The case for war: Bush's Oct 2002 Cinci speech

[DrSmellThis]

Note: Enjoy this entertaining blast from the past! Though he had all the same "intelligence"

information, Bush did not claim Iraq sought yellowcake uranium until a few months later, in the State of the Union

address. Still, the number of lies told in this one speech was remarkable. -- DST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you

all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you

all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's

determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from

the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven

years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of

mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi

regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is

seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must

never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability --

even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront

every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress

of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat

to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world

with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is :

how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat;

about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and

the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And

tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries

or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands

alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same

tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other

nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present

actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief

weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself.

Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent

this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we

know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to

confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years

of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was

forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The

inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive

stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know

that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve

gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on

more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six

times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that

the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and

biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and

isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles

-- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000

American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a

growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons

across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the

United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack;

all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.



And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out

more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an

American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use

terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common

enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a

decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who

received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and

biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly

gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist

attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a

terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America

without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the

war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the

terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass

death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them

to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces

of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of

confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we

don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was

eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the

regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable

nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred

from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities,

including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who

had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.



The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held

numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy

warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its

nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed

for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to

produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a

nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein

would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the

Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass

nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we

need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen

that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would

be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing

these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot

wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy

said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate

deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,"

he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to

constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the

Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from

occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and

applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N.

inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors

to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons

facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to

unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above

and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions --

and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than

providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's

weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even

exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year

alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years

during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is

that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And

he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections,

sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective

organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution

setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under

U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow

witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to

bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors

must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time

for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of

peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's

regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of

both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N.

Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its

weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian

population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf

War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only

taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the

nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far,

we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have

stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope

this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced

with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals

would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals

will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan

carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and

we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait --

and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and

bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or

develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As

Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on

the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting

Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new

resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of

its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would

resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse

to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless

to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find

freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the

situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of

Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of

Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a

tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On

Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been

systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own

children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the

non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor;

self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are

directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest

benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis

and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a

land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to

share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies

will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace

with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress

to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.

Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell

the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the

civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only

chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of

Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.



The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that

tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are

far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on

notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we

accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against

violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to

others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless

America. (Applause.)

[Friendly1]

Help us out, here. Where are

the lies in the speech's text?

[DrSmellThis]

They're not hard to spot. But

I take it by your response that you disagree that there are any, despite all the evidence that intel was

twisted/fabricated, and that so many of the claims are just factually inaccurate. These issues have been visited in

detail in other threads here. If someone wants to read the speech as the inspiring words of a great patriot making a

great argument for the war, they are welcome. Glad I could be of service.

[Friendly1]

Well, given the lack of

specific citation and the long history of false accusations made against Bush by his political opponents, I see no

reason to buy into the latest spate of hyperbole.

If you can share specific points where the evidence is not

more nonsense like the half-truths and inconsistencies being spun by hardcore Democrats, feel free.

Otherwise,

it's safe to assume you're just blowing off political steam and really don't have anything specific. And that

ain't no service to anyone.

[DrSmellThis]

To start, one could go through

this thread in

detail:

http://www.lov

e-scent.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13816&highlight=irAQ+PREDETERMINE D

The cliched response above reminds me

of a cartoon I saw

yesterday:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cf

m?itemid=20032

[Friendly1]

I've seen all these false

evidences before. To date, no one has proven any of these allegations against Bush and Blair.

All you're doing

is repeating the same political nonsense over and over again. You're not doing anything different from the

Republicans who continually bashed Clinton about various things. Since Richard Nixon, President Clinton is the only

U.S. President who has actually been shown to have lied to the public while in office.

His egregious offence:

denying having had "sexual relations with that woman".

Oboy.

You don't have to agree with Bush. Doesn't

matter to me.

The anti-Bush tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time are really no different

from all the other anti-whatever tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time.

But until someone

shows us some proof (and I mean, the kind of evidence that would make news headlines such as have not yet been made

-- none of this partisan cock-and-bull-illogic), your allegations will remain without foundation.

[belgareth]

Moderates Want Iraq Rhetoric Toned Down By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer



Mon Dec 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - Moderates are imploring colleagues in Congress to tone down the rhetoric on Iraq as debate

about President Bush's war policies has become increasingly bitter and partisan.



Their pleas are likely to be

ignored.

The war is expected to be front and center in the upcoming

congressional election year, particularly in several races where candidates are Iraq war veterans. Neither party has

much incentive to pull its punches, with Republicans eager to paint Democratic critics of Bush's Iraq policies as

soft on defense and Democrats looking to exploit his woes as polls show declining support for the

war.

Nevertheless, some senior lawmakers are appealing for

courteousness, saying that while debate is essential to democracy, politics and partisanship should stop at the

waters' edge.

"The quality of congressional debate has an impact on

events in Iraq and our prospects for success," Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., chairman of

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in the first of several letters he plans to write to House and

Senate members on the issue. "We should continually strive to elevate our debate by studying thoughtful sources of

information and embracing civility in our discourse."

Sen. Joe

Lieberman of Connecticut, who in recent weeks has broken with most of his Democratic brethren and largely supported

the president's Iraq strategy, urged discussion that goes beyond "dueling partisan press

conferences."

"I hope that it goes on with a recognition that there

are Republicans and Democrats on both sides, and that it should be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect and

national interest," Lieberman said.

It's no surprise that moderates

are acting as referees.

"They're the ones who are reaching across

partisan aisles, trying to find common ground," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on political rhetoric and

campaigns. "It's the people on the partisan extreme that are the ones most likely to impugn

integrity."

Iraq has dominated debate this fall on Capitol Hill with

accusations being tossed around almost daily.

