prestige, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and incalculable political opportunity costs to making absolutely certain that the possible, but improbable collaboration would never occur? I don’t think so, although the overestimation of Iraqi WMD capacity obviously figured into that, too.</p>
<p>In the end, though, I don’t believe the Bush Administration made an actual intelligence judgment that there was Iraq-al-Qaeda collaboration going on. I don’t think any reasonable person would have acted on the evidence they had. What I believe is that there was a tremendous desire to flex American muscle in the Middle East, to have boots on the ground next to the oil wells, to put a scare into Iran and Syria, and to deprive the Saudis of some of their leverage. I also believe there was an element of revenge against Saddam for his betrayal in 1990, and perhaps an Oedipal dynamic by a President who desperately wanted to prove himself capable of finishing a job his father couldn’t. The intelligence judgment about Iraq-al-Qaeda collaboration was completely distorted to fit political and strategic goals.</p>
<p>Not that those political and strategic goals were so awful. The world would be a much better place today if the invasion of Iraq had worked the way its planners hoped. But it was a gigantic gamble, and it came up craps. Worse than craps – we can’t even leave the table now, and the dice are loaded against us.</p>
<p>"The evidence for collaboration was extremely weak: "
But, yet the person that the President relied upon to make that call regarding the connection, the Director of the CIA, said just the opposite. You are relying on the latest Senate report in making your evaluation of the relative strength of the data about the connection. Steven Hayes has studied this for years and probably has as much knowledge as anyone in this area. Check out what he says about the Intellince Committee report (and please don’t just discount his article because where it was printed - note that his sources include all sorts of mainstream media reports as well as other intelligence that the Senate report ignores. Also note that he fairly reports on the evidence that can be used to debunk the claims that Saddam gave Zarqawi shelter) <a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/012/710goolj.asp?pg=1[/url]”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/012/710goolj.asp?pg=1</a></p>
<p>“I don’t think any reasonable person would have acted on the evidence they had.”</p>
<p>Perhaps Al Gore doesn’t constutue a “reasonable” person in your mind, but this was his view in 2002: </p>
<p>
Note that he has no problem singling out Iraq for attack even though other countries may also have WMDs and/or links to terrorism.</p>
<p>Here is what the Clinton administration believed as stated in its indictment of bin Laden:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then here is what Clinton himself said after the war started (or perhaps Clinton also doesn’t qualify as a “reasonable” person in your book):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I come late to this post but want to add my quick 2 cents. I have observed Funding Father’s posts long enough to know his modus operandi by heart and know it would be futile to try to systematically refute his posts. He is not capable of ever admitting that his “reality” might be skewed by his political views.
But as a compelling counterpoint to his posts above, I offer this excerpt from an article by one of this own:</p>
<p>“In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nations will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.”</p>
<p>National Review editor Rich Lowry
When the Medias Right
December 19, 2006"</p>
<p>Funding Father: old habits die hard, non?</p>
<p>After listening to the press conference today and Bush talking about his legacy, I just about hit a pole…no student left behind- might want to fund that maybe</p>
<p>and his, golly gee, who would have thunk the factions might not get along</p>
<p>and we DO need more troops here in America…don’t have enough over there even though he said we did</p>
<p>truely embarrassing and sad= and almost comical but people are dying</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, my old friend carlmom back to her old drive-by sniping attacks. Rather than even attempting to refute the ideas and facts (perhaps because she is incapable to do so?) she resorts to her typical ad hominems. Old habits die hard indeed.</p>
<p>There are some people here who do very well in representing their viewpoint - as much as I may disagree with them. You should try to learn from them.</p>
<p>BTW - I read the Lowry piece when it was first posted and agree with the gist of it - but that’s not what we are talking about here. So its relevance to this thread is questionable.</p>
<p>“Rather than even attempting to refute the ideas and facts (perhaps because she is incapable to do so?) she resorts to her typical ad hominems.”</p>
<p>Hmmmm…sounds like your response to my posts.</p>
<p>
No, your posts have been refuted by many people here (both liberal and conservative). As one person said, dealing with your persistent refusal to deal with reality is like trying to nail jello to the wall.</p>
<p>Funding Father: As someone who has always worked almost exclusively with men, I know a bully when I see one and you, sir, strike me as just that. But I have also observed over many years that bullies eventually get their comeuppance, and I derive no small comfort from that fact.</p>
<p>^Not before they get to hit the red button.</p>
<p>Everyone, get a Bidet and eat more prunes. The order of acquistion is important.!</p>
<p>Still no facts, no refutations, not even thoughts relative to this thread - just more hit and run insults. Not too surprising. </p>
<p>Like I said, there are a lot of people here who disagree with me. They at least have the courage to express their views and provide real facts and legitimate sources to support their views. You should try it some time - it’s easy to feel bullied when you show up with nothing of substance to offer.</p>
<p>“No, your posts have been refuted by many people here (both liberal and conservative).”</p>
<p>True. But, interestingly, after I met their challenge, they disappeared. They had no response. Check the threads.</p>
<p>I too find FF a bully, who never has listened to anyone who disagrees with him, so those who try and give facts have just not bothered anymore…FF is dogmatic in his approach to Bush, will twist “facts” which are not so much facts, but words that agree with his idea of truth, truthiness is such a great phrase, and who still to this day will never ever admit that Bush has erred.</p>
<p>Clinton erred…yes I said it, but to some, Bush is like a religious leader, what he says and presents is to never be questions</p>
<p>that is what is so scary, good thing the majority of Americans can see through that</p>
<p>now we have a congressman saying the way to fix Iraq is to share Jesus…is that the New reason we are there?</p>
<p>OMG! That is unbelievable! Which congressman is that?</p>
<p>Funding Father: I have the utmost respect for a number of regular posters here. Their comments remind me how discussion boards are playing an increasingly important role in the public discourse so vital to a democracy. Although I might enjoy your company if I ever had the pleasure of meeting you face to face, I do not respect the vast majority of your comments on CC. You claim to back up your posts with facts but, in my observation, you are a cherry picker of facts. Given this tendency, and your regular defense of the Bush administration, it is difficult for me to muster the energy to engage you on your terms because the way you play the game, you will always come out the winner. The deal is stacked from the start. </p>
<p>But, mostly, I am simply too tired to play the game anymore. I am tired of those who supported the Iraq War from the start now claiming, when things haven’t gone as Bush intended, that the administration was given faulty intelligence or that Iraq, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, was actually close to nuclear capabilities. I am tired of Bush supporters not acknowledging that a strong case has been assembled which shows that pre-war intelligence was manipulated to make a case for going into Iraq when our energies and monies would have been better spent elsewhere. I am tired that the Bush administration continues to lie to itself and, by extension, to us–implying that we can still win this war. I am tired that we never seem to learn the lessons of history–especially the lessons of past wars. Finally, I am tired of those who refuse to see the handwriting on the wall and continue to hold on to delusions that this is a noble and just “war on terror” when it fact it is a disaster of epic proportions.</p>
<p>Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior.” said by Congressman Robin Hayes- NC</p>
<p>one scary person</p>