You missed my point. I wasn't accusing Powell of being misleading. I'm saying that since even a supporter of the invasion such as Powell thought the evidence was BS, this is more evidence that the bush* admin intended to mislead.
And Wolfowitz also said that the evidence of Iraq having WMDs was not strong. He did not believe in all the reasons that were given and merely pushed on the strongest reason. His support for an invasion was completely different than the one he and the admin made; IOW, when he (and others) said we should invade because Iraq had WMD's they were misleading the public into war because they did not believe that
What they really believed was that we should invade Iraq because it would scare other nations into behaving, and because Iraq was acting contrary to our interests. Wolfowitz, Cheney, and several other highly placed bush* officials said this explicitely in a document they signed not long before bush* was elected.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Defense.gov News Transcript: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity FairWolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.
"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
Depends how we define transparency.
Obama is no more transparent in how the business of the White House is run then any other president (which basically means he broke his promise).
However, under the current administration data release to the public about basic services and operations of the government is staggeringly high. Businesses are now using release of health statistics, traffic, energy etc to guide their models.
But that is more ERP then anything Obama did.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
It's comforting that 97% of DP doesn't buy this BS from Obama.
It probably is the most transparent in history. The information age means the general public is able to get more information about what is going on than before, and the Obama administration has improved that information flow. (i mean, in 1863 what were your odds of finding out about a proposed law before it was signed?) We're not in a cold war anymore so there's a lot less of that shady CIA/FBI spy stuff going on in secret.
Come on, how much of Reagan's shady **** do you think you were told about anyway?
That doesn't mean this administration is particularly transparent, though. Just ever so slightly less shady than the others.
One of you will end up here next!