Democrats accuse Bush

of misleading the United States into war and of failing to be candid about the current situation in Iraq.

Republicans assert that Democrats are emboldening U.S. enemies with a "cut-and-run

strategy."

"One side uses the word lie, the other side implies

treason," said Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy

Center.

The war of words seemed to reach a low point just before

lawmakers left for Thanksgiving break.

Rank-and-file Republicans and

Democrats nearly came to blows on the House floor during a debate over withdrawing U.S. troops. In a speech

referencing a pullout proposal by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat and decorated Vietnam

veteran, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, said: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never

do."

Democrats shouted her down — causing the House to come to a

standstill. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Schmidt

later apologized.

That scene prompted Sen. John Warner (news, bio,

voting record), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to appeal for more reasoned discourse. The

moderate Virginia Republican called for "bipartisanship on the war in Iraq, instead of more political

posturing."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), chairman

of the House Armed Services Committee, characterized the scene as "one flare-up" that doesn't represent the nature

of the Iraq debate that night or every day in Congress.

"There is

great respect and civility," the California Republican said last week.

But the top Democrat on Hunter's own panel, Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri,

differed. He called it unfortunate that the war rhetoric has become intensely partisan and nasty. "I like to be

above that type of debate," Skelton said.

Other lawmakers dismiss

the notion that Iraq discussion has gotten out of hand — at least in one chamber.



"Not in the Senate," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record)

of Michigan, the top Democrat on Warner's committee.

"No, I don't

feel there's a lack of civility around here," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed. "There's at least

a debate going on."

[DrSmellThis]

I've seen

all these false evidences before. To date, no one has proven any of these allegations against Bush and Blair.



All you're doing is repeating the same political nonsense over and over again. You're not doing anything

different from the Republicans who continually bashed Clinton about various things. Since Richard Nixon, President

Clinton is the only U.S. President who has actually been shown to have lied to the public while in office.

His

egregious offence: denying having had "sexual relations with that woman".

Oboy.

You don't have to agree

with Bush. Doesn't matter to me.

The anti-Bush tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time are

really no different from all the other anti-whatever tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time.



But until someone shows us some proof (and I mean, the kind of evidence that would make news headlines such as

have not yet been made -- none of this partisan cock-and-bull-illogic), your allegations will remain without

foundation.

You are going to let the press's headlines determine it? The Downing Minutes were eventually

covered by every major news service, as can be seen in the thread; with absolutely no information in any of those

articles casting doubt on anything in it, with the exception of Bush, Blair's, and McCain's abstract, empty

denials.

You asked me to get specific, which I did; and had done long ago in this forum. Now it's your turn.

What evidence do you have against all the evidence in that thread? Where have you been with your facts? Your terse

dismissal of that thread (which is full of specific information, as you requested), and everything suggesting we

were misled about Iraq (including statements from within Bush's own government and a mountain of other stuff. For

the latest wrinkle on Bush and Cheney's Iraq war propaganda -- see this month's excellent Rolling Stone

article, the "Man who Sold the War", and get back to me on this also.) as "false evidences;" without providing any

rational analysis; is itself typical partisan rhetoric, not a dialogue about facts; just like in the linked

cartoon.

As regards partisanship, a search of forum history will reveal I had essentially no interest in

"opinionated" politics; until after Bush sent us to war on phony pretenses. (That is what all the evidence has

indicated, in my opinion.) Everyone but me was participating in the political threads. I was neutral until my

integrity forced me to be otherwise. Of course I am decidedly unhappy with this administration now. We can't be

neutral about everything. This is not OK.

I advise readers to read the thread as a preliminary introduction, and

judge for themselves. Anyone who is not a died in the wool partisan would have to be deeply concerned after reading

it, in my honest opinion. The fact that you just dismiss these official documents as meaningless lies is itself

telling. Now people from within the administration are starting to talk, and I predict we are seeing just the

beginning.

Anything exposing Bush as the corrupt politician he is is going to be dismissed by the dwindling

numbers of Bush supporters as partisan rhetoric, regardless of the substance behind it. That is their typical

defense, along with the arrogance of thinking they owe no real substantive responses to the American people. But the

Downing Street Minutes, for example, which indicate that intel was being manipulated, were the official leaked

minutes of a meeting attended by all the top officials of the U.S. and Great Britain , our closest allies. The

British government essentially acknowledged it was authentic, though Blair and Bush just denied the contents, as

would be expected. Bush and Blair refused to respond in detail to it; or answer to the charges it makes.

Most of

the claims in the above Bush speech were factually inaccurate, except that Iraq had a history of resisting the

inspection program, despite its ultimate reports of success. Should I go back and highlight all the false claims? My

original plan was just to post the speech and leave it at that, assuming people had been aware of where the claims

about nonexistent WMD's (e.g, the known alcoholic liar, "Curveball") and the imaginary "Al-Queda-Iraq connection"

(e.g, an alleged "tell them anything they want to hear" torture confession from an Iraqi expatriate) came from.



I also assumed that ambassador Wilson's exposee of manipulated intel and forged documents regarding the

supposed yellowcake uranium from Africa, which led to the outing of his wife as a CIA agent by top Administration

officials, was well-known. Even the fiercely loyal soldier Colin Powell admits his speech to the U.N. about WMD's

was essentially unsourced, and that he was simply ordered to give the text of a bulleted "menu" of talking points he

was handed. His Chief of Staff describes the speech as the most humiliating moment of his life in hindsight. Many

CIA officials also reported being pressured to tell Bush what he wanted to hear. Those in the intelligence community

who spoke up to the contrary were threatened, marginalized, or lost their careers. Both Defense Department and CIA

intelligence indicating that there was at best scant evidence for WMD's was already available, but ignored by the

Administration. Our own weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, who were withdrawn by Bush against their wishes,

reported no evidence of WMD's. Hans Blix, the chief inspector, will be the first to tell you there was no evidence

of WMD's, and that the inspection process was going well.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld simply insisted there were

WMD's, and that the evidence for WMD's was clear, unambiguous and overwhelming. They all insisted this, over and

over, in the strongest possible terms (see above Bush speech for a good example), and convinced Congress to approve

war (as a last resort option, per the president's judgement) for that reason.

They lied. And further, they lied

us into war.

Johnson and Nixon lied. Clinton lied too. He should have been slapped in the head and reprimanded by

Congress for acting in an unprofessional manner in the Oval office, and screwing his family like that. Clinton

deserved to be bashed on some other things, too, like dropping some bombs with inadequate justification. But I'm

tired of hearing, "Stop bashing Bush!" Screw that.

Lying a nation into a major war is a grave offense beyond

measure, and we all ought to be concered about this possibility, regardless of political affiliation. Arguments that

the severity of criticisms should be toned down in this case are silly. This is an egregious matter, with horrific

consequences and implications. Tell the parents who lost their kids unnecessarily to "tone down" their anger! We

have, as a nation, to call it like we see it on something like this, IMO.

On the other hand, a thorough,

independent investigation of our government's actions leading up to war should be launched. If people are innocent

they have nothing to fear. Without mentioning the processes of impeachment at this time, I would never advocate

throwing Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld in jail without their day in court, and legal presumption of

innocence.

The thread I referenced provides evidence that invading Iraq was just something Bush wanted to do

all along. The philosophical basis was already there, as indicated when I posted the actual Administration document

summarizing the U.S. foreign policy, as well as similar PNAC documents, signed by Bush administration officials.



But listen to the words of Bush himself. Today, on 12-12-2005, George W. Bush said that, knowing what we do

now about no WMD's, etc., he would invade Iraq all the same way all over again. Those are your president's own

most recent words to his country. He doesn't care that there were never WMD's, and that Iraq was not a grave

threat to anyone, at the time of that fallacious Cincinnati speech.

Had he been honest about this in the first

place, I would have been able to say, "Um, I happen to disagree with the policy of taking over other

nonthreatening countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people just because we want their money and oil." But

since he wasn't honest, he is also subject to being criticised for lying about his reasons for taking us to war.

[tim929]

As a conservative,I feel

compelled to chime in here.While pinning the tail on the donkey is a very difficult endevor,the list of

inconsitencies in this administrations public statements regarding the reasons and justifications for war with Iraq

are overwhelming.Interestingly,according to stated U.N. policy,Bill Clinton was remiss in NOT going to war against

Iraq.Sadam Husein violated so many U.N. resolutions and agreements of cooperation that his demise was in fact the

responsability of the previous administration.While this administration is realy full of crap on the subject,the war

is in fact totaly justified based on what was agreed uppon by the government of Iraq and the U.N. Where I get all

spun up about it is the nonsense that this administration used to make that all happen.

On another note...when

do we get to go to war agains the U.N.?These people are perhapse the single greatest supporters of terrorism the

world has ever seen.And they actively oppose people who seek to carry out thier own policies.Kinda makes you

think....

[DrSmellThis]

I'm not saying I agreed fully

with Clinton either. But Bill Clinton was in fact in favor of "regime change". He wanted to make it happen

within Iraq, from Iraq's own people, by supporting them to revolt. He had not succeeded at this at the time he left

office. He recommended that Bush continue that program. The Bush administration abandoned that program and plan, and

it died; while at the same time proclaiming Iraq as the major threat in the world and deemphasizing Al Queda. Then

9-11 happened; which brings us up to date.

"Regime change" is not necessarily the same thing that we did in

occupying them. Earlier on after the first Gulf war, when Iraq was resisting inspections, we should have been more

firm. We blew it. Iraq was going to test us until we made them toe the line with inspections. Eventually they opened

everything up when we threatened them. They eventually would have let us inspect everything, like they did; and we

would have found out right away that they destroyed everything, when they did. You can be firm in your foreign

policy without being stupid, just like you can disclipline kids extremely thoroughly, without spanking them.

[DrSmellThis]

French Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence

The foreign spy

service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger,

ex-officials say.

By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogin
Times

Staff Writers
December 11, 2005

PARIS — More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003

State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service

began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.



The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the

retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in

2001 and 2002.

The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and

other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the

French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.

Chouet's account was "at odds

with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and

spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.

However, the essence of Chouet's account —

that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was

extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on

condition of anonymity.

The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did

not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear

weapons materials.

It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious

prewar intelligence.

In the notorious "Curveball" case, an Iraqi who defected to Germany claimed to have

knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons. Bush and other U.S. officials repeatedly cited Curveball's claims even as

German intelligence officials argued that he was unstable and might be a fabricator.

The case of the forged

documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political

controversy that continues to roil Washington.

A special prosecutor continues to investigate whether the Bush

administration unmasked a covert CIA operative in a bid to discredit her husband, a former diplomat whom the CIA

dispatched in February 2002 to investigate the Niger reports. The diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, like the French,

said he found little reason to believe the uranium story. The investigation into the leak led to the indictment of

Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice

and perjury.

The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that

made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said

that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger

were supported by some in the CIA.

The CIA requested French assistance in 2001 and 2002 because French firms

dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the

strategic mineral.

French officials were particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain

nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.

"In

France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get

uranium from Africa," Chouet said. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French

government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with Saddam in that field."

The French-U.S.

communications were detailed to The Times last week by Chouet, who directed a 700-person intelligence unit

specializing in weapons proliferation and terrorism.

Chouet said the cautions from his agency grew more

emphatic over time as the Bush administration bolstered the case for invading Iraq by arguing that Hussein had

sought to build a nuclear arsenal using uranium from Niger.

Chouet recalled that his agency was contacted by the

CIA in the summer of 2001 — shortly before the attacks of Sept. 11 — as intelligence services in Europe and North

America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French

counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. The former CIA official confirmed Chouet's

account of this exchange.

Then twice in 2002, Chouet said, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help.

By mid-2002, Chouet recalled, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a

particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq.

Chouet

dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium.

The team found none.

Chouet and his staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent

documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French.

"We told the Americans, 'Bull -

- - -. It doesn't make any sense,' " Chouet said.

Chouet said the information was contained in formal cables

delivered to CIA offices in Paris and Langley, Va. Those communications did not use such coarse language, he said,

but they delivered the point in consistent and blunt terms.

"We had the feeling that we had been heard," Chouet

said. "There was nothing more to say other than that."

The former CIA official could not confirm the specifics

of this 2002 communication, but said the general conclusions matched what many in the CIA were learning at the

time.

Chouet left the French government in the summer of 2002, after the center-right coalition led by President

Jacques Chirac won control, forcing out top officials who had been aligned with the outgoing Socialist Francois

Mitterand.

When Bush gave his State of the Union address in January 2003, citing a report from the British that

Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa, other French officials were flabbergasted.

One government

official said that French experts viewed the statement attributed to the British as "totally crazy because, in our

view, there was no backup for this." Nonetheless, he said, the French once again launched an investigation, turning

things "upside-down trying to find out what was going on."

Chouet's comments come as the FBI and the Italian

government reopen investigations into the origins of the documents that surfaced in 2002 purporting to prove the

Iraq-Niger link. The documents in question originally surfaced in Rome.

Before speaking with The Times last

week, Chouet had told part of his story to La Repubblica, a Rome newspaper, prompting Italian investigators to

resume their inquiry and seek Chouet's testimony.

In the U.S., the FBI recently reopened its inquiry into the

documents in part because it had won access to new information.

Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador sent to Niger

by the CIA to investigate the allegations, said he believed that his trip was inspired by the forged documents. He

said the briefing he received at the CIA referred to a sales agreement between Iraq and Niger that sounded like the

forged documents.

Bush attributed the African uranium information to British intelligence in his 2003 address:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from

Africa."

The British government maintains that its conclusions were based not on the forged documents but on

other, more reliable sources. In fact, British officials have said that they reached their conclusions long before

the forged documents surfaced.

Still, Chouet said in the interview that the question from CIA officials in the

summer of 2002 seemed to follow almost word for word from the documents in question. He said that an Italian

intelligence source, Rocco Martino, had tried to sell the documents to the French, but that in a matter of days

French analysts determined the documents had been forged.

"We thought they [the Americans] were in possession of

the documents," Chouet said. "The words were very similar." The former CIA official said that in fact the U.S. had

been offered the same documents in 2001 but had quickly rejected them as forgeries.

A spokeswoman for the

British Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Chouet's remarks, reiterating that the British government

continued to stand behind its conclusions that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Africa.

A British report

on prewar intelligence found the Africa claims in Bush's speech to be "well-founded," noting that British

suspicions on Iraq's efforts to buy uranium originated with visits in 1999 by Iraqi officials to Niger and the

Congo.

Bush's assertions in his 2003 State of the Union speech had previously been made by other U.S.

officials in speeches and internal documents.

On Sept. 8, 2002 — within months of the third French warning —

Cheney and then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke in dire terms of Iraq's alleged efforts to pursue

nuclear materials. Rice warned: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Chouet, asked for his

reaction to Bush's speech and the claims of his lieutenants, said: "No proof. No evidence. No indication. No sign."



White House officials scrambled to explain how the 16 words found their way into the 2003 speech when so much

doubt surrounded the claims. Ultimately, then-deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley took responsibility

for allowing them to remain.

On June 17, 2003, five months after Bush's State of the Union, the CIA clarified

its position on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

"Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal

was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to

conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad," the agency said in an internal memorandum that was disclosed by the

Senate Intelligence Committee.

Bush critics now say that — in light of the warnings from the French and others —

the White House owes the public a better explanation.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the

Intelligence Committee when the Niger claims first surfaced in 2002, said some officials in the U.S. State

Department were also expressing doubts: "The big mystery is why did the administration, in the face of at least a

very persuasive contrary view, feel the president should take the risk of stating this?"

Hamburger and

Wallsten reported from Paris and Washington, Drogin from Washington. Times staff writer Sebastian Rotella in Paris

contributed to this report.

[DrSmellThis]

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff

Writer
Sunday, May 22, 2005; A26

On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the

Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new

intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.



The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and

nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a

500-page report released last year by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It has been clear since the

September report of the Iraq Survey Group -- a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq -- that the United States would

not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Iraq. But as the

Walpole episode suggests, it appears that even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government

had doubts about the case being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.

The question of

prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing

that, eight months before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence official reported to Prime

Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq.

Moreover, a

close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report

by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally

questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.



These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had

mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft

that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin

L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence

agencies.

For instance, Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was

working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British

intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

More than a

year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate report makes

it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons

Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium

information.

Similarly, the president's intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H.

Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had

serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on

Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service's European division

chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his

service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it

appeared that Curveball's material would be in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was

asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's

speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in

Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical"

and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters

give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.



The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons

labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He

attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

A week later, Powell said in an address to the

United Nations that the information on mobile labs came from four defectors, and he described one as "an eyewitness

. . . who supervised one of these facilities" and was at the site when an accident killed 12 technicians.



Within a year, doubts emerged about the truthfulness of all four, and the "eyewitness" turned out to be Curveball,

the informant the CIA station chief had red-flagged as unreliable. Curveball was subsequently determined to be a

fabricator who had been fired from the Iraqi facility years before the alleged accident, according to the commission

and Senate reports.

As Bush speeches were being drafted in the prewar period, serious questions

were also being raised within the intelligence community about purported threats from biologically armed unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAVs).

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S.

mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological

weapons." The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated

interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included

topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

When the list was submitted in early 2002,

the manufacturer's distributor determined that the U.S. mapping software would not be included in the autopilot

package, and told the procurement agent in March 2002. By then, however, U.S. intelligence, which closely followed

Iraqi procurement of such material, had already concluded as early as the summer of 2001 that this was the "first

indication that the UAVs might be used to target the U.S."

When a foreign intelligence service questioned the

procurement agent, he originally said he had never intended to purchase the U.S. mapping software, but he refused to

submit to a thorough examination, according to the president's commission. "By fall 2002, the CIA was still

uncertain whether the procurement agent was lying," the commission said. Nonetheless, a National Intelligence

Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs

on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a

special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

By January 2003, however, it

became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used

for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the

president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . .

may have been inadvertent."

In an intelligence estimate on threats to the U.S. homeland published in January

2003, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency and Army analysts agreed that the proposed purchase was "not

necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. homeland."

By late January 2003, the

number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000, and the invasion of Iraq was all but

guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about

Iraq's weapons programs.

Instead, Bush said, "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and

biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc

in that region." He added: "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to

terrorists, or help them develop their own."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[DrSmellThis]

And try this

one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0

,,2087-1650822_1,00.html

[DrSmellThis]

This government document also showed the war was

inevitable:

http://ww

w.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

[DrSmellThis]

More official government

documents from our closest ally show war and lies were

preplanned:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,7062164.story?coll=la-home-he

adlines

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News

%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm

[DrSmellThis]

..and not dependent on

WMD's:

British Iraq Options

Paper
Manning

Paper
Meyer

Paper
Ricketts

Paper
Straw

Paper
British Legal Background

Paper

Here is another, most of which is printed except for the last censored page. With all these

documents, you need to note the dates of them are well in advance of the Iraq War:




The Sunday Times

June 12, 2005
Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action



The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is

missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.



PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)



Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military

planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should

be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer

posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.



(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy,

which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify

government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This

should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the

President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to

undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement

of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.



(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to

consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1.

The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a

political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military

action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at

Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that

certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the

Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons

inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to

place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is

precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important

for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action.

Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very

difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for

military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account.

This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a

decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.



The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders,

co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international

security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while

the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of

Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of

UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for

controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no

political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an

invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no

overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale

land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading

to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military

action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either

before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to

brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego

Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK

participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US

military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before

they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the

extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the

robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military

Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning

and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led

action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces)

to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in

January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in

time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military

involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.



The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan

we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base;

an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of

domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the

international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But

regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or

any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to

avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration

of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise

circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two

instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality.

Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on

weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit

the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan

has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international

community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an

ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary

to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice,

facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But

once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six

months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to

assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003

they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction

during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an

ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and

which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi

attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An

International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and

desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in

Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our

bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military

over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of

Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be

problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis

as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking

to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and

economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to

restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it

difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international

support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli

re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the

long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the

Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are

talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the

best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein.

However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with

the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence

in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even

with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the

risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set

out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building

exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to

us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by

which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's

regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater

detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time

will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam

Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information

campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence

Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the

threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales



21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is

unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington.

That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action

were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present

problems. This means that:

(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President

Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

[DrSmellThis]

Remember Powell's infamous

UN WMD evidence speech?



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...l.un/ind

ex.html

Unfortunately, the videos supporting this article are unavailable. The links were good for a

week only, and are excerpts from a TV show.

The first video presented information -- two emails -- wherein the

CIA official responsible for the information tried to warn everyone a day before the speech that the WMD claim was

based on faulty intel from "Curveball", a known liar and Iraqi expatriot who had actually never been interviewed by

the CIA. The official was prevented from doing so by his superiors; who told him that the "Powers That Be" frankly

wouldn't be interested, as they were going to war anyway.

The CIA under Bush was reduced to a highly

efficient spin machine, whose job it was to produce "faks" (we needed a new word here) to beef up whatever

propaganda Bush, Cheney and Rove chose to unleash. This has ruined our credibility in the world for the foreseeable

future.

As the article states, Powell was simply given a list of talking points to present in his

speech by Bush and Cheney; with no sources whatsoever listed; and was reduced to having to spend four days

hurriedly asking Tenet if the list of talking points was true. Powell argued and expressed many doubts, according to

the report. Tenet simply told him they were "solid intelligence", but Powell had to go on blind faith, according to

the article. He was a "good" soldier, so to speak.

Basically, what this is all is a corroboration of the

Downing street memo from inside the US government.

[DrSmellThis]

OK, Friendly1:

If you're

going to attack with mindless cliches ("partisan cock and bull illogic", "lies", "political steam", "political

nonsense", "latest spate of hyperbole", "anti-Bush tirades" -- sounds like a typical seven year old trying to

out-insult another kid, but with bigger words); tell me I have "no specifics"; am "without foundation"; and

challenge me to produce evidence and "headlines"; you need to provide detailed, evidence based responses to my 9

posts above: eight numbered ones today, and the long one yesterday. These came from some of the more reputable news

sources, as you requested, and government documents. Also read the tremendous, current Rolling Stone article I

referenced on the firm hired to sell the war, and get back to us on everything.

No more empty

cliches.

Otherwise, please think and research before you type; especially if you want to go on the attack with

somebody.

[Friendly1]

OK,

Friendly1:

If you're going to attack with mindless cliches ("partisan cock and bull illogic", "lies",

"political steam", "political nonsense", "latest spate of hyperbole", "anti-Bush tirades" -- sounds like a typical

seven year old trying to out-insult another kid, but with bigger words);

Whereas the political

propaganda you're posting is supposed to be accepted as the God's honest truth despite the fact that it's largely

speculation and hate-based?

Sorry.

That dog won't hunt.

If Bush had really intended to deceive the

country, he and a few other people would have been brought up on charges by now.

The allegations are hogwash.



The criticisms which motivate them are probably very true and accurate. Bush is not the sharpest nail to have

been driven into the board.

But he is clearly a sincere and emotionally honest man. He doesn't hide his

feelings (or his motivations) very well and he is quite probably the most honest president we have had in office for

a very long time, if only because he has been too distracted by the various wars and disasters that have plagued his

administration since 2001 to do anything intentionally stupid (like all of his recent predecessors, including his

father, who relented on No New Taxes and came to regret the change in position).

...you need to provide

detailed, evidence based responses to my 9 posts above:

I don't have to do any such thing. You posted

the text from an old speech where no lies are present and then proceeded to declare it to be full of lies.



That's political propaganda. There is certainly no truth to the claim.

You need to find some valid sources

of information, not party wardogs who are obviously trying to derail the sitting President.

Both Democrats and

Republicans trot out all the negative hyperbole they can to attack every administration and it's always nothing but

absolute B.S.

I don't base my opinions on lies and B.S.

You want to persuade me, present some verifiable,

independently confirmed facts that are widely documented.

There are plenty of people who would not hesitate to

pull down the Bush Administration if it could be shown that he misled the country.

Despite four years of

intensive investigation, not one of the charges has proven to be true.

[catlord17]

Evidence is easily dismissed,

regardless of validity, if you simply choose to ignore it. Try it some time, DrSmellThis - it makes the world much

easier to deal with. I suggest you try it with a bill collector. Just tell them that you simply don't believe their

illogical propaganda and lies, and that they're wrong, that you really don't have to pay those bills because

they're obviously hardcore Democrats. Oh, and it works beautifully with the IRS, too. Evidence is too easily faked.

Let's all refuse to believe what we see in front of us. If we repeat our belief that all this evidence is

propaganda enough, someone will eventually believe it. Once they believe it, we can really be sure it's true,

because if they believe it, we can also believe it. At that point, there's no way anyone can convince us

otherwise!

Remember, key words to remember and use liberally (snicker snicker):



Propaganda
Lies
Baseless
Illogic
Invalid
Unproven
Mislead
Decieve
Unfounded
Cock-and-bull
Irrelevant



Also remember that Clinton can never be forgiven for getting caught having sexual relations and then lying about

it, even though:

1. Forgiveness is a core tenet of Christianity, and
2. Practically every president and leader

since the dawn of time has been doing the same thing.

Remember, there are no other points of view than those of

the Conservatives of the United States that are in the slightest valid. In fact, the United States is the only

country, and all the rest are just pretenders, not worth even thinking about. Therefore, it does not matter if the

rest of the world sees what we are really doing, which is making gigantic asses of ourselves.

The so-called

Second Iraq war is fully justified because Bush seems sincere. He couldn't possibly be a bulls**t artist of the

highest caliber. He couldn't possibly have been born into one of the most corrupt political families in the United

States. How could you ever think that he would lie when he's so used to lying that he doesn't even know when

he's doing it? And of course when you don't realize you're spewing bulls**t, you're really not spewing

bulls**t, you're just being warm and cuddly. You know, like any good old money political family with blinders on to

reality!

DrSmellThis, it's obvious you need to stop with this pointless "evidence" faulty thinking thing and

just realize that life's not shades of gray. It's black and white. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong! And

you don't want to be wrong, now do you? After all, if thinking like this is good enough for the President of the

United States - as well as the VP, and most of the rest of the New Republican Party, it's good enough for me. And

you!

So suck it up, DrSmellThis! Get with the program!

[Friendly1]

bush is known

internationally as the world's asshole ATM, but i just wanna point out point out paragaphs 2 and 3 of the opening

speech.

the second paragraph talks about iraq, and how saddam doesn't like the u.s. etc etc... and the third

talks about the 9/11 attacks.

first of all, we know that 9/11 attacks were carried out by the al quaeda which

were dealt with during the mission to afghanistan, correct??

At the time Bush made his speech, he had

been informed of meetings or possible meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That the intelligence proved to be wrong

doesn't make Bush a liar.

It makes a lot of people who call him a liar because of that look rather foolish, but

the point is that knowing what we know now doesn't change the way things were then.

let me set this

straight: SADDAM did not attack the U.S

Well, there you're wrong again. There was an active state of

war between the United States and Iraq from the period of 1990 through 2001. We had until that time about 100,000

troops from the various services stationed in the region for the strategic purpose of containing Iraq's aggression

and defending our allies (primarily Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

During that time frame, the U.S. and its allies

flew numerous sorties into Iraqi airspace, shot down Iraqi aircraft, and launched missile attacks against Iraqi

military installations. Iraq provoked those attacks by violating the terms of the truce it had signed with the

allied nations at the end of the First Persian Gulf War.

Iraq had during this same period expressed profound and

continued financial and political support for several terrorist organizations operating against Israel. There was

significant plausibility in the notion that Al Qaeda might seek to influence U.S. Iraqi hostilities even if Al Qaeda

and Iraq were diametrically opposed (and at the time a number of sources alleged that there was no love lost between

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda).

So, again, to prove Bush a liar, one must show that he knew the intelligence he

was given was wrong.

That has never been shown.

[tim929]

Correct...we did in fact have

troops stationed on the border with Iraq.But a state of war did not exist.The state that existed was armistice.A

state that is technicaly niether war nor peace.The case that many will make for claiming that president Bush lied is

simple and very plausable.Bear in mind,I am a registered Republican and typicaly regarded as far right of Rush

Limbaugh on most topics.There were enough conflicting inteligence reports that people like "Bagdad" Jim McDermot

knew that and went so far as to take his traitorous butt to Bagdad in protest.Bad form to be sure...And he should

have gone to prison for it,but his statements were just admited too by the president himself.And he wasnt the only

one.Huge numbers of analists and advisors and politicians and representatives from a variety of other countries

stated that the inteligence was bad.Internal Whitehouse memos indicated and still indicate that GW Bush had every

intention of invading Iraq befor he even took office.The list is realy hard to reconcile with what has been said by

the Whitehouse in thier own defense.

Believe what you like,but the biggest problem with liberalism is blind

faith in the party propoganda without critical thought.Saddly...Republicans are no more immune to it than

liberals.

[Holmes]

Evidence is

easily dismissed, regardless of validity, if you simply choose to ignore it. Try it some time, DrSmellThis - it

makes the world much easier to deal with. I suggest you try it with a bill collector. Just tell them that you simply

don't believe their illogical propaganda and lies, and that they're wrong, that you really don't have to pay

those bills because they're obviously hardcore Democrats. Oh, and it works beautifully with the IRS, too. Evidence

is too easily faked. Let's all refuse to believe what we see in front of us. If we repeat our belief that all this

evidence is propaganda enough, someone will eventually believe it. Once they believe it, we can really be sure it's

true, because if they believe it, we can also believe it. At that point, there's no way anyone can convince us

otherwise!

Remember, key words to remember and use liberally (snicker snicker):



Propaganda
Lies
Baseless
Illogic
Invalid
Unproven
Mislead
Decieve
Unfounded
Cock-and-

bull
Irrelevant

Also remember that Clinton can never be forgiven for getting caught having sexual

relations and then lying about it, even though:

1. Forgiveness is a core tenet of Christianity, and
2.

Practically every president and leader since the dawn of time has been doing the same thing.

Remember, there

are no other points of view than those of the Conservatives of the United States that are in the slightest valid. In

fact, the United States is the only country, and all the rest are just pretenders, not worth even thinking about.

Therefore, it does not matter if the rest of the world sees what we are really doing, which is making gigantic asses

of ourselves.

The so-called Second Iraq war is fully justified because Bush seems sincere. He couldn't

possibly be a bulls**t artist of the highest caliber. He couldn't possibly have been born into one of the most

corrupt political families in the United States. How could you ever think that he would lie when he's so used to

lying that he doesn't even know when he's doing it? And of course when you don't realize you're spewing

bulls**t, you're really not spewing bulls**t, you're just being warm and cuddly. You know, like any good old money

political family with blinders on to reality!

DrSmellThis, it's obvious you need to stop with this

pointless "evidence" faulty thinking thing and just realize that life's not shades of gray. It's black and white.

If you don't agree with me, you're wrong! And you don't want to be wrong, now do you? After all, if thinking like

this is good enough for the President of the United States - as well as the VP, and most of the rest of the New

Republican Party, it's good enough for me. And you!

Honestly.

[belgareth]

and speaking of

lies, i like this one

too
http://gprime.net/flash.php/911pentagonstrikecon

spiracy

kudos!

Oh, come on. I thought everybody knew that video was pure trash by now. There

are so many holes in it that nobody could possible believe it.

I don't like Bush, feel very strongly that we

never should have gone to Iraq and want us out now. But let's at least deal in facts, not unsupported propaganda.

[belgareth]

It wasn't a 747, it's a 757.

How many plane crashes have you seen? How many of them did you see that hit a wall? How many have you seen footage

of that is presented by people with a goal of discrediting somebody? That video has been disected by engineers

several times over. It's a fake created by a bunch of people who will do anything to discredit Bush. In the end,

they make their side look like fools and liars.

Actually, it's pretty funny when you get right down to it. The

9/11 attacks were initiated, the people came to this country and learned to fly and all the rest, during Clinton's

watch. The intelligence that failed to detect the terrorists worked for Clinton, not Bush. If anybody should be

blamed for the 9/11 attcks it should be Clinton.

I'm probably going to catch it for this but I'd like

everybody to consider something. There is no way those attacks were planned and executed in nine months. Look at the

time frames and figure it out for yourself. So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that thos attacks not only

originated during the Clinton administration but were a reaction, to some degree, to Clinton's policies in the

mid-east? I've tried for several weeks to stay out of this discussion because of my personal opinion of motivations

and the truly fruitless nature of this debate but I do get tired of some of the misrepresentations presented by the

anti Bush crowd. I don't support him but try to do so honestly.

[belgareth]

I'll try to find some. It's

been quite a while since then and it isn't likely there will be any out there. However, you are enrolled in

college. Ask any mechanical engineering prof to look at it. I'm an engineer myself and have a fairly good idea what

I'm seeing and what a qualified engineer will tell you. I also think you should be questioning when those pics were

taken. I think they are very misleading.

if that is true,

Why is it so many people find

it so easy to believe anything they see on the internet but refuse to believe or are sceptical about a person's

words?

[DrSmellThis]

The 9/11

attacks were initiated, the people came to this country and learned to fly and all the rest, during Clinton's

watch. The intelligence that failed to detect the terrorists worked for Clinton, not Bush. If anybody should be

blamed for the 9/11 attcks it should be Clinton.

I'm probably going to catch it for this but I'd like

everybody to consider something. There is no way those attacks were planned and executed in nine months. Look at the

time frames and figure it out for yourself. So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that thos attacks not only

originated during the Clinton administration but were a reaction, to some degree, to Clinton's policies in the

mid-east?

I agree. But do we even need to go there, trying to blame one president for that whole phenomenon?

Only a fool would think of Bush as some all powerful Satan responsible for every evil currently in the world. There

have been enough fools in charge over the years, thank you very much.

Obviously, the U.S. has been pursuing

selfish, ignorant and just plain clumsy world policies, in the Middle East and elsewhere, for quite some time;

though there have been some positive efforts, (such as the original Camp David process). It's not just our

political leadership. It's also our foolish lifestyles, and the behaviors of our corporations. We also have the

Crusades in our cultural history to own up to, not that the history of Islam isn't horribly violent.

Nor is it a

Clinton thing. The first attack on the WTC was what, 10 or 12 or 13 years ago? How long was that one planned,

including training and recruitment of the planners? How long has Al Queda been attacking us and our interests?

Clearly Bush didn't invent Al Queda, or anti-American hostility; and no one is claiming that.

The dirty

international politics are also a factor. Hell, Bin Laden was once a CIA associate. And we used to support the

Taliban; and Saddham Hussein, for that matter. Was it Cheney or Rumsfeld who was involved in selling Hussein

chemical weapons under the first Bush, and met with him like four times? I forget. You have to study the history to

understand it.

Is it possible that Bush to some extent allowed the attacks to happen, through extreme

negligence or even turning a blind eye as regards Al Queda? Well, yes. The PNAC foreign policy documents provide the

philosophical basis, for starters. And there are apparently lots of unsolved engineering questions to be asked and

answered, from what I can tell. And there were lots of strange, unexplained behaviors: reading My Pet Goat, allowing

the planes to turn around, failing to work with NORAD and scramble planes, the extremely close Saudi and Bin Laden

family-administration ties, allowing Saudi Bin laden associates to leave after the attacks, etc.

But it takes an

extreme level of balls to ask these questions, since it seems unthinkable for most of us that an elected president

and his appointees could be at a diabolical level of criminality. You certainly don't want that to be an

early assumption you make about another human being, even one from a political family that once supported the Nazi

party.

Unfortunately, we put an astronomical amount of trust in our elected officials. They get to do a lot of

hugely bad things before anyone could ever catch them, and it takes a long time. That's just the way our system

works, and is the nature of their power. Could that level of power and unaccountability eventually draw some very

bad people to lead our U.S??

But as much as this prospect scares me, I'd rather focus on some things we do have

a lot of evidence for. Those obvious things will be neglected otherwise, and we have enough work to do.

If over

time more evidence accumulates about other stuff, fine. I'm glad others are gathering evidence and speculating,

though, because that's the way answers are eventually found. The only conclusion I draw is that I do not trust the

government to tell us the truth about just about anything, where power, money and extremist (e.g., theocratic)

ideology might be involved. They have to earn my basic trust, and they have not done so. If you follow the

non-mainstream press, and the investigations of normal, everyday people; there are an awful lot of apparently

diabolical, nasty and viscious deeds in an awful lot of areas going back a long ways; and not just with Bush.

Speaking for myself, it was a gradual process of losing trust. People should investigate away.

The times of being

able to just say, "poppycock" and leave it at that are long gone. For now, though I'd ask that if we want to talk

about 9-11 plots, pro or con; perhaps we could please take it to another thread, and give it the attention it

deserves.

[belgareth]

Sorry Doc.

I wasn't

really trying to derail your thread. That silly video and the conspiracy theories sets my teeth on edge sometimes. I

personally don't trust the government to tell us the truth about anything either so am always questioning motives.

The same applies to political parties and their affiliates, who are at times worse about misrepresentation than the

government is. That's a big part of the reason I've been keeping my opinions to myself. They aren't real positive

about any of the participants in this mess.

In any case, in an effort to be non-traditional I'm going to agree

with basically all you said in that last post with the exception of not taking the non-mainstreem press any more

seriously than I take the mainstream press. They can show a lot of bias too. I do wish there was some way of getting

to the unfiltered truth other than using a cattle prod on the participants.

[DrSmellThis]

In any case, in an effort to be non-traditional I'm going to agree with basically

all you said in that last post with the exception of not taking the non-mainstreem press any more seriously than I

take the mainstream press. They can show a lot of bias too. I do wish there was some way of getting to the

unfiltered truth other than using a cattle prod on the participants.

* Glad we could agree. I prefer to

find agreement where I can with people, though it takes work.

* It's all just information; and people trying to

report and share information.

There is no alternative, other than to be open minded and get some information from

all of it. The price of turning away information is too high, and so you just have to develop a sophisticated system

of filters/organizers/validity judgements and construct your tentative beliefs from the available information. You

keep your internal information base strong, and that strength is its self-defense against corruption. It

doesn't need external protection so much. You just don't take everything at face value, or judge its validity

right away. If a source looks relatively reliable (e.g., reputable press sources) you can accept something for

what it is, for the time being. When you start to see big and small patterns emerging, after looking at each bit of

information from different depths and angles; and considering the evidence and logic. Then you're in business.



There is an optimal point to set your levels of cynicism (hopefully very minimal) and skepticism; (much higher)

in being a responsible information consumer, in various settings. When I decided to be rigorously open minded some

time ago, things changed for me in terms of world view, thankfully. Pretty much no source of information threatens

me (govt., alt press, conspiracies, mainstream, radical or extreme ideas, etc.), such that I'd have to think

primarily in terms of my "distrust" of it.

I don't think the press out and out lies to us for the most part. I

just think they present limited pieces of information. But that's all you get even from someone you trust. I'm

not a Republican, for example, but I can learn a lot from a conservative news site. You're getting their view and

reasons for it, for example, which is good to know.

It's all information, in its context.

And now, back to

our regularly scheduled program.