-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Records Show Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
blackangst1
Lifer
Very good points Prof.
shira
Diamond Member
So I assume this also means you think Bush had no business pushing for the invasion, since it is almost certain that he never read the report himself or any other original report on the subject.
And I take it your position is that Presidents should never make major policy decisions based on briefings and staff recommendations. And that since almost all of Bush's decisions have in fact been based on briefings and staff recommendations, you urge the President to resign.
Please clarify if I'm missing something here.
thraashman
Lifer
No, my point was it wasn't a resolution saying we're going to war. It was a resolution giving Bush the power to go to war if necessary and it was given under the belief (due to the insistance of the President) that it would not be used except as a LAST resort. When instead it was used as a first resort.
shira
Diamond Member
This thread is about principle. This thread is about being held accountable for statements made.
If you truly believe that those who rely on briefings as preparation for major policy decisions are unqualified to be President, then why don't you apply that principle to our current President?
Let me run this by you one last time. This thread is about Senators who have (apparently) failed to do their job by not evaluating all the information they had at hand. It isn't about GWB, Cheney, or whatever Republican WH figure is the moonbat's target of the week.
And you're nothing but a troll. :thumbsdown:
dmcowen674
No Lifer
There is no "good" points with this.
The only Obfuscation taking place is by the radical righties still supporting their hero by lame attempts to divert guilt and blame of their said hero.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
You do realize that Bush43 didn't read it, either?
Rudy hasn't bothered . . . but I believe Ron Paul did.
Romney was probably busy hunting varmints.
McCain read the executive summary . . . which means he got the Cliff Notes.
Fern
Elite Member
[/quote]
OK.
Note to Karl Rove: Change argument to the fact that the Dems didn't even bother to read the info (also, when they claim "selected or doctored" info, ask how would they know? They didn't even read it to begin with).
PS. Karl, could I help you guys draft up some of the legislation? Since you fuskers in DC can't be bothered to actually read anything, I figure I could insert some nice "pork" for Fern. Who'd notice?
PSS. Nevermind, you prolly don't read sh!t either.
Fern
imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
got links to support your assertions? I would like them.
AnandTech Moderator
Staff member
DealMonkey
Lifer
All this proves is that the majority of Congress who voted for it, did so without reading the bill and then even if they had, they'd be subject to the narrow view that emphasized intel that Iraq had a WMD program and de-emphasized the caveats that suggested no one was really sure either way. All this proves is that the roughly 25% of the senate and roughly 1/3 of the house who voted against it (a majority of whom were Democrats as already shown), were right to do so. If the GOP-led Congress weren't simply bending over for everything the President asked for, perhaps we could have had an intelligent resolution that demanded substantial non-compliance on Iraq's part before military action. This whole idea of Congress delegating its war powers is just ludicrous.
Not only ludicrous, it is anti-constitutional at it's core.
All this underscores how little true support for the war there really was. Only three nations had a majority who supported the invasion at the time (that is being generous counting the British who were quite evenly split for and against). Even in the US about a third of the population were against an invasion. Of course Israel loved the idea of hitting Saddam.
Well the Oil for Food fiasco was as large a fiasco for the US as for anyone else. This is just another old attempt at misdirecting the real issues. The people that opposed the war opposed it on the basis of Bush's case for war. The extent of the Oil for Food corruption was barely a blip on the radar at the time.
blackangst1
Lifer
eh...most of America was FOR the disarming of Saddam and an invasion, it was doing so without UN backing some were leery of. Maybe you forgot?
First link
*The poll suggests that Americans' patience is wearing thin. Nearly six in 10 say diplomatic efforts to win international support have taken too much time.
*Public attitudes toward France, Russia and Germany have eroded sharply. More than two in three Americans say France is being unreasonable in its opposition to a resolution that could lead to war. More than half say France is "stabbing the U.S. in the back."
Sure, we wanted more inspections, but enough is enough
*Support for President Bush's policy of using military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein is still strong. In the latest CNN-Gallup poll, 59 percent supported sending US troops to Iraq. In the latest CBS poll, 66 percent approved. But ask the question, `Should the US take military action fairly soon, or should it wait to give the UN inspectors more time,' and you get a more complicated answer. In the CBS poll, 62 percent say give the inspectors more time. In the CNN poll, 40 percent approve of going to war without UN approval, but that number jumps to 80 percent with another UN resolution. Keating Holland, the polling director at CNN, cautions that these polls are not necessarily a predictor of public opposition if the US proceeds without UN approval, as appears more and more likely.
And another
*More than half of the American public believe George W. Bush is not getting a balanced view of whether to go to war or not from his advisors, but rather a more hawkish view favoring military action in Iraq, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll. They also believe Bush and his administration are dealing with the war on terrorism as a reaction to events, rather than from a clear, formulated policy. The American public are not in a rush to go to war and they are very clear in their opinions that they want hard, concrete evidence before supporting any military action.
