Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll

[nbcrusader]

It's about Bush's administration being perceived as misleaders.

Or, it?s about the ability to craft a poll in such a way to generate a negative response regarding Bush. Generally, the question is "Did the President tell the truth?" Now, it is reduced to "Did the President stretch the truth?" It is amazing how people want to vilify GWB for "stretching the truth" when many of these same people embraced it or out right ignored it for the prior administration.

 

[STING2]

sulawesigirl4,

If the critics of Bush understood what the UN reported in 1998 on Saddams WMD, and remembered Saddams failure in 2002/2003 to account for that WMD, then they would understand the Bush Administrations actions. The vast majority of the evidence that the Bush administration uses comes from the UN inspectors reports from 1998. WMD does not vanish into thin air, and its SADDAM's responsibility not any member country of the UN responsibility, to account for that WMD. Failure to do so is material breech of multiple resolutions and a ceacefire agreement, all of which call for using all means necessary to bring about compliance.

"Next time Bush wants the world to join him in a war on terror based on "intelligence" data, it will be much less likely that our coalition of the coerced will be able to be assembled so easily."

Funny you say this because the world just approved of the Bush Administrations and other countries actions in Iraq through resolution 1483 passed on May 22nd by the United Nations. The resolution recognizes the USA, UK, and Australia as the "Authority" in Iraq.

In addition, countries around the world continue to support the USA in its efforts to round up members of Al Quada.

The "Intelligence" data that the President and Powell used for the majority of their evidence came from the UN inspectors reports in 1998 which included Saddams own admissions.

The only countries that were coerced were those that decided to say something different from Chirac.

If people would simply look at what the UN reported on Saddams WMD in 1998 which included Saddams admissions and then looked at Saddams failure to account for everything from the 1998 list when inspectors were let back in in 2002, they would realize that the only one with a credibility gap is Saddam Hussein.

The only reason I brought up the elections is because the reason much of this is being pursued is because some think they can use for political advantage against Bush. To them I say go ahead. It will only insure Bush's victory in 2004 because there is simply nothing to the allegations.

 

[BVS]

Or, it?s amount the ability to craft a poll in such a way to generate a negative response regarding Bush. Generally, the question is "Did the President tell the truth?" Now, it is reduced to "Did the President stretch the truth?" It is amazing how people want to vilify GWB for "stretching the truth" when many of these same people embraced it or out right ignored it for the prior administration.

I agree that polls, in general, don't about to crap. The fact is that as of now, no one can prove Bush lied. There is no evidence, as of now, to say whether Bush knew the "evidence" handed to him was false or not. Did he stretch the truth? Deductive reasoning and logic would tell ME yes, but I guess it really depends on the interpreter. The interpreter can stretch and modify the facts in any form to agree with what they believe.

But you bring up the prior administration...and I ask you this. Do you think it justifiable that millions of dollars were spent to investigate something that went on behind closed doors between two consenting adults? Yes he lied, but he lied about something that should never have been our business. And now when there's question as to the truth behind a war, we're suppose to sit back and accept his word?

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar

"But you bring up the prior administration...and I ask you this. Do you think it justifiable that millions of dollars were spent to investigate something that went on behind closed doors between two consenting adults? Yes he lied, but he lied about something that should never have been our business. And now when there's question as to the truth behind a war, we're suppose to sit back and accept his word?"

There is one big difference between the prior administration and this one. There is no more evidence that Bush lied about anything than Clinton launched military strikes in 1998 against Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandel and the coming impeachment process.

Bush did not lie about any evidence in regards to Iraq as much as Clinton did not use the military strikes in Afghanistan to deflect attention from his domestic problems. On this both Bush and Clinton are innocent.

But Clinton did lie to a federal grand Jury in regards to the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky. Despite the fact that his relationship with Lewinsky may not of been material in the sexual harrasment case being brought against him, it does not absolve him of his responsibility to tell the Federal Grand Jury the truth.

While I think that the Paula Jones case of Sexual Harrasment by the President should have been thrown out of court, that does not absolve the President or anyone from lying to a federal grand jury. The President is not above the law and I think that was reaffirmed and enforced by the process.

