mysteryman wrote:username wrote:And why can't you look at the sky? And you've never looked at the sky in your life? Do I really need to say that is a dumb example?
Do I further need to say that the President of the US has many more resources than you do? Do I really need to say that the reports he got were full of caveats and disclaimers and comments about the validity, and unverifiability, of the information, as we have found out from the few driblets that have made it past the Bush wall of secrecy and obscuring politically damaging information. Do you know the extent to which Cheney/Feith cherrypicked intelligence that told them what they thought, and ignored the rest which didn't?Do I really need to tell you that by all accounts W. wanted everything boiled down to no more than two pages for him to read? The man didn't base his actions on rational weighing of the options and the reliability of the data. He went by gut instinct. He better have a damned heavy case of indigestion now--his gut wasn't worth sh*t.
Do you think the President can PERSONALLY VERIFY every piece of intelligence that crosses his desk?
He relies on his aides and his staff,including the VP,the SecDef,the head of the CIA,and other experts to do that.
Now,when he is getting conflicting info from his staff and experts,what should he do?
[/b]
Neither he nor his subordinates should have told the American people and the world only one side of the story at issue, nor acted upon it. He, as any smart leader would do, would ask, and certainly demand better information, corroboration, and more definitive determination of the facts whenever there was conflicting data collected.
Bush did not care either because additional time would have slowed down his plans or for the potential for newer data corroberating facts that undermined his position.
It was why he told the UN WMD obsrvers to leave Iraq because they were not finding any WMDs and that fact would have undermined the reason to invade.
Bush and his gang of morally repugnant subordinates were like the Olympic refs during the 1972 USSR baskertbll team upset of the US, they saw only what they wanted in effort to affect the outcome of the game.
That he stocked the communication routes to him with cheerleading ideologues and "yes" men is even worse, because one should expect that type of one-sided viewpoint filter to cause alternative views rejected in the decision-making.
If one claims that "Bush got faulty Intel" one should next ask who the hell were those who did that? And the answer is, every single person was one who Bush either appointed or retained from a previous administration.
It is still Bush's fault, no matter how much you wish it away.
It is still Bush's fault, no matter how much you wish it away.
Claims from the Rightwing yahoos that "intelligence" was faulty are plain and simple crap. There is too much clear evidence that the executive branch disregarded any intelligence and information that undercut the counter-evidence and their plain to invade Iraq.
Anyone using such a debating ploy deserves the scorn of any thinking person and ought to be ashamed to attempt to use such sophist and bogus arguments in a public debate. It is morally akin to stealing, in that it holds in contempt honesty and subverts a rational discourse..
It is clear that the Busheviks are a bunch of dishonest and dirty little liars who cherry picked data that fit only their predetermined beliefs. That it is fine for used car salesmen and televangelists, but for true leaders of nations it is a disaster.
