WMDs (and lack thereof) in Iraq

[Guest Cerebus]

Decided that this poll only made sense.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Put me down for undecided for know. I know what Kay said in his report. But, how could so many people and countries be wrong about this? I still wonder about Syria. During the fairly lengthy time between the UN Resolution and the start of the War, Iraq could of moved WMD's into Syria.

[Guest JMA]

Option 2: The intelligence was bad, but Bush didn't manipulate it.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm with Option 2 as well. Many countries were positive Saddam had WMD. Perhaps he still does (or did before he was deposed), but it would seem that it's not to the degree we first thought.

Edited February 4, 2004 by DrTom

[Guest hunger4unger]

I went for option 3. I don't suppose we'll ever know...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I went for option 3. I don't suppose we'll ever know...

You do realize that President Clinto believed the same exact things right?

[Guest jpclemmons]

I went for option 3. I don't suppose we'll ever know...

You do realize that President Clinto believed the same exact things right?

But did Clinto(???) use it as an excuse for a conflict(I'm not going to call that one-sided shillacking a war).

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Just a thought..

 

We know the meaning of the term 'The Buck stops here', right?

 

for those unfamiliar..

 

"The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else."

 

Now, while option 2 is probably true. Under the ideal of that slogan, the responsibility for decisions belongs to the President, no matter what intelligence he was given. He's responsible for making the decision no matter what. No passing of blame onto intelligence reports.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Now, while option 2 is probably true. Under the ideal of that slogan, the responsibility for decisions belongs to the President, no matter what intelligence he was given. He's responsible for making the decision no matter what. No passing of blame onto intelligence reports.

 

This is poor reasoning in this situation. How can the President make a sound decision on something if he's being given the wrong information? He thought he was making the right choice for the information he was being presented with. Had he known the real story he would've acted accordingly.

[Zorin Industries 0]

No: 3, but i'm using that to include Blair in that as well.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

This is poor reasoning in this situation. How can the President make a sound decision on something if he's being given the wrong information?

 

#1: when Bush was coming into office, I heard people mention that he'd be able to surround himself with good people, and it's make up for any lack of skill he might have at that moment. So, I guess that never quite worked out for him.

 

As for making a decision based on wrong information. He did it. And he should take responsibility for it. Not any of this 'lousy information' stuff. Bush was elected to restore intregity and character in the White House, remember?

 

He thought he was making the right choice for the information he was being presented with. Had he known the real story he would've acted accordingly.

 

Can you read minds?

 

So, does having the wrong information make the decision-maker immune from responsibility?

 

Or, should he take the responsibility, instead of passing the buck?

[Justice 0]

This is poor reasoning in this situation. How can the President make a sound decision on something if he's being given the wrong information?

 

#1: when Bush was coming into office, I heard people mention that he'd be able to surround himself with good people, and it's make up for any lack of skill he might have at that moment. So, I guess that never quite worked out for him.

 

As for making a decision based on wrong information. He did it. And he should take responsibility for it. Not any of this 'lousy information' stuff. Bush was elected to restore intregity and character in the White House, remember?

#1: Again, this isn't a simple intelligence failure. Everyone and their brother in the intelligence field around the world thought Iraq had this. Bad intelligence that is reinforced by everyone you are in contact with is far different than the Bush people simply making a mistake. Did he surround himself with good people? Yes. But none of those good people were in Iraq getting first-hand info on what was there. They had to work through the same devices that Bush had and therefore were only fed the same misinformation that had been circulating for years before.

 

#2: More like he made the right decision given wrong information. Can you fault him for wanting to eliminate Iraq when every intelligence agency in the world is saying they have weapons that could cause massive amounts of death in populated urban centers?

 

And the CIA isn't part of the White House, dude. Not that he shouldn't fix it, but this was entirely out of his control given the info he was receiving.

 

He thought he was making the right choice for the information he was being presented with. Had he known the real story he would've acted accordingly.

 

Can you read minds?

 

So, does having the wrong information make the decision-maker immune from responsibility?

 

Or, should he take the responsibility, instead of passing the buck?

 

Why should he take responsibility for something that was completely out of his power? He took info that he was told was confirmed and correct, and suddenly it turns out it was wrong. Whose fault was it that it was wrong? It isn't as though he's the operative in the field making the mistake.