 

[hiphop]

Just reflecting feelings I hear, most Europeans like Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. They think it is the ex-President?s business of who he had sex with, and they thought all the scandal in America to be ridiculous and over-prude. On the other hand, they don?t think it is ridiculous or even funny when an American administration breaks international law, pisses off Germany and France,... well the list is endless, so no need to go on.

Just wanted to say that for the record, no need to discuss - thats just how many European citizens feel (to me, those social scientific interpretations are more interesting than statistics, though I admit both can be manipulated).

 

[Atticus Finch]

so its good to use women
and bad to remove dictators from a Euro perspective?

Atticus.

 

[hiphop]

No, it is good if Sex is everyone?s very own business, but politics and wars aren?t - from a European perspective.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

"On the other hand, they don?t think it is ridiculous or even funny when an American administration breaks international law, pisses off Germany and France" Just wanted to say that for the record, no need to discuss - thats just how many European citizens feel"

I know its not surprising at all that Europeans feel that way. Its certainly reflective of their poor record when it comes to international relations and international security over the past 100 years.

Most Americans see Europe bitching and screaming while the USA solves the problems and cleans up the mess.

 

[hiphop]

Yes, STING2, thats again an interesting social scientific perspective. You know, I wonder what makes Americans think that. After all, the U.S. caused more problems than it solved when following its own interests, according to my interpretation, and to the interpretation of most of the countries where America "cleaned up the mess".

 

[Atticus Finch]

mr hip-hop
I noticed u have an extraordinary long name.


Atticus.

 

[hiphop]

Dear Atticus,

yes, I do, and I am proud of it. It is a line out of the song Kite which I found to be particularly amusing in the context of the song.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

"Yes, STING2, thats again an interesting social scientific perspective. You know, I wonder what makes Americans think that. After all, the U.S. caused more problems than it solved when following its own interests, according to my interpretation, and to the interpretation of most of the countries where America "cleaned up the mess"."

Lets not forget who liberated Europe, rebuilt Europe, and defended it from those that would have plundered and enslaved it. There are some Europeans who refuse to see that, while there are other Europeans who understand that and respect it. Lets also not forget who started the biggest wars in the history of the planet. Considering that, its actually not so bad today that Europe is more "talk" than "action". Today its been US leadership that has helped put an end to the slaughter in Bosnia and Kosovo and has put an end to Saddam's control of Iraq. Europe was unable to deal with any of these problems without the help of the USA.

Thats why many Americans feel the way they do.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

STING,
Do you really believe WW2 was won solely by the efforts of the United States? I find that astonishingly disrespectful to the millions of people from Russia, France and the UK (among others) who died fighting that war.

Europe wasn't "unable" to deal with Saddam - European countries disagreed with the United States' decision to bomb Iraq. There is a difference between the two.

Considering the kind of mess created by the United States in countries as diverse as Angola and Chile, I hardly believe the US is in a position to accuse others of failing to "clean up their mess."

 

[hiphop]

HIPHOP,

"Yes, STING2, thats again an interesting social scientific perspective. You know, I wonder what makes Americans think that. After all, the U.S. caused more problems than it solved when following its own interests, according to my interpretation, and to the interpretation of most of the countries where America "cleaned up the mess"."

Lets not forget who liberated Europe, rebuilt Europe, and defended it from those that would have plundered and enslaved it. There are some Europeans who refuse to see that, while there are other Europeans who understand that and respect it. Lets also not forget who started the biggest wars in the history of the planet. Considering that, its actually not so bad today that Europe is more "talk" than "action". Today its been US leadership that has helped put an end to the slaughter in Bosnia and Kosovo and has put an end to Saddam's control of Iraq. Europe was unable to deal with any of these problems without the help of the USA.

Thats why many Americans feel the way they do.

Excuse me STING2, but America surely did not liberate Europe. It played its part in liberating Europe, but when America engaged in Europe in 42/43, there were already 4 years of ongoing WW II.

Don?t forget that 20 millions of Russians died in WW II.

Let?s also not forget that Western Europe enslaved very many countries and that in the U.S., there were lots of slaves not that long ago.

Lets also not forget that the United States and Western Europe continue to plunder the natural resources - not only in Africa, and that this continues after the failure and fall of their big enemy U.S.S.R.

Lets also not forget that the population of the U.S. and Western Europe has been living and wasting on the cost of millions of people who continue to die of hunger and thirst.

As Christians, lets also not forget that Jesus might not be happy about all that pain.

In compare to that, a few bombs in former Yugoslavia and Iraq are a joke. Also, it may interest you that all the Kosovians and Bosnians who I talked to do really not believe that America has freed their country - after all, it was a civil war.

I do understand that the American population would love to believe to be the greatest freedom-and-peace-bringer in the world, and to be hailed for that role. Unfortunately, nowadays the contrary is the truth. I am just stating a fact, this has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

I never said the USA won World War II single handedly. I said the USA liberated Europe. I should have said the western part of Europe. While the Russians helped to defeat the Germans, they did not liberate Europe, but rather enslaved the Eastern part of it. Democracy did not start to come to Eastern Europe until 1989.

"Europe wasn't "unable" to deal with Saddam - European countries disagreed with the United States' decision to bomb Iraq. There is a difference between the two."

What did Europe do in comparison to the USA to free Kuwait from Iraqi control in 1991? What did Europe do in comparison to the USA to contain Saddam and disarm him peacefully in the years after the 1991 war? Obviously after 12 years when this process had failed to disarm Saddam, who stepped away from the old approach and finally succeeded in disarming Saddam?

Oh and how many Iraqi Civilians would have to die under the European(I should say French-German) approach to Saddam. Saddam would still be in power right now under the European approach. Ever thought of the LEVEL of pain and suffering that would cause Iraqi's?


"Considering the kind of mess created by the United States in countries as diverse as Angola and Chile, I hardly believe the US is in a position to accuse others of failing to "clean up their mess.""

Of course you don't consider the mess that would exists in many of these places if the USA had not intervened.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

I'm sorry I should have said Western Europe. I would not call the Russians removal of the Germans from Eastern Europe a liberation. Clearly it helped to win the war, but I never stated the USA won the war by itself. I stated that the USA liberated Europe which is true in comparison to what the Russians did. Democracy did not start to come to Eastern Europe until 1989.

"Let?s also not forget that Western Europe enslaved very many countries and that in the U.S., there were lots of slaves not that long ago."

All true, but I'm talking about the 20th/21st century.


"Lets also not forget that the United States and Western Europe continue to plunder the natural resources - not only in Africa, and that this continues after the failure and fall of their big enemy U.S.S.R. "

I think thats a generalization.

"Lets also not forget that the population of the U.S. and Western Europe has been living and wasting on the cost of millions of people who continue to die of hunger and thirst."

Sorry but the death of every person in the third world is not directly linked to the West.

"As Christians, lets also not forget that Jesus might not be happy about all that pain."

Certainly, which is why American citizens privately donate more of their money per capita than any nation on the planet. They donate to help someone in need, not out of some wrong misplaced guilt that they caused this persons misfortune.

"In compare to that, a few bombs in former Yugoslavia and Iraq are a joke. Also, it may interest you that all the Kosovians and Bosnians who I talked to do really not believe that America has freed their country - after all, it was a civil war."

The nearly 300,000 people who were slaughtered in Yugoslavia are not a joke! This slaughter was ended when US troops intervened. A simple fact that Europeans tend to forget.

I wonder how many of the Kosovians and Bosnians you talked to would still be alive today if the USA had not intervened 8 years ago in Bosnia and 4 years ago in Kosovo.


"I do understand that the American population would love to believe to be the greatest freedom-and-peace-bringer in the world, and to be hailed for that role. Unfortunately, nowadays the contrary is the truth. I am just stating a fact, this has nothing to do with my personal opinion."

So tell me, where has Europe independently of the USA been a "great-freedom-peace bringer"?

Europe has been unable to do that in its own backyard (Bosnia and Kosovo) much less anywhere else.

Based on the facts, you are indeed stating your own opinion.

 

[anitram]

The nearly 300,000 people who were slaughtered in Yugoslavia are not a joke! This slaughter was ended when US troops intervened. A simple fact that Europeans tend to forget.

I will agree with STING in part here because the Europeans did drop the ball in the Balkans. The British, IMO, behaved particularly appallingly for years, trying to pacify Milosevic while he slaughtered people from republic to republic. That is not to say some of the American diplomats aren't reviled in the region - Eagleburger and Holbrooke are commonly referred to as "thieves" back there in the media. IIRC, Germany immediately recognized the sovereignty of Bosnia/Croatia and was never in favour of sanctions there.

I think the war actually started to turn around in the summer of 1995 when the Americans quietly started pumping money and military intelligence into Croat and Bosnian forces which then expelled Serbs from the Krajina region (responsible for a number of war crimes likely in the process, unfortunately). So yes, the USA did play a large role in the Balkan clean up, and even though I would not really consider it to be a liberation since many of these places remain violent and corrupt to the core, the bloodshed in Kosovo in particular would likely have gone on and on had the folks in Belgrade not suddenly gotten very well acquainted with their basements the way their counterparts had for years in Sarajevo. Nonetheless, 300,000 people died and they didn't have to. The ball was dropped in 1991 when the world watched Vukovar plundered and raped. It became a model for death for the next 5 years.

 

[hiphop]

"Let?s also not forget that Western Europe enslaved very many countries and that in the U.S., there were lots of slaves not that long ago."

All true, but I'm talking about the 20th/21st century.


"Lets also not forget that the United States and Western Europe continue to plunder the natural resources - not only in Africa, and that this continues after the failure and fall of their big enemy U.S.S.R. "

I think thats a generalization.

"Lets also not forget that the population of the U.S. and Western Europe has been living and wasting on the cost of millions of people who continue to die of hunger and thirst."

Sorry but the death of every person in the third world is not directly linked to the West.

1) Well, first I am taking other centuries into account, and second I am also talking about the 20th century. Many colonialized states didn?t get independent before of the 60s and 70s.

2) I agree it is a generalization, but I tend to generalize when a majority of Africas natural resources are plundered for low prices under the usage of unfair terms of trade. Btw, if we start talking of who generalizes when...

3) Maybe not the death of every single person. But reality is that very few countries on this planet are very rich, and many are poor. Just like people: very few are very rich, about 15% of the worlds population are ok, and the rest is living in poverty. You can?t deny that some (the "first world") are living on the cost of others (the "third world"). And yes, we are responsible for that. We are responsible for throwing away thousands of tons of food and of drinks every year, responsible for wasting masses of energy, just because we are consumers who enjoy the luxury of getting it all for very cheap prices, compared to people who live in poverty - two billions who live of less than a dollar per day, etc.

Those two ways of living - in a pleasure paradise and in absolute poverty and misery - are directly linked to each other. This planet still offers enough resources for everyone. If we were sharing, if we actually followed what Jesus said and enjoyed the sacrifice of sharing - not of donating - we would all have less luxury, but less people would live in misery and poverty.

Since the citizens of the first world (including me to a certain extent) fail to do so, and continue to waste all what they get, they directly are to be held responsible for the suffering they cause.

 

[STING2]

"Since the citizens of the first world (including me to a certain extent) fail to do so, and continue to waste all what they get, they directly are to be held responsible for the suffering they cause"

Because people in the USA have worked hard and become wealthy has nothing to do with people who will die in drought stricken area of central Africa. We are called to alleviate the suffering of others, but ones wealth is not necessarily the result of anothers misery.

 

[Dreadsox]

THis bleongs in WAR does it not. This specifically deals with many of the things listed in the War area.

Oh back to the real issue......

Bush.....said many things.....which were put into speeches by his handlers, and as time will tell, without the approval of the CIA or the State Department. THings that many of them thought were dubious at best. The handlers, in this case, made some mistakes for political reasons.

They will find WMD, almost every country at the UN believed they had them. Even those opposed to the war. Unless of course they are in another country. Scary prospect.

 

[hiphop]

STING2, you fail to understand what I am saying. I am not saying that ones wealth is necessarily the result of anothers misery. I am not saying that with, f.e., having a great job and making lots of money, you make someone else suffer. In that sense, it is also not our "fault" - we were lucky to be born into a world with all that comfort around us.

What I am saying is that our way of consuming and wasting resources causes suffering. For example, if we paid more money for gasoline - not a cent more, but in the range of dollars - the automotive industry would have been forced to develop cars that use less gasoline per mile. This would mainly have a positive effect on the environment.

Or, if we paid higher prices for imported fruits, and the additional money that?s made by fruits would not get stuck in transport costs and trade and supermarkets, but directly go to a poor farmer, that farmer would suffer less, and we would have a higher estimation for the product.

If milk was more expensive, we would put it back into the fridge instead of leaving it outside getting sour.

Apart from that, every year there are hundeds of tons of finest natural resources that are not consumed, thrown away. I am thinking of redirecting that stuff. I know this may be complicated to organize, but I am sure that it could be done. So why let the people suffer?

I also think many could make it with one car and one T.V. instead of two cars and five T.V.s - what is all this luxury worth?

What I want to bring across is that we have a vast overspending habit, and if all that money was not put into consuming things - which do not really make our life better - those billions of dollars could be used to improve the standard of living of the very poor people on this planet.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

"I also think many could make it with one car and one T.V. instead of two cars and five T.V.s - what is all this luxury worth?"

I take it you are strongly opposed to U2 doing a tour on the scale of ZOO TV or POPMART again?

(Two cars and five T.V.s) My family has five cars and two TVs.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

to what hiphop said.

 

[U2Bama]

I will agree with STING in part here because the Europeans did drop the ball in the Balkans. The British, IMO, behaved particularly appallingly for years, trying to pacify Milosevic while he slaughtered people from republic to republic. That is not to say some of the American diplomats aren't reviled in the region - Eagleburger and Holbrooke are commonly referred to as "thieves" back there in the media. IIRC, Germany immediately recognized the sovereignty of Bosnia/Croatia and was never in favour of sanctions there.

I think the war actually started to turn around in the summer of 1995 when the Americans quietly started pumping money and military intelligence into Croat and Bosnian forces which then expelled Serbs from the Krajina region (responsible for a number of war crimes likely in the process, unfortunately). So yes, the USA did play a large role in the Balkan clean up, and even though I would not really consider it to be a liberation since many of these places remain violent and corrupt to the core, the bloodshed in Kosovo in particular would likely have gone on and on had the folks in Belgrade not suddenly gotten very well acquainted with their basements the way their counterparts had for years in Sarajevo. Nonetheless, 300,000 people died and they didn't have to. The ball was dropped in 1991 when the world watched Vukovar plundered and raped. It became a model for death for the next 5 years.

Very seldom do I agree with anitram on anything political. But i think all of us should at least give an ear to what she has to say here, knowing wht she has been through personally. Perhaps I am TOO general in my view of th need for military action, that is debatable in all of our "pro/anti-war" threads, "just war" threads, and what not, but I wondered for for too long when SOMEONE would take action. I'll say this: Western governments have the appearance of acting more quickly against "non-caucasion" agressors than they would against their own neighbors. Hey, I do support action that has been taken in many 3rd World theaters, and I wish a few more would be taken (Sudan always comes to mind), but how many of their own citizens do the likes of Hitler or Milosovec have to kill before their decent peers get up and take action? As someone who has NUMEROUS friends who haver seved in the U.S. Marines, Army and Navy, I can assure you that the rank and file soldiers of our military, and probably the militaries all around, would be willing to do the right thing in ANY situation, politics aside. Military force is the final stage of diplomacy; I HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT, but it is a historical reality. We should have acted sooner in the Balkans, Europe should have acted sooner in the Balkans, but we didn't and we have negligent blood on our hands.

~U2Alabama

 

[hiphop]

HIPHOP,

"I also think many could make it with one car and one T.V. instead of two cars and five T.V.s - what is all this luxury worth?"

I take it you are strongly opposed to U2 doing a tour on the scale of ZOO TV or POPMART again?

Aaaaaw, STING2, see now you?re putting words in my mouth. I love entertainment, I feed my love/hate relation with the industry, and enjoying a tour like ZOOTV is very different from wasting energy - instead it is creating energy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Wow...the places our threads wander to

Anyways from yesterday's Meet the Press:

[Q]MS. MITCHELL: But, in fact, many officials, including the president, the vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, were referring to the Niger issue as though it were fact, as though it were true and they were told by the CIA, this information was passed on in the national intelligence estimate, I?ve been told, with a caveat from the State Department that it was highly dubious based on your trip but that that caveat was buried in a footnote, in the appendix. So was the White House misled? Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn?t true?
AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.
MS. MITCHELL: So they knew months and months before they passed on these allegations that, in fact, that particular charge was not true. Do you think, based on all of this, that the intelligence was hyped?
AMB. WILSON: My judgment on this is that if they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, that information was erroneous and that they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British White Paper and the president?s State of the Union address.[/Q]


Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

One more interesting quote related to this from Meet the Press:

[Q] MS. MITCHELL: What do you think was going on here? Was this the politicization of intelligence in order to justify a war?
AMB. WILSON: Well, I think there?s two things. One, either the administration has some information that it has not shared with the public or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts and intelligence to bolster a decision in the case that had already been made, a decision that had been made to go war. [/Q]


Well which is it? Is it logical that they would come out with bogus information to present to the COngress and the UN and cause all kind of political damage, if they had the real deal?

It seems that the Ambassador hit on the truth with the later part of his statement. I do not think there is anything wrong with that, other than there were enough reasons on a humanitarian level to remove Saddam, to not have to lie.

 

[Dreadsox]

Later in the show, a Senator from the Intelligence committee is being interviewed. This transaction between Andre Mitchell and the Senator is quite telling:

[Q]MS. MITCHELL: Senator Warner, in fact, it was included in the national intelligence estimate. And let me show you what The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago on June 12, that: ?CIA Director George Tenet, on September 24, 2002, cited the Niger evidence in a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on a national intelligence estimate of Iraq?s weapons programs, sources said. Although Tenet told the panel that some questions had been raised about the evidence, he did not mention that the agency had sent an envoy to Niger and that the former ambassador had concluded that the claims were false.?
Is that your understanding as well?
SEN. JOHN WARNER, (R-VA): I?m a member of the Intelligence Committee. This is my second tour in the 25 years that I?ve been in the Senate.
MS. MITCHELL: That?s why I asked the question, sir.
SEN. WARNER: And I never comment on testimony that that committee receives. So I can neither...
MS. MITCHELL: Well...
SEN. WARNER: ...confirm nor deny.
MS. MITCHELL: I can say independently that it was in the...
SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Well...
MS. MITCHELL: ...national intelligence estimate.
SEN. WARNER: I?m not going to confirm it.
MS. MITCHELL: OK.[/Q]

 

[sulawesigirl4]

dread, related to that interview with Wilson...

from the AP wire

Ex-Envoy: U.S. Twisted Iraq Intelligence

WASHINGTON - An envoy sent by the CIA to Africa to investigate allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program contends the Bush administration manipulated his findings, possibly to strengthen the rationale for war.

That conclusion came on Sunday from Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to the West African nation of Gabon, who was dispatched in February 2002 to explore whether Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. That desert country is the world's third-largest producer of mined uranium.

rest of article

 

[STING2]

Most of the administrations case for war against Iraq rested on Saddams failure to cooperate. Saddam failed to account for numerous WMD material and weapons that both Saddam and UN inspectors confirmed that he had back in 1998. 30,000 Chem/Bio capable shells. Thousands of liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas. Saddam was forced to give up all these things under the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement and he never did, even though he agreed to do so. Its as simple as that.