Still, almost three-quarters of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the threat of terrorism in the country, and nearly three out of five also approve of his handling the country?s foreign affairs.
almost two-thirds of the public support a preemptive strike philosophy when the U.S. is under threat (including 47% who strongly support it). Roughly about half each of political liberals and Democrats also endorse the right of the U.S. to engage in a preemptive strike. There really is no dissent along party lines or political ideologies, except for the strength of support.
Almost seven in 10 Americans agree (including 44% who agree strongly) that the country should take military action against Iraq only with the support of the international community. This result is basically the same as was found in the same August Times poll when respondents were asked the same question. At that time, 65% of respondents thought the U.S. should not act without the support of a multi-national coalition (including 43% who agreed strongly). This idea is supported by half of political conservatives and 52% of Republicans. Virtually all believe that the 12,000 page weapons declaration submitted by Iraq to the United Nations will not be truthful. Two thirds of the public have no confidence at all that the Iraqis will give a complete and truthful list of their weapons and another 26% say they are not too confident (for a combined 92% who have no confidence). But more than three out of five surveyed don?t think war would be justified, unless there were glaring omissions in the weapons declaration, that is, a pattern of serious violations. Still, more than a fifth say the U.S. and its allies would be justified if only there were a few things left out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It goes on and on. There was overwhelming support. And something to ponder...if GWB is the bumbling idiot most of you say he is, how the hell did he pull this off? I mean, how did he fool the whole world?
This is the key to the whole thing-
In other words, they trusted the Cliff Notes version furnished by the Whitehouse... seeing as how they're busy people who might not think that what was furnished to them all had been very selectively redacted so as to alter the emphasis...
Although the article isn't specific, I rather suspect that Congresspersons and Senators only had access, and not their staffs- a very smart move for the Bushistas to make on the eve of an election. Restrict access to the original while offering their own interpretation as a substitute... and it worked...
Not only the deception itself, but now the plausible deniability as to that deception, at least in the minds of the faithful...
Kneejerk defense of the rationale for invasion and the perps who concocted it will, hopefully, utterly discredit the Rightwing- the whole thing has become painfully transparent to anybody not in a state of denial...
And, uhh, Bush got the intelligence and the view he wanted from the beginning, long before 9/11 became the backdrop for the invasion- "Find Me A Way."- remember?
In other words, they trusted the Cliff Notes version furnished by the Whitehouse... seeing as how they're busy people who might not think that what was furnished to them all had been very selectively redacted so as to alter the emphasis...
Although the article isn't specific, I rather suspect that Congresspersons and Senators only had access, and not their staffs- a very smart move for the Bushistas to make on the eve of an election. Restrict access to the original while offering their own interpretation as a substitute... and it worked...
Not only the deception itself, but now the plausible deniability as to that deception, at least in the minds of the faithful...
Kneejerk defense of the rationale for invasion and the perps who concocted it will, hopefully, utterly discredit the Rightwing- the whole thing has become painfully transparent to anybody not in a state of denial...
And, uhh, Bush got the intelligence and the view he wanted from the beginning, long before 9/11 became the backdrop for the invasion- "Find Me A Way."- remember?
blackangst1
Lifer
Wow. Now -THAT- is a stretch.
edit: Even if this is true(which is laughable IMHO) it is STILL the repsonsibility of Senators to know what theyre voting on. ESPECIALLY for war. To place blame anywhere but their own shoulders is absolutely mad.
Stoneburner
Diamond Member
This isn't the entire story either as key intelligence was simply not available to Senators. Alot of important information, arguing against invasion, was simply not put into reports. Read the 1 percent doctrine by Ron Suskind, it details how vital information in reports was often put in obscure footnotes and then onreview people like Douglas Feith REMOVED even the most tenative reference to such information.
As for senators not reading reports, pretty much all of them, especially the ones running, were being too political. They should suffer for that.
As for senators not reading reports, pretty much all of them, especially the ones running, were being too political. They should suffer for that.
blackangst1
Lifer
So Bush was the keyholder for the entire world on the REAL evidence? WOW! AMAZING! And you thought he was an idiot!
So, uhh, blackangst1, you're claiming that putting the report in a locked restricted access location isn't restricting access, or what? Or are you claiming that the Cliff notes version offered by the Admin was really accurate?
Heavy reading of dense bureaucratese is generally delegated to trusted staffers, several working together- in this case, apparently denied... and why bother, anyway, when the Bush Admin is obviously trustworthy and honest, with all that honor, dignity, morals and values they love to talk about?
Are you intimating that there was some reason to not trust the admin at the time, and if so, what was it?
Heavy reading of dense bureaucratese is generally delegated to trusted staffers, several working together- in this case, apparently denied... and why bother, anyway, when the Bush Admin is obviously trustworthy and honest, with all that honor, dignity, morals and values they love to talk about?
Are you intimating that there was some reason to not trust the admin at the time, and if so, what was it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