 

Edit: Hell, under this reasoning, why shouldn't he take responsibility for 9/11? Another intelligence failure, but he's the decision-maker that failed to act. That's the situation here.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

#1 - So, in the long run, everybody was duped into thinking Iraq had WMDs. In this massive intelligence failure, who's the people who really pushed this idea. I'm not exactly expecting anybody to be revealed in an investigation as the main advocates of this. Although, would you say there's some ulterior motive among the more devoted believers of this? I'm not suggesting anything, it's just a question. Would it be plausible that some people would seek a regime change and go to these measures to insure it?

 

#2 - So, if Bush had known the truth at the time of invasion. He could have still moved into Iraq. (Although with a more legitimate motive).

 

Why should he take responsibility for something that was completely out of his power?

 

As opposed to passing responsibility to somebody else?

 

He can take responsibility for something in his power. The decision to go to war in Iraq was in his power. He is responsible for that decision no matter what. Instead of taking responsibility for the decision, it's being passed to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. "I make the decision to invade Iraq with what turned out to be false information. It's regrettable that such a thing happened and I take responsibility for my decision."

 

If it makes anybody feel better, the M/W definations for 'lie' are

 

"1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 : to create a false or misleading impression"

 

It'd be hard to determine if he had intent to decieve. But, he did create a false/misleading impression.

 

Or false

 

"1 : not genuine <false documents> <false teeth>

2 a : intentionally untrue <false testimony> b : adjusted or made so as to deceive <false scales> <a trunk with a false bottom> c : intended or tending to mislead <a false promise>

3 : not true <false concepts>

4 a : not faithful or loyal : TREACHEROUS <a false friend> b : lacking naturalness or sincerity <false sympathy>

5 a : not essential or permanent -- used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance <a false ceiling>

6 : inaccurate in pitch <a false note>

7 a : based on mistaken ideas <false pride> b : inconsistent with the facts <a false position> <a false sense of security>

8 : threateningly sudden or deceptive <don't make a false move>"

 

I'd that definations 1, 2 and 7 fit what happened. Although, some of them paint it as being intentional.

 

Hell, under this reasoning, why shouldn't he take responsibility for 9/11? Another intelligence failure, but he's the decision-maker that failed to act.

 

There's a vast difference here. He's responsible for his decisions made with faulty intelligence. But, that doesn't really come close to anything with 9/11. There probably isn't much evidence suggesting Bush made any decisions that ended up causing that to occur. I'd consider that irrelevant. But, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the 'new course' for the thread instead of Bush and WMDs and Iraq.

[EricMM 0]

Other: I don't know, and don't want to make judgements because of it.

[Justice 0]

#2 - So, if Bush had known the truth at the time of invasion. He could have still moved into Iraq. (Although with a more legitimate motive).

Well, for the bad information he was given (That Iraq had WMDs and were a massive threat to the US), he made the right decision. You can't fault him for making the decision he should of in that situation.

 

As opposed to passing responsibility to somebody else?

 

When that person or persons is actually responsible for what happened, then yes. For the US the failure would be on the CIA for not figuring this out. Yeah, Iraq is a tough place to get into and get into the power structure, but for information this off, they are the ones at fault here. To exhume the CIA of any blame is ridiculous; they were the weak link in the chain and need to take responsibility themselves. It looks as though we need a serious revamping of our intelligence structure.

 

There's a vast difference here. He's responsible for his decisions made with faulty intelligence. But, that doesn't really come close to anything with 9/11. There probably isn't much evidence suggesting Bush made any decisions that ended up causing that to occur. I'd consider that irrelevant. But, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the 'new course' for the thread instead of Bush and WMDs and Iraq.

 

No, not really. Both times the failure is on CIA for not doing their jobs properly, whether it was misreading information and drawing bad conclusions or simply not getting the information out. Bush didn't fail at his job, the CIA failed at theirs, and therefore they should take the brunt of the blame.

[Vyce 0]

What's the point of this poll?

 

If you hate Bush and think that he lied - or, more accurately, WANT to believe that he lied - you're not going to believe otherwise, regardless of whether or not the intelligence was bad (and many indications are that it was).

[Guest tSlater]

I really have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was #3

[Firestarter 0]

Weapons of Mass Hysteria by Victor Davis Hanson

 

"If anything, the war was about 100,000 corpses too late."