Comments on: INSIDE THE WMD DEBATE, II

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Your argument only makes sense if we conveniently ignore the fact that they apparently knew their intelligence was wildly overblown at the time they made their public case. Take away the imminent threat of WMDs and the complex, multifaceted case for war with Iraq collapses from its own weight.

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I think the comparison to Copernicus might be going a bit too far.... Seriously, though, it's one thing for intelligence to "miss" something, it's quite another to spin a story out of virtually nothing, which is what appears to have happened here. Rumsfeld more or less admitted this ("we weren't acting on dramatic new intelligence.") What's more, this appears to be overtly political. It's not just that the intel was wrong, it's that it was wrong because the White House was pushing so hard to get the agencies to say what it wanted to hear. I think it's quite possible to argue that the war was a good idea regardless of WMD -- in fact, I've even made that argument myself. But Bush's conduct more and more appears to be inexcusable, and it bothers me that his fans don't seem to want to hold him to account just because they like the end result. The Kaiser was really, really sure that starting a war in 1914 was a good idea, so he made up a plausible reason for it. That didn't turn out to be such a good idea. The next time George Bush does it, it might not be such a good idea either.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

But it's clear that the Bush administration, far from simply being a bit more vigilant in connecting the dots, deliberately misled the country. For someone that claims to be so worried about "misleading"," Kevin sure does a bunch of it himself.

By: Leroy

Leroy — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I really, really would question the statement "The Kaiser was really, really sure that starting a war in 1914 was a good idea, so he made up a plausible reason for it." That is more than a bit of swallowing whole leftover WWI era propaganda about the origin of the Great War. You can blame terrorists for that outburst of idiocy (the Black Hand assassinating the Archduke) or you can blame a lot of other causes, but to assign it all to Kaiser Wilhelm is a bit much.

By: Former little leaguer

Former little leaguer — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Leroy you can give up all hopes of Kevin worring about truth or accuracy. He proves repeatedly neither are of import.

What amazes me is that James quotes such an unrelieabe source so often. If seems unlike his normal habits.

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Wow, amazing to see such defenders of truth defending obvious and now transparent lies by claiming that someone else is reliable. You guys rock!

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

John, I can only assume you mean "claiming that someone else is UNreliable."

You came come here and spout whatever propagada you would like. The facts however don't support it.

According to your Democrat party talking points of the day, when Bill Clinton (a democrat) said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction it was true. Yet when George Bush (a republican) said the same thing, somehow it became "obvious and now transparent lies."

How can ever expect to be taken seriously when you make arguments like that?

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hey, don't be so quick to believe I'm a democrat. How can you expect to be taken seriously with argument like yours? Mostly Ad Hominem attacks full of sound and furry, signifying nothing. As to the obvious lies, I'm not talking about the previous administration. Rather I'm just referring to the things this administration said that has already proven to be crude forgeries, complete fabrications or incredible inflation of facts. Oh, and give up on Bill C. You might notice that he isn't president anymore, nor is he likely to be in the future. Obsession doesn't look good on any one. ---