Simple Iraq Explanation: not Bush lied, Chalabi et al. lied

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
man of principle

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he felt it his duty as Secretary of State to advocate his President's position, although he personally disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are mutually exclusive.

[cardcounter0]

Okay, we have gone from "every knows" that Iraq had chemicla weapons.

When questioned, you point to a report that the author even admits was totally wrong.

But nevermind all that, it has to be true because there is no possible reason Powell would lie to the UN.

When questioned, I give a possible reason, and you even admit a reason, a sense of honor to his superior.

So now, let's all forget that. What about Tony Blair????

Well, Tony blair was kicked out -- the British, and his own British intelligence, knew he was lying.

So what wild tangent can we go on now?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
So what wild tangent can we go on now?


[/ QUOTE ]
Look! A gay inter-racial couple is burning the American flag!

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what wild tangent can we go on now?


[/ QUOTE ]
Look! A gay inter-racial couple are burning the American flag!

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this justifies the whole Iraq invasion. This is proof no one knowingly lied. It was all just a big misunderstanding.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to your explanation as to the reason for Colin Powell's complicity in the elaborate deception. As a highly respected career military man with no political ambitions, and as a man who we now know was opposed to the invasion, why would he allow himself to be used by Bush in 'the lie', knowing full well he would later be disgraced when the truth ultimately emerged? (as we know his reputation has been greatly tarnished by his U.N. presentation)

[/ QUOTE ]

Loyalty.


I'll take a wild, wild swing at it and claim that career military men are imbued with a click more loyalty than yer standard politician. But I could be wrong. ¨[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahmed Chalabi and his cronies filled in the U.S. intelligence gaps with information filled with lies sprinkled with small truths (be it Saddam's nuclear ambitions or chemical weapon laboratory trucks, etc) that they knew would fit nicely into the Bush adm. neocon worldview that was manifesting itself at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]Bush and his gang, hereon called BAHG, knew very well about the quality of Chalabi himself and his "information". Everyone who was anyone in the Middle East knew about Chalabi. The man was indicted in western-friendly Jordan, for christ's sakes, for embezzlement. (We're talking serious moolah.) Have you considered the inverse state of things, man? That the American agenda was already set in stone and that the policy of regime change in Iraq was a foregone conclusion? Hell, regime change was there in black and white way before the 9/11 hijackers booked their flights.

Have you considered that BAHG only listened to information and recommendations that fitted their agenda and policy?

[ QUOTE ]
It was merely the combination of a small group of Iraqis' quest to overthrow Saddam with an administration all to willing to accept what they wanted to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]You said it.

But that "small group" were not the cause nor the reason for the war. Chalabi was no Helen of Troy. They were a bunch of convenient witnesses. That's all.

By the way, kudos for your attempt to start something intelligent about the possible reasons behind the confounding stupidity of Iraq now exploding daily in our faces. (I don't mind the naivety of some of the pro-war responses. It's charming, as usual.)

Mickey Brausch

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
man of principle

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he felt it his duty as Secretary of State to advocate his President's position, although he personally disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If Powell disagrees with the neocons but believes their position is one derived from a principled viewpoint, then he is duty bound to advocate his President's wishes. He knows this when he agrees to be Secretary of State. Now advocating war based on information you know to be fabricated is of course another matter altogether. Under such a circumstance the very least a principled person would do is resign.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
man of principle

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he felt it his duty as Secretary of State to advocate his President's position, although he personally disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If Powell disagrees with the neocons but believes their position is one derived from a principled viewpoint, then he is duty bound to advocate his President's wishes. He knows this when he agrees to be Secretary of State. Now advocating war based on information you know to be fabricated is of course another matter altogether. Under such a circumstance the very least a principled person would do is resign.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he was a man of principle he wouldn't advocate something he disagreed with. End of story.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ahmed Chalabi and his cronies filled in the U.S. intelligence gaps with information filled with lies sprinkled with small truths (be it Saddam's nuclear ambitions or chemical weapon laboratory trucks, etc) that they knew would fit nicely into the Bush adm. neocon worldview that was manifesting itself at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]Bush and his gang, hereon called BAHG, knew very well about the quality of Chalabi himself and his "information". Everyone who was anyone in the Middle East knew about Chalabi. The man was indicted in western-friendly Jordan, for christ's sakes, for embezzlement. (We're talking serious moolah.) Have you considered the inverse state of things, man? That the American agenda was already set in stone and that the policy of regime change in Iraq was a foregone conclusion? Hell, regime change was there in black and white way before the 9/11 hijackers booked their flights.

Have you considered that BAHG only listened to information and recommendations that fitted their agenda and policy?

[ QUOTE ]
It was merely the combination of a small group of Iraqis' quest to overthrow Saddam with an administration all to willing to accept what they wanted to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]You said it.

But that "small group" were not the cause nor the reason for the war. Chalabi was no Helen of Troy. They were a bunch of convenient witnesses. That's all.

By the way, kudos for your attempt to start something intelligent about the possible reasons behind the confounding stupidity of Iraq now exploding daily in our faces. (I don't mind the naivety of some of the pro-war responses. It's charming, as usual.)

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

I really cannot disagree with any of what you have to say here. Chalabi et al. and the post 9/11 mindset could make for ready excuses to do what they wanted in Iraq for their strategic neocon reasons. And the administration's advocacy in the runup to the war surely gives credence to this possibility. That being said I fail to see how anyone can know unequivocably that Bush lied to them. There are various thoughtful plausible motivations for this administrations actions prior to invasion that do not include bald faced lying by all involved. Well hopefully those reading this thread will at least be a bit less likely to stick with the Halliburton B.S. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MoreWineII]

Does it make it less offensive if the Bush regime was grossly incompetent rather than simply a group of liars?