Beer Necessity wrote:
Sorry, I keep forgetting that the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq fails to persuade you that the intelligence was faked to fit an agenda.
My goodness, BN. How can one conclude that failing to find evidence of current WMD's in Iraq means that intelligence was faked to fit an agenda?
Current knowledge conclusively shows that the CIA and other major intelligence agencies generally believed that they probably still had them. Even the Clintons believed so. Some evidence shows that even Saddam himself thought so!
Again, in what way was Bush lying? Libs constantly claiming this should only be embarrassed by themselves. Bush did not 'fake' intelligence to fit an agenda. Is this what libs mean by 'Bush lied'? So Bush duped not only the CIA, the Clinton's predating G.W Bush, and the rest of the world? Of course Bush wanted regime change in Iraq, as did Clinton - as evidenced by the policy shift in 1998 to one of regime change in Iraq.
Now, let me indulge in a bit of devil's advocate to try to nuance the lib's argument to a degree one would think they themselves should, but to this day not witnessed. So much for the liberal's self-professed sophistication and nuance. I think in the wake of 9/11 the Bush administration realized like all other reasonable people that we were in a new geopolitical and security paradigm. This realization, in their view, made the 1998 policy of Iraqi regime change much more urgent. So urgent in fact that force would be necessary - and very soon. The president needed to prepare the country and world for this action. The president is a politician - as all political leaders are. Political leaders must use the tools available to them to lead and persuade, including rhetoric. And rhetoric, of course, is inherently sophist to a degree. Skilled political leaders emphasize and de-emphasize certain things to effectively communicate their agenda. They all do it. They all have done it. I believe that the Bush administration probably put the relevant facts on a 'chalk board', then prioritized them according to the impact they would have on influencing opinion in favor of their agenda. They wrote down 'Has had WMD's and used them', 'Has an ax to grind against the U.S and West', 'is brutal against his own people', 'probably still has WMD's', and went on through a list. Included in that list was maybe the single most significant reason for the agenda - that being the belief that a democratic foothold in the middle east - in a muslim country - would provide a catalyst for change against the prevailing dictatorships, theocracies and radical fundamentalism. But they thought that reason - essentially another 'domino theory - was too abstract for the people. Especially after Vietnam. The U.S populace would have difficulty swallowing it, and the Liberal mainstream media certainly would. So, I believe, the Bush administration erred by trying to nuance their efforts to prepare the country (and world) for their action. I think Paul Wolfowitz essentially said as much in an interview. So, in my opinion, they were guilty of ineffective communication. Misleading in a sense maybe. Guilty of political calculation and rhetoric. Emphasized what they thought to be fact. De-emphasized what they thought to be fact. Weighted facts and circumstances to their ends as all politicians do - even in the face of monumental things like war. All this is not lying. Certainly not lying as libs have argued. And none of this shows that 'Bush faked intelligence to fit an agenda'.
Now, if a lib were to argue that my explanation proved that Bush 'lied' or 'faked intelligence to fit an agenda', then I would argue that they were probably being more deceptive than Bush